The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/17/2022 Item 4a, Cooper Wilbanks, Megan From:Allan Cooper <allancoope@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, October 14, 2022 12:04 PM To:Bell, Kyle; Cohen, Rachel; Advisory Bodies Subject:Letter to the Architectural Review Commission Attachments:410_14_22...lettertoarc.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Kyle & Rachel - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the Architectural Review Commission? This letter pertains to the Commission's October 17, 2022 review of Agenda #4a: 1422 Monterey Street. We would also like this letter to appear in the City's Correspondence File. Thanks! - Allan 1 Save Our Downtown ______________________________________________________________________________ Seeking to protect and promote the historical character, design, livability and economic success of downtown San Luis Obispo. To: San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission, Kyle Bell, Housing Coordinator, Rachel Cohen, Senior Planner, SLO City Council Re: October 17, 2022 Meeting: Agenda Item #4A: 1422 Monterey St. From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown, AIA Date: October 14, 2022 Dear Chair Ashley Mayou and Commissioners - Remarkably, your staff report does not include a summary of decisions at its October 10, 2022 meeting that were made by the SLO Tree Committee regarding this project. Nor does the report reference the 30+ letters and voicemails included in the Tree Committee’s Correspondence File protesting the clearcut of every tree located on this site. We encourage you to reference back to this ﬁle to sense the opposition that this community has to blanket tree removals. For your information, the Tree Committee voted to ask the developers to try to save one or two trees that don't seem to be directly in the path of grading, to require "replacement" of all the others and to have 25 percent of the replacements be 10 feet tall. The Tree Committee’s purview is limited by the fact that none their members are qualiﬁed to recommend alternative design solutions (after all, none of them are architects) - solutions that would minimize the number of trees removed from the site. Ideally, before the Tree Committee was allowed to review this project, it should have been ﬁrst routed and reviewed through the ARC. But as architects, we can assure you that there exist viable alternatives to the layout of these buildings that would result in the preservation of at least a dozen or more on-site trees. By way of example we are including below an alternative site plan showing all 106 affordable units along with the commercial space being preserved. Besides saving the following trees: 11 inch diameter black acacia 10 inch diameter coast live o 42 inch diameter coastal redwood 32 inch diameter coastal redwood 49.5 inch diameter coast redwood 5.5 inch diameter coast redwood 14 inch diameter coast redwood 13 inch diameter coast redwood 17 inch diameter coast redwood 14 inch diameter victorian box 9.5 inch diameter evergreen pear 8 inch diameter evergreen pear this plan addresses the excessive scale of this project by placing most of the 5 story structures toward the back of the site while placing the 3 story parking garage at the front. Did you know that when the Karleskint Crum nursery closed, a requirement of development was that the old trees, especially the magniﬁcent redwoods, be maintained? Did you know that there are currently many precedents being established in other cities mandating that large trees be preserved particularly within the context of new housing developments? For example, in the City of Seattle, housing and environmental activists are calling on the City to commit to a ‘Trees and’ approach, rejecting the perceived conﬂict between housing affordability and a healthy urban tree canopy. Trees For Life Oregon showcases the creativity and thought processes of developers, architects, and occasionally City engineers who are taking the time to design buildings and streets with trees in mind. Their work, which preserves or creates space for trees, illustrates that new development or new streets are not incompatible with large trees. Bristol, England’s planning policy BCS9 (p.74 of the Bristol Development Strategy Core Framework) states that “Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development”. Thus, existing trees, especially where they are on the edge of the site, should be incorporated into development proposals. The advantages in retaining trees will be a much easier ride through the planning process and local support rather than strong opposition. In addition, the subsequent development will be much higher quality and would instantly beneﬁt from any mature trees that are on the site. In conclusion, this is a “home-grown” project, being initiated by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo. It is therefore incumbent on both the Housing Authority and the City to set a shining example of how both scale and tree preservation can be feasibly integrated into affordable housing. Thank you! Compose Labels More Inbox 13 Snoozed Sent Dra!s All Mail Spam 705 Trash Categories Social Promotions Accounts AIA Alan Galumbeck Alice & Larry Loh Allan Cooper Andrea Berlowitz & Keir … Andy Kakelaars Angela Brantley Bailey Drechsler Benson Tower 15 scan Inbox × 4:16 PM (3 hours ago) to me R. Cooper Reply Scan2022-09-19_… Reply Forward Back Archive Spam Delete Mark as unread Snooze Add to tasks Move to Labels More 4 of 147 Search in mail Page 1 /1 Scan2022-09-19_161558.pdf Open with CloudConve!Open with CloudConve! ______________________________________ References: “How To Preserve Both Affordable Housing and Urban Trees” Housing and environmental activists are calling on the city to commit to a ‘Trees and’ approach, rejecting the perceived conﬂict between housing affordability and a healthy urban tree canopy. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2022/04/116968-how-preserve-both-affordable-housing- and-urban-trees “Where Affordable Housing Meets, and Keeps, Large Trees” A Designing for Trees Feature By Kyna Rubin Trees For Life Oregon showcases the creativity and thought processes of developers, architects, and occasionally City engineers who are taking the time to design buildings and streets with trees in mind. Their work, which preserves or creates space for trees, illustrates that new development or new streets are not incompatible with large trees. https://www.treesforlifeoregon.org/affordable-housing-meets-large-trees “New Developments Should Be Built Around Existing Trees” https://bristoltreeforum.org/btf-2020-newsletter/new-developments-should-be-built-around- existing-trees/ “Seattle’s town house residents deserve trees, too” https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattles-town-house-residents-deserve-trees-too/