HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2014 th whitney(2)Kremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 9:47 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather; Kremke, Kate
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Final EIR]
Attachments: untitled- [2].html; ATT00001.htm
Council Correspondence.
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date 3 _ - - 1 Item #—LE—
Please ask CDD who should also get cc'd on Cal Poly emails, Derek and ? (Harmann ?).
Begin forwarded message:
From: "sharongsharonwhitne .com" <sharon(i sharonwhitney.com>
Date: May 11, 2014 at 8:24:56 PM EDT
To: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia(cr�,slocity.org>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Final EIR]
FYI
Original Message
Subject: Re: Final EIR
From: sharonnsharonwhitney.com
Date: Sun, May 11, 2014 5:15 pm
To: "Paul Allen" <pallen3(a�sbcg_lobal.net>
Cc: "Linda White" <lindaleewhite15kgmail.com>
"Bonnie Rasmussen & Harold Ehlers" <hlehlersnaol.com>
"Carol Winger" <dcwin gerAcharter. net>
"Carolyn Smith" <ke6hngkatt.net>
"Chet and Dorothy Brunson" <backroadsgfix.net>
"Christine & Dominic Perello" <dperello88 a mail.com>
"Chuck &Lois Greenall" <cX. �sbcRlobal.net>
"Claudia & Fred Andersen" <andersen.claudia49kgmail.com>
"David Sheridan" <davidsheridan5l l5kgmail.com>
"Debbie Enterante" <denterantenatt.net>
"Dee & Frank Jakes" <frankdeej(a�,gmail.com>
"Donna Nash" <donnanash(a,charter.net>
"Edith Jakes" <jkiemj(a),hotmail.com>
"Gordon Phares" <gphares(2pacbell.net>
"Isabel & Sid Marques" <isiesid(2aol.com>
"Jan Marx" <janmarx(a�stanfordalumni.org>
"Jeff Eidelman" <jefffe(cr�sbc lobal.net>
"Jeniene White" <jenienew cr, mail.corii>
"Joe Arsenio" <ta2(2comcast.net>
"John & Katie Evans" <jevansslo(2charter.net>
"John & Laurel Milton" <tax uuyea(a,aol.com>
"Karen Adler" <fud e8�05(a,charter.net>
"Karen Blake" <blakekarenksbeglobal.net>
"Kathy apRoberts" <kaproberts(c�?gmail.com>
"Kim Gibson" <kimgibsonslo(2gmail.com>
"Linda & Roger Bishop" <oneslonursekgmail.com>
"Linda White" <lindaleewhite15kcharter.net>
"Lindsay Alicia Wilcox" < lindsayalicia.wilcoxngmail.com>
"Norma Jones" <grandma731( gmail.com>
"Patrick Vaughan" <patshere4charter.net>
"Rebecca & John Keisler" <rebjohn50(2hotmail.com>
"robb gott" <halfpricetutors@Xmail.com>
"Rusty & Michelle Hall" <nimslo I 9@aol.com>
"Sandra Rowley" <macsar99(a,yahoo.com>
"Sharon Whitney" <sharongsharonwhitney.com>
"sherry lewis" <picky�slonet.org>
"Stephanie & Terry Conner" <tc9rugby(a,charter.net>
"Terry Elfrink" <slofrink(2gmail.com>
"Terry Gonzalez" <alltraditions(a,att.net>
"Tim Townley" <tim(2cometrealty com>
"Vanessa Rizzo" <vantrizzo( gmail.com>
"Vivi Justesen" <evyjust(a,gmail.com>
"Rachel Kovesdi" <rachel@kovesdiconsulting.com>
"kathy smith" <ksmith slocity.or >
"dan carpenter" <dcarpent(2slocitY or >
"cchristiansen" <cchristiansennslocit�org>
Jan marx" <jmarxgslocity,®r >
"john ashbaugh" <jashbaug@ slocity,®r >
"Derek Johnson" <diohnson slocit or g>
"Kim Murry" <kmurry@slocit}_org>
"Kati Lichtig" <klichtiggslocity.org>
"Christine Dietrick" <cdietric(2sloci1y.org>
Dear* all,
I browsed through this very technical document. It's over 800 pages long.*
I was pleased to see that Cal Poly responded to each individual's submitted written comments to
the RDEIR. For example, they responded to each comment submitted by Linda White.
They
also responded in detail to the Community Development Department's comments, particularly
the impacts on circulation, with lots of technical "mumbo jumbo" that mostly went over my
head. The main point I got was that the CDD and Cal Poly did not reach an agreement on how to
mitigate
everything, or the costs for doing so.
To be sure, most of Cal Poly's responses were dismissive, like "please refer to section so and so,"
or "will be discussed with the Board of Trustees." I think they did add some meaningful
language and made some meaningful mitigation
efforts.
Of course, Cal Poly did not change its mind about the dorm's location. Therefore, it is still*
vulnerable on view -shed, design incompatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods, redirected
traffic, and the like. They know that, and admitted to it. Their answer is simply that their
mission, to be cost - effective, outweighs those problems. And, if the CSU Board of Trustees
certifies that analysis, that is where the Board becomes most vulnerable to litigation.
Most of all, it irks me that Cal Poly believes it can avoid being held accountable for its impact on
the City's
Land Use and Circulation planning. It seems to me that the City should have been included as a
formal "responsible agency," given the ruling in the City of Marina case. That would not mean
that the City's planning and regulatory powers would trump the state's authority as a higher
jurisdiction. It just means Cal Poly /the state would have to say more than we are doing it because
we want to, despite the significant impacts on the City.. I also dislike Cal Poly's statement that
they will only contribute their fair share for the mitigation of traffic impacts, provided they
receive funding for that from the legislature and governor. I'm not sure, but I think that might be
inconsistent with another case, from San Diego, against the CSU Board of Trustees.
In my opinion, in terms of our political clout, at this point I believe we are in the unenviable
position of
having to react* to whatever the Board of Trustees says. Looking at their agenda on the 20th,
Cal Poly is dead last between the hours of 1 -3:30; ahead of us are San Francisco and San Diego,
for example. I am not a betting person, but if I was, I'd bet that the CSU Board will "certify"
Cal Poly's FEIR, i.e., rubber -stamp it.
Also, at least for my level of technical knowledge, I believe we are in the unenviable position
of* having to rely on technical experts and attorneys associated with the City and its staff to
decide if a CSU Bd of Trustees - certified FEIR is CEQA
compliant, consistent with all relevant court precedents. I* trust that the City and its CDD staff
and City attorneys will make a reliable and valid determination about that.
I hope those of you who go to the CSU Board Meeting will have an opportunity to speak, or at
least to hold up your
protest signs* I will be staying here. I might go to the Public Comment section of the City
Council on May 20 to remind them that if a certified FEIR is not CEQA compliant for analyzing
all alternatives, impacts and mitigation options, then the City should make good on its promise
and be
prepared to litigate.. If it comes to that, we of the neighborhoods should probably contribute
some significant bucks for that cause.
Sharon Whitney
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Final EIR
From: "Paul Allen" <pallen3 sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, May 11, 2014 9:42 am
To: "Linda White" <lindaleewhiteI59pmail.com>
"Bonnie Rasmussen & Harold Ehlers" <hlehlersnaol.com>
"Carol Winger" <dcwinger@charter.net>
"Carolyn Smith" <ke6hn att.net>
"Chet and Dorothy Brunson" <backroadsgfix.net>
"Christine & Dominic Perello" <dperello88(c gmail.com>
"Chuck & Lois Greenall" <c.Rreenall(a,sbcglobal.net>
"Claudia & Fred Andersen" < andersen.claudia49na,gmail.com>
"David Sheridan" <davidsheridan5l l5ggmail.com>
"Debbie Enterante" <denterantea,att.net>
"Dee & Frank Jakes" <frankdeej(a,gmail.com>
"Donna Nash" <donnanashkcharter.net>
"Edith Jakes" <jkiemikhotmail.com>
"Gordon Phares" <gpharesgpacbell.net>
"Isabel & Sid Marques" <isiesid aol.com>
"Jan Marx" <janmarx e,stanfordalumni.org>
"Jeff Eidelman" <jefffe(a�sbcglobal.net>
"Jeniene White" <jenienew(a,gmail.com>
"Joe Arsenio" <jta2kcomcast.net>
"John & Katie Evans" <jevansslo a,charter.net>
"John & Laurel Milton" <taxgYuyeane aol.com>
"Karen Adler" <fudge805Acharter.net>
"Karen Blake" <BLAKEKAREN(a�SBCGLOBAL.NET>
"Kathy apRoberts" <kaprobertsggmail.com>
"Kim Gibson" <kim ibsonslo gmail.com>
"Linda & Roger Bishop" <oneslonurse(a),mail.com>
"Linda White" <lindaleewhitel5kcharter.net>
"Lindsay Alicia Wilcox" < lindsgyalicia.wilcoxngmail.com>
"Norma Jones" <grandma731(a,gmail.com>
"Patrick Vaughan" <patsherekcharter.net>
"Rebecca & John Keisler" <rebiohn50ghotmail,com>
"robb gott" <halfpricetutors(a,gmail.com>
"Rusty & Michelle Hall" <nimsloI9(a,,aol.com>
"Sandra Rowley" <macsar99@yahoo.com>
"Sharon Whitney" <sharon(a,sharonwhitney com>
"sherry lewis" <picky4.slonet.org>
"Stephanie & Terry Conner" <tc9rugby(2charter.net>
"Terry Elfrink" <slofrinkngmail.com>
"Terry Gonzalez" <alltraditionsnatt.net>
"Tim Townley" <tim a,cometrealty.com>
"Vanessa Rizzo" <vantrizzoggmail.com>
"Vivi Justesen" <evyjustpgmail.com>
"Rachel Kovesdi" <rachelgkovesdiconsulting.com>
Paul Allen wrote:
> Hi Linda and other mail recipients-
> I just sent the following email, below, to Mayor Marx and all members of
> the City Council. It is too long, as usual:
> Dear Mayor Marx and members of the City Council,
> I have followed public discussion about Cal Poly's Housing South project
> with growing dismay and anger. As have many other residents of the
> City, I have written letters to the Editor of the Tribune, I have
5
> commented at public meetings, and have written formal comments on the
> DEIRs for this project, all seemingly to no avail.
> I have been extremely discouraged by the uncaring attitude of President
> Armstrong and his administration about the impacts this dorm project,
> and probably future Cal Poly student housing efforts, will have on the
> treasured quality of neighborhoods and community life that make San Luis
> Obispo so special. President Armstrong and his administration seem to
> have no caring for the sanctity of family homes, where children and
> families are raised and nurtured for their own benefit and the benefit
> of all of us. Cal Poly has no concern about displacing families, and
> actually taking property and family homes from others.
> In addition to not caring for homes and families in SLO, President
> Armstrong and his administration have flaunted their lack of concern for
> community input on the project. The two "public forums" held in early
> November and December, 2013, supposedly intended to elicit public
> comments, came only after Cal Poly had finalized their project plans,
> surely after years of closed -door work by them. At the second of those
> forums on December 2, Cal Poly even stated that they had already gone
> out for construction bids on the project, surely providing those
> potential contractors with detailed project plans.
> It is not a surprise that not one of the public suggestions for
> improving the dorm project, and for reducing its harsh impact on
> adjacent neighborhoods, was incorporated as a change by Cal Poly. They
> never had any intention of listening to public input, and the forums
> were a total sham.
> On March 15, 2014, a sensible petition was presented to your City
> Council. The petition was signed by past Mayor Ken Schwartz and over 20
> other ex- Mayors and past Council members, and requested that the City
> and Cal Poly embark on serious, ongoing discussions about student
> housing plans and impacts on the City, When a copy of that was
> delivered to President Armstrong, what was his response? He immediately
> scheduled one -on -one meetings with each of the petition signers to wine
> and dine them, and persuade them to support the Housing South project.
> At various meetings and at the March 25, 2014 public forum at the
> Ludwick Center, several City Council members have spoken out strongly in
> support of the adjacent neighborhoods and family residences that will
> experience the greatest impact from Housing South. In fact, all of us
> in the City will feel the negative impacts of Housing South, as the
> vibrant quality of life in SLO is diminished. At that forum, two other
> Council members opted to wait until the Final EIR was completed, to see
> if Cal Poly would listen to that virtually unanimous input and make any
> changes to their proposal.
> The FEIR is now out, and available for review as a PDF document
> on -line. I have read pertinent new sections of it, and I find it to be
> just more smoke and mirrors from Cal Poly and their consultant. No
> changes or meaningful mitigations are proposed for Housing South.
> I was pleased to read the good RDEIR comment letter prepared by City
> staff, and signed by Community Development Director Derek Johnson. I
> call your particular attention to the second and third paragraphs of his
> March 31, 2014 comment letter, tagged as SLO -2 and SLO -3 in the FEIR
> section: _Response to Comments on the 2014 RDEIR . These are on page
> 10.1 -275 of that PDF document on -line. The response to these vital
> concerns from the City, by Cal Poly and their consultant, begin on page
> 10.1 -429 of that same document, and totally fail to address the concerns.
> *I implore all of you, Mayor and members of the City Council, to place
> the legal adequacy of the Housing South FEIR on your earliest next
> meeting agenda, and to vote in a unanimous finding by the City that it
> is inadequate! This should be done before the May 20 & 21 CSU Trustees
> Meeting in Long Beach, and a City representative should be directed to
> attend that meeting to convey the findings of the City to the Trustees.*
> We _absolutely_ need to take every available measure to protect the
> special quality of life we all treasure in San Luis Obispo, or see it
> eroded to become like so many other cities in the state. I call on
> those City Council members who chose not to act at the March 25 public
> forum, to meet their promises to take strong action _now_.
> Respectfully,
s
0
> Paul H. Allen
> 191 Luneta Drive
> San Luis Obispo, 93405
>
> (805) 544 -2306
0
> On 5/10/2014 10:23 PM, Linda White wrote:
>> I have just finished the final EIR and cannot begin to tell you how
>> disappointed I am in the total lack of understanding on the part of
>> Cal Poly. A few words were changed. A couple of conciliatory sentences
>> were added and then ignored in mitigation.
>> Please, could everyone remind the City Council of their promise at the
>> Town Hall to litigate if "adequate" mitigation wasn't proposed. We
>> must get the City Council to stand by its promise.
>> If you can only send a few words then send, "Remember your Town Hall
>> promise."
>> The City Council needs to hear from all of us in order to direct staff
>> to work hard on a response to Trustees. Please, Please, Please send
>> something by Monday or on Monday.
>> Thank you,
>> Linda White
9