Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-2014 pc whitneyKremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:08 AM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Content of my public comment tonight_ attached RECEIVED Attachments: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members.docx JUN 10 2014 Agenda Correspondence for 06/10/14 Public Comment. ��L 0 Ci "i -Y Ca._1- RI',, Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk cAll ' of s:111 IIIIS <»m spo 99c Palm Street Sari I uis Obispo, CA 93401 AGENDA CORRESPONDENQ G Da�e� , b f l #em# From: sharon@sharonwhitney.com [mailto :sharon @sharonwhitney.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:06 AM To: Marx, ]an; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; cchristiansen Cc: Mejia, Anthony; Lichtig, Katie; Dietrick, Christine; Johnson, Derek; sharon Subject: Content of my public comment tonight attached Dear City Council Members, Please find attached my intended remarks for public comment period tonight. Sharon Whitney Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, I am Sharon Whitney, a resident of San Luis Obispo. I am here tonight to say I am dismayed that your agenda omits any analysis of the CSU Board of Trustees certified EIR covering Cal Poly's dorm project at the intersection of Grand and Slack. I do not understand that omission. Therefore I am here to repeat a request I made during Public Comment on May 20. The analysis I am requesting should be put on your agenda for June 17, if not before. That analysis should include a statement of: • All existing off -site Class I and unmitigated impacts • Any and all MOUs related to mitigation of off -site impacts, including financial arrangements • The City's other alternatives, particularly the filing of a writ of mandamus and pursuant litigation • Staff recommendations regarding all available alternatives. Two things have changed to support this repeated request: 1. The May 21 certification rendered moot and irrelevant Councilwoman Christianson's "No" vote on Councilwoman Smith's May 20 motion to put the matter on tonight's public hearing agenda; Christianson said her "No" vote was justified then because the final outcome of the CSU Board meeting was unknown; now it is. 2) The May 21 certification also rendered moot and mistaken Councilman Ashbaugh "No" vote based on his view that there was no need to rush to put the item on the agenda before July; that view is mistaken because, as I understand it, if there is to be any litigation by the City, a writ of mandamus must be filed by June 21. The matter cannot be put off to July. Three things have not changed to underscore the urgency of this repeated request: 1) The technical insufficiencies of the EIR remain, as laid out by Derek Johnson for the City in his March 31 letter to the CSU Board. I won't repeat those now —that is the job of the CDD as directed by this City Council. 2) The CSU Board has a continuing duty to inform the public via a CEQA adequate EIR. 3) Cal Poly's duty to mitigate off -site significant impacts remains. I understand that is underway, but the details need to be aired in a public hearing. In my opinion, for the sake of complete information and transparency, we, the residents have a right to the public hearing I am requesting. In my opinion, you owe nothing less than that. Last, but not least, the time is now for the Town Hall promise to be kept that the City will litigate, if appropriate. Thank you.