Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-30-2017 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Cooper 1) Jeetha: From: Allan Cooper < 1 Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 4:36 PM Item: To: Cohen, Rachel; Advisory Bodies RECEIVED Subject: Re: 71 Palomar CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachments: 301 _27_ 17...71 palomar.pdf JAN 3 0 2017 Dear Rachel — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT In my rush to get this letter out, I mistakenly referred to the Norfolk Island Pines as "Canary Island Pines". I've made the correction in the below attached letter. Would you indulge me and submit this corrected letter to the ARC instead? Thanks! - Allan On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Allan Cooper < wrote: Dear Rachel - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the Architectural Review Commission before their January 30, 2017 meeting? Thanks! - Allan To: SLO Architectural Review Commission Re: 71 Palomar From: Allan Cooper Date: January 27, 2017 Honorable Chair and Commissioners - Firstly, I am urging you to keep the historical Sandford House in its present location. There are four compelling reasons behind this: 1. Relocation of an historical property is always considered "a last resort" solution for preserving the property. 2. The proposed relocation irretrievably compromises the "cultural landscape". It does this by destroying the symmetry that was originally achieved through the placement of the two Norfolk Island Pines and the two Eugenias at each side of the entry walk. 3. Moving the historic house to its new location will result in the removal of a 90-95 foot tall Norfolk Island Pine ... one of the tallest in the United States (see Matt Ritter's letter). 4. Moving this structure is unwarranted. This historic house can remain where it is without affecting the developer's site plan, without reducing the number of units and without adding any extra expense to the project. Secondly, based on a letter dated December 13, 2016 submitted to you from Dr. Matt Ritter, Chairman of the Tree Committee: 1. The tallest national champion Norfolk Island Pine (A. heterophylla) in Camarillo, CA is 108 ft. tall. Dr. Ritter believes that the same species of tree slated for removal at 71 Palomar is nearly as tall at 95 feet. 2. A new and accurate report needs to be done for the site. Rincon should not be involved. The ARC should postpone any review of this project until the Tree Committee has the opportunity to review a correctly prepared tree inventory and arborist's report. The current information that the city has is not accurate or complete enough for us (the Tree Committee) to proceed with an informed decision on the value of the biological resources on the project site. Thirdly, based on the Tree Committee minutes for the December 12, 2016 meeting: 1. Committee member Loosley stated - with concurrence from Committee members Bate and Parker - that in terms of the historical landscape, the trees are very significant. In particular, the planting location of the Norfolk Island Pines and the Canary Island Date is very traditional and is seen with old historic homes. Committee member Loosley also commented that he did not agree that trees should be removed to move the house, but a project should be designed around the existing large trees. Committee Member Loosely also opined that the project would have a significant impact on aesthetics, and bird and bat habitat and that that stating that the project would have a less than significant impact is a misrepresentation. 2. All Committee members expressed a need for more time to review the information provided in the initial study, specifically relating to the errors in citing species and height of trees. 3. All Committee members suggested a review of the site's historical and cultural landscape versus a review of individual trees and a more in-depth biological report. In conclusion, these trees are remarkable for their size both in height and girth; these trees are most likely 100 years old; their age could and should be verified by coring into the bole and counting the rings, several of these trees are unusual specimens and because of their size are seldom seen in home landscapes and these long-lived trees have historical interest because they most likely were planted by the original owner who later happened to be an "orchardist" in Santa Clara, CA. Per the Tree Committee's recommendation, a new and accurate tree and biological report needs to be done for the site. Rincon should not be involved. The ARC should postpone any review of this project until the Tree Committee has the opportunity to review a correctly prepared tree inventory and arborist's report. However, if you choose to move forward on this project, please do not move the historical Sandford House as this is unnecessary and please recommend that the many significant trees on site slated for removal be preserved in situ. Thank you!