HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-30-2017 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Worthy 2) Meeting:- 1 . �l
From:
Jane Worthy <
Sent:
Thursday, January 26, 2017 7:38 PM
To:
Bergman, Katelin
Cc:
Combs, Ron
Subject:
71 Palomar
Follow Up Flag:
Follow Up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Architectural Review Committee,
Regarding 71 Palomar:
Item: I
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JAN 2 7 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
At the time of the Stanford House's historic designation, did the City consider the building alone or the entire site historic? If the
entire site, then perhaps a smaller project is called for, leaving more room for existing trees.
I'd like to see the very tall Araucaria stay and the row of Ashes along the western border remain, at a minimum.
In the past the City has asked developers to adapt development plans in order to retain existing, and, frankly, "lesser" trees. The
ficus next to Banana Republic on Higuera comes to mind.
Due to Matt Ritter's and Scott Looseley's concerns about the veracity of Rincon's arborist report (City ordered, developer paid
for) I believe a new report should be procured.
Even though wildlife is not under our purview, the trees in which they live are. Has the City biologist weighed in?
I became aware of the 71 Palomar project because I am member of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee. The questions posed
and the opinions stated above are my own questions and opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Tree
Committee or its individual members.
Thank you for listening,
Jane Worthy