HomeMy WebLinkAboutARC 1-30-17 post-meeting Correspondence (Vujovich-La Barre) Meeting: KP -c/ 1_. 3 0 . 0 -
From:
Christian, Kevin
Sent:
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:13 AM
To:
Cc:
Gallagher, Carrie
Subject:
FW: 71 Palomar
Erica: Send to Council—All, log and archive.
Katelin: ARC — post
Item;
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OSISPO
JAN 3 1 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre [
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 3:41 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Cc: Lichtig, Katie <klichtig@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Gomez,
Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.org>
Subject: 71 Palomar
To: Architectural Review Commission (ARC) - City of San Luis Obispo
Cc: San Luis Obispo City Council Members; Katie Lichtig - City Manager
Re: 71 Palomar
Date: January 30, 2017
Dear Chairman Wynn and ARC Commissioners,
At the beginning of tonight's meeting, and before you begin deliberations on
71 Palomar, I am hoping that you call for a motion and a vote on postponing any review of this project until
the Tree Committee has the opportunity to deliberate on a correctly prepared tree inventory and a new
arborist's report.
Based on information from Community Development Director Michael Codron it is within your purview to do
this. You have undoubtedly had the opportunity to review the plea and insights of Tree Committee Chair,
Dr. Matt Ritter, who pointed out how many discrepancies there are in the tree report by Rincon. In his letter,
Ritter states, "This is a poor, misleading, inaccurate, and not well -researched report. The report is so full of
errant data that, in my opinion, none of the conclusions are valid. There are too many errors in the report
for me to spend the time delineating all of them..." He goes on to say, "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 to proceed with
an informed decision ...."
The path for the development at 71 Palomar has been tumultuous. Why? It is not a good fit for the
neighborhood. It is a horrible development plan that requires the destruction of a significant majority of the
mature, healthy trees. These trees are home to many species of birds and animals. The planned
development will destroy the integrity of the Sandford House that is on the historical master list. The traffic
from proposed, dormitory -style development will obstruct the pedestrian, bike and car flow in this
established neighborhood. It has insufficient parking for over 140 residents.
Thank you for your consideration, commitment to our City, and your volunteer service.
Respectfully,
Mila Vujovich-La Barre
650 Skyline Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405