HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRR26497 Melideo - Records related to 2932 Augusta Street (ARCH-0464-2023, AFFH-0620-2025, TREE-0561-2025)
Street (ARCH-0464-2023 / AFFH-0620-2025 / TREE-0561-2025)
From: Mark Melideo <
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2026 1:20 AM
To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org>
Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Request for Agenda Report and Digital Application Materials – 2932 Augusta Street (ARCH-0464-2023 /
AFFH-0620-2025 / TREE-0561-2025)
Subject: 2932 Augusta Street (ARCH-0464-2023 / AFFH-0620-2025 / TREE-0561-
2025):
Request for Materials Not Attached to Staff Report and Clarifications Before October 5
ARC Hearing
September 26, 2026
Dear Ms. Patino:
Thank you for your prompt reply on September 24 and for adding me to the interested
parties list. I understand the staff report is expected to be published on or around
September 28, and I will review it as soon as it is available. This letter requests digital
access to any application materials that are not attached to the staff report. It also asks
several clarifying questions. Both will help me prepare an accurate, focused written
comment before the Architectural Review Commission's October 5, 2026 hearing.
For transparency, I live at approximately
600 feet from the project site. I intend to submit a written technical comment for the
record before the hearing.
1. Digital copies of materials not attached to the staff report
Thank you for offering to let me view the plans at 919 Palm Street. Unfortunately, I
cannot review materials in person and can only work from digital copies. Your email
noted that project plans and relevant supporting application materials will be attached to
the staff report. Could you send me electronic copies of any documents in the
application file that are not attached to the report? Email or a file-sharing link would be
fine.
The hearing leaves about one week for review, so I would be grateful for anything you
can send as early as possible. If the materials have to come in stages, these are my
priorities, in order:
(a) the density-bonus request and the applicant's justification for each concession and
1
waiver;
(b) the tree-removal application and replanting plan;
(c) any technical studies; and
(d) correspondence from other City departments or agencies.
2. Contents of the application file
I want to make sure my comment does not describe anything as absent when it is in fact
in the file. Could you please confirm whether the file contains each of the following? For
any that are in the file but not attached to the staff report, I would appreciate an
electronic copy.
(a) A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or pre-demolition hazardous-materials
survey (asbestos, lead-based paint) for the existing structure. I understand from public
reporting that the structure was built in 1962, but I have not independently confirmed
that date.
(b) A certified arborist report or tree inventory for the 27 trees proposed for removal.
(c) A construction air-quality analysis (for example, CalEEMod) or a health-risk
assessment.
(d) A construction noise or vibration analysis.
(e) Fire Department review of, or comments on, fire-apparatus access.
(f) A parking, circulation, or curb-utilization study.
(g) A drainage, stormwater, or utility-capacity study.
(h) Materials associated with AFFH-0620-2025.
(i) Correspondence from other City departments or agencies, including the Fire
Department, Public Works, and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
An index or list of the documents in the file would serve the same purpose.
3. CEQA determination
The September 22 notice states that the project is categorically exempt from
environmental review. Could you confirm which exemption the City is relying on? For
example, is it the Class 32 infill exemption (CEQA Guidelines § 15332), or another
provision such as Public Resources Code § 21080.66? I would also appreciate knowing
where the supporting analysis appears in the staff report or project file, including any
consideration of the exceptions in Guidelines § 15300.2.
4. Reduced tree-replanting requirement
The September 22 notice lists a "reduced tree replanting requirement" among the
density-bonus concessions and waivers. Could you clarify the following?
• Whether this is being processed as a concession or as a waiver.
• What replacement is proposed, compared with what Municipal Code § 12.24.090 would
otherwise require.
• Where the supporting justification appears in the staff report or file.
5. Case No. AFFH-0620-2025
2
This case number appears in the September 22, 2026 notice. It does not appear in the
August 2025 cancellation notice for this item, which listed only ARCH-0464-2023. Could
you briefly describe what this application covers? It would also help to know the number
and income level of the affordable units that qualify the project for the density bonus.
6. Public comment and the record
Could you please confirm the following?
(a) The deadline for written comments to be distributed to Commissioners before the
October 5 meeting.
(b) That written comments sent to advisorybodies@slocity.org before the hearing will
become part of the administrative record for this item.
(c) The process and deadline for appealing the Director's final action, and whether the
tree-removal decision has a separate appeal period under Municipal Code §
12.24.090(K).
7. Public records request
Some materials in the file may not be attached to the staff report or otherwise provided
electronically. For those materials, please treat this letter as a request under the
California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.) for copies of the complete
application files for the three case numbers above. The request includes plans, technical
studies, and interdepartmental and agency correspondence. I am requesting electronic
copies. Because the hearing is on October 5, I would be grateful if you could provide
records on a rolling basis as they become available, following the priorities in item 1.
I would also ask that this letter be placed in the project file.
I have copied Director Tway because final action on this application rests with the
Community Development Director. Thank you for your time and for the care your office
puts into this process.
Respectfully,
Mark Melideo
3