HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 - Item 16 Biodiversity4/4/17 ITEM # 16
B o d ers ty t,
3650 Gillis Canyon Road, Shandon, California 93463
April 4, 2017
By Hand and Electronic Delivery
Subject: 71 Palomar Appeal To The City Council
Agenda: 4/4/17 Item 4 16
Dear Mayor Harmon and City Council Members Gomez, Rivoire,
Christianson, and Pease:
We write on behalf of our Board of Directors and members to support and stand with
appellants Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza in their February 8, 2017 -filed appeal
of the January 30, 2017, Architectural Review Commission Approval of the proposed 71
Palomar Project (ARCH 2193-2015). We urge you to sustain their appeal and vacate the
ARC action.
Biodiversity Interest. Biodiversity has standing in its own name, under both the
beneficial interest and public interest standards. Because a number of Biodiversity's
members reside and recreate in the area of 71 Palomar or would otherwise be affected by
the project's environmental impacts, and that the interests the corporation seeks to protect
are related to its organizational purpose, and because the claims asserted and relief
requested are broad-based so that participation in any litigation is not required,
Biodiversity also has standing to participate in this administrative process and in any
related litigation on behalf of its members.
California Environmental Quality Act. We endorse and second the alleged CEQA
deficiencies set forth at numbered paragraphs 1,3,and 7 of the attachment to Ms.
Matthews' and Ms. Mourenza's appeal, which collectively reflect a wholesale breakdown
in the City's CEQA compliance. There is no meaningful analysis of the canopy as the key
habitat, no identification of loss of ecosystem services — what some call natural capital -
(rodent and insect predator control) to the community, no discussion of impacts on
biodiversity and natural pollinators, no response to the environmental justice query of the
CEQA Guidelines, almost no analysis of cumulative impacts, a transparently deeply -
flawed arborist report coupled with the arbitrary and capricious override of the Tree
Committee's recommendation and findings (which appellants allege at paragraph 2 of
their appeal attachment), and not a nod to any public trust obligation of the City as state
1
4/4/17 ITEM # 16
delegate for the wildlife, particularly the large and diverse avian and raptor community,
the project would disperse and destroy. What is striking about the record is that
comments have documented the magnitude and diversity of the canopy wildlife, from red
tail hawks, great horned owls, kites, owls hawks, finches, orioles, Bullocks orioles,
hummingbirds, woodpeckers, bluebirds, towees, nest -building hawks, and many more too
numerous to itemize here which populate the SLO Urban Forest. You'd never know that
from the initial study.
Cultural, Historic, Aesthetic, and General Plan Inconsistency. We support and
endorse the appellants' grounds for appeal at paragraphs 2,4, and 5 of the attachment to
their appeal.
Cumulative Effects on the Neighborhood's Parking, Automobile Population,
Utilities, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists. We support and endorse appellants' grounds for
appeal at paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 of their attachment to their appeal.
City's Obligation Must be Based on "the Whole Record" and Not Cherry Picked.
The standard of review under CEQA is whether the City's decision is supported by
substantial evidence in light of the irhole record. The City and its ARC utterly failed to
consider the whole record, thereby constituting a prejudicial abuse of its discretion.
"Tragic Mess." One eloquent letter writer blamed the unseemly hurry to justify and
greenwash the 71 Palomar Project development for creating "a tragic mess". We agree.
Sincerely,
BIODIVERSITY FIRST!
Linda M. Seeley, Secre ry
Greg McMillan, Chair
Patrick McGibney, Chief
Environmental Officer
Eiizabeth Johnson, Treasurer
cc: Michael R. Jencks, Esq.
2