HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-16 CHC Correspondence - Item 1 (Hurd)Lomeli, Monique
Subject:
chc meeting
From: Dia Hurd [mailto:magoo2.8.Z@-yahoo.c®m]
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 2:20 PM
To: Maier, John Paul
Subject: chc meeting
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JUN 2 8 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Meeting;`
KOMI �
hi john paul, i do not know how to get emails to individual commissions... can you please forward this
to the members of the CHC for Monday's meeting. thanks, dia
To: CHC members, Regarding 71 Palomar Project
Having discussed, read about, and attended many meetings about the project at 71 Palomar, I have
developed strong feelings that this project halt to be redesigned or reimagined. It is clearly a
historical property in most respects, tho the contract arborist and Applied Earthworks have done
some incredibly rookie assessments of this project and the preservation potential of the many
aspects of it. Earthworks alone seems to not even recognize the STYLE of architecture the house
is. How can you as a committee approve of their conclusions. I direct you to the document
presented by Dr. Allan Cooper, Cal Poly professor of architecture, and I believe emeritus standing.
His assessment and his letter response to Earthworks "conclusions" is demanding that you reject
their findings. Ditto, the history of the property as they outlined it. Read his and others
observations of the incomplete, and basically incompetent "findings" by the arborist.
One simply cannot malign Dr. Cooper's work repudiating the "facts" of the contractors on this
project. Their findings are closely connected to the developer, and are not sympathetic to the history
of this property.
I am asking that your recommendation to the ARC be to deny this project as currently drawn up,
unless and until these considerations I have commented on be realized as valid, and therefore stand
in the way of this project being approved. Another fact that shows some shadyness about this
project is that it is finalized at the ARC, NOT the City Council. Nor, the Planning Commission. To
date, the projects I have followed in this City, have also been considered officially at either or,
usually, both of these, Council and Planning Commission. Why is this project radically different?
AND, this is the biggest point I make to you...Please disregard all of the comments that are
attributed to many of us that we only want a park, that we have personally asked to make an
assessment of the trees, etc. Comments that have been made by the staff on this project,
regarding our participation in the preservation of this land for preservation's sake, alone have been
seriously misstated, twisted, taken out of context, and outrightly incorrectly reported. Please follow
the facts, and rule to send this to the ARC with the recommendation for denial of approval until these
critical contradictory aspects of the insufficient assessments have been resolved.
Why is this on a rush approval? It boggles the mind, under the radar, at the speed of light.
Thank you, dia hurd
San luis Obispo