HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1, cc - Dietrick (RE Schmidt - Appeal of Staff Decision)To: Price, Lee RECEIVED
Subject: RE: Appeal to City Council of Staff Decision ...
JUL 2 8 2016
From: Dietrick, Christine SLQ CITY CLERK
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 11:05 AM
To: Richard Schmidt < ; Price, Lee <LPrice@slocity.or >
Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocitv.or >; Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@siocity.ofg>; Cohen, Rachel
<rco he n @slocity. o r >
Subject: RE: Appeal to City Council of Staff Decision ...
Richard:
Appeals to the Council are governed by Chapter 1.20 of the Municipal Code. The Community Development
Director's operational/processing decision to schedule an additional public conceptual review meeting is not an
appealable action and no appeal before the Council will be scheduled.
Chapter 1.20 provides as follows:
1.20.020 Right to appeal. O SHARE
A. Except where an appeals procedure is otherwise specifically
set forth in this code, any person objecting to the approval,
denial, suspension or revocation of a license, permit or
entitlement of any nature, the determination or issuance of
which is under any of the provisions of this code, or to any
administrative decision made by any city official, if the approval,
denial, suspension or revocation of such license, permit or
entitlement or the determination of such administrative decision
involves the exercise of administrative discretion or personal
judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code,
may appeal in writing to the council by filing with the city clerk a
written notice of such appeal, stating the specific grounds for the
appeal.
Clearly, no appealable "approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license, permit or entitlement of any
nature" has yet occurred, nor has there been any decision made on this project by any City official. What you
purport to "appeal" is simply an additional opportunity for public and decision -maker input on a proposed
project that has been the subject of significant neighborhood interest and engagement, based on which the
Director has exercised his discretion to direct supplemental environmental review and open up the process.
As to your legal assertions regarding the application of CEQA, your conclusions are inaccurate and
misleading. You characterize the City's decision to acknowledge the high level public interest in this project by
providing more opportunities for public participation and feedback than are legally required as an attempt to
evade CEQA. That is a mischaracterization of both the facts and law. CEQA is a tool to ensure thoughtful and
informed decision making; it encourages precisely the type of public feedback and engagement that is being
solicited via the scheduled ARC meeting. In this case, the Community Development Director has: 1) delayed
final project consideration; 2) directed additional environmental review; and 3) created an additional public
avenue by which to solicit more and better information about a proposed project, which will inform completion
of supplemental environmental analysis and final consideration of a project. I cannot conceive of a credible
legal analysis that could conclude that an additional public meeting exceeding minimum legal requirements
violates CEQA. Despite your assertions that conceptual review equals final approval, there is absolutely
nothing about the ARC's conceptual review of the project that accurately could be characterized as making a
decision or otherwise committing the City to any particular course of action. Conceptual feedback and public
input inform final decisions, but do not constitute final decisions. I hope this helps to clarify the process.
Bcc: CC
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Y.41
City Attorney's Office
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E cdietrick(@slocity.orc
T 805.781.7140
slocity.org
From: Richard Schmidt [
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:07 PM
To: Price, Lee <LPrice@slocity.org>
Cc: Lichtig, Katie <klichtig@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emai1counc1I@sloc1ty.or >
Subject: Appeal to City Council of Staff Decision ...
July 27, 2016
Lee Price, City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Ms. Price,
Attached is an Appeal to City Council of Staff Decision to Hold ARC Conceptual Approval for 71
Palomar Prior to Compilation of a CEQA Initial Study of Environmental Impact.
Due to the fact we learned just over 24 hours ago that City staff would refuse to listen to any
reasonable arguments concerning the legality under CEQA of this proposed hearing and would move
ahead with the contested hearing regardless of all objections, and given the fact the hearing is set for
next Monday, we are submitting this appeal in this manner to get it into the record and to get it
moving along.
Please note that the appeal requests specific immediate remedial actions by the City Manager,
who is being copied on this email, in the absence of the City Council and their inability to meet in
timely fashion to resolve this appeal prior to the scheduled contested hearing's date.
Please inform us if there's anything else we must do to set this appeal in motion.
Thank you, on behalf of the appellants.
Richard Schmidt