Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-16 CHC Correspondence - Item 1 (Vujovich-LaBarre)Lomeli, Monique Subject: 71 Palomar - CHC From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:49 AM To: Advisory Bodies; Price, Lee; Maier, John Paul Subject: 71 Palomar - CHC To: Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) Members From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre Date: June 27, 2016 Re: 71 Palomar RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JUN 2 7 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Meeting: , t 010 -a-�q Lf Item: I Dear Cultural Heritage Committee Members, Tonight the revised plans for 71 Palomar will be reviewed at your meeting. As an involved community member, I have read several of the communications that have been forwarded to you already by Allan Cooper, Richard Schmidt and many other concerned citizens. Suffice to say that I am in complete agreement with the research and assertions about the historical significance of the Sandford House. I am also convinced that the house should not be moved. In The Tribune article on this matter, published on June 18, 2016 and written by reporter Nick Wilson, there are some other details that I hope you are aware of. The developer Loren Riehl stated that "the home has a weak foundation" and "it's feasible and advisable to move the structure." That logic, to me, is contradictory. The current tenants invited me to the site recently to closely examine the current condition of the home. The huge foundation is on an immense sturdy slab. Taking the century- old home off that slab will undoubtedly cause the home to be severely damaged. The established property, with its magnificent views, tree canopy and wildlife, is part of the history of our town and it should be protected. Furthermore, the developer was instructed at the last CHC meeting to reduce the number of units on the property. He may have reduced the number of units but just increased the number of bedrooms in the proposed units. He also decreased the number of parking spaces by my analysis. A development of this magnitude should not be at this site. It is inconsistent with neighborhood character. This mastered listed historical home should be preserved in its entirety. While the developer may boast that he is helping with the housing crisis in our City, there are other sites that are better suited to multi -family dwelling. One site is the defunct McDonald's that has been empty for years on Foothill Boulevard. Since this proposed development appears to be student housing by design, another option would be to pursue a public/private partnership with Cal Poly and build on Cal Poly property. On another note, I am hoping that all of you are aware that the Tree Committee has not been able to weigh in about this historic property with its vintage trees and wildlife. This topic was supposed to be the agenda for the Tree Committee this evening but was pulled from the agenda by City staff. am hoping that everyone can recognize that the trees that are to be preserved will have a significant impact on where and what type of building can go on the site. It is not logical or linear to not have the input from the Tree Committee before your group decides on the preservation of the Sandford House. Please postpone any action on 71 Palomar until after July 25, 2016 when the trees at 71 Palomar are going to be considered by your peers, fellow dedicated citizens on the advisory committee. Then the CHC and the ARC should review the project. It is my understanding that there are tenants in the building at 71 Palomar through the end of next school year. It seems that rushing the plans for this development is unnecessary. The Delta Tau Housing Corporation is not in financial dire straits and the developer has a number of other projects pending from his home base in EI Segundo, California. The current avenue for development for this project is extremely flawed. It is not fair to the public, the developer or members of the advisory committees or City Council. Please let logic prevail and postpone any decision on this development until a decision on the trees can be reached. That way, the project can be considered in a logical, ethical and legal manner that will provide a clear and transparent path for decision-making. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 milavu(cb,hotmail.com