Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1(Schmidt)Lomeli, Monique Subject: ARC agenda 8-1 From: Richard Schmidt [ Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:52 AM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorvbodies@slocity.orp Subject: ARC agenda 8-1 July 28, 2016 Dear ARC Members, RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JUL 2 8 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Meeting: u08= 01 IV [tem: I You are being asked by staff to hold a "conceptual approval" hearing for a project at 71 Palomar despite the fact there is no California Environmental Quality Act "initial study" for the project. The intent of CEQA is crystal clear -- that decision -makers have before them all relevant environmental information PRIOR to making any kind of decision so their decisions may be shaped to assure a project's potential harm to the environment is minimized or eliminated. You cannot possibly hold your hearing,and provide direction to the applicant without violating the intent and 1 believe the letter, of CEQA. Any recommendations you might make would be based on shooting from the environmental hip, not on sound science or other sound analysis. This is a serious issue of public trust and propriety, as well as of the law. Several of us, including two former city commissioners with more than 15 years experience doing what you do, have attempted to persuade staff to postpone this hearing until proper CEQA work is completed, which staff has said will be some time this fall. Staff has refused to listen to reasonable arguments. However, yesterday Michael Codron tossed this matter into your court. He wrote me, "The ARC may decide to wait for the conceptual review until after the initial study is complete. That is entirely up to them." So, it's up to you, the ARC to do the right thing here, and to postpone hearing Palomar until required CEQA work has been completed. Michael suggested I inform you of your right to do this, and so I'm asking that you pull this item from your agenda and table it till the CEQA analysis is finished. Please do not proceed with this hearing and force residents to turn to legal means to get the city to do the right thing. If you're feeling like this is undue delay that might be detrimental to the applicant, just remember that had the city done a competent initial study when this project first came,in, we'd not be having this discussion. Consider also that the delay I am requesting is short compared to, say, one caused by citizens going to court in an effort to get the city to do the right thing. All in all, delaying your consideration of Palomar till the initial study is done is not only the proper and right thing to do, it is also the path likely to cause the least delay to the applicant. So, please postpone this hearing appropriately. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt PS. Although no initial study has been done, it is obvious there are potentially serious environmental impacts from what this project proposes — for example, massive removal of mature trees and flattening of the naturally hilly building site (note site sections in your plan packet). But beyond that sort of impressionistic information, you have no good analysis to work from. Just two examples of the sorts of things a proper initial study would require you to figure out how to handle. 1, there are perennial hawk nests in trees earmarked for removal. You don't know about that sort of thing today, don't have any explanation of the legal and ethical protection framework you must observe in dealing with raptor nests, and have no mitigation measures to consider. Yet your directives to the applicant at this hearing could approve removal of those trees. 2. There is also a perennial owl nest on the site, and the "flight school" route that makes that nest viable includes resting stops on trees slated for removal. The owls, in turn, are a public heath agent for the immediate neighborhood as they control the rat population in the abundant palm trees developers have been allowed to plant nearby. These sorts of things are revealed in an initial study, and without one you simply cannot fulfill your environmental fiduciary responsibilities. The purpose of CEQA is to make sure you know this sort of thing in advance of any sort of approval so you can reduce or eliminate entirely the project's adverse impacts. So, again, please cancel this hearing, and hold it at the proper time, after the initial study is complete.