HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-2016 TC Correspondence - Public Comment (McLean) - 71 Palomar Rincon ISND evaluationRECEIVED
DEC 19 2016
From: cc me lean [
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 9:27 AM
To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen , slocity.org>
Cc: E-mail Council Website <ernailcouncil stocit .org>; Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: Fw: 71 Palomar Rincon IS/ND evaluation
Please forward to ARC, Mayor Harmon, City Council, Tree Committee, Planning Commission and post to all websites
relating to this project. Thank you.
Dear Rachel,
After reading the tree evaluation by Rincon Environmental Consultants I have serious concerns about
the removal of the 55 trees at 71 Palomar to facilitate the proposed apartment development project.
This is our neighborhood's Urban Forest and a Cultural Landscape and location of the Sandford
House (1890) which is on the city's Historic Master List. It is home to many avian species, a nesting
site and a habitat to many animals.
The Rincon report is a travesty and when residents asked for a thorough environmental report after
reviewing the extremely flawed reports by the developer's chosen firms, Olivera and A&T Arborists,
we were assured by our City Manager and Community Development Director that the environmental
firm chosen by the City of San Luis Obispo would produce an unbiased, accurate and quality report.
Many residents suggested that the city collaborate with an environmental group, such as the Sierra
Club, to select the consultants for this important environmental report; the request was ignored. The
one day visit by Rincon's Stephanie Lopez totally misrepresents the size and condition of the amazing
trees, avian species and nesting sites. The cultural landscape including animal habitat surrounding
the Sandford House has been totally ignored. The Rincon report is erroneous and incomplete.
A real study of the avian species and habitat would take time and serious effort as required in the
Migratory Bird Act due to the variety of birds and the many changes due to their migration patterns,
numbers and nesting habits; it would require a yearlong study throughout the nesting cycle to be
accurate and acceptable.
am sorry that our city does not forward all of the residents' many emails, letters. and public
comments presented at the meetings as part the ongoing packet that accompanies a project such as
this as it proceeds through the many city auspices, City Council, and advisory bodies. While our hard
work disappears into cyberspace, the CDD forwards prior biased reports from A&T Arborists and
Olivera Environmental hired by the developer. It appears that we are starting over at each step of the
development process as it moves from start to finish. The CDD needs to include all previous
correspondence and testimony from the residents; citizens are being shut out of the process at every
juncture. This is a serious breach of the open, inclusive and transparent governmental process which
our city government touts.
The newest report, by Rincon is unacceptable. Someone needs needs to advocate for the birds,
animals and 55 trees slated to be clear cut. This is once again a task which has fallen on the
residents. Why can't our CDD join us in living up to San Luis Obispo's designation as a "Tree City?"
How about seriously considering the effects of Climate Change when evaluating a project such as
this ?
Please help us to advocate for the preservation of the Cultural Landscape and Historic Sandford
House. A redesigned project which takes into consideration the wondrous qualities of 71 Palomar
should be undertaken by the architect and developer instead of the six box -like apartments which
disrespect the gorgeous site. This could be accomplished without killing the 55 trees or moving the
house and risking its survival. This is an opportunity for the city to require a quality project which is
worthy of and honors the amazing site.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McLean
Anholm, San Luis Obispo