Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, Schmidt (2) From: Richard Schmidt < Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 9:40 PM Subject: 71 Palomar CEQA comments To: E-mail Council Website <cmailcouncil slocit .m> Dear Mayor and Council Members, One more Palomar submission, this one on CEQA. Please see attachment. The city's CEQA process on this project has been grossly and deliberately deficient. I suspect is someone cared to do so, one could get a court order to have it redone. I'm just observing that fact. That the city sits in this position today results from deliberate inactions and actions by your staff. Richard April 1, 2017 Dear Mayor and Council Members, This is commentary on the CEQA process for 71 Palomar, which process is certainly nothing for the city to be proud of. For me, observing and attempting to participate in the public review of 71 Palomar has been a disheartening experience. What I've found is that a development review process of which I have been such a dedicated part for decades, the integrity of which I had been so proud of, has under our current city management become corrupt to its core, ignoring all pretext of public interest, advancing pro -applicant positions with half-truths and even lies, and indifferent to quality of life issues. Our planners have become nothing more than advocates for applicants, which people paid by the citizens have no right to be. This has been pointed out to the previous council by our great reform mayor, Kenneth Schwartz, who was like me also dismayed by an encounter with today's planners; and he's a professional planner himself, so his dismay should be recognized as a serious matter. The planner for 71 Palomar actually introduced herself to an advisory body by saying "I represent the applicant," and when audience members gasped in disbelief made a lukewarm and totally unconvincing effort to walk that back, for by then everyone knew the truth had been spoken. Then there was the tree business. The Tree Committee wanted to be involved in evaluating the site's 59 trees. But the planner smelled trouble if they were, since the Tree Committee is part of Public Works, not Community Development, so might be impossible to manipulate as CDD later did with both the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission. I knew at the time something nasty had happened, for the Tree Committee was shut down in its efforts just as they were about to begin. As a result of a Public Records Request, which the city handled rather sloppily, I found a note that explained the conspiratorial activities of the planner to bring about this end, and here it is: From: Cohen, Rachel (mallto:rcohen0slocitv.ora j Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 9:27 AM To: Thom Jess Subject: 71 Palomar Hi Thom - Hal has informed me that the City Arborist has determined the proposed tree removal for 71 Palomar will require Tree Committee approval. The Tree Committee could support your request, but Ron does not feet comfortable approving removal of all the trees without their review. I am anticipating that you and/or Loren would like the opportunity to talk with Ron about other options that he could support that would not require Tree Committee review. If this is the case, please e-mail Ron at rcombs _stocity.ora to request a meeting. Please be sure to cc me and Hal on your correspondence to Ron (rcohen*sloclty.ora; hhannulaCo7slocity.org). Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner In other words, folks let's work together behind the scenes to ace the Tree Committee's involvement in this because it will be easier for you to get rid of all those trees that way. also later learned that the planner had leaned on the city attorney's office, misrepresenting what the Tree Committee was contemplating doing, and the attorney's office not only had the study item pulled from the committee's agenda, but prohibited them from going to the site. (And as the comedy progressed, all mention of the committee's intent to visit the site disappeared from the draft minutes of the meeting where they discussed so doing.) So, there was no competent CEQA tree study, and today there still has not been any competent tree study, despite two go-arounds at doing a CEQA initial study. So, the tree clear-cut decision was made by the ARC, which has no competence in judging trees, rather than by the Tree Committee. Kinda neat what you can do by knowing what strings to pull, eh? The essential project approval was made by the ARC before there was a legitimate Initial Study, after the city had admitted its first try at one was incompetent and needed to be redone. This is about as clear a violation of CEQA as one can find. When I pointed out to the ARC that they couldn't act on 71 Palomar because to do so would violate CEQA, and asked them to postpone their hearing till there was a new Initial Study, Mr. Codron told them to ignore my plea, and lawyered up, with the result the city attorney's office concocted a disingenuous story that since the ARC was just giving "conceptual approval," they could do so with a "draft" Initial Study the attorney provided them, but which wasn't in their agenda packet for the public to see. A "draft" when work on the revised Initial Study hadn't started yet? How could that be? Would it even have been legitimate (I'm pretty confident no judge would agree that it would be) if there were a draft, since decisions must be based on a final CEQA document? The "draft" turned out to be the discredited first Initial Study that was so deficient even Mr. Codron agreed it needed to be redone. So that's how CEQA was treated at the ARC, where the "conceptual" approval set issues the applicant could fix and be all but assured of final approval upon return. This, folks, is not how CEQA's supposed to work! The ARC's tainted approval would have been the final approval absent the appeal now before you. Then there were the strenuous efforts by many to get a good Initial Study done to replace the inept one staff trotted out early on. There were so many deficiencies and inaccuracies in that Initial Study even Mr. Codron agreed it must be redone. But he refused to allow study critics to contribute scoping ideas about what needed to be redone, though he promised trees and birds would be at the top of the list. I have a disillusioning thread of email with Mr. Codron, in which I beg, plead and make practical arguments about the importance of doing the second Initial Study carefully (like doing so would actually speed project approval whereas another junky study could result in legal actions that might cause long delays), yet the second product was as bad as the first, completely failing to provide competent study of trees and birds nor to make appropriate mitigation recommendations. Instead, it was just dotting I's and crossing T's to make it look like something had been done to improve the CEQA record. What's wrong with this is that it violates the very purpose of CEQA, which is to lay out probable impacts clearly in front of decision -makers BEFORE they make decisions, together with strategies to eliminate or mitigate those impacts, before any decision on a project is made. And these stories barely scratch the surface of how indecent the processing of 71 Palomar by the city has been. There is tons of additional documentation I know about, and probably a lot I don't know about. This is truly something to be ashamed of. Below I've included my personal critique of the Revised Initial Study, which is one of many thoughtful critiques submitted only to be dismissed by staff. I'm providing it for two reasons — to help educate those of you who might care about how shoddy this CEQA analysis was and how little environmental information has been accumulated to date compared to what needs to be gathered, and also to enter it into your meeting's record. It speaks for itself. But you really should take a look at the back -comments from your staff in the full IS record, which are almost uniformly snotty, dismissive take -downs of the various commentators and their comments. Is this the sort of staff behavior your council condones? I certainly hope not. To the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Director From Richard Schmidt December 17, 2016 (Lightly edited April 1, 2017) Comments on the IS -ND for 71 Palomar. The original IS -ND for this project was a shoddy document, full of inaccuracies and omissions, and after months of citizen complaint the city agreed to redo it. We were led to believe this would be a good faith effort to produce a first rate document. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be more of the same, just another layer of gooey icing on the same old inedible cake. The IS - ND is still completely inadequate to meet the intent of CEQA — to lay out for decision -makers all the significant environmental data they need to consider prior to making their decisions on a project. I cannot begin to comment on all the problems in this flawed document, so will focus on several limited areas of personal concern, interest, and knowledge. A proper redo would begin, as this IS -ND did not, with public scoping and subject -of -study recommendations. Birds, and the Impact of Tree Removal. One of the most frustrating aspects of the current revise of the IS -ND is that the original was so deficient in its assessment of bird life on the site — falsely claiming one would expect to find nothing more than sparrows and doves on such a site when even the most cursory inspection would reveal so much more, including active raptor nests (hawks and owls). After months of criticism from a number of citizens, the city realized it had problem. It was our contention that the issue of birds was integrally wound up with that of tree removal. So Michael Codron said he'd have parts of the IS -ND redone to correct the deficiencies, and led us to believe our concerns would be dealt with. What a cruel hoax of a response the Rincon report constitutes. Our concerns about birds have still not been dealt with responsibly, and the city has merely kicked the can down the project review timeline, so that if at this point a responsible bird study were to be done, it would take another year. Here are a few of our unresolved concerns. • Birds are protected under the public trust doctrine that requires permitting agencies to look out for their welfare. Some birds are also protected by international treaties which our city cannot ignore. One would think, therefore, that an initial study justifying a negative declaration of environmental impact on birds would look very carefully at bird habitat and use on this heavily forested study site. • This initial study utterly fails to do so, and it seriously misrepresents habitat conditions and avian residents on the site. This apparently stems from the total absence of site study by a competent ornithologist. • We in the neighborhood are well aware of the abundant avian use of this site — for nesting, for roosting, for winter shelter of migratory and native species, for feeding, and for general habitat. It is an avian oasis of great value. Its neighborhood owl -nesting habitat is both famous and important for neighborhood public health as the owls suppress rat populations in the palms developers have planted in abundance to "tropicalize" their nearby developments. This is prima bird habitat. One does not learn that, however, from the initial study's brief examination of the subject. Here is what the study says on birds: "Urban/Developed Habitats: Based on a project site visit and observations of the property, the site exhibits the characteristics associated with the "Urban/Developed" habitat commonly found concentrated within and adjacent to the developed portions of the City... Wildlife occurrences within urban/developed areas would consist primari_y of urban .-adapted avian species such as house sparrow {Passer domesticus) and Eurasian collared dove lSfreptopelia decaocto) utilizing the abundant tree canopy and concentrated food sources... The mature landscaping present at the project site provides the tree and shrub habitats that have the potential to support wildlife habitat limited primarily to urban -adapted avian species discussed above." [Initial study p. 14] This is utter nonsense. This initial study's contribution to understanding actual habitat conditions on the site is totally inaccurate and inadequate. The study, among other things, overlooks the presence on this site of a century -old urban forest located just a few hundred feet from open countryside; it is therefore not in any way an "urban/developed" habitat of scattered miscellaneous small trees and shrubs such as one would find in an intensely -developed part of a city, or such as one would find in the proposed development after the existing forest is clearcut and the place replanted with the proposed shrubs and "parking lot trees." Here, in briefest form, is a short rebuttal sufficient to demonstrate the nonsensicality of this consultant's disinformative prose about birds. accompanied several others with better birding skills than mine on very brief "sidewalk surveys" of the site at ecologically inopportune times in early July — Le, during neither nesting season when site use for avian reproduction is heavy nor during migratory season when large numbers of part-time avian visitors are known to join year-round natives in the site's trees. We visited early, mid-day, and at dusk. We were limited to a sidewalk survey because applicants have filed an intimidation lawsuit (SLAPP suit) against opponents of their project to keep them off the property itself, for the explicit purpose of concealing habitats that could thus be observed. We have requested the city intervene through the development process to permit our expert's access to conduct a better study, but the city has refused. We further asked that the city include an expert -recommended year-long bird survey in the revised initial statement's scope of work, and again the city has refused. There is thus no effort at a bird survey in any of the city's environmental documents. A sidewalk survey, from the public right of way, can only assess a very small part of the site's habitat value. Even so, here are — in contrast to the "expert's" nonsense about house sparrows and collared doves — a few verified observations we came up with in about one hour's overall observation in the slack season for bird activity at this site. Species observed inhabiting the site: 1. Oak titmouse. 2. Hooded oriole. 3. Scrub jay. 4. Pacific slope flycatcher. 5. Orange crowned warbler. 6. Warbling vireo. 7. Chestnut -backed chickadee. 8. Band -tailed pigeon (a native pigeon). 9. Crow. 10. Kestrel.* 11. Anna's hummingbird. 12. Acorn woodpecker. 13. House finch. 14. House sparrow. 15. Cassin's kingbird. 16. Mourning dove. 17. Downy woodpecker. 18. American robin. 19. Turkey vultures. 20. Hooded oriole. (* indicates species of local concern as per City of SLO) In addition, we verified two very important nesting uses of the property: 1. Two hawk* nests are plainly visible in eucalyptus trees proposed for removal along Luneta. It thus boggles my mind that any supposedly reputable "survey" by Rincon could state that no nests were visible on the site. During a late spring neighborhood event on Luneta, red-tailed hawks* were observed tending young in one of the nests. Neighbors report the second nest was used by red -shouldered hawks.* Since we cannot enter the site, we cannot say for sure there are other raptor or large bird nests in the more distant eucalyptus, but it seems very likely there are. It is clear that this site is important raptor nesting habitat. The initial study's failure to mention this raises questions about the extent of its writer's actual site observation since any untrained casual observer can spot the nests along Luneta, so one would not expect them to escape an actual "expert's" eyes. 2. A perennial barn owl* nest site in the palm (Phoenix canariensis) in front of the Sandford house is notorious, in the good sense, in the neighborhood. Each year parents raise kids there, and on summer evenings the cute -faced noisy kids can be seen practicing their flying with short hops between the palm, the Italian stone pine, coast live oak, and araucarias. As mentioned above, these owls are not only a source of neighborhood pride, but also important public health vector control agents nature provides for free. Another important avian use of the property is as a major roost for turkey vultures. Each evening they fly into the eucalyptus behind the Sandford house, roost overnight, and in the morning spread out through the property's 59 trees to stretch, warm up, and get ready for another day aloft. One summer morning we counted two dozen of these huge birds at 71 Palomar. My theory is these trees, with their dense foliage, provide exactly the sort of protective roost vultures need and seek. In the summer evening, they can be seen gathering in the less dense eucs behind the Mormon Church, preen for a time, then glide over to the trees at 71 Palomar and disappear into the foliage, where they are visible only to the seriously observant eye. And, the site is frequeneted regularly seasonally by wild turkeys. The IS -ND revision mentions that such a site might be used by "the State Fully Protected and local species of concern" white-tailed kite,* which it states has been observed "within 3.5 miles of the proposed project site." Really! That's the best they can do with this remarkable bird? In fact, it has been sighted at 71 Palomar and is commonly in the immediate area. Our late great 140 -foot Monterey pine, unfortunately removed just last month after its demise, a few hundred feet from 71 Palomar, was frequented by these birds, much to our delight. Just last weekend I spotted a pair on Garden Street near Islay, in downtown's southern fringe, just over one mile from 71 Palomar. It seems not much effort was put into determining whether kites are present at the site. Actual serious expert site observation is lacking. We believe our snapshot sidewalk survey during a relatively "sterile" period in early July merely scratches the surface of this site's avian activity. A proper environmental study of avian use of the property would take a year, to visit the site repeatedly to document seasonal variations and events and nesting/rearing activities. Why didn't the city undertake such a study instead of endorsing the first initial study's clear nonsense — the nonsensicality of which had been repeatedly pointed out to Mr. Codron and others at City Hall? Had such study been initiated at project application, the year would be well along by now, and we'd have a lot of professional information instead of a mere sidewalk study by residents versus a non -study by the city's alleged "experts." • So, it is clear that a number of protected avian species inhabit and use 71 Palomar's trees, and the city to date has done absolutely nothing to try to verify that fact or to mitigate the problems presented to avians by development. This malfeasance sets the city up for legal problems going forth. This lack of proper bird study must be corrected. An initial study that so completely misrepresents avian conditions is insufficient grounds for arantina a neaative declaration of environmental impact. Trees. This site is an extraordinary urban forest with 51 significant trees, plus 8 others that were "discovered" since the initial IS -ND was done, many about a century old or older. The initial study fails to mention this salient fact, and is dismissive of the trees — as if this is an ordinary building site instead of a unique and special feature of our city deserving some degree of respect and protection. Instead of looking at the true character of this unique site, the initial study endorses clear cutting this wonderful urban forest without even examining it. In a good city, an incredible site like 71 Palomar would be cherished and protected, not viewed as just so much clearable, bulldozable nondescript land on which to erect a generic and ugly LA -style apartment complex. That such is not our city's choice speaks volumes about what our city has become. Tree Resorts and Narrative Analvsis We were led to believe in the revised IS -ND there would be a substantive study of the individual trees to determine which might be of heritage quality and which are fully capable, arboriculturally, of preservation within a revised project. Unfortunately, none of that took place, and we have mainly a rehash of the tree report (A&T) done by the applicant, which, incidentally, as a submission by the developer is not a legitimate CEQA document even though staff persists in misrepresenting that it is by including it within the online CEQA folder in the project's CEQA file. Instead of fresh thinking, we have something called a "peer review" by Rincon of the developer's tree report — a "review" so applicant -friendly and shoddy as to mock the very meaning of the term "peer review." • The "condition" evaluations in the Rincon report, as in the A&T report, are purely subjective, not scientific, and provide no substantive basis for deciding the fate of the individual trees. • The report, instead of providing basis for judging individual trees, simply attempts to justify the wholesale cutting of this urban forest grove by going no deeper than the cut/leave designations of trees in the original project application, which had changed prior to the Rincon study, yet those changes are not reflected here. The Rincon report, like the A&T report, is thus mere rationalization for wholesale tree removal. • The report does "discover" additional trees, but then suggests that like the previously known trees they all be cut down. • The Rincon report includes the same sort of careless misidentification of tree species as the original IS -ND, which failed even to mention the presence of Araucaria on the site. The Rincon report speaks of a "Canary Island Pine" to be preserved (is there even one on the site?) when it probably means Canary Island Palm. And it calls out other tree species that don't appear to be on the site as well. • The revised report re -endorses the applicant -produced original's ridiculous contention that only 4 trees are worth saving — 4 which just happen to be the same 4 the applicant doesn't plan to cut: two palm trees (among the least significant/important/interesting tree species on the site) one of which isn't even on the site but is on the Valencia parking lot easement owned by the fraternity property; a single eucalyptus, arguably the least significant among the grove's eucs; and a single Araucaria, the smaller of the two, with no explanation why the larger perfectly healthy Araucaria is not equally worthy. The Araucaria issue is emblematic of the shoddy tree work represented here. The smaller tree to be preserved appears to be smaller because it's been topped; it appears to have a multiple leader as a result — and this correctible flaw isn't even mentioned in the report, while the report attempts to make a big deal out of the fact the eucalyptus have been topped. The larger Araucaria tree is criticized because it's "stressed;" for sure, nobody's cared for these trees for years; give the thing some TLC and it will be lush again. A fine thriving example of a similar -sized Araucaria rescued from a much more dire state is located at the southwest corner of the Student Services Building on the CPSU campus. • By contrast, the extensive Eucalyptus plantings are dismissed on grounds they were poorly trimmed in the past. No mention is made of an obvious corrective and very cost-effective alternative to removal that could save most of them: safety pruning. Failure to properly evaluate local significance of the trees at 71 Palomar. The initial study fails in still other ways — it fails to identify the local significance of trees that are unique in the city yet are proposed for removal! For example, the two large Araucarias are rare for their size and height in this area. They should both receive "heritage" designation. (See below for their historic design significance.) The IS -ND states: "No designated heritage trees exist on the portion of the site to be developed." This is a meaningless, misleading and manipulative statement without any merit. It is clear that many of the trees on the site would qualify for heritage status should such be considered by the city. To claim there are no heritage trees is to ignore the city's very weak heritage tree program's multiple weaknesses coupled with city staff interference. Under the city's heritage designation program, trees can be nominated only by the owner. This owner wants to clear-cut, so he's not going to nominate his trees. When citizens became concerned about the fate of the many clearly heritage -qualified trees on this site, they asked the Tree Committee to study the trees to verify in advance, as part of this environmental review process, whether any met heritage criteria. The committee agreed to do that, but then was shut down by city staff, who went so far as to prohibit them from even entering the property to look at the trees! Even more amazing, the minutes prepared by staff for the meeting where the Tree Committee had agreed to study the trees failed to contain that action taken by the committee. The property owner plans to retain four trees on the site, as mentioned above, and is manipulatively offering to designate those four as heritage trees, even though three of them are of dubious heritage significance, while many others he plans to cut are of clear heritage significance. The IS -ND also states: "55 small to fully mature native and non-native landscaping trees would be removed as part of the proposed project development. This includes trees such as mulberry, pine, olive, decorative palms, oak, ash, eucalyptus and redwood ..." What's fascinating about this description is its collective incompleteness and thus distortion of the site's trees. No mention of perhaps the two most remarkable Araucarias in town. With the exception of the eucalyptus and one large pine, none of the other enumerated trees are significant for size or quality, though the olives are very good — and are easily moved should they be in the way — i.e., there's zero excuse for cutting any of them. Esthetics — Views of Trees. During public discussion of the project prior to redoing the IS -ND, view impacts from various points in the neighborhood and around the north quadrant of town were pointed out. One alleged purpose of the IS -ND redo was to study this issue. Unfortunately, the issue wasn't so much studied as intentionally obfuscated and covered up. The Rincon report states: "CEQA distinguishes between public and private views, and focuses on whether a project would affect the public environment...", and then dismisses any impact on public views. This, however, is done by sleight of hand. • The photos Rincon uses to make its point don't make its point. • For example, Photo 2 looking down Luneta has a red arrow allegedly pointing to the site that doesn't in fact point at anything; but the photo beautifully shows a line of skyline trees straight down the street and to its left, all of which will be removed. How can wholesale removal of that skyline be said not to impact public views? • Photo 3, alleged to show no view impact from Ramona, is taken from behind trees at the Village, which conveniently block a view of the skyline trees above, thereby apparently proving to Rincon's mind that there is no visual impact. However, move over a few feet to where the Village trees don't block things, look straight up Palomar from Ramona, and the lost skyline tree view would have been obvious. This sort of sleight of hand by carefully positioning one's camera to show nothing is childish, unprofessional, and unworthy of any serious CEQA document. • In Photos 4 and 5, virtually every skyline tree looking straight ahead would be removed, also indicating loss of viewshed amenity to this project. Rincon's photos simply don't make the case their words allege. The photos show there would be huge loss of public views towards the site. Most incredibly the Rincon IS -ND on page 11 asserts the biggest view lie of all. It asserts that the site "is not within a City designated [sic] scenic vista" as designated per Figure 11 in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. (Contrary to its name "general plan," there's nothing "general" about a general plan — its specific provisions carry the weight of a law.) • Figure 11 designates the length of Foothill Boulevard as a scenic highway, whose views to right, left and straight ahead, are to be protected. By law. • The site's skyline trees are prominently visible from several locations along Foothill: (Caption: This entire horizon of skyline trees seen from Foothill would be removed under the "insignificant view impact" story put out by Rincon. The "non-significant" Araucarias unmentioned in the IS -ND's enumeration of trees on site tower in the photo's center.) Had Rincon done a more thorough job of assessing distant views, it would have found examples such as this at the intersection of Felton and Ferrini, considerably to the north of the project site: a ( Caption: The Mormon Church tower can be plainly seen below the entire skyline of trees, silhouetted against the grassy slope of Cerro San Luis Obispo, this project would remove. This is estimated to be Y2 mile from site. Instead of this important view, Rincon included a photo from further out Ferrini in which the view was selectively blocked, similar to what they did in the view from Ramona with the view hidden behind nearby trees.) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The IS -ND's discussion of greenhouse gas emissions and energy matters in general is completely incompetent. I have personally urged Mr. Codron to correct this deficient discussion in the revised IS -ND, but he didn't. So the old stuff remains. The section's problems begin with the following questionable statement: "The major sources GHG emissions in the City are transportation[] related emissions from cars and trucks, followed by energy consumption in buildings." There is no documentation in the report for such a statement, it is simply presented as unquestioned fact. That lack of documentation matters because the statement is significantly at variance with the national breakdown of GHG sources. The respected ARCHITECTURE 2030 website indicates almost half of US GHG emissions come from buildings (construction plus operating energy), while about a third come from all types of transport, of which private transport makes up about half the transport sector. That is, private transport accounts for about 16% of total US GHG emissions. So, how does it become the largest local source? This apparent conceptual error multiplies as it progresses through the report, leaving us with no understanding how to mitigate or lessen actually significant project GHG impacts. While the IS -ND appears to exaggerate the transport sector's GHG emissions, it ignores the impact of this poorly -designed project's rather large contributions. It states: "The emissions from project -related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2 emissions," again without evidence to back this allegation, and downplays project operational energy consumption throughout its life. This has the cart backwards being pulled by a back -stepping horse. There are a number of places where energy use could be mitigated through good design, which this project lacks. • The project has totally enclosed under -building parking, which by code requires 24/7 mechanical ventilation (with presumably a stinky discharge point for the exhaust), which sucks energy a better parking design with open air circulation could completely avoid. • Properly designed buildings in our climate can heat themselves, cool themselves, ventilate themselves and light themselves by capturing free non -carbonized site energies to do the work electricity and gas might otherwise be called upon to do. This design appears to totally ignore the potential to use natural energy flows to do such work. • Most of the buildings have the worst possible solar orientation, with long building facades, containing windows, facing east and west. This means morning and afternoon interior heat buildup in the hot seasons, and an inability to capture winter heat from the south sun. The consequence is excess use of electricity for summer cooling and excess use of gas and electricity for winter heating, compared to a design with majority N -S facing windows properly specified to promote winter heat gain and shaded from summer sun. • Most of the roofs have the worst sort of orientation (east and west) to make use of PV electric generation on site. In this day, there is zero excuse for that on a site with excellent southerly orientation potential. It's just plain bad design. • The broken -up floor plans suggest it will be next to impossible to ventilate the buildings naturally with cross ventilation or stack ventilation. Again, there's no excuse for this in today's world. We know how to do this, using "free" natural energy flows to keep our indoor air fresh and cool in summer. • One suspects the buildings will be air conditioned to compensate for their poor siting and poor design configuration. That would mean a totally unnecessary energy suck for the lifetime of the buildings, an energy albatross around the climate's neck for the next century or so. (Even if not air conditioned, it seems likely portable AC units will be chosen to mitigate for summer heat buildup due to poor orientation of windows.) Not only is this poor practice in today's world, it is immoral. It is also hypocritical for city that claims to be concerned about climate change to tolerate this sort of poor design. • Why is such an energy -inefficient building complex being given a pass in 2017, less than 3 years before California law would require such buildings to achieve net zero energy consumption? The state PUC and Energy Commission, jointly charged with implementing the residential net zero requirement, have recommended local jurisdictions "ramp up" to net zero so there's understanding all around (not the least among staff) of various ways to implement net zero prior to the deadline. Why has San Luis Obispo not done this? Why are we dragging our feet? Why are the huge projects being built today being built pretty much like projects of the past instead of like projects of the future? Does the city simply not care? • The IS -ND concludes that Title 24 will save us all. "State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are enforced with new construction." While not false, that statement is deliberately manipulative. A code -compliant building is a legal building. It is not a good building, or a green building, or an energy -sipping building. It is merely a code -compliant building. The difference between code and what can be done is vast, and it's not being done here. The city, if it really cares, should demand better. • Looking at the poor design of 71 Palomar, it is clear this is yesterday's project, not tomorrow's. There appears to be no obvious way it could ever become net zero. Cultural Resources. • Historic building preservation. The IS -ND fails to adequately explore the project applicant's intention to demolish portions of the historic -listed Sandford House. It is said he will preserve the "historic" portions of the house while demolishing "non -historic" portions. This is verbal gobblegook. When determining the "period" to which a restoration is to be made, one has to ask a lot of questions that haven't been asked in this study and its historical analysis companion study. The key is to decide what "period" is significant to the resource. If it's when "George Washington slept here," that's explicit. In the current case, nothing has been made explicit. If we don't have a rationale for a specified "period" in mind, any pretext of an accurate or meaningful restoration is bogus. It appears instead that the applicant has determined he wants to move the "historic" house out of his way to maximize his profit, and so the "experts" support his lopping off an arm here, a wing there, an ear someplace else in order to make the move easier. This has nothing to do with historic preservation. It has everything to do with making the developer happy. • Let's look at this intelligently instead of rationalizing the project's plans. One might argue, for example, the most important "period" of the house was its occupancy by a pioneering female radio operator and America's first female TV station owner, at mid -20th century. In that case, ALL of the accretions now allegedly added onto the "original" house are "historic" — both by period merit and by age. In that case, all must be preserved in any historic restoration. The IS -ND's failure to define the period for establishing "historic" importance thus means the determination that alleged "non -historic" features can legitimately be removed as part of an alleged "restoration" is a bogus contention. Without establishing the "period" of authenticity and a firm reason for choosing that period, the ND -IS cultural heritage section is without merit. • Historical importance of buildin-q/landscape interaction. The IS -ND fails to look at the cultural landscape of which the house is but a part. The entire site consists of a cultural landscape in which house, tree placement, pathways, etc., are intentionally, by design, interlocked into a unique and meaningful fabric. The proposed project will destroy all of this cultural meaning even if individual pieces of it (diminished relocated house, a few individual trees) remain. The IS -ND insensitively fails to so much as look at this aspect of cultural heritage. • Given the current prejudice against eucalyptus trees as aliens (as if nearly everything we plant weren't alien), one tends to overlook that their historical vernacular use was with good purpose, and this is demonstrated at the Sandford House site. There appear to be two different uses of the eucs, two different historic groves, plus a few apparently planted later without the cultural understanding of the two groves. One grove is to the northwest of the house, clinging to the house outline but out a bit from it, to provide a windbreak from those brisk summer winds we all know; it is a planned planted alteration of one of this site's less desirable natural energy flows. The other, to the southwest of the house, appears to be a prototypical "shade grove," providing a shaded place for outdoor activities. These were both common vernacular design uses for eucs. The IS -ND is mute on the cultural significance of these principal historic eucalyptus plantings. N t'ic ri taie- Te -3 l 71 Pa Iawtcr �Gri'�agc iiQu:lr� ra�cav7a kc4e pkyUA (2) Flc. iFuge'Eu9cV.ra" c z� a tic.i44yc � fjx6i}ut g Eua.IYP}vsGr.�✓e } Ci i 116KIIX CI-1—liCK 51511 flat {t srde-56— -6+1-1-41-5 41-5 L,�a Drivc. (Caption: Illustration of the two principal historic eucalyptus groves on a site diagram for some proposed heritage tree designations. Note also the Eugenia and Araucaria tree locations discussed below. The Eugenias are actually on an adjacent property the applicant plans to use for landscaping, even though he doesn't own it.) - This site is unique in our city, with its on-site topography determining the sensitive placement of house and many of the trees; its hillside location offering views outwards from the site but also views upward from below to the ancient forest on the city's skyline; the somewhat formal arrangement of trees, house entry, walkway indicating whoever laid it out was familiar with the classical architectural language of approach, entry, and object placement, as well as sensitivity to what happens as a person moves in time through space, and how to architecturally augment that time/space journey, in this instance with trees. The proposed plan destroys all of this by mucking with the underlying fabric of the site — moving the house, cutting the trees, destroying the axial spatial movement to the house entry thoughtfully laid out by some designer in the past. This site is the nearest we have to the sort of dignity one finds in a hilltop park in Florence, gazing out over the city to the mountains beyond while surrounded by beautiful trees (including a lovely Italian stone pine — how appropriate for the Florentine analogy!) in a peaceful place. Yet this project proposal ignores all of this specialness and proposes something that's Anyplace LA to displace it. • Cultural landsapes are a recognized part of historic preservation and cultural heritage. In 1981, the National Park Service, keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, recognized cultural landscapes as a National Register preservation category, and UNESCO followed in 1992. Cultural landscapes, says the NPS, "are composed of a number of character -defining features which, individually or collectively contribute to the landscape's physical appearance as they have evolved over time. In addition to vegetation and topography, cultural landscapes may include ... circulation features, such as roads, paths, steps, and walls; buildings; and furnishings, including fences, benches, lights and sculptural objects." Vegetation, topography, paths, and building all compose important aspects of the cultural landscape of 71 Palomar and define the site's significant and unique historic fabric. NPS continues: "Most historic properties have a cultural landscape component that is integral to the significance of the resource... A historic property consists of all its cultural resources— landscapes, buildings, archeological sites and collections." The entire 71 Palomar site must be considered as a cultural landscape, of which the building is but one part. If one looks only at the building, and not at the site as a historical/cultural artifact, one misses the bulk of what there is of cultural value. One must look at the whole site – historic building, historic grounds layout, historic trees, topography, placement of building and plantings with respect to topography, views to and from the site – as what has cultural heritage significance for our community and what merits cultural heritage protection. The NPS requires "integrity" of a resource for National Register qualification. By integrity it means "the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evinced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property's historic or prehistoric period. The seven qualities of integrity as defined by the National Register Program are location, setting, feeling, association, design, workmanship, and materials." When one starts moving historic buildings about on their historic cultural landscape, one creates a muddle, disturbs the meaning, significance and integrity of the place. For example, moving the Sandford House and cutting the historic trees as applicant proposes totally destroys three of the essential aspects of integrity considered for National Register qualification: location, setting and feeling. The IS -ND fails to look at this issue. A good cultural heritage IS -ND evaluation would thus note that historic preservation is not about a building alone, but about a building in its setting. This IS -ND fails to do that. • Consider just one of the simplest cultural heritage relationships that would be destroyed, and which a good IS -ND would have analyzed: the classical axial approach to the house, which was laid out with utmost thought by someone in the past. Passing between two vertical elements is a classic way architects and vernacular designers alike understood to denote entry. At the Sandford House, one does this twice, along a walkway that leads, on axis, from a viewing platform at the top of the stairs from the street, to the front door: First, after rising to the level of the front yard from the now -depressed street, one passes between two Eugenia trees, then, continuing in a straight line, between two Araucaria trees. One moves through the space between top of stairs and front door by entering this "propylaea" formed by trees before continuing through the open on a straight path to the front door. This timeless time/space passage is punctuated by a culturally -recognizable object composed of trees instead of stone. And the passage works in reverse, also, from house front door, through the "propylaea" to the "Florentine" viewing platform offering a purposefully composed view out over the city to the hills beyond. L � CID (Caption: An axial approach pathway is framed three -dimensionally from viewing platform, bottom, to house door, top, by the Eugenia trees at bottom and pair of Araucarias further towards house. This is emblematic of the sort of land/built-object relationship, with historic cultural meaning, the project would destroy and upon which the IS -ND is mute.) YET ALL OF THIS — THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PASSAGE AND THE PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ARTIFACTS AND THE BROADER LANDSCAPE -- WOULD BE DESTROYED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT'S INSENSITIVITY. Moving the house, cutting the trees, putting a mundane zig-zag walk from relocated stairs to relocated house. Why should this wanton destruction of historic fabric and meaning be allowed when it's not necessary or desirable? Why does the IS -ND not look at such issues instead of signing off on whatever the destructionist wishes to do? CONCLUSION. This IS -ND is a very disappointing document. The first version was clearly inadequate and non -competent. After public pressure, the Michael Codron agreed to redo it and correct its deficiencies. Instead, it appears the emphasis was merely on making the record deeper and thicker rather than undertaking an honest reappraisal to correct previous faults. Old faults remain. New ones are added. This document is unfit to be considered adequate CEQA work for the City of San Luis Obispo. It needs to be redone again, and this time done right — a year-long bird study, for example, and competent tree analysis rather than mere rationalization for a massive clearcut.