HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1(McLean)To:
Subject:
cc me lean
RE: ARC 8/1/16... 71 palomar
From: cc me lean [mailto:ccroslo@att.net]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 7:02 AM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: Fw: ARC 8/1/16... 71 palomar
Meeting: ARC 08-01-2016
Item: 1
RECEIVED
JUL 2 9 2016
SLO CITY CLERK
Please post on Agenda Correspondence and distribute to ARC, Tree Committee and City Council. Thank you.
San Luis Obispo, California 93405
Dear ARC members,
The project before you on Monday, August 1, 2016 is coming to your commission prematurely; the
required CEQA initial study has not yet been done. Please remove the 71 Palomar project from
your agenda until the required environmental evaluation has been completed. This is a travesty that
circumvents the protection that CEQA offers.
Please drive, walk, or bike past this incredible site which serves as a buffer between student
housing, senior housing and family residences. It is a gorgeous site and sits high on a prominent
spot which needs to be preserved as a Cultural Landscape. The canopy of trees can be viewed from
all over the Broad/Foothill/Ferrini/Bishop's Peak area. The trees have not been cared for or
watered for years, yet they remain majestic.
Sadly the design and siting of the proposed project is unimaginative, it overbuilds and disrespects
this beautiful, treasured site.This project is a blatant example of "neighborhood incompatibility"
that the city would normally seek to avoid. A good plan would have left the 51 mature trees and
designed around them as an asset to the project. As it stands 48 or 49 of the 51 trees will be clear
cut. The city attorney removed 71 Palomar from the Tree Committee's agenda, after the Tree
Committee agendized it and their hands are now tied. The city arborist has not done a tree
study. Contrast this with the fact that I would have to appear before the tree committee and the city
arborist to remove one tree on my property and pay a fee. So far, there is only one tree report
sloppily prepared by the developer's own arborist which the City subsequently determined was
grossly lacking in specificity and accuracy. The Tree Committee is scheduled to review this project
after - not before - receiving your approval and this evaluation is only for tree removal. This is
shocking, especially knowing the role trees of this size play in offsetting global warming through
carbon sequestration. Add to this how mature trees consume far less water than those saplings that
would replace them and the massive amount of earthwork involved that will surely cause health
and floodwater drainage problems for the neighbors and we have negative environmental impacts
that cannot be mitigated. A project respecting the topography of the site would not have to be
terraced to this extent.
Moreover the lack of a wildlife study is absolutely unacceptable. Neither the City Biologist or
Natural Resources Director have weighed in . A large number of owls, red -shouldered and red-
tailed hawks and many other birds will lose their habitat. There has been no ornithological
study. In addition there has been no noise study undertaken. There has not been a traffic/circulation
study on the already over -crowded, narrow streets. A simple vehicle count has not even been
undertaken. There is a serious lack of parking on the surrounding streets, _yet this project provides
an inadequate number of off-street parking spaces.The streets in this neighborhood are already
impacted by a dangerous mix of vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Yet the proposed Broad St.
Bike Boulevard will be only one block away and its viability will be seriously compromised due to
the increased traffic generated by this project.
How did we get to this point in the process after the City received numerous complaints from
neighbors pointing out the many deficiencies they found in this initial study?
There are so many things wrong with this project I cannot fathom that it even arrived at the ARC
this early in the process. It was nearly denied as a result of two tie votes near the end of the last
CHC meeting when Michael Codron insisted, I think inappropriately, on their taking one more vote
- just to push it along. As this project moves forward with these many fundamental problems
remaining unaddressed or unsolved, it does not speak well for the "powers that be." Please be the
voice of reason and drop this project from consideration until the environmental studies have been
ordered and completed.
Lastly, if the developer and architect wanted a flat, treeless site, a site that is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, this is not the site. Again, please wait until the CEQA initial study has
been completed before you evaluate this project. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McLean
2