Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Schmidt)Lomeli, Monique Subject: From: Codron, Michael RE: 71 Palomar Conceptual Review Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 4:07 PM To: Lichtig, Katie; Dietrick, Christine; Hermann, Greg Cc: Davidson, Doug; Cohen, Rachel; Corey, Tyler Subject: 71 Palomar Conceptual Review Mayor and Council, Meeting: AO 08- dt- tt_v ftf; m, J_ RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JUL 2 7 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A Council Member has asked that I provide my response to an e-mail sent to me by Richard Schmidt regarding conceptual review of the project on 71 Palomar by the ARC. This meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 1. 1 have attached that e-mail exchange for your review, as requested. In addition to the information included in the attached e-mail, I also want to note for you that staff and the City Attorney's Office have found no problem with this course of action relative to CEQA compliance, or compliance with the City's policies and procedures. Conceptual review is a normal and helpful process that applicants may elect to pursue to get feedback regarding proposed project designs. I find the conceptual review process to be of particular value because it provides residents and other community members with additional opportunities to provide input on projects before a staff recommendation is developed. The e-mail correspondence received on this topic expresses concerns that conceptual review will limit the scope of future review by the Commission. This is not the case, particularly if new information is produced that changes staff recommendations relative to project design, conditions of approval, mitigation measures, or other components of the project approval. Please let me know if you have any questions on this matter. Thank you, -Michael Bcc: City Council Michael Codron Director of Community Development CI'T`Y OF ILI: ' SffR LUIS OBISPO Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mcodronl_slocity.org T 805.781.7187 C 805.540.0767 slocity.org Lomeli, Monique From: Codron, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:17 PM To: 'Richard Schmidt' Subject: RE: Scheduling for Palomar project Hi Richard, I see your perspective and understand those concerns. In this case, the ARC is the decision-making authority and so before they make any decisions on the project they will need a completed environmental document with all appropriate background information available to them. Our recommendation on the project will rely on that information, as well, so we will not be making any specific recommendations or requesting any actions of the ARC on August 1 st. Conceptual review does provide the public with an additional opportunity to participate in the process and provide testimony to the decision makers. It also gives the ARC a look at the design of the proposed buildings, an opportunity to provide direct feedback on the design to the applicant, and provides the applicant with the ability to ask questions of the ARC, which may inform changes to the project. So, I do think there is value to the process and there is certainly nothing wrong with airing the project issues in this fashion. I'll share your concerns with my staff and ask that they be sure to make clear in the written report and in their presentation to the ARC the status of the environmental review process. You are free to make this testimony to the ARC. Maybe they will agree with you and choose not to provide feedback until later in the process, but we have found that they appreciate the opportunity to have an early look at projects. Regarding your post script, I don't have all of the proposals in hand yet, but we are requesting an independent arborist report, a bird survey report, a biological evaluation of the habitat on the site to see if there is any evidence of, or potential to support, special status species, and an assessment of impacts to nesting birds. Staff and the consultant will also be producing a more thorough policy analysis of the proposed tree removals. Even if no new impacts are discovered, we will recirculate the environmental document for public review and comment, and this will provide you with the ability to carefully review the information presented and provide comments back to the City, which we will address in our reports to decision makers. Thank you, -Michael From: Richard Schmidt [ Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 11:25 AM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Scheduling for Palomar project Dear Michael, Your memo on the scheduling of the Palomar project has me scratching my head. In it you state the following sequence: 1. 8-1-16: Conceptual ARC review 2. September 2016: Completion of the additional environmental review and beginning of public review of the updated environmental document. So, the project is reviewed by the ARC a month or more prior to any pretext of CEQA work being done? I'm sure you'll say it's ONLY a "conceptual" ARC review, but that, while perhaps falling into the category of some legalistic minimum loophole certainly does not fulfill the intent of CEQA. The intent of CEQA is that decision -makers have before them all relevant environmental information PRIOR to making any kind of decision. If the required CEQA documentation has not yet been prepared, how can the ARC on Aug. I possibly fulfill it's obligations under CEQA to review the project, even "conceptually" -- whatever that means, prior to CEQA work being performed? Clearly, it cannot. So, it appears, the city's "dotting its is and crossing its t's" consists of still more manipulation of the process to speed it along rather than doing things right. I'm very disappointed in your decision on this matter, and suggest, once again, that doing things quickly and poorly often ends up taking longer than doing things right. You are, for example, apparently assuming your environmental consultants, working at a bird -sterile season, can make an adequate bird study this August when bird experts universally advise a year-long study that includes wintering and nesting seasons; by delaying once again the initiation of such a study, the beginning of such a study's timeline is simply kicked down the road. The longer you wait to start doing the right thing by the birds on this site, the longer it will take to get anything accomplished. I do hope you will reconsider this schedule while it's still possible to do so. All ARC consideration must wait till CEQA work has been completed. Richard PS. Your memo seems mute on the two issues we'd specifically raised and asked to be dealt with: getting an independent arborist with no axe to grind to evaluate the trees as a viable urban forest, and getting an independent ornithologist on site to begin a proper ornithological study. As you're well aware, the city's prior work products on both those subjects were not competent, and I'm mystified why no mention of correcting those with proper specific studies is made in your memo on scheduling.