HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2014 th kovesdiRECEIVED
M0 2 6 2014
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
Mejia, Anthony
Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:49 PM
To: Kremke, Kate
Cc: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Cal Poly Dorms Town Hall
Attachments: CP Town Hall Comments.doc
Agenda Correspondence for tonight.
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
0( 1- ol_ sai) WIS OM SI)O
9go Palm .Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
tel 805.78..71-02
From: Rachel Kovesdi [ma i Ito: rachel @kovesdiconsulting.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:24 PM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Cc: Johnson, Derek; Grigsby, Daryl
Subject: Cal Poly Dorms Town Hall
Good Afternoon Anthony:
AGENDA
CO RRESPONDUNCE
Datery' �Item #J]L_
I hope you're doing well. Can you please distribute the attached comments to the City Council for tonight's Town Hall
meeting? I will bring copies with me, as well. Thanks very much and best regards,
RKK
Rachel Kovesdi
Kovesdi Consulting
3940 -7 Broad Street, #139
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 471 -2948
Rachel @KovesdiConsuIting.com
Kovesdi Consulting
Land Use & Environment
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
"Building Legacies"
Vice - Mayor, Council Members:
Thank you so much for allowing the community to speak on this critically important project.
The residents of your City have identified serious concerns and need you to act as their
advocates.
The California Supreme Court has determined that "A public agency's noncompliance with
procedures required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act's substantive
requirements and information disclosure provisions, constitutes a prejudicial abuse of
discretion."
CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approved, a public
agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic,
environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and
satisfying living environment for every Californian.
In both the original and recirculated draft EIRs for the Cal Poly Dorm project, significant,
unavoidable impacts were identified. Additionally, several environmentally superior
alternatives were identified and rejected without offers any explanation of how the
environmentally superior alternative sites are infeasible in any way:
"5.5.3 Location Alternative — H -12 and H -16 Parking Lots
This alternative, suggested by a community member, would consist of relocation of the
proposed development to the current site of the H -12 and H -16 parking lots, north of
Highland Drive and Brizzolara Creek (refer to Figure 5 -2). The existing surface parking
lots in this location would be removed, and 1,475 beds, a dining facility, and a 300- to
500 -space parking structure would be constructed. These parking lots were designated
for Parking in the 2001 Master Plan. This alternative would meet most of the project
obiectives."
And there are other alternatives that have not been analyzed. For example, redesigning the
project on the proposed site to maintain an open space buffer between the exiting dorms on
Grand Avenue and the residences on Slack Street:
3940 -7 Broad Street, #139
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 471 -2948
Rachel(d)KovesdiConsulting com
go��
�: ,fir .
3940 -? -Broad -Street,
San-Luis-Obispo,-CA-9340 1r
(805.')-4-.71-294ff
Rache-IAKoi-esd[,ConsultluL,.Colllr
2
CEQA requires that feasible mitigation measures for significant environmental effects must be
set forth in an EIR for consideration by decision makers and the public rip or to certification of
the EIR and approval of a project. It permits government agencies to approve projects with
significant impacts, but only after they 'u� stify those choices through findings of overriding
considerations. Furthermore, an agency can adopt a statement of overriding considerations
only after it has first found that mitigation measures are truly infeasible.
Among other deficiencies, both iterations of the Draft EIR FAIL ENTIRELY to analyze the two
closest intersections to the proposed development: Slack Street and Grand Avenue, and the
Grand Avenue /101 Interchange. This alone presents a "fatal flaw" in the environmental
document. Without ANY information regarding how the proposed project will affect these
intersections, the University Board cannot legally certify this EIR.
Again, multiple California Supreme Court cases have determined that failure to comply with the
law subverts the purposes of CEQA if it omits material necessary to informed decision - making
and informed public participation.
By not substantively investigating and addressing the proposed project's impacts on the City's
traffic infrastructure and whether those impacts may be significant under CEQA, CSU has not
proceeded as required by law.
CEQA IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR. WHAT IS NOT CLEAR IS
WHETHER CAL POLY WILL COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA LAW. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GATHERED
HERE TONIGHT.
We hope that your Council will direct staff to once again respond meaningfully to the
University, so that City residents and taxpayers will not shoulder the burden of unmitigated
impacts from this proposed project.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
RKK
Rachel Kovesdi
Kovesdi Consulting
3940 -7 Broad Street, #139
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 471 -2948
Rachel@,KovesdiConsultiniz.com