HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Council Reading file - 71 Palomar - Attachment l_Response to Comments and Letters71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
COMMENTS and RESPONSES
INTRODUCTION
Public review of the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) and
supporting Aesthetics Evaluation and Arborist Report for the Multi-Family Residential
Development at 71 Palomar Avenue Project (71 Palomar Project) began on November 15, 2016
and ended on December 19, 2016. The City of San Luis Obispo received 13 comment letters on the
Draft IS-MND. Letters submitted to the City’s Tree Committee and comments received during
the Tree Committee meeting of December 12, 2016 that pertain to project environmental issues
are included as comments on the Draft IS-MND (see “comment letter” 14). The comment letters,
December 12, 2016 Tree Committee meeting minutes, and City’s responses to each comment
received on the Draft IS-MND follow. Each comment letter, and the meeting minutes, have been
numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has
been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the
comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (1.2, for example, indicates that the
response is for the second issue raised in comment letter number one).
Comment letters were received from the following entities:
1.Matt Ritter, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Biology Department, California Polytechnic State
University
2.Loren A. Riehl, LR Development Group, LLC
3.Allan Cooper, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
4.Jackie Loper, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
5.Cheryl McLean, Private Citizen, Anholm, San Luis Obispo
6.Cheryl McLean, Private Citizen, Anholm, San Luis Obispo
7.Richard Schmidt, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
8.Richard Schmidt, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
9.Jody Vollmer, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
10.Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
11.Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
12.James Lopes, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
13.Lydia Mourenza, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 1: Matt Ritter, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Biology Department, California Polytechnic
State University, December 13, 2016
Response 1.1
The commenter states that the height of the Norfolk Island pine (Araucaria heterophylla) is incorrect,
as well as several other trees in Table 2 of the Rincon Arborist Report. The commenter states that
there are between 20-30 mature individual A. heterophylla in San Luis Obispo, and that the individual
at 71 Palomar is the 2nd tallest in San Luis Obispo. Page 2 of the Arborist Report indicates that the
information gathered in the report includes a “visual estimation of tree height and canopy spread.”
As described, the heights included in the report are not intended to be exact measurements, but
instead, visual estimates. However, to ensure that the tree heights listed in the report accurately
reflect the on-site conditions, Rincon verified the tree heights using a Trimble device with a
Rangefinder on January 6, 2017. The Norfolk Island pine was measured at 90 feet. This has been
corrected in the Arborist Report. All other tree heights were found to be within 5 feet of the heights
recorded in Table 2 of the Arborist Report. Data collection and reporting for the 71 Palomar project
was conducted for only those trees on site. The Arborist Report describes Norfolk island pines as
ranging to a height of up to 160 feet. The commenter states that the tallest national champion A.
heterophylla in Camarillo, CA is 108 ft. tall According to the book Trees of Santa Barbara by Robert N.
Muller and J. Robert Haller (page 24), Norfolk Island pines can have a growth habit to 160 feet tall.
Response 1.2
The commenter questions the accuracy of the Arborist Report identification of ten of the trees on site.
The commenter specifically states that Tree #46 is incorrectly identified as Eucalyptus cerbra. The
commenter also states that Tree #33 is incorrectly identified as “Painted Eucalyptus” (Eucalyptus
deglupta). The identification of five tree species in the Arborist Report has been corrected: two Canary
Island pines (Pinus canariensis) were incorrectly noted as Canary Island palms (Phoenix canariensis),
one Atlas cedar (Cedrus atlantica) has been revised to deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), the ironbark
(Eucalyptus crebra) has been revised to narrow-leaved peppermint (Eucalyptus nicholii), and the
painted eucalyptus has been revised to blue gum (Eucalyptus saligna). The revised species
designations do not otherwise change the conclusions of the report. All other tree species were
reviewed and confirmed on January 6, 2017 by Rincon Consultants.
Response 1.3
The commenter stated that there are spelling errors, inaccurate common names, and poor botanical
writing throughout the report. The report was re-reviewed by Rincon and typo corrections have
been made. Without reference to specific instances in the report, no further response is possible.
Response 1.4
The commenter states that the Arborist Report does not include a map, making it difficult to review
the report. The commenter also questions why the Arborist Report includes the same tree
misidentifications as the June 2016 tree report. A map has been included with the revised Arborist
Report. Two separate tree inventories were conducted by Rincon Consultants and A&T; however,
the Canary Island pines were correctly noted in the A&T report.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Response 1.5
The commenter states that the notes column of the Arborist Report contains cryptic and inaccurate
statements about the health of the trees. The notes are typical of what is recorded for tree reports and
tree inventories that are submitted to municipalities throughout California. For clarity, the notes in
Table 2 of the report have been revised as follows:
The term “suppressed” used to describe Tree #17 has been revised to read “Canopy in
competition with other canopies.”
The statement regarding Tree #14 that states “Dead branches in canopy, canopy competition
with other canopies” has been revised to describe fronds rather than branches.
The statement that Tree #2’s canopy is in competition with other canopies was revised to
state that the lower branches of the canopy are in completion with other canopies.
Response 1.6
The commenter states that the Arborist Report includes additional “random, inaccurate, and
misleading statements about our city ordinance, the findings of the CHC, and archaeological
resource inventory report.” Statements regarding the City’s ordinance, CHC and the archaeological
report have been removed from the report. The purpose of the Arborist Report is to identify the on-
site trees and their health. Interpretation of the City’s tree ordinance will be conducted by the City’s
review bodies.
Response 1.7
The commenter states that they disagree with the conclusions of the Arborist Report, which state
that “the proposed tree removals are compliant with the tree ordinance.” Statements regarding the
City’s ordinance have been removed from the report.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 2: Loren A. Riehl, LR Development Group, LLC, December 13, 2016
Response 2.1
The commenter describes the concern expressed in Letter 1 regarding the height of the Norfolk
Island pine on the project site, and provides an explanation for why this piece of information
shouldn’t be used to devalue the Arborist Report. The commenter also states that there are no
specific City criteria pertaining to height and tree removal, and notes that there is a nearby Norfolk
Island Pine that will be preserved as part of the project and designated for heritage tree status. Refer
to Response 1.1 for a response to comments regarding the height of the Norfolk Island pine.
Response 2.2
The commenter reiterated that the Arborist Report was accurate because it indicates that “the City’s
tree ordinance does not require mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, nor does it
recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings.” Section 12.24.090(I) states that approval
conditions “may” require planting of replacement trees. While the City’s tree ordinance allows for
mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, the ordinance does not establish a regulatory
requirement for mitigation plantings, nor does it recommend a planting ratio for replacement
plantings. The Arborist Report has been revised to reflect this information.
Response 2.3
The commenter states that at least one Tree Committee Member indicated that he did not believe
there were any unique trees on site proposed for removal, and that the Arborist Report was generally
accurate regarding the condition of the trees on-site. This comment will be forwarded to City
decision-makers for their consideration.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 3: Allan Cooper, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 3.1
The commenter states that the environmental checklist does not properly identify mature non-native
vegetation located on the project site or acknowledge the health, rarity, or maturity of this vegetation.
The Arborist Report provides an assessment of the on-site trees’ condition, including health,
evidence of disease, insect pests, structure, damage and vigor. As described in the Arborist Report,
no rare trees were observed on site. The IS-MND was updated to reflect the tree information relevant
to the site provided in the Arborist Report. In addition, the IS-MND identifies resources that have
potential to occur on the project site, describes project impacts on those resources, and prescribes
adequate mitigation to reduce project impacts to a less than significant level.
Response 3.2
The commenter states that the Arborist Report makes the observation that the majority of the trees
are in fair to poor condition. The commenter states that the largest rarest trees are slated for removal,
and that among these trees, eight are in good condition, five are in fair condition, and one is in poor
condition. The largest trees on site (based on diameter at breast height [DBH]) are blue gum
eucalyptus, which are not considered rare. As described in the Arborist Report, no rare trees were
observed on site.
The commenter states that the health of the trees that are stressed due to lack of water could be
improved with an irrigation system. This statement may be true for those trees that are water
stressed, but does not change the conclusions of the Arborist Report or IS/MND.
Response 3.3
The commenter quotes the conclusions of the Arborist Report and states that participation in the
City’s Heritage Tree Program is not voluntary. The commenter states that there are at least 14 trees
associated with the historic Sandford House that are unusual in size. Finally, the commenter states
that the Arborist Report’s conclusion that the historical landscape has been materially altered is
incorrect.
There are currently no designated heritage trees on the site. The Heritage Tree Program only allows
for designation with a property owner’s consent. While the Heritage Tree Program information
states that cooperation may be required, there is nothing in the Tree Ordinance that gives that
statement regulatory power. A proposal for heritage tree designation was not submitted to the City
by the applicant or property owner at the time of the survey.
Response 3.4.
The commenter states that the City Arborist cannot unilaterally determine heritage trees. None of
the trees on the project site are currently designated as heritage trees. The City Arborist has
recommended removal of the trees per the IS-MND and determined that the 2:1 replacement
planting ratio would be sufficient.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Response 3.5
The commenter states that the “required cooperation” clause of the City’s Tree Ordinance is
applicable to this project because it is new development. A proposal for heritage tree designation
was not submitted to the City by the applicant at the time of the survey. See Response 3.3.
Response 3.6
The commenter states that the City Arborist is incorrect in stating that there are two trees that qualify
as heritage trees. The commenter also provides information regarding the cultural importance of
trees, tree species that may be historically important, and lists trees that are recommended for
removal as part of the project as part of two footnotes within this comment.
There are currently no designated heritage trees on the site. The Heritage Tree Program only allows
for designation with a property owner’s consent. While the Heritage Tree Program information
states that cooperation may be required, there is nothing in the Tree Ordinance that gives that
statement regulatory power. The Arborist Report did not evaluate the trees on the project site for
heritage status. A proposal for heritage tree designation was not submitted to the City by the
applicant or property owner at the time of the survey. The City Arborist has recommended removal
of the trees per the IS-MND and determined that the 2:1 replacement planting would be sufficient.
See Response 3.3.
Response 3.7
The commenter states that the Tree Committee has the responsibility to inform the ARC and the
CHC regarding the condition, permanence, visual accessibility, arboricultural interest, and historic
interest of the trees on the project site. The commenter also states that the City may determine that
the trees qualify as heritage trees in spite of the property owner’s refusal. See Response 3.3.
Response 3.8
The commenter states that Rincon’s peer review of biological resources is speculative on the basis
that only one site visit was conducted. Conducting protocol-level surveys or exhaustive studies,
during preparation of the IS-MND is not a requirement to analyze impacts to biological resources
under CEQA. The one-day visit by Rincon served as a reconnaissance level survey to ascertain
conditions on-site, including an evaluation and characterization of the habitats found on site to
identify sensitive resources and to inform the potential for sensitive resources to occur. The potential
for impacts to special-status species, including nesting birds, was determined based on the potential
for occurrence derived from information gathered during the reconnaissance survey, queries of
standard databases and references regarding sensitive resources, as well as the activities of the
project. The IS-MND adequately identifies those resources that have potential to occur, describes the
potential impacts of the project, and prescribes mitigation for all identified impacts.
Response 3.9
The commenter states that the mature eucalyptus grove may be visited by the Swainson’s hawk and
the yellow warbler. The commenter indicates that the two species are listed as threatened by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Although the commenter is correct that the Swainson’s
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
hawk is listed as threatened under the California endangered species act, the yellow warbler is not
listed under the California Endangered Species Act. The yellow warbler is a Species of Special
Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Although Swainson’s hawk migrants
may pass through the San Luis Obispo area, the project site is outside of the breeding range for the
species. Therefore, no impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks are expected.
The commenter also states that a number of bird species have potential to occur on-site and that
there is potential habitat for bat roosting. The IS-MND (Section 4) identifies that avian species and
roosting bats have potential to occur and that there could be direct and indirect impacts to avian
nesting and bat roosting. The IS-MND prescribes adequate mitigation to reduce identified impacts
to a less than significant level.
Response 3.10
The commenter states that mature trees reduce pollution, sequester carbon, and provide habitat to
not only birds but also to insects and small mammals and reptiles. The commenter also states that
the trees provide nesting habitat for raptors. Common species are not required to be analyzed under
CEQA. The IS-MND identifies those sensitive resources required to be analyzed under CEQA with
potential to occur, and discloses the potential impacts on those resources. The IS-MND identifies that
raptors have potential to nest on the project site and could be impacted if active nests occur during
construction. Mitigation Measure Bio-1 addresses impacts to nesting birds and raptors through a
survey for and avoidance of active nests.
Response 3.11
The commenter expresses disagreement that the eucalyptus and olive trees are “unsightly” and that
their limbs have a poor connection to their trunks. Refer to Response 3.2 for a discussion of the
condition of the on-site trees. Also, refer to Response 7.7 for a discussion of the views of the project
site, including the views of on-site trees.
Response 3.12
The commenter lists a number of species that could occur on-site, most of which are common species
(refer to Response 3.10 regarding common species). The commenter includes rough-skinned newt
in their list of species that can use the site; however, the rough-skinned newt does not occur within
San Luis Obispo County (the southernmost extent is northern Monterey County). The commenter
indicates that the California newt could occur on the project site; however, no suitable upland habitat
occurs within the project site as they require moist areas to seek upland refuge. In addition, the
project site is surrounded by roads and/or residential development and therefore it is not expected
that California newts could reach the project site as they move from aquatic breeding habitat to
upland areas. The commenter also notes that monarch butterflies use eucalyptus trees to overwinter.
The eucalyptus trees on-site are not known to and have not been recorded as an overwintering site
for monarch butterflies.
The commenter lists a number of bird species. Refer to Response 3.9.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Response 3.13
The commenter provides a proposal for heritage tree designation for on-site trees, including
supplementary information regarding the on-site trees. Refer to Responses 3.1 through 3.6.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 4: Jackie Loper, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 4.1
The commenter expresses their dismay regarding the removal of trees from the project site. The
commenter also notes their fondness of the existing uniqueness and natural appearance of the site.
The effects of the project on the on-site trees and aesthetic character of the site are described in the
IS-MND. The commenter suggests that the site be dedicated as a neighborhood park. The
commenter’s concerns and suggestion to alternatively develop the site as a park will be forwarded
to City decision makers for their consideration.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 5: Cheryl McLean, Private Citizen, Anholm, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 5.1
The commenter states that they have serious concerns about the proposed removal of the 55 trees at
project site. The commenter also states that the project site is the neighborhood’s urban forest and a
cultural landscape and location of the Sandford House. The commenter states that the project site is
home to avian species, a nesting site, and a habitat to many animals. The IS-MND (Section 4) as well
as the biological peer review discusses the special status animal species or resources protected under
California Fish and Game Code which have potential to utilize the site. The proposed tree removal
is discussed under Section 4(e-f) of the IS-MND as well as the arborist report prepared by Rincon
Consultants (2016). The commenter’s concerns regarding the proposed tree removal will be
forwarded to City decision makers for their consideration.
Response 5.2
The commenter states that not all of the residents’ emails, letters, and public comments presented at
the meetings as part the ongoing packet that accompanies the project have been forwarded to City
decision-makers. The commenter goes on to state that the Arborist Report is “flawed and
inaccurate.” Tree size data (diameter at breast height [DBH]) was collected using a tree caliper and
DBH tape. Tree height data was verified using a Trimble unit with a Rangefinder. Tree condition
ratings were described under Methodology in the Arborist Report. Additional comments about the
accuracy of the Arborist Report are addressed in Responses 1.1 and 1.2. These comments will be
forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 6: Cheryl McLean, Private Citizen, Anholm, San Luis Obispo, December 19, 2016
Response 6.1
This comment is identical to Comment 5.1. Refer to Response 5.1.
Response 6.2
The commenter states that the one-day visit by Rincon misrepresents the size and condition of the
trees, avian species and nesting sites. Refer to Responses 3.8 and 5.2.
Response 6.3
The commenter states that an acceptable study of the avian species and habitat would take more
time and effort as required in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) due to the variety of bird and
due to the many changes due to their migration patterns, numbers and nesting habits. The
commenter also states that such a study would be yearlong throughout the nesting cycle to be
accurate and acceptable. The MBTA does not require a focused study to analyze potential impacts
to nesting birds for the project. Conducting exhaustive studies, such as protocol-level surveys,
during preparation of the IS-MND is also not a requirement to analyze impacts to biological
resources under CEQA. Refer to Responses 3.8.
Response 6.4
The commenter states that not all of the residents’ emails, letters, and public comments presented at
the meetings as part the ongoing packet that accompanies the project have been forwarded to
interested parties. The commenter urges the Community Development Department to include all
previous correspondence and testimony from the residents in the project packet. These comments
will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration
Response 6.5
The commenter states that the report prepared by Rincon is unacceptable and that the birds, animals
and 55 trees to be removed need to be advocated for. The report prepared by Rincon and the IS-
MND adequately address the biological resources required to be analyzed under CEQA based on
the potential for occurrence. Mitigation is required for all identified impacts, including impact on
trees, nesting birds, and bats.
Response 6.6
The commenter states that the Cultural Landscape of the Historic Sandford House should be
preserved. The historic analysis has been reviewed by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee for
consistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines, and the measures for
historic preservation have been prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. While landscapes can be considered historic resources, the
entirety of the project site was reviewed for historic significance and the qualifying historic aspects
of the property have been identified as specific aspects of the existing Sanford House architecture
and not the cultural landscape. The commenter’s statements will be provided to City decision‐
makers for their consideration.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 7: Richard Schmidt, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 7.1
The commenter states that the review process of the project has been confusing. The commenter also
states that the site should be considered for heritage trees, the project footprints should be redesigned
to accommodate the existing trees, that the tree planting plan should provide better species, and that
replacement trees should not be planted on adjacent property. These comments will be forwarded
to City decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 7.2
The commenter states that the original IS-MND for the project was a substandard document. The
commenter states that the IS-MND addendum is also substandard. These comments will be
forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 7.3
The commenter states that the condition evaluations in the Rincon report are subjective, and provide
no substantive basis for deciding the fate of the individual trees. The Methodology section of the
Arborist Report describes the criteria used for evaluating the trees’ conditions and is typical for the
arboriculture industry. The health assessment of tree characteristics, including evidence of disease,
insect pests, structure, damage and vigor, were incorporated into the overall health rating based on
archetype trees of the same species. The report was prepared by a Certified Arborist. The Arborist
Report was prepared to provide an inventory of the trees on-site including location, species, and
health information. The tree removals are proposed by the project applicant. The Arborist Report
provides the information regarding which trees would be removed based on the proposed project.
Response 7.4
The commenter states that there are misidentifications of trees, that there is no mention of Araucaria
in the Arborist Report, and that the report speaks of Canary Island pine instead of Canary Island
palm. Refer to Responses 1.1 and 1.2. The Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island pine) is addressed in
Table 2 of the Arborist Report and again in the Conclusion section of the Arborist Report.
Response 7.5
The commenter states that the Arborist Report re-endorses the contention that only four trees on the
project site are worth saving. The commenter states that the Araucaria issue is an example of low-
quality work represented in the report. As described in Response 7.3, the tree removals are proposed
by the project applicant. As described in Response 7.4, the report addresses the Araucaria heterophylla
(Norfolk Island pine) in Table 2 and again in the Conclusion section. As noted in Response 3.2, the
health of the trees that are stressed due to lack of water could be improved with an irrigation system;
however, this statement does not change the conclusions of the Arborist Report or IS-MND.
Response 7.6
The commenter states that the report did not mention that on-site eucalyptus could be “saved” with
safety pruning. As described in Response 7.3, the tree removals are proposed by the project
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
applicant. The Arborist Report evaluates the project as proposed and is not intended to assess
whether or not on-site trees can be “saved”.
Response 7.7
The commenter states that the Initial Study did not address impacts to views of the site from
various viewpoints in the neighborhood and around the north quadrant of town. The commenter
states that the Aesthetics Evaluation (Attachment 6 to the Initial Study) dismisses impacts on
public views, and that the photographs provided in the Aesthetics Evaluation provide support
for a conclusion of significant impacts to public views as a result of tree removal involved in the
project. The commenter also provides additional photographs of views toward the site from
Foothill Boulevard and from the intersection of Felton Way and Ferrini Road and states that the
trees on the project site are prominently visible from these viewpoints. The commenter goes on
to state that the loss of trees with the project would constitute a significant impact to public views
from these areas.
For the Initial Study and Aesthetics Evaluation, the project site was observed and
photographically documented in its surrounding context from various public viewpoints for
which the public expressed concern during the first public hearing on the revised project. Figure
1 in the Aesthetics Evaluation shows the location of the six major key viewpoints from which the
site was examined and photographed, with four viewpoints from locations in the neighborhood
surrounding the site and two viewpoints from locations more distant, but elevated above the site.
Based on this comment, the site was reexamined from the two locations (Foothill Boulevard and
the intersection of Felton Way and Ferrini Road) from which the commenter provided
photographs. The following photographs represent views toward the project site from the
locations for which the commenter provided their own photographs, from a typical public viewer
perspective. The first photograph documents views of the site from Foothill Boulevard, including
the large trees located north of the site. As shown in the second photograph, the site is not visible
from the intersection of Felton Way and Ferrini Road due to these intervening trees. The trees on
the project site are visible from Foothill Boulevard. However, due to the visual context in which
the trees on the site exist, which includes other mature trees and residential development, the loss
of the trees with the project would not constitute a significant adverse change from this
viewpoint. Furthermore, as shown in the photograph for Key Viewpoints No. 2, No. 3, and No. 6
in the Aesthetics Evaluation, the properties surrounding the site possess large trees, maintaining
much of the tree ‘skyline’ that the commenter references as a significant resource that would be
lost due to the project.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Response 7.8
The commenter suggests that the project site should be considered as within a City designated scenic
vista and references views of the site from Foothill Boulevard. The commenter provides a
photograph of views toward the project site and the on-site trees from the perspective of Foothill
Boulevard. Refer to Response 7.7.
Response 7.9
The commenter suggests that distant views of the project site were inadequately assessed. The
commenter specifically references views of the project site from the intersection of Felton Way and
Ferrini Road and provides a photograph of views toward the site from this intersection. The
commenter states that the project would remove the entire skyline of trees from this view. Refer to
Response 7.7.
Response 7.10
The commenter indicates that the analysis included in the IS-MND and supporting technical
documents regarding avian species is inadequate and lacks information. Refer to Response 3.8.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 8: Richard Schmidt to the City, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 17, 2016
Response 8.1
The commenter states that the original IS-MND for the project was a substandard document. The
commenter states that the IS-MND addendum is also substandard. Comments 8.2 through 8.12
provide greater specificity to the commenters concern with the original IS-MND and IS-MND
addendum for the project. These comments and associated responses will be forwarded to City
decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 8.2
The commenter indicates that the analysis included in the IS-MND and supporting technical
documents regarding avian species is inadequate and lacking information. Refer to Response 6.3 for
a discussion of the project’s potential impacts on avian species.
Response 8.3
This comment is identical to Comments 7.3 through 7.6. Refer to Responses 7.3 through 7.6.
Response 8.4
The commenter states that the Arborist Report’s statement that “No designated heritage trees exist
on the portion of the site to be developed” is a meaningless, misleading, and manipulative statement,
and that many of the trees on the site would qualify for heritage status. The Arborist Report provides
the data collected during the inventory. The Arborist Report did not evaluate the trees on site for
heritage status. A proposal for heritage tree designation was not submitted to the City by the
applicant at the time of the survey. Refer to Response 3.3.b for a discussion of the heritage status of
the trees onsite.
Response 8.5
The commenter states that there is no mention of Araucarias and that many of the trees on site could
be relocated. This comments will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 8.6
This comment is identical to Comment 7.7. Refer to Response 7.7.
Response 8.7
This comment is identical to Comment 7.8. Refer to Response 7.8.
Response 8.8
This comment is identical to Comment 7.9. Refer to Response 7.9.
Response 8.9 and 8.10
The commenter provides comments on the project greenhouse gas emission analysis,
including the following:
The MND states that major sources of GHG emissions are transportation related but
provides no documentation to support this;
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
The commenter provides a web site stating that half of US GHG emissions cove from
building construction and operation, and transportation provides about 16% of total US
GHG emissions;
The commenter states that the MND downplays the project contribution to GHG emissions
related to energy consumption;
The commenter provides mitigation suggestions to reduce GHG emissions;
The commenter stipulates that “net zero” energy consumption should be required for the
project;
The commenter states that the MND analysis under Title 24 is manipulative because it fails
to realize other potential energy reduction measures.
The project impacts with respect to air quality emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions, have been
analyzed in detail under the project MND. It is important to note that project contributions to
community‐wide GHG emissions have been analyzed in detail, including emission modeling and
emission forecasts, under the City’s recent LUCE Update EIR. Please refer to Response 12.4, below.
While it is conceivable that nationwide GHG emissions could be dominated by energy consumption,
rather than transportation sources, it is important to note that the MND (as well as the LUCE Update
EIR) specifies that the local GHG emissions associated with the City of San Luis Obispo are primarily
related to transportation. This fact has been studied in detail under the City’s Climate Action Plan
(CAP), as well as under the LUCE Update EIR. Please refer to these documents for a detailed analysis
of the City’s GHG emissions and measures to address emission reduction. Under these documents,
and the detailed analysis that they represent, the City has adopted a GHG emission reduction
strategy approved by the Air Pollution Control District, part of this strategy is to promote residential
infill development to reduce transportation related emissions.
The City’s CAP is designed as a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183.5(b). According to the CEQA Guidelines, project impacts related to GHG emissions
are considered less than significant if the project‐related growth is consistent with the approved CAP
and associated GHG Reduction Plan. The project would not result in growth beyond the SLOCOG
regional population forecast used to generate the GHG emission models for the City’s CAP.
Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not have the potential to result in
growth beyond the population growth forecast for the region, and the proposed residential project
can therefore be considered consistent with the City’s CAP.
Response 8.10
See Response 8.9 above.
Response 8.11
The commenter states that the IS-MND fails to address the demolition of portions of the existing
Sanford House and stipulates that the analysis indicating that some portions of the house are not
considered historically significant are incorrect or insufficient. Please refer to Response 12.5 below
for a discussion of the project site historic evaluation. As stipulated, the historic analysis has been
reviewed by the City Cultural Heritage Committee for consistency with the City’s Historic
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines, and the measures for historic preservation have been
prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. The criteria for determining historic significance has been outlined in detail under the
historic evaluation prepared for the project and under the project IS-MND, and impacts to significant
cultural resources have been analyzed and measures have been required to reduce historic impacts
to less than significant levels based on these very specific standards.
The commenter provides a discussion of their interpretation of the period of historic significance
associated with the Sanford House and states that the period of significance has not been addressed
sufficiently. Please refer to the response above. Historic significance criteria, including significance
with respect to the time period represented by a given structure, has been outlined in detailed by the
City under the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines and preservation
measures have been designed in conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards as codified
by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The historic analysis prepared for the proposed
project incorporates these standards and the results have been reported in detail in the project IS-
MND. The commenter’s disagreement with the findings of the analysis will be provided to City
decision‐makers prior to project hearings.
The commenter states that the project IS-MND fails to address the significance of the cultural
landscape of the project site, outside of the existing structure, as well as the significance of the general
layout and structure proportionality. Please refer to Response 12.5, and the responses in letters 11
and 12 with respect to the standards required for historic evaluation under local and State standards.
While landscapes can be considered historic resources, the entirety of the project site was reviewed
for historic significance and the qualifying historic aspects of the property have been identified as
specific aspects of the existing Sanford House architecture. The commenter’s statements will be
provided to City decision‐makers for their consideration.
Response 8.12
The commenter states that the original IS-MND for the project was a substandard document. The
commenter states that the IS-MND addendum is also substandard. Comments 8.2 through 8.12
provide greater specificity to the commenters concern with the original IS-MND and IS-MND
addendum for the project. These comments will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their
consideration.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 9: Jody Vollmer, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 9.1
The commenter requests that City decision-makers consider past individual requests to remove trees
that have been denied, and states that the trees on the project site do not present a danger, and have
not previously been requested for removal by the property owner. The commenter asks why
property owners would be expected to care for replacement trees that would be planted as a result
of the project. Although the City’s Tree Ordinance does not provide a regulatory requirement for
mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, it provides the Tree Committee, the Architectural
Review Commission, and the City Council the ability to require replacement trees and to require a
bond ensuring that the replacement trees shall be planted and maintained per the tree regulations.
The City Arborist has recommended removal of the trees per the IS-MND and determined that the
2:1 replacement planting would be sufficient mitigation for project impacts.
Response 9.2
The commenter states that the current trees are established, and require less water than newer
replacement trees would require. Depending upon the species of trees approved for planting, this
statement may be true; however, this does not change the conclusions of the Arborist Report or IS-
MND. Additional water use to establish replacement tree plantings would not result in a significant
environmental impact because sufficient water supply is available to meet this additional demand.
Response 9.3
The commenter states that some of the on-site trees may be considered heritage trees. Refer to
Responses 3.3 and 3.4 for a discussion of this issue. There are currently no designated heritage trees
on the site. The Arborist Report provides an assessment of the health of trees on the project site, but
is not intended to serve as an evaluation of the trees on the project site for heritage status. A proposal
for heritage tree designation was not submitted to the City by the applicant or property owner at the
time of the survey.
Response 9.4
The commenter requests that City decision-makers not allow 55 mature trees to be removed. This
comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 10: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 10.1
The commenter recommends that the Tree Commission study the trees on the project site in person.
The commenter goes on to state that the project has not taken the appropriate path through the “City
process,” and that the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission have
found the process to be “illogical.” Finally, the commenter recommends that the project be
disapproved. This comment does not include information that refutes the analysis in the Initial
Study; however, this comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 10.2
The commenter states that house will be damaged if it is moved. Please refer to the discussion under
Response 11.1, above. The existing structure has been evaluated for historic significance and detailed
requirements for moving the structure and for the preservation of significant aspects of the house
have been analyzed in detail. Part of the professional review of the structure includes an inspection
of the structural integrity of the house. The project developer and engineering team will be required
to implement preservation measures and will work with the City to ensure that required measures
to address historic aspects of the house are implemented.
Response 10.3
The commenter states that the house will be further damaged by the removal of the trees. The project
proposes to relocate the house to a new foundation. The removal of trees and tree roots would be
analyzed a part of the construction of the new foundation.
Response 10.4
The commenter states that wildlife at the site will be negatively impacted by the project. As part of
the comment the commenter lists 20 avian species/taxa. Refer to Response 6.3 for a discussion of this
issue.
Response 10.5
The commenter recommends that the Tree Commission delay approval of the project. Refer to
Response 10.1 for a discussion of this issue.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 11: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 19, 2016
Response 11.1
The commenter states that the project is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood character
with respect to traffic circulation. The proposed project consistency with the surrounding land uses
has been analyzed by the City with respect to the project site zoning and land use designation. The
project is consistent with the allowed use for the site under the existing zoning (R‐4, High Density
Residential). This use is consistent with the City’s recent community‐wide General Plan Land Use
Update as analyzed in the LUCE Update EIR. With respect to traffic impacts, the project was
reviewed by the City’s transportation engineer and project trip generation was determined to be less
than significant with completion of the proposed improvements to Luneta Street and with required
participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program.
Response 11.2
The commenter states that the project is an apartment complex and not affordable housing. The
project is a for rent apartment development that includes 33 residential units. 4 of the 33 units will
be restricted for very-low income residents consistent with the City’s Housing Element.
Response 11.3
The commenter states that the project is inconsistent with and would have a negative impact on the
character of the established neighborhood. Section 1(c) of the Initial Study and the supporting
Aesthetics Evaluation (Attachment 6 to the Initial Study) recognizes that the proposed development
and overall amount of trees removed with the project would result in a less natural appearance of
the site when compared to existing conditions. However, this change in the aesthetic character of the
site does not constitute significant degradation to the site’s character in the surrounding context since
the project would include residential development with the same density and height restrictions as
existing adjacent high-density development to the east, north, and west of the site. In addition, the
visually prominent Sandford House, which possesses high aesthetic quality, would be retained on
site. Furthermore, the project would require a final determination of project consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines by the City’s Architectural Review Commission, ensuring that the
project is designed in a manner that responds to the unique characteristics of the site, but also fits
into the wider context of San Luis Obispo.
Response 11.4
The commenter states agreement with the historical research prepared for the project, and states that
the existing Sanford House should not be moved. The comments regarding consensus with project
research and opinions on the Sanford House location have been noted and will be provided to City
decision‐makers for consideration prior to project hearings.
Response 11.5
The commenter quotes from the developer stating that the existing house foundation is “weak”, and
stipulates that moving the house from the existing foundation would cause damage to the historic
structure. Please refer to the discussion under Response 11.1, above. The existing structure has been
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
evaluated for historic significance and detailed requirements for moving the structure and for the
preservation of significant aspects of the house have been analyzed in detail. Part of the professional
review of the structure includes an inspection of the structural integrity of the house. The project
developer and engineering team will be required to implement preservation measures and will work
with the City to ensure that required measures to address historic aspects of the house are
implemented.
Response 11.6
The commenter states that the project site, including its views, tree canopy, and wildlife, is part of
the history of San Luis Obispo and should be protected. Refer to Response 7.7 for a discussion of
views of the project site. Refer to Response 6.3 for a discussion of wildlife issues. Refer to Responses
1.1 through 1.7 and 2.2 through 2.3 for a discussion of other comments received on the adequacy of
the Arborist Report.
Response 11.7
The commenter states that the project is inconsistent with neighborhood character. Refer to Response
11.3 for a discussion of the character of the project within the context of the surrounding
neighborhood.
The commenter also states that the existing Sanford House should be preserved in its entirety. Please
refer to the response above, and under Response 11.1, for a discussion of the project historic
significance and mitigation intended to ensure that significant historic aspects are preserved. The
statement has been noted and will be provided to City decision‐makers for consideration.
Response 11.8
The commenter states that there are better sites for multi-family dwelling such as the McDonald’s
site on Foothill Blvd. The commenter also states that another option for developing student housing
is on Cal Poly property. The project is consistent with the property zoning for high density
residential development. The statement has been noted and will be provided to City decision‐
makers for consideration.
Response 11.9
The commenter states that the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee recently found fault with the tree
report funded by the developer, and that there were errors in either identification, height,
significance, or health of existing trees. Comments about the accuracy of the Arborist Report are
addressed in Responses 1.1 and 1.2.
Response 11.10
The commenter provides a narrative of their experience interacting with the Tree Committee and
the impacts of making public comment on their personal property as a result of the illogical path of
review for the project. The statement has been noted and will be provided to City decision‐makers.
Response 11.11
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
The commenter states that the existing Sanford House will certainly be damaged if moved as
proposed. Please refer to the responses 11.1, 11.5, and 11.7 above. The commenter’s statement will
be provided to City decision‐makers prior to project hearings.
Response 11.12
The commenter requests that the project be considered in a logical, ethical and legal manner. Review
of the project has followed the development review process outlined in the Community Design
Guidelines and the City’s Municipal Code. The commenter’s statement will be provided to City
decision‐makers prior to project hearings.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 12: James Lopes, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 19, 2016
Response 12.1
The commenter states that the current review of avian resources is inadequate and that a qualified
ornithologist should prepare an independent study and analysis of the avian population in the trees
on-site. The commenter indicates that an assessment of the impacts of losing such trees on a prime
bird habitat be prepared. Refer to Response 6.3 for a discussion of potential impacts to avian
resources and nesting birds.
Response 12.2
The commenter requests an independent arboreal analysis of the significance of the trees on the site.
The Rincon Arborist Report (2016) provides an inventory of the trees on the project site and their
health. Refer to Responses 1.1 through 1.7 and 2.2 through 2.3 for a discussion of other comments
received on the adequately of the Arborist Report.
Response 12.3
The commenter states the tree removal included as part of the project would cause environmental
damage to the neighborhood and public views of the site. The commenter suggests that a landscape
architect be hired to provide expert opinion about the site and its trees within its setting in the
neighborhood. As discussed in Section 1(a) of the Initial Study, the analysis of impacts to public
views of the project site is based on the locally adopted standards for identified scenic vistas.
According to Figure 3 of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and Figure 11 of the General
Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, the site is not within a City designated scenic vista. In
addition, as shown in the figures included in the Aesthetics Evaluation (Attachment 6 to the Initial
Study), the project site blends in with the surrounding uses and vegetation and does not stand out
as visually prominent or unique, when viewed from various other public viewpoints in the vicinity
of the site. As such, removal of trees from the site would not result in significant damage to public
views of the site under CEQA. The commenter’s suggestion to hire a landscape architect to provide
opinion about the site will be forwarded to City decision makers for their consideration in the
decision-making process.
Response 12.4
The commenter states that an accurate and objective greenhouse gas analysis should be provided to
address project emissions over time. Please refer to Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 7, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, of the current project MND for a detailed analysis of greenhouse gas emissions
related to the proposed project. As discussed, the project is part of the buildout analyzed under the
City’s recent Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR. This EIR provides a detailed analysis,
including emission modeling, of greenhouse gases expected as a result of the General Plan buildout.
As stated in the project MND, project construction activities would generate GHG emissions through
the use of on‐and off‐road construction equipment in new development. Mitigation Measures AQ 3,
AQ 4, and AQ 5 address vehicle and equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those
impacts to below a level of significance.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Additional long‐term emissions associated with the project relate to indirect source emissions, such
as electricity usage. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are enforced with new
construction. Table 1‐1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the
construction of an apartment building (low rise) with less than 109 dwelling units would not exceed
the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e). Therefore,
operational phase air quality impacts are considered less than significant.
In addition, it is important to note that the City has adopted a GHG emission reduction strategy
thorugh the adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), which has been approved by the Air Pollution
Control District. A key part of the GHG emission reduction strategy is to promote residential infill
development to reduce transportation related emissions.
The City’s CAP is designed as a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183.5(b) as specified under the passing of SB 97. According to the CEQA Guidelines,
project impacts related to GHG emissions are considered less than significant if the project‐related
growth is consistent with the approved CAP and associated GHG Reduction Plan. The project would
not result in growth beyond the SLOCOG regional population forecast used to generate the GHG
emission models used for the City’s CAP. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project
would not have the potential to result in growth beyond the population growth forecast for the
region, and the proposed residential project can therefore be considered consistent with the City’s
CAP and impacts related to GHG emissions are considered less than significant.
Please refer to the LUCE Update EIR for a detailed discussion of emissions, including modeling of
criteria pollutants, resulting from community development.
Response 12.5
The commenter is requesting an assessment of cultural and social impacts of removing parts of the
existing Sanford House and requests an analysis of the landscape on the site which they consider to
be a cultural artifact. The historic/architectural and cultural significance of the project site has been
analyzed in detail under the existing project IS-MND. Specifically, the site was evaluated by Applied
Earthworks, Inc. (October 2015). The entire property was evaluated for cultural significance under
the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Guidelines, and the proposed
historic preservation measures have been designed under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Based on these standards, the site was reviewed for cultural
significance and the aspects of the project site determined to be historically significant were
discussed in detail. Although the project site landscaping was not identified as historically
significant, portions of the existing Sanford House (including architectural elements as well as it’s
siting on the property) were identified as significant and mitigation measures have been identified
to ensure that impacts to the significance of these features are reduced to less than significant levels.
The details of the property’s cultural significance, including the proposed mitigation plan, was
reviewed and approved by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 13: Lydia Mourenza, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 19, 2016
Response 13.1
The commenter states that the Arborist Report advocates for the developer and the proposed project,
and that the report contains false, incorrect and irrelevant information intended to create a favorable
view to tree removal on the site. The Arborist Report was prepared by a third party consultant under
contract to the City, and contains information collected by the arborist intended to be used by the
City for review in the CEQA process. Comments about errors are addressed in Responses 1.1 and
1.2.
Response 13.2
The commenter states that heritage trees can only be designated by the City Council, and states that
such designation is not voluntary. Refer to Response 3.3 for a discussion of the designation process
for heritage trees.
Response 13.3
The commenter states that the Arborist Report is an attempt to diminish the significance of the
project site and the City’s urban forest. The commenter states that the City’s trees are home to over
20 bird species protected under the MBTA. Refer to Responses to Letters 1 and 2 regarding the
Arborist Report, and Response 6.3 for a discussion of the project’s potential impact on migratory
birds.
Response 13.4
The commenter states that the findings of the Cultural Heritage Committee are not subject to appeal,
and that it remains undetermined whether the on-site structure would be relocated, or whether on-
site trees would be determined. Refer to Response 3.3 for a discussion of the designation process for
heritage trees.
Response 13.5
The commenter states that the proposed tree replanting/replacement is required by the City and will
exceed the proposed 30 for 55 removed. The City will require the replacement of trees at a 2:1 ratio.
Replacement planting for removed trees will be a condition of project approval, and would not be
at the discretion of the developer.
Response 13.6
The commenter states that Table 2 of the Arborist Report doesn’t mention the abundant bird and
wildlife living on the project site. The Arborist Report is intended to address only the trees on the
project site. The Biological Resources Assessment and biological resources issue area discussion in
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration assess potential impacts on wildlife.
Response 13.7
The commenter states that members of the Tree Committee note issues with the Arborist Report,
and that members of the Tree Committee and the Cultural Heritage Committee are interested in a
consideration of the trees as historical landscape in relation to the Master Listed House as a whole.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Refer to Responses 1.1 through 1.7 and 2.2 through 2.3 for a discussion of the accuracy of the Arborist
Report. Refer to Response 3.3 for a discussion of the designation process for heritage trees. Refer
also to Responses to letter 14, the Tree Committee meeting minutes.
Response 13.8
The commenter lists a number of avian species that could occur or have been seen on site. The
commenter also indicates that bats could also occur. The commenter states that a year-long survey
needs to be conducted. See Response 6.3 for a response to this assertion. In addition, the IS-MND
identifies on-site potential roosting sites for bats and prescribes mitigation to address impacts on
potential bat roosting.
Response 13.9
The commenter states that the developer should be directed to submit plans which leave the house
in place, preserves the urban forest and include a traffic study. Please refer to response 11.1 above.
The commenter’s statement will be provided to City decision-makers for their consideration.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 14: Tree Committee Meeting Minutes, December 12, 2016
Response 14.1
The commenter expresses support for the findings of the Arborist Report. Refer to the Responses 1.1,
1.2, and 1.4 through 1.7 as well as Response 2.2 for discussions of the findings and accuracy of the
Arborist Report. This comment will be also forwarded to City’s decision-makers for their
consideration.
Response 14.2
The commenter stated that he was surprised by findings and inaccuracies in the Arborist Report.
The commenter also added that topped eucalyptus can be hazardous and, while the trees are very
old, they are not unique specimens. Refer to Responses 1.1 through 1.7 and 2.2 through 2.3 for a
discussion of the adequately of the Arborist Report. These comments are noted and will be
forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration in the project review and decision-making
process.
Response 14.3
The commenter stated that the trees are very significant, in terms of the historical landscape of the
project site. The commenter specifically noted the planting location of the Norfolk Island Pines and
the Canary Island Date as very traditional and seen with old historic homes. Refer to Response 3.3
for a discussion of the heritage value of the trees onsite.
Response 14.4
The commenter states that he does not agree that trees should be removed to move the house, and
suggests that a project should be designed around the existing large trees. The commenter’s
opposition to tree removal and suggestion to alternatively design the project around the existing on-
site trees will be forwarded to City decision makers for their consideration.
Response 14.5
The commenter stated that the project would have a significant impact on aesthetics and bird and
bat habitat. Refer to Response 7.7 for a discussion of the aesthetics issue raised in this comment. Refer
to Responses 3.9 and 3.10 for discussion of issues raised in this comment relative to on-site bird and
bat habitat.
Response 14.6
The commenter stated that the Arborist Report contained errors and inaccuracies including species
identification and tree heights. The commenter also noted that he measured the Norfolk Island Pine
at 95 feet tall, conducted a survey of other Norfolk pines in the City, and made the observation that
the subject site has the second tallest specimen in the City. Refer to Reponses 1.1 and 1.2 for a
discussion of the issues raised in this comment.
The commenter also stated that the Tree Committee needs more time to evaluate the trees on the site
since the report does not provides sufficient or correct information. This comment will be forwarded
to City decision-makers for their consideration.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Response 14.7
The commenters questioned whether the tree removals were mitigatable, and noted that the request
is to replace very old, large specimens. Refer to Response 2.2 for a discussion of mitigation plantings
requirements.
Response 14.8
The commenters concurred with the comments made by other Tree Committee members. This
concurrence is noted and will be forwarded to City-decision makers for their consideration.
Response 14.9
The commenter stated that the Rincon Arborist Report inappropriately states that the City’s
Ordinance does not provide mitigation requirements for trees that are removed. Refer to Response
2.2 for a discussion of mitigation plantings requirements and the Arborist Report’s inclusion of this
information.
Response 14.10
The commenter stated that the that the City Council, ARC and Tree Committee can require
mitigation. This comment will be forwarded to the City for consideration in the project review and
decision-making process.
Response 14.11
The commenter suggested that the Architectural Review Commission devalue the Rincon report due
to inaccuracies. Refer to Responses 1.1 through 1.7 and 2.2 through 2.3 for a discussion of the
adequately of the Arborist Report.
Response 14.12
The commenter recommended that the Tree Committee and staff consider mitigation as a key factor
in addressing the concerns of the public as well as in a responsible effort to preserve the City’s urban
forest. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 14.13
The Tree Committee summarized their comments as: inaccuracies and inconsistencies found in the
Arborist Report; 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; a suggestion for a review of the
site’s historical and cultural landscape versus a review of individual trees as well as a more in-depth
biological report. Refer to Responses 14.1 through 14.2. The Tree Committee member comments are
noted and will be forwarded to the City for consideration in the project review and decision-making
process.
Response to the Rincon Arborist Report for 71 Palomar, dated October 21, 2016
Matt Ritter, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Biology Department, Cal Poly
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
805.756.2775, mritter@calpoly.edu
Delivered to Rachel Cohen on December 13th, 2016
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, but I have listed the most egregious
below.
1.The estimates of tree heights are significantly errant with regards to several of the trees in
table 2 of the report. It is unacceptable for an arborist to not be able to accurately measure
the height of trees. The Araucaria heterophylla, the Norfolk Island pine (Tree ID #2) is
reported as having a height of 65 feet. It is actually 95 feet tall as measured yesterday
(12/12/16) by myself and my graduate student Jason Johns, who studies the genus. That
level of inaccuracy in a report like this is unacceptable. The contractor should be required to
return to the site and accurately measure all the trees.
a.There are between 20-30 mature individual A. heterophylla in San Luis Obispo. We
measured them yesterday and the individual at 71 Palomar is the 2nd tallest in San Luis
Obispo, after the 104 ft. individual on McCollum near Grand.
b.The Rincon report says “The Norfolk Island pines are approximately 70 feet in height but
can reach as high as 160 feet.” In fact, the tallest national champion A. heterophylla in
Camarillo, CA is 108 ft. tall.
2.One of the reasons for commissioning this report was to discover if there are any particularly
interesting species on the site at 71 Palomar. By my count, the report fails to accurately
identify ten of the trees on site. How can a report directed at identifying the value of the tree
resources at 71 Palomar, not accurately identity almost 20% of the trees in the report?
a.Tree #46 is identified at Eucalyptus cerba. There is no such species in the genus
Eucalyptus called cerba. There is an ironbark species called E. creba, but that species is
not found on the site.
b.Another tree (#33) is identified at “Painted Eucalyptus” (Eucalyptus deglupta). This is a
tropical tree that doesn’t grow well in California north of Los Angeles. I also visited the
site to confirm that this species is not found at 71 Palomar. I think the arborist may have
been referring to the E. saligna tree on site (however without a map, see 4 below, it’s
hard to say what they were looking at.
3.There are many spelling errors, inaccurate common names and poor botanical writing
throughout the report.
4.The report does not have a map associated with it, making it difficult for anyone to review
the report and actually know which trees the arborist is referring to. This is especially true in
light of the comment in the third paragraph of the report: “A separate arborist report was
prepared by A&T Arborist (dated June 8, 2016) for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project.This
report is not associated with that June 2016 report and is separate report providing analysis
based on data collected by Rincon Consultants” If it is a separate report, why are all the
same tree misidentifications in the both reports?
5.The notes column of the report is full of cryptic and inaccurate statements about the health
of the trees.
a.Tree #17 says “Suppressed”. What does this mean? I looked at the tree and it isn’t
suppressed any way that I could see. It is unclear what the word “suppressed” means in
this context.
b.Tree #14 says “Dead branches in canopy, canopy competition with other canopies”. But
tree #14 is a palm and palms don’t make branches, nor is the canopy of this tree near
the canopy of other trees.
c.Tree #2 says “Canopy in competition with other canopies”. This also makes no sense.
This is the 95 ft tall A. heterophylla mentioned above. How can the canopy of the tallest
tree on site be in competition with shorter trees?
Outside of the many errors in table 2, the report has a number of random, inaccurate, and
misleading statements about our city ordinance, the findings of the CHC, and archaeological
resource inventory report.
The report states: “It is our opinion that the proposed tree removals are compliant with the tree
ordinance.” I disagree with this statement and I think this statement is outside the expertise of
the hired arborist and goes beyond the scope of an arborist report.
I could go on, but I think we have all wasted enough of our time (and other people’s money) with
this poorly done work.
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 on the
value of the biological resources on the project site.
From:Loren Riehl
To:Cohen, Rachel
Cc:Combs, Ron; Thom Jess; arborist@tamagni.org; Corey, Tyler
Subject:Tree Committee Notes
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2016 3:33:07 PM
Dear Ms. Cohen:
We wanted to send you some follow up comments to the Tree Committee meeting last night because we
do not believe that the Rincon Arborist Report should be “devalued” as suggested by the Tree Committee.
Please see our comments below:1. A Tree Committee Member indicated that the Rincon Arborist Report (the “ArboristReport”) should be devalued because of inaccuracies (with a specific focus on one perceivedinaccuracy). The opinion was primarily based upon a Committee Member’s opinion that themeasured height of one of the Norfolk Island Pine trees was grossly inaccurate. The CommitteeMember stated that the actual height of the tree is 96.5’ and the Rincon arborist only measured itto be 65’. The same member also indicated that the tree is the second tallest of its type in SanLuis Obispo.a. Page 2 of the Arborist Report indicates that the information gathered in such reportincludes a “visual estimation of tree height and canopy spread”. In other words, theArborist Report expressly indicates that the heights included therein are not intended tobe exact measurements, but instead, visual estimates. Therefore, it would seeminappropriate to “devalue” an entire report for misstating a height of a tree when thereport expressly states that it does not indicate exact heights.b. After utilizing digital measuring equipment today to measure the height of the tree, theproject arborist(A&T) estimates that the tree is approximately 85’ tall. While we are not attempting todefinitively determine the height of the tree (as such analysis is not required or relevant),we would like you to consider that there is room for differences of opinion regarding theexact height of the tree (even when the project arborist utilizes advanced digitaltechnology). More importantly, this difference in estimated height confirms that the visualestimation of the Rincon arborist was not so far off as to warrant disregarding the entireArborist Report (e.g. the analysis of the other 54 trees and extensive tree conditionanalysis contained therein).c. While one Tree Committee Member indicated that the specific Norfolk Island Pine wasunique because of its height, please note that 1) there is no specific criteria pertaining toheight and tree removal (e.g. you can’t remove a tree taller than x’) and 2) there is anearby Norfolk Island Pine that will be preserved as part of the project and designated forheritage tree status. It should also be noted that the tree being preserved is in betterhealth, as indicated by both the Arborist Report and the arborist report prepared A&TArborists.
d.The Tree Committee Member did not offer any sufficient evidence that the treeproposed for removal is the second tallest tree in San Luis Obispo, as a cursory review of similar trees (e.g. driving around the city looking for similar trees) would not be sufficient to validate that claim.2. One of the Tree Committee Members indicated that the Arborist Report was inaccuratebecause it indicates that “the City’s tree ordinance does not require mitigation plantings for treesthat are removed, nor does it recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings.”a. Please note that the statement from the Arborist Report is accurate. Section12.24.090(I) states that approval conditions “may” require planting of replacement trees.As indicated in the arborist report, there is no specific requirement or indication as to anappropriate ratio.3. Please note that at least one Tree Committee Member did indicate that he did not believethat there were any unique trees on site proposed for removal, and that the Arborist Report wasgenerally accurate regarding the condition of the trees on site.
Loren A. Riehl
LR Development Group, LLC
400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310)266-2873
To : SLO Tree Committee
Re: New Business: Review 7 1 Palomar Drive Development Plan
From : Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date : December 12, 2016
Honorable Chai r Ritter and Com mittee M embers -
An Environmental Checklist Prepared by Jeff Oliveira of Oliveira Environmental
Consulting LLC for a proposed multi-family residential development located at 71
Palomar Ave. stated the following:
"No heritage trees o r sign ificant native vegetation ex ist o n the portion of th e site to be
developed. M ultiple small to fully mature native and non -n ative landscaping trees would
be re m oved as part of t he proposed project development. T his includes mu lberry trees/
sh ru bs, p ine t rees, o li ve t rees, decorative pa lms , larch or spruce trees , eucalyptus and
redwood trees. T he proposed project inc ludes a conceptual landscape plan showing the
removal of all of the existing vegetat ion with the exception of a 28-inch diameter
euca lyptus tree at t he southwest corner of the site and a 74-inch palm tree midway along
the east property bo u ndary."
This report neither properly identifies the mature non-native vegetation located on this
property nor does it acknowledge the health , rarity or maturity of this vegetation. The
proposed project will involve the removal of all of this vegetation with the exception four
trees .
An Arborist Report for the 71 Paloma r Avenue Project for the City of San Luis Obispo
prepared by Rincon Consultants Inc. made the following observation :
"The majority of t he trees are in fair to poor cond it ion . Some of them are stressed due to
lack of water, competition with neighboring trees , pests, or have been topped and now
have limbs with poor connection to the trunks. Observations of health for each tree are
noted in Table 2."
However, among the larg est, rarest t rees sl ated for remova l, 8 are in good health , 5 are in
fair health and one is in poor health. For those trees identified as being stressed due to
lack of water, their health can be restored with little more than the installation of an
irrig ation system.
For it's conclusion Rincon Consultants states the following:
"The City's He ritage Tree Program is volu ntary, and none of the trees at the site are
currently so designated . T he City's Heritage Tree webpage provides info rmation abo ut
the currently designated heritage trees in the City. Based on the available information
from that page, the heritage trees are associated w it h historic bu ildings/events/
propert ies, have unusual character, or are of an unusual size. While seve ra l tall healthy
trees are present, none of the trees have unusual character nor are they of unusual s ize
for their species. The Norfolk Island p ines are approximately 70 feet in height but can
reach as high as 160 feet. T he healthy Canary Island palm is approx imate ly 50 feet in
height but can reach as high as 75 feet.
Furthermo re, per the Applied Earthworks, Inc. Update to Archaeological Resource
Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review (May, 2, 20 16) prepared for this
project, "the original historical landscape and setting have been materially altered by
prior development... As a res u lt, the integrity of the historic landscape a nd sett ing have
been substantiall y diminished by prio r development." The City Cu lt u ral Heritage
Committee du ring t heir review of the project did not find that the landscap ing elem ents
present contribut ed to the historic nature of the property. Based on these assessments,
the trees at the s ite do not meet t he historical context criter ia to be class ified as heritage
trees.
It is o u r opi n ion that t he proposed tree re movals are compliant w ith the tree ordi n ance."
Rincon mistakenly states that the City's Heritage Tree Program is "voluntary". However,
the City Municipal Code clearly states that "voluntary cooperation " applies to "privately
owned trees " while "required cooperation" applies to "tree preservation in new
developments". These trees are being considered eligi ble for the City's Heritage Tree
Program w ithin the contex t of a "new development".
Rincon mistakenly states that while heritage t rees are associated w ith histor ic buildings/
events/properties, have unusual character, or are of an unusual size, these trees slated
for removal have neither unusual character nor unusual size for their species. As clearly
illustrated elsewhere , there are at least 14 trees slated for removal which have a strong
association with the historic Sandford House and all of them are unusual for their size.
Finally, Rincon is mistaken that the cultural l andscape has been materially altered as the
symmetrical plantings of the two Norfolk Pines and the two Eugenias -appropriate to
Italian Renaissance revival architecture -remain in place and tree species typical of
Italian Renai ssance revival architecture (i.e., Olives, Stone Pines and Frond Palms) are
also very much present on this property (in this regard, see the two attached
documents).
As for t he proposed clear cut of 55 specimen trees at 7 1 Palo mar: Based on my read ing of t he
Heritage Tree Program Of San Lu is O bispo Information Packet And Form: http://www.slocity.org/
home/showdocu me nt?id=4743, I wis h to alert you to the following:
When and if the City A r borist meets w it h the ARC he can not unilaterally make a
determination which of the 55 trees at Palomar are Heritage Trees . T his determination can
only be m ade by you -th e Tree Com mi ttee -and C ity Co uncil. All that t he Arborist is
uni laterally empowered to do is recommend remova l of any tree that is deemed sick and/or
wi ll present a danger to the p ub lic because of immine nt structu ra l fa ilu re.
The Palom ar trees fall under t h e category of "Required cooperation -tree preservation in
new developments, etc." (see above website). In ot her words, because these trees are part
of a new d evelopment , vo luntary cooperation (presumably on t he part of the owner) is not
required. A precedent for this was establ ished back in 1986 whe n a gro u p of citizens
undertook t o save a m atu re To rrey Pine p roposed to be removed to m ake way for a n
apartment com p lex. 1
T he City Arborist previo usly state d that th e re a re o nly two t re es on th e prop erty that qualify
as Heritag e Tre e s. T his assess ment is false for a n umber o f re asons:
• Th ese long-li ved t rees have historical in t erest beca use they most like ly wer e p lan t ed
by the o r ig inal owner who lat er happened t o be an "orchardist" in Santa C lara, CA.
1 Torrey Pine -1185 Foothill
Pinus torreyana
Dedicated : February 18 , 1986
Torrey pines reach a height of 70', making our local tree at over 65' a very large specimen . These pines form a broad,
round head at maturity with sparse foliage covering its branches . Its seeds are edible and were used by native
Americans for food. Due to its si ze , it is seldom seen in home landscapes and its use is lim ited to parks and
bo tanical gardens.
This tree was to be cut dow n for an ap artment complex , but timely action by re s idents and the City Counci l
preserv ed it. This tree is the largest specimen of its species in San Luis Obispo County and unique to this area.
Torrey Pines are found naturally only on Santa Rosa Island and along the San Diego Coast.
They also belong to a "cultural landscap e" 2 because of their relevance to the Sandford
House architectural style and because of the symmetrical disposition in wh ich they
w ere planted.
2 Trees That Form A Part Of The Cultural Landscape
Like historic buildings and districts, cu ltural landscapes reveal aspects of our country's origins and development through their
form and features and the ways they were used. Cultural landscapes also reveal much about our evolving relationship with the
natural world. For examp le , the Italian Renaissance garden emerged in the late 15th century at villas in Rome and F lorence,
inspired by classical ideals of order and beauty, and intended for the pleasure of the view of the garden and the landscape beyond.
In the late Renaissance, the gardens became more symmetrical . The symmetrical placement of the two Eugenias and the two
Norfolk Pines relative to the entrance of the Sandford Residence should be preserved as they complement the Italian
Renaissance revival architecture. Olives are natural choices for Italian-style gardens, or planted in formal lines flanking a
driveway or walkway. Similarly, the lone Ston e Pine and Frond Palm, which were frequently planted within the context of
Italian Renaissance gardens, should also be preserved.
Trees That Are Either E nda n gered Or Historically Important
Seven trees on the 71 Palomar property should be preserved both for their historical importance and for their ra ri ty. Of the seven
trees, two are Norfolk Island Pine, two Eugenia, one Frond Palm , one Italian Stone Pine and one European Olive. The trees are
believed to have been planted by the owner, an orchardist, around 1895 when the historic Sandford residence was built. These
trees are large and healthy specimens . They add beauty to the north part of San Luis Obispo and are accessib le for viewing and
enjoyment by the public. The City Arborist remarked recently "I have admired the trees at 71 Palomar for some time now and
appreciate you and your group taking the time and effort to take pictures and fill out part of the Heritage Tree Form. Thank
you! ... Bob and I feel very strongly about preserving canopy and habitat. .. ". Nevertheless , these trees are scheduled to be cut
down for an apartment complex. Timely action by residents and the CHC/ARC may preserve them.
Ara ucaria hetrophylla or Norfolk I s land Pine are naturally long-lived a nd reach a height of 100', making our local trees at over
65' very large specimens . In modern home landscapes , where frost -free c limates or protected locations allow, Norfolks a re known
to live 150 years or more (see: The California Polytechnic State University SelecTree. "Araucaria Heterophylla Tree Record,"
1995-20 15). They are particularly tolerant of sandy soils and windy conditions . These pin es are cy lindrical at maturity. Due to its
size , they are seldom seen in home landscapes and their use is limited to parks and botanical gardens. Norfolk Island Pines make
spectacular specimen plants when s ituated on large expanses of lawn. Norfolk Is land Pines are endemic to Norfolk Island located
between New Zealand and New Caledonia. They were an early introduction into California by Will iam Wa lker in 1859. These are
t he largest s pecimen s in San Luis Obis po County having been planted only 25 years after this species was first introduced into
California.
Eugenia brasiliensis, with common names Brazil C h erry and grumichama, is medium sized tree (maximum 65' height) endemic
to Brazil which bears small fruits t hat are purple to black in color, and have a sweet cherry-like flavor. Its slow growth and low
rate of d ispersal make it rare, and it's gen e rally considered a n e nda n ger ed species.
A lthough Phoenix canariensis or Frond P a lm grows just six inches a year and requires many years to attain full height. But
because t he tree grows so slowly, needing decades to reach its full height of 60 feet, very few nurseries even try to grow it.
Exceptionally tall specimens can be up to 120 feet. The rare full-grown trees can fetch $20,000. While best in full sun and the
usual well-drained loamy soil, P. canariensis can tolerate a wide range of exposures , including deep shade, a nd a wide range of
soil types, including sand and heavy clay. It has a unique ability to tolerate both severe drought and flooding very we ll , whi ch
makes them ideal to plant in housing tracts in wh ich the soil was heavi ly compacted. Frond Palms dati ng back to the I 880's are
middle aged and some live to be over 400 years old.
The pinus p in ea or Italian Stone Pine is a coniferous evergreen tree that can exceed 82' in height , but 40'-65' is m ore typical. In
youth , it is a bushy globe , in mid-age an umbrella canopy on a thick trunk, and, in maturity, a broad and flat c rown over 26' in
w idth. In Ita ly , the stone pine has been an aesthetic landscape e lement s in ce the Italian Renaissance garden period and is
frequently planted w ithin the context of Italian Renaissance arch itecture, such as is the case with th e Sandford Residence.
Britain 's Kew Gardens has records of one of these Mediterranean beauties that atta in ed an age of 300 years.
• Th ese trees are remarkable for t he ir size both in height and girth3
• Th ese trees are most li kely 100 years old. Their age could and should be verified
by cor ing into the bole and counting the ri ngs .
• Several of these trees are unusual spec imens and because of their size are seldom
seen in home landscapes.
3 Rinco n Cons ulta nts Inc . Recomme n ded Tree Re m oval s
Removal of Tree #2 (left side of entrance to house): Norfolk Island Pine : 60-65 feet tall : f a i r health
Norfolk Island p ines are naturally long-li ved. T hough not true pines, they're part of a plant family that dates back to
prehistoric times. "In modern home landscapes , where frost-free c li mates o r p rotected locations allow, Norfolks are
known to live 150 years or more. Along parts of the California Coast, Norfo lk Island pines grow 100 feet or taller,
stretch ing up to 60 feet wide and growing up to 2 feet pe r year." (sou rce: The California Polytechnic State Un iversity
SelecTree . "Araucaria Heterophylla Tree Record ," 1995-2015). On their native Norfolk Island, east of Australia,
they're known to grow twice as tall.
http://www.pennington.com/resources/ferti lizer/indoor-gardening/nurturing -norfolk-island-p ines-year-round
Removal of Trees #3 (to the left of tree #2 when facing entrance to house), #3A & 6 (up against the right front corner
of the house): Pittosporum spp.: 20-25 feet tall: good heath
"Pittospo rum plants tend to live to at least 50 years old and may live as long as 150 years. Pittosporums usually g row
to between 20 and 35 feet, though t hey may be kept smaller w ith pruning."
http ://homeg uides.sfgate. com/fast-pittosporum-pl ant-grow-77521 . htm I
Removal of Trees #14 & #15 (along the north property boundary): Canary Island palm: 45-55 feet tall: 1 .5 foot t runk
diameter: fair-good health
"Single-trunked, p innate palm to 20 m (66 feet) o r more tall; exceptional ly tall specimens can be up to 40 m {120
feet). The trunk is 60 -90 cm (2-3 feet) in d iameter, often with a much wider base."
http://www.palm pedia.net/wiki/Phoenix_canari ensis
Removal of Trees #16, #18 & #19 (at the northeast corner of the p roperty boundary): Atlas cedar : 35-45 feet tall :
20-35 feet width canopy: fair-good health
"As a youngster the t ree is stark ... but eventually it grows into a 60-foot tall t ree that can be 35-feet across."
http://www.uaex.edu/yard-garden/resource-library/plant-week/blue-atlas-cedar.aspx
Removal of Tree #43 (south of trees #2 & #3): Stone p ine: 35 feet tal l: poor healt h
"Just as its name implies, umbrella pine has a broad, somewhat flattened round canopy, and the tree will ultimately
reach 80 to 100 feet in height though it is more often seen at 35 to 45 feet tall and wide."
http://edis.ifas .ufl.edu/st472
Removal of Trees #39 (near the garage), #41 (on t he southern property boundary) & #44 {due west of tree #39):
Olive or Olea Europe : 35 feet tall: 35 feet wi dth canopy: fair-good health
"The o live tree can reach up to and sometimes over 40 feet tall at maturity, spread ing out with a large rounded c rown.
The crown of leaves can spread outward as far as 20 feet from the trunk, making the spread of t he olive t ree as wide
as it is tall."
http ://homeg uides.sfgate. com/olive-tree-growth-rates-56428. html
Removal of Tree #48 (on the southern property li ne): Monte rey pine: 35 feet tall: 2 5 foot wide canopy: good health
"It grows from 80 to 100 feet tall and from 25 to 35 feet wide."
http://slobg .org/monterey-pi ne/
The Tree Committee has the responsibility to inform the ARC and the CHG of these five
following points: condition/health, permanence of site location, visual accessibility,
arboricultural interest and historical interest
The owner in the sample "Owner Agreement" may say he/she does not want their trees
designated as a "Heritage Tree" and/or does not want their trees included on a self-guided
Heritag e Tree tour. However, this form does not forbid the City, in spite of the owner's
refusal , to see if these trees "qualify" as "Heritage Trees". Without this determination, the
ARC could not, as Michael Codron confirmed , do the following:
"The Architectural Review Commission has the authority to require preservation of trees on
the project site as a condition of approval , if the appropriate findings can be made."
Thank you!
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
To: SLO Tree Committee
Re: New Business: Review 71 Palomar Drive Development Plan
From : Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date : December 12, 2016
Honorable Chair Ritter and Committee Members -
I would like to address the superficiality of Rincon's Peer Review of the Biological Resources
Analysis of the IS-MND and IS-MND Addendum for the Proposed 71 Palomar Project in San Luis
Obispo County, California
Rincon 's peer review of biological resources is, at best, highly speculative because their biologist
conducted only one site visit on the subject property on September 20, 2016.
Rincon states that species listed as threatened, endangered, or rare are not known to be present at the site.
However, there is a chance that because of the presence of the mature eucalyptus grove the Swainson's
hawk and the yellow warbler, both listed as a threatened species by the California Department of Fish
and Game, may v is it this site.
Rincon mentions Cooper's hawk because they feed on mourning dove , rock pigeon , American robin
and sparrows -birds that presumably visit this site as well. Also, Cooper's hawk typically nest in the
fo li age of eucalyptus trees. Nesting white tailed kite is mentioned because of close proximity to open
grasslands. We are told there is potential roosting habitat for the pallid b at. Most of the focus in thi s
report is on protecting the bat population and on the in stallation of bat boxes.
R incon gives no thought for how mature trees reduce pollution, sequester carbon , and provide habitat to
not only birds but also to insects and small mammals and reptiles. Nor does Rincon recognize the fact that
groves of trees only a few years old support fewer species than more establ ished groves of trees .
What Rincon doesn't state is that large raptors require tall living trees . These predators need the height
protection and flat surfaces only tall trees can provide. The tallest trees on th is site are indisputably the
Eucalyptu s trees and they provide a wealth of biodiversity which R incon was not prepared to recognize.
Although the eucalyptus trees have been topped, I dispute Rincon's claim t hat these trees are "unsightly"
and that their limbs would necessarily have a poor connection to their trunks. Without going into detail on
the biome that could be sustained by all of the trees on this site a nd for the sake of brevity , I would like to
simply focus o n two tree species, the Eucalyptus and the olive trees.
Eucalyptus Globulos flowers are mainly pollinated by insects , but birds and small mammals may also
act as pollinating agents. In fact, Eucalyptus is particularly valuable as bee pasture, because it blooms
year-round. Migrating monarch butterflies depend on eucalyptus groves as a wintering spot. The
hollows in older Eucalyptus trees also provide homes to animals and birds. Amphibians such as arboreal
salamander , California slender salamander, Ensatina (Salamander), California newt , rough skinned
newt , and Pacific tree frog live primarily under fallen logs and duff. Amphibians feed on such
invertebrates as millipedes , centipedes, sow bugs , Collenbola (Springta il ), spiders and earthworms.
Several snakes such as the ring-necked snake, rubber boa and sharp tailed snake have adapted to
Eucalyptu s groves. The ring-necked snake feeds on the Cali forn ia slender sa lamander, the rubber boa
feeds on meadow mice , and the s h arp tailed snake feeds strictly on slugs. Other common reptiles include
the northern and south ern a lligator li zards, which live under fallen logs, and the western fence lizard
and western skink , which live in the less densely forested groves.
Several mammals have adapted to Eucalyptus. Deer find concealment in dense groves where there are
suckers, coyote brush, and poison oak; moles li ve in the surface layer of the soi l , meadow mice, gophers,
and fox squirrels are found in the eucalyp groves.
Bi rders have identified over 45 s pecies of birds in Sutro Forest. At J epson Prairie Preserve, CA ,
Swainson 's hawk a nd yellow warblers, both of which are "Blue Li sted" spec ies of concern, nest in the
trees. At Pescadero Creek County Park, south of San Franci sco along the coast of California , great blue
herons and egrets use the trees to bui ld the ir rookeries.
T he heavy-u se birds feed on Eucalyptus seeds by pecking the mature pods on trees or fallen pods; so they
must wait for the pods to disintegrate or be crushed by cars .. Among the birds that feed on seeds in the
trees are: th e chestnut back chickadee and the Oregon junco. Examples of birds th at feed on ground
seeds are the song sparrow, the fox sparrow, th e brown towhee , and the mourning dove . Birds that
take advantage of the nectar from blossoms eith er by drinking th e nectar or by feeding on th e insects that
are attracted to the nectar include Allen's hummingbird , Bullock's oriole , red winged blackbird , and
black headed grosbeak.
Birds that use the trees as nest sites include the brown creeper , which makes its nest und er peeling shags
of bark and feeds on trunk in sects and spiders, the robin , the chickadee, the downy woodpecker, a nd the
red shafted flicker. The downy woodpecker and the red shafted flicker peck into the trunk of dead or
dying trees to form their nests . When these nests are abandoned, chickadees, Bewick wrens , house wrens
and starlings move in. Downy woodpeckers use dead stubs to hammer out a rhythmic pattern to declare
their territories.
The red-tailed hawk prefers tall trees for a nesting site. It therefore favors eucalypts over trees such as
oak or bay. Great horned owls use nests that have been abandoned by red-tail hawks or they nest on
platforms formed between branches from fallen bark. The brown towhee and the golden crowned
sparrow are birds that use piles of debris on the ground for shelter during rains.
As for Europea n Olive Trees, fruit and seed eating birds, in cluding finches , will steal fr ui t from these
trees and even ol ives that aren't yet ripe. The acorns of the Coast Li ve Oak feed everything from
squirrels and deer to wild turkeys a nd black bears . More than 500 types of butterflies and moths are
attracted to this host plant.
In conclusion, the focus of the Rincon Biological report was not on preserving th is habitat but rather on
creating buffers around nesting sites, particularly during the nesting season (between February l and
September 15) while tree removal and construction takes pl ace.
For comparison purposes , I am including below a list of biological species mentioned by Rincon and a list
mentioned in the follow in g several articles (https://sutroforest.co m/eucalyptu s-myths/) which expand o n
th e benefits of preserving mature eucalyptus groves .
Rincon
Birds:
Cooper's hawk
Mourning dove
Rock pigeon
American robin
Sparrow
White tai led kite
Pallid bat
The Nature Conservancy &
Professor Dov F. Sax (Brown University)
Birds:
Swainson 's hawk
Yellow warblers
Great blue heron
Egret
Chestnut back chickadee
Oregon junk
Song s parrow
Fox sparrow
Brown towhee
Mourning dove
Allen 's hummingbird
Bullock's oriole
Red winged blackbird
Black headed grosbeak
Brown creeper
R obin
Downy woodpecker
Red shafted flicker
Bewick wrens
House wrens
Starlings
Red tailed hawk
Great horned owl
Golden crowned sparrow
Small Mammals:
Deer
Mole
Fox squirrel
Meadow mouse
Gopher
Reptiles:
Arboreal salamander
California slender salamander
Ensatina
California newt
Rough skinned newt
Pacific tree frog
Rin g necked s nake
Rubber boa
Sharped tailed snake
Alligator lizard (northern and southern)
Sources:
Western fence li zard
We s tern sk.ink
Insects:
Monarch butterfly
Honey be e
Millipede
Centipede
Sow bug
Collenbola
Spider
Earthworm
Authors: Caitl in Bean . Mary J. Russo (revision). Gl obal Tf1 vasive Species Team , Th e Nature Co nservancy
http://wik.i .bugwood .org/Euca l.yptu s g.l obulu s#PO LLlNATION
http:/ /wiki .bugwood .orgLEucaly ptus globulus#W lLDL1FE
Author : Gustavo I gles ias Trabado
GIT Forestry Consultin g
h ttp:/ I git-forestry-blog .blogspot.com/2008 /06/euca l yptus-po ison in g-soi 1-i .htm l
Author: D ov. F. Sax
Equ a l Diversity In Di sparate Spec ies Asse mb lages:
A Comparison Of Native And Exoti c Woodland s ln Ca li forni a
http ://elkhorn s loughc tp .org/upload s/fi les/ 11098 I 3068Sax2002 .p df
PROPOSAL FOR HERITAGE TREE DESIGNATION Criteria for Designation as San Luis
Obispo Heritage Trees
Trees shall be accepted for consideration as He ritage Trees when they fall with in the following
classification:
Project Location : 71 Palomar Ave. San Luis Obispo
H istorical Interest: The original owner of this property, Reginald Wills-Sanford, was an
orchardist. He resided in this house between 1895 and 1899 and most likely planted
many of the mature specimen trees still standing on this property.
Arboricu ltu ral In terest
a. S ize : over 24 inch diameter
b. Age (one of the oldest in the commun ity): yes
c. Rare or u nusual species for this a rea: yes
d. Outstanding specimens: yes
e. Disti nct ive str uctural interest: Boles 20'-30' in height with bark furrows ; spreading crowns
The Committee shall judge the request for consideration of each t ree w ith the following factors
in mi nd:
1 . Cond ition a nd state of health of the spec imen : healthy
2. Perm anence of s ite location: pending sale of property
3 . Visual accessibi lity: very accessible
4. Address of tree and location on lot: 71 Palomar
5. Requesti ng party (individual or group): Allan Cooper, Richard Schmidt, Cheryl Mclean &
David Brodie
6. Prope rt y Owner: c u rrent owner: Delta Tau House Corporation : F uture owner: Loren Riehl/
LR Development Group, LLC
7. Spec ies:
• 2 -Araucaria hetrophylla or Norfolk Island Pine (unique specimens & some of the
oldest in SLO)
North: Bole: 2 '-5 " Height: 60'
South: Bole : 2'-7 " (Rincon : 2'-6") Height: 65'
• 2 -Grumichama Eugenia brasiliensis or Eugenia (2 of the oldest)
North: Bole : 3'-6 " Height: 60'
South: Bole : 3'-8" Height: 60'
• 1 -Quercus agrifolia or native coastal oak
Bole : 2'-8 " Height : 40'
• 1 -Pheoni x Canariensis or Frond Palm
Bole: 2'-O" (Rincon : 1 '-6") Height: 55'
• 1 -Pinus pinea or Italian stone pine
Bole : 2 '-10" (Rincon : 2'-3 ") Height : 35 '
• 1 -Olea europaea or European olive
Bole: 2'-O" (Rincon: 1'-7") Height: 35'
• 18 -Eucalyptus Globulus or blue gum
North to South encircling house: Height: varies 40' -80'
Bole: 4'-6 "
Bole: 4'-7 "
Bole: 2'-O"
Bole: 3'-5 "
Bole: 2'-5 "
Bole: 4'-10"
Bole: 3'-8 "
Bole: 4'-8 "
Bole: 2 '-O'
Bole: 3 '-6 "
Bole: 2 '-3 "
Bole: 2'-3 "
Bole: 2'-10"
Ea st to West along Luneta
Bole: 5'-6 "
Bole: 3'-4 "
Bole: 3'-3 "
Bole: 3'-3 "
5. Age: 100 years+
Heig ht: 40-80 feet+ Spread: varies
6. Trunk diamete r at 24" above natural grade : Yes
7. Photographs (2) min im um at right ang les to each other : see attached
8. Desc ri be -Arboricultu ral or Historical Interest:
An Environmental Checklist Prepared by Jeff Oliveira of Oliveira Environmental
Consulting LLC for a proposed multi-family residential development located at 71
Palomar Ave. stated the following:
"No heritage trees o r significant nat ive vegetation ex ist o n the portion of the site to be
deve loped. Multiple small to fully mature native and non -native landscaping trees would
be re moved as part of t he proposed project developme nt. T his includes mu lberry trees/
sh ru bs, pine t re es , o li ve trees , deco rative pa lm s , larch or spruce tree s, eucalyptus and
redwood t rees . T he proposed project inc lu des a conceptual landscap e pla n showing the
removal of all of the existing vegetat ion with the exception of a 28 -inch diameter
euca lyptus tree at t he southwest corner of the site and a 74-inch palm tree midway along
the east property bo undary."
This report neither properly identifies the mature non-native vegetation located on this
property nor does it acknowledge the health, rarity or maturity of this vegetation. The
proposed project will involve the removal of all of this vegetation with the exception four
trees.
An Arborist Report for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project for the City of San Luis Obispo
prepared by Rincon Consultants Inc. made the following observation:
"T he majority of t he trees are in fa ir to poor co ndition . Some of them are stressed due to
lack of water, competition with neighbori ng tree s, pests, or have been topped and now
have li mbs with poor connection to the trunks. Observations of health for each tree are
noted in Table 2."
However, among the largest, rarest trees slated for removal, 8 are in good health, 5 are in
fair health and one is in poor health. For those trees identified as being stressed due to
lack of water, their health can be restored with little more than the installation of an
irrigation system.
For it's conclusion Rincon Consultants states the following:
"Th e City's He rit age Tree Program is volu ntary, a nd n o ne of the trees at t he site a re
cu r ren tl y so designated . T he C ity 's Heritage Tree webpage provides inform ation abo ut
t h e currently desig n at ed heritage trees in t he City. Based on t he available in for m ation
fro m that page, the he r it age trees are associat ed w it h histori c bu ildi ngs/events/
propert ies, have unusual char acter, or are of an unusual s ize . Wh ile severa l t a ll healthy
t rees are p resent , none of t he t rees h ave unusual c haract er no r a re th ey of unus ua l s ize
for their species. The Norfolk Island p ines are approxim ately 70 feet in he ig ht but can
reach as h igh as 160 feet. T he healt hy Canary Island palm is a p prox im ate ly 50 feet in
heig ht but can reach as hig h as 75 feet.
Furthermore, per the Applied Ea rth wor ks, Inc. Update to Archaeological Resource
Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review (May, 2, 20 16) prep ared for this
proj ect , "the o ri ginal hist o ri cal landscape a nd setting have bee n m ate ri ally alte re d by
prior development... As a res u lt, t he integ rit y of the historic la ndscape a nd sett ing have
been s ubst antially dimi nished by p ri o r development." T he C ity C u ltu ra l Heritage
Com mitt ee du rin g t hei r review of t he project did not fin d that the landscap in g elem e nts
present co ntri bu t ed to t h e h isto ri c nat ure of t h e property. Based o n t hese assessm ent s,
t h e trees at t h e s ite do not m eet t he h istorical context criteria to be class ifi ed as heritage
t rees.
It is o u r opi nion that t he proposed tree re movals a re compli ant w ith the tree ordi n ance."
Rincon mistakenly states that the City's Heritage Tree Program is "voluntary". However,
the City Municipal Code clearly states that "voluntary cooperation " applies to "privately
owned trees" while "required cooperation" applies to "tree preservation in new
developments".
Rincon mistakenly states that while heritage trees are associated with historic buildings/
events/properties, have unusual character, or are of an unusual size, these trees slated
for removal have neither unusual character nor unusual size for their species. As clearly
illustrated elsewhere, there are at least 14 trees slated for removal which have a strong
association with the historic Sandford House and all of them are unusual for their size.
Finally, Rincon is mistaken that the cultural landscape has been materially altered as the
symmetrical plantings of the two Norfolk Pines and the two Eugenias -appropriate to
Italian Renaissance revival architecture -remain in place and tree species typical of
Italian Renaissance revival architecture (i.e., Olives, Stone Pines and Frond Palms) are
also very much present on this property (in this regard, see the two attached
documents).
2 -Araucaria hetrophylla or Norfolk Island Pine (unique specimens & some of the
oldest in SLO)
2 -Grumichama Eugenia brasiliensis or Eugenia (2 of the oldest)
.Ii
' ·~~.· -·~~ :~~~' I r. ; . • • . -~· ... ' : . . ... ;·~ .. ~.
/ ·.,• .. ·~··· •1...:.1 ~1:·. \: . . .._ l.il~ *· ..
·-... . .
..
1 - Pi nus pinea or Italian stone pine
1 -Pheonix Canariensis
or Frond Palm
1 -Olea europaea or European olive
East to West along Luneta
18 -Eucalyptus
Globulus or blue gum
North to South
encircling house:
Height: ave. 180'
1 -Quercus agrifolia or native coastal oak
Plot Plan
f ;
r--· ·t.
The following (see below) is what the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code says about
Heritage trees . It does NOT say the owner must sign an application. In fact , it is clear that the
public MAY PROPOSE DESIGNATION of ANY healthy tree. The Arborist and Tree Committee
will review it. The only place the owner explicitly comes in is when the Council makes the
designation . But up to that time --the investigative phase, the educational phase --the process
is indeed open to anyone pursuing a designation and the Tree Committee must consider this
request.
12.2.4.1 liO ""e r llage tr1186 .
A T'le cit·,r mcognizss th imp;;irlm r·::fo lren 'li:IYG p ll)'Ud in the his:;or/ and d&Vtilo:J'J1enl c: San L.u is otiapo Oil d
raocign •z::es 1hat a ·.me varie'lr of tren <=an QMJ\\' In bi unlqus1 and IBmperate dim ale.
B. AA'a' ht :u thy t rM wilhn t l1c u:l l)' lrni l:i ntJy 11e propoocd a :; ii hc J ll~ tnm . Tnc e ily mlJtlltil tind tree currtmil.lc.;c
re~ c1:t proposed h tr laot tree ur1d, w1h the owief's cOMenl. ~nerid s"1.81:1re ee :'t:lldares to 1he eltf
ce1Joc for offic al des1gt'i3lon as horitaigl'.' lrooe.
C, Th'-' 1..11y SN I prQl.0'1 '1rld rrlillnl.Ol n '111 :!~~gnal.1;.'\I lwr ll;ag\I' ln:.:~ H.:ritiJgu tn:i:~ ~·mat be lo'l lJIW 1XW l~1'9 l '1 ~
Mihed •,ll ei davaoped a nd approva~ r.·y r.he pltillc ~o'b dtsct£w". All l martm melnteMnc:a 6ha be 1he r&!ipDns.lblllty at
th o :m::perty ~·oo.. (Crd. t544; 1 (pa:J. 2010)
Trees That Form A Part Of The Cultural Landscape
Like hi storic buildings and di stricts , cultural landsc apes reveal aspects of our cou ntry's
origins and d evelopment through their form and features and the ways they were used.
Cultural landscapes a lso reveal much about our evo lving relation ship w ith th e natural
world. For example, the Italian Renai ssance g arden emerged in the late 15th century at
villas in Rome and Florence, inspired by clas sical ideal s of order and beauty, and
intended for th e pleas ure of th e view of the garde n and th e land scape beyond. In th e late
Renaiss ance , the garden s became more sy mmetrical. The sy mmetrical placement of the
two Eugenias and th e two Norfolk Pines relative to the entrance of the Sandford
Resid e nce should be preserv ed as th ey comple me nt th e Italian Re nai ssance revival
architecture. Olives are natural choices for Italian -style gardens, or planted in forma l
lines flanking a driveway or walkway. Similarly, the lone Stone Pine and Frond Palm ,
which were frequ ently planted w ithin th e context of Italian Renaissance garden s, should
also be preserved.
Trees That Are Either Endangered Or Historically Important
Seven trees on the 71 Palomar property should be preserved both for their hi storical
importance and for their rarity. Of the seven trees, two are Norfolk Is land Pine, two
Eu ge nia , o ne Frond Pa lm, one Italian Stone Pine and one European Olive . The trees are
believed to have been planted by the owner , an orchardi st , around 1895 when the hi storic
Sandford residence was built. These trees are large and healthy specimens. They add
beauty to th e north part of San Luis Obis po and are accessible for viewin g a nd e njoyme nt
by the public. The City Arborist remarked recently "I have admired the trees at 71
Palomar for some time now and appreciate you and y our group taking the time and effort
to take pictures and fill out part of th e Heritage Tree Form. Thank you ! ... Bob a nd I fee l
very strongly about preserving canopy and habitat. .. ". Nevertheless, these trees are
scheduled to be cut down for an apartment complex. Timely action by residents and the
CHC/ARC may preserv e th e m.
Araucaria hetrophylla or Norfolk Island Pine are naturally long-live d and reach a height
of 100 ', makin g our loca l trees at ove r 65' very large specime ns . In mod ern home
landscape s, where fro st-free clim ates or protected location s allow, Norfolks are known to
live 150 years or more (see: The California Polytechnic State University SelecTree.
"Araucaria Heterophylla Tree Record ," 1995-2015). They are partic ularly tolerant of
sandy soils and windy conditions. These pines are cylindri cal at maturity. Due to its s ize ,
they are seldom seen in home landscape s and their use is limited to parks and botanical
garde ns. Norfo lk Is land Pines make spectac ular s pec imen plants when s ituated on large
expan ses of lawn. Norfolk Is land Pines are e ndemic to Norfolk Is land lo cated between
New Zealand and N ew Cale donia. They were an early introduction into California by
William W a lker in 1859. These are th e largest specimens in San Luis Obispo County
h av in g been planted only 25 years after thi s species was fir s t introduced into California.
Eugenia brasiliensi s, w ith common names Brazil Cherry and g rumi cbama , is medium
si zed tree (maximum 65' he ight) e ndemi c to B raziJ whi ch bears small fruits that are
purpl e to black in col or, and have a swee t cherry-like fl avor. Its s low growth and low rate
of dispersal make it rare, and it's generally considered an endangered species .
Alth o ugh Phoenix canarien sis or Frond Palm grows jus t six in ch es a year a nd requires
many years to at tain full height. But b ecau se the tree grows so slowly , needing decades to
reach its full height of 60 feet , very few nurseries even try to grow it. Excepti onall y tall
spec im en ~ can be up to 120 feet. The rare full-grown trees can fetch $20,000 . While
best in full sun and the usual well-drained loamy soil , P. canariensis can tolerate a w ide
r ange of exposures , including deep sh ade, and a wide range of soi l types, including san d
and heavy cl ay. It h as a uniqu e ability to tol erate both severe drought and floodin g very
we ll , which makes them ideal to p l ant i n h ou si n g tracts in which the soil was heavily
compac ted. Frond Palms dating back to th e l 880's are middl e aged and some li ve to be
over 400 years old.
The pin us pinea or Italian Stone Pine is a coni ferous evergreen t ree that can exceed 82'
in height, but 40 '-65 ' is more typ ical. In yo uth , it is a bushy g lobe, in mid-age an
umbrella canopy on a thick trunk, and, in maturity, a broad and flat crown over 26' in
width. In Italy, the stone pine has been an aesth etic land scape el eme nt since th e Italian
Renaissance garden period and is frequently planted withi n the contex t of Itali an
Re naissance architecture, suc h as is the case with the Sandford Residence. Britain's Kew
Gardens h as records of one of these Mediterranean beauties that attain ed an age of 300
years.
O lea e uropaea, commonly call ed Common Olive . is an evergr ee n tree that is native to
the Med iten-anean region. It typically grows at a slow rate to 20' -30' ta ll with a rounded
crown. Common olive trees are drought tolerant once estab li sh ed. The lifespan of the
European Olive tree ranges from 300 years to 600 years.
The Italian Stone Pine was frequently planted within the context of Italian Renai ssance
gardens.
The Italian Renaissance garden emerged in the late 15th century at villas in Rome and
Florence , inspired by classical ideals of order and beauty, and intended for the pleasure of
the view of the garden and the landscape beyond. In the late Renai ssance , the gardens
became more symmetrical.
"The upper class, however, wanted European refinement, not ru stic gardens. They
favored aspects of Italian Renai ssance gardens, with axial design s, fountains, and
parterres, and the warm climate allowed them to incorporate into thi s frame a potpourri of
exotic ornamental plants that would not grow outdoors in Europe or back east. They
enjoyed living and entertaining outdoors here , appreciating the view of well-tended
gardens with rose bushes an palm trees ... "
From: JM Loper
Sent Monday, December 12, 2016 4:04 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: Trees at Palomar
Good afternoon -
RECEIVED
DEC 13 2016
SLO CITY CLERK
I heard that you were to have discussion on the plans to remove many of the trees at 71 Palomar. Every time I think of
that happening I get very sad. I understand that many of the trees are not significant to many but my feelings about that
lot is how unique it is in this city and how it can never be replaced once the trees are gone. I would so love to see it
become the promised park for our area and remain as much in it's natural state as possible. I realize that would make it
a financial challenge but where else in our city do you have a spot that looks like that. Most of ou r parks are not so
nicely covered in trees and look as amazing as this lot does.
I am hoping, as you have your discussions, you will find a different plan to be more appropriate than cutting down these
trees, building the high density housing that is proposed and replacing the uniqueness of the area with a cookie cutter
look.
Many thanks for your time and effort, Jackie Loper
Warning: Don 't Use Probiotics Before You See This Gundry MD
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/584f3b0b118693b0911f3st02duc
1
REC EIVED
SLO CITY CLERK
From: cc me lean
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:28 PM
To: Advisory Bodies<advisorybodies@slocity.0re >; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncll@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi
<h ha rmon@slocity .o rg>
Subject: Removal of 55 trees at 71 Palomar. Rincon IS/MND evaluation .
Please post on Agenda Correspondence for the 12/12/16 Tree Committee meeting and distribute to
the Tree Comm. members, Mayor Harmon, City Council members , ARC and Planning Commission
members. Thank you.
Dear Tree Committee members,
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 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.
I am sorry that our city does not forward to your committee, as part of your Agenda Packet, the many
letters and public testimony that were presented at the meetings prior to this one that addressed the
preservation of the trees. While our hard work disappears into cyberspace , the COD forwards its prior
reports from A& T Arborists and Olivera Environmental consultants hired by the developer. It feels like
we are starting over with each meeting . Please ask the COD to send all previous correspondence to
you from the residents .
The newest report, by Rincon is flawed and incomplete. Someone needs needs to advocate for the
trees and this is once again a task which has fallen on the residents . Your judgement is respected if
and when you are allowed to express your thoughts we will be listening .
Please help us to advocate for the preservation of the 71 Palomar trees and all that they give our city.
Thank you for your service to our city and its trees.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Mclean
Anholm , San Luis Obispo
t
1
Cohen, Rachel
From:cc mc lean <ccmslo@att.net>
Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 9:27 AM
To:Cohen, Rachel
Cc:E-mail Council Website; Advisory Bodies
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.
I 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
2
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
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Richard Sc hmidt
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org >; Combs, Ron <rcombs@slocity.org>
Subject: Tree Committee --71 Palomar
RECE IVED
DEC 1.2 2016
SLO CITY CLER.I<
Could you please send this to tree committee members asap. Thanks. Richard .
1
ATT 8
Proposed 71 Palomar Tree Slaughter
Dear Tree Committee,
I urge you to take your time in deliberating on this project, continue your deliberations
for another month, while you conduct your own independent research.
It is very confusing to the public, and I'm sure to you as well , that staff is attempting now
to limit your "purview" for this dreadful project proposal to taking and offering comments
on the Initial Study of Environmental Impact. I find it confusing because it seems the city
is spreading review of California Environmental Quality Act document review far and
wide among advisory bodies, most of which have not been rigorously trained in
performing such legalistic review . I suspect your committee may be feeling a bit
befuddled by this "death-by-process" approach of our current city staff. (In past times,
CEQA review was performed by the Planning Commission , period, and its members
were well trained in the nuance of the law, of what could and couldn't be demanded in
terms of project modification per CEQA, etc.)
I also find it confusing because your committee 's purview should be to find ways to
protect wonderful trees, such as this unique urban forest grove , not simply to acquiesce
in their wholesale removal. As we are all well aware, your committee attempted a
courageous action earlier this year (the study of this site's 59 trees to see which you
thought might have heritage tree potential), but were shut down by staff. Staff has also
railroaded and manipulated both the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural
Review Commission on this project. I do hope your courage persists, and you are willing
to do more than the limited bureaucratic signoff on this tree massacre that staff has
assigned you to do . This would be a fitting response to staff's idea that our city is a
government of, by and for staff and their developer clients rather than of, by and for the
people .
In a good city, an incredible site like 71 Palomar would be cherished and
protected, not viewed as just so much clearable, bulldozable nondescript land on
which to erect a generic and ugly LA-style apartment complex . That such is not
our city's choice speaks volumes about what our city has become.
So, please, act courageously in facing this proposed tree massacre, recognize this site
is emblematic of the things that make our city special, and do what you can to protect it.
I would suggest the following approach :
1. Revisit your previous desire to study the trees on site for potential heritage qualities .
This important task can best be done by you. It's not going to be done by the applicant,
who has proposed some trees he doesn't want to remove for heritage status merely as
a manipulative strategy to gain approval.
2 . Disapprove the current project's building footprint on grounds no effort was made in
designing it to accommodate any of the site's wonderful urban forest. (An early lesson
for student architects is recognizing the importance of site-appropriate design. This
architect apparently missed that lesson .) Decide which parts of the grove must be
preserved, and tell the designer to accommodate them. (Please note that this must be
based on more than simply an esthetic review of the trees -biology is an implicit part of
the whole picture of what needs to be preserved -see below. Also, please try not to
reflect the general current prejudice against eucs -these are specially valuable trees .)
(I don't know whether staff has told you this , but the ARC was critical of both the
footprint and massing, and asked them to be substantially revised. The staff report
before you doesn 't indicate this. So, if you were to ask footprint changes, you 'd not be
going out on a limb alone.)
3. If, against all common sense, this project does proceed , please disapprove the
proposed tree replanting program. The species selection is junky. The bulk of the trees
appear to be Tristania conferta , which is one of the ugliest, scrawniest parking lot trees
around , will never grow to provide the sort of habitat that's being removed, and is a
ridiculous replacement for the arboreal beauty on the site today. A replanted site should
have the potential to reach the full extent of the urban forest that exists today, and to
provide the habitat functions it provides (see comments on IS-ND below).
4 . Finally, note that many of the proposed "replacement trees" are to be planted on a
parcel not prospectively to be owned by the applicant (the triangle at Palomar and
Luneta), and you have every right to demand to know what prevents future separate
development and tree removal on that site prior to signing onto this odd arrangement.
Comments on the IS-ND for 71 Palomar.
The original IS-ND for this project was a shoddy document, full of inaccuracies and
omissions, and after months of citizen complaint the city agreed to redo it. We were led
to believe this would be a good faith effort to produce a first rate document.
Unfortunately, it has turned out to be more of the same, just another layer of gooey icing
on the same old cake . It is this document that now comes before you.
I will confine my current comments on it to sections that pertain to trees .
Tree Reports and Narrative Analysis
A. We were led to believe there would be a substantive study of the individual trees to
determine which might be of heritage quality and which are fully capable ,
arboriculturally, of preservation within a revised project. Unfortunately , none of that took
place, and we have mainly a rehash of the tree report (A& T) done by the applicant,
which is not a CEQA document even though staff persists in misrepresenting that it is
by including it within the CEQA folder in your agenda packet.
• The "co ndition " evaluations in the Rincon report , as in the A& T report, are purely
subjective, and provide no substantive basis for deciding the fate of the individual trees.
• The report, instead of providing basis for judging individual trees, simply attempts to
justify the wholesale cutting of this urban forest grove by going no deeper than the
cuUleave designations of trees in the original project application , which had changed
prior to the Rincon study, yet is not reflected there . The Rincon report is thus mere
rationalization for wholesale tree removal.
•The report does "discover" additional trees, but then suggests they all be cut down.
• The Rincon report includes the same sort of careless misidentification of tree species
as the original IS-ND, which failed even to mention the presence of Araucaria on the
site . The Rincon report speaks of a "Canary Island Pine " to be preserved (is there even
one on the site?) when it probably means Canary Island Palm.
• The revised report re-endorses the original's ridiculous contention that only 4 trees are
worth saving: two palm trees (among the least significant tree species on the site) one
of which isn 't even on the site but is on the Valencia parking lot easement owned by the
fraternity property; a single eucalyptus, arguably the least significant among the grove's
eucs; and a single Araucaria, the smaller of the two, with no explanation why the larger
perfectly healthy Araucaria is not equally worthy. The Araucaria issue is emblematic of
the shoddy tree work represented here. The smaller tree to be preserved appears to be
smaller because it's been topped ; it appears to have a multiple leader as a result -and
this correctible flaw isn 't even mentioned in the report. The larger tree is criticized
because it's "stressed ;" for sure , nobody's cared for these trees for years; give the thing
some TLC and it will be lush again .
• By contrast, the extensive Eucalyptus plantings are dismissed on grounds they were
poorly trimmed in the past. No mention is made of an obvious corrective that could save
most of them : safety pruning .
Esthetics -Views of Trees.
B . The Rincon report states: "CEQA distinguishes between public and private views,
and focuses on whether a project would affect the public environment. .. ", and then
dismisses any impact on public views. This is done by sleight of hand.
• The photos Rincon uses to make its point don't make its point.
• For example, Photo 2 looking down Luneta has a red arrow allegedly pointing to the
site that doesn't in fact point at anything; but the photo shows a line of skyline trees
straight down the street and to its left, all of which will be removed . How can that be
said not to impact public views?
• Photo 3 is taken from behind trees at the Village, which conveniently block view of
the skyline trees above, thereby apparently proving to Rincon's mind that there is no
visual impact. However, move over a few feet to where the Village trees don 't block
things , look straight up Palomar from Ramona, and the lost skyline tree view would
have been obvious .
• In Photos 4 and 5, virtually every skyline tree looking straight ahead would be
removed, also indicating loss of viewshed amenity to this project.
Rincon 's photos simply don 't make the case their words allege. The photos show
there would be huge loss of public views towards the site.
C. Most incredibly the Rincon IS-ND on page 11 asserts the biggest view lie of all. It
asserts that the site "is not within a City designated [sic] scenic vista" as designated per
Figure 11 in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan . (Contrary
to its name "general plan," there 's nothing "general " about a general plan -its specific
provisions carry the we ight of a law.)
• Figure 11 designates the length of Foothill Boulevard as a scenic highway, whose
views to right , left and straight ahead, are to be protected .
• The site 's sk line trees are rominently visible from several locations along Foothill:
This entire horizon of skyline trees seen from Foothill would be removed under the
"insignificant view impact" story put out by Rincon.
D. Had Rincon done a more thorough job of assessing distant views , it would have
found examples such as this at the intersection of Felton and Ferrini, considerably to the
north of the project site:
The Mormon Church tower can be plainly seen below the entire skyline of trees this
project would remove .
Biology -Impact of Tree Removal
This site is prime bird habitat.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the current revise of the IS-ND is that the original
was so deficient in its assessment of bird life on the site -falsely claiming one would
expect to find nothing more than sparrows and doves on such a site when even the
most cursory inspection would reveal so much more, including active raptor nests
(hawks and owls). After months of criticism from a number of citizens, the city realized it
had problem. It was our contention that the issue of birds was integrally wound up
with that of tree removal. So Michael Cedron said he 'd have parts of the IS-ND
redone to correct the deficiencies, and led us to believe our concerns would be dealt
with . What a cruel hoax of a response the Rincon report constitutes. Our concerns
about birds have still not been dealt with responsibly , and the city has merely kicked the
can down the project review timeline , so that if at this point a responsible bird study
were to be done, it would take another year. Here are a few of our unresolved concerns.
E. Birds are protected under the public trust doctrine that requires permitting agencies
to look out for their welfare. Some birds are also protected by international treaties
which our city cannot ignore . One would think, therefore , that an initial study justifying a
negative declaration of environmental impact on birds would look very carefully at bird
habitat and use on this heavily forested study site.
This initial study utterly fails to do so, and it seriously misrepresents habitat conditions
and avian residents on the site. This apparently stems from the lack of site study by a
competent ornithologist.
F. We in the neighborhood are well aware of the abundant avian use of this site -for
nesting , for roosting , for winter shelter of migratory and native species, for feeding, and
for general habitat. It is an avian oasis of great value. Its neighborhood owl-nesting
habitat is both famous and important for neighborhood public health as the owls
suppress rat populations in the palms developers have planted in abundance to
"tropicalize" their nearby developments.
G . Here is what the IS-ND says on birds:
"Urban/Developed Habitats: Based on a project site visit and observations of the
property, the site exhibits the characteristics associated with the "Urban/Developed "
habitat commonly found concentrated within and adjacent to the developed portions
of the City. . . Wildlife occurrences within urban/developed areas would consist
primarily of urban adapted avian species such as house sparrow (Passer
domesticus) and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) utilizing the
abundant tree canopy and concentrated food sources ... The mature landscaping
present at the project site provides the tree and shrub habitats that have the
potential to support wildlife habitat limited primarily to urban-adapted avian species
discussed above." [Initial study pp. 12-13]
This is utter nonsense . The IS-ND overlooks the presence on this site of a century-old
urban forest located just a few hundred feet from open countryside ; it is therefore not in
any way an "urban/developed " habitat of scattered miscellaneous small trees and
shrubs such as one would find in an intensely-developed part of a city, or such as one
would find in the proposed development after the existing forest is clearcut.
H. Rebuttal to above from IS-ND on birds .
I accompanied several others with better birding skills than mine on very brief "sidewalk
surveys " of the site at ecologically inopportune times in early July -i.e, during neither
nesting season when site use for avian reproduction is heavy nor during migratory
season when large numbers of part-time avian visitors are known to join year-round
natives in the site's trees . We visited early, mid-day, and at dusk.
We were limited to a sidewalk survey because applicants have filed an intimidation
lawsuit (SLAPP suit) against opponents of their project to keep them off the property
itself, for the explicit purpose of concealing habitats that could thus be observed. We
have requested the city intervene through the development process to permit our
expert's access to conduct a better study, but the city has refused. We further asked
that the city include a year-long bird survey in the revised initial statement's scope of
work, and again the city has refused. There is thus no effort at a bird survey in any of
the city's environmental documents.
A sidewalk survey, from the public right of way can only assess a very sma ll part of the
site's habitat value. Even so , here are -in contrast to the "expert's" nonsense about
house sparrows and collared doves -a few verified observations we came up with in
about one hour's overall observation in the slack season for bird activity at this site.
Species observed inhabiting the site:
1. Oak titmouse.
2 . Hooded oriole.
3 . Scrub jay.
4. Pacific slope flycatcher.
5. Orange crowned warbler.
6 . Warbling vireo .
7 . Chestnut-backed chickadee.
8. Band-tailed pigeon (a native pigeon).
9. Crow.
10. Kestrel.
11 . Anna's hummingbird .
12. Acorn woodpecker.
13. House finch.
14. House sparrow.
15. Cassin's kingbird .
16. Mourning dove.
17. Downy woodpecker.
18. American robin .
19. Turkey vultures.
In addition, we ve rified two very important nesting uses of the property:
1. Two hawk nests are plainly visible in eucalyptus trees proposed for removal along
Luneta. It thus boggles my mind that any supposedly reputable "survey" by Rincon
could state that no nests were visible on the site. During a late spring neighborhood
event on Luneta, red-tailed hawks were observed tending young in one of the nests.
Since we cannot enter the site, we cannot say for sure there are other raptor or large
bird nests in the more distant eucalyptus, but it seems very likely there are . It is clear
that this site is important raptor nesting habitat. The initial study's failure to mention this
raises questions about the extent of its writer's actual site observation since any
untrained casua l observer can spot the nests along Luneta.
2 . A perennial barn owl nest site in the palm (Phoenix canariensis) in front of the
Sandford house is notorious, in the good sense, in the neighborhood. Each year parents
raise kids there , and on summer evenings the cute-faced noisy kids can be seen
practicing their flying with short hops between the palm, the Italian stone pine, coast live
oak, and araucarias. As mentioned above, these owls are not only a source of
neighborhood pride, but also important public health vector control agents nature
provides for free .
Another important avian use of the property is as a major roost for turkey vultures .
Each evening they fly into the eucalyptus behind the Sandford house, roost overnight,
and in the morning spread out through the property's 59 trees to stretch, warm up, and
get ready for another day aloft. One summer morning we counted two dozen of these
huge birds at 71 Palomar. My theory is these trees , with their dense foliage, provide
exactly the sort of protective roost vultures need and seek . In the summer evening , they
can be seen gathering in the less dense eucs behind the Mormon Church, preen for a
time, then glide over to t he trees at 71 Palomar and disappear into the foliage , where
they are visible only to the seriously observant eye.
We believe our snapshot sidewalk survey during a relatively "sterile" period in early July
merely scratches the surface of this site's avian activity. A proper environmental study
of avian use of the property would take a year, to visit the site repeatedly to document
seasonal variations and events. Why didn 't the city undertake such a study instead of
endorsing the initial study's clear nonsense? Had such study been initiated at project
application, the year would be well along by now, and we'd have a lot of professional
information instead of a mere sidewalk study by res ide nts versus a non-study by the
city 's "experts."
An initial study that so completely misrepresents avian conditions is insufficient grounds
for granting a negative declaration of environmental impact.
Conclusion .
I urge the Tree Committee to incorporate these comments and considerations into its
deliberations .
I would urge you to take your time. You are under no obligation to render your
conclusions today. Today should be the beginning, not the end point, for your study of
this project site.
To the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Director
From Richard Schmidt
December 17, 2016
Comments on the IS-ND for 71 Palomar.
The original IS-ND for this project was a shoddy document, full of inaccuracies and
omissions, and after months of citizen complaint the city agreed to redo it. We were led
to believe this would be a good faith effort to produce a first rate document.
Unfortunately, it has turned out to be more of the same, just another layer of gooey icing
on the same old inedible cake. The IS-ND is still completely inadequate to meet the
intent of CEQA – to lay out for decision-makers all the significant environmental data
they need to consider prior to making their decisions on a project.
I cannot begin to comment on all the problems in this flawed document, so will focus on
several areas of personal concern, interest, and knowledge.
Birds, and the Impact of Tree Removal. One of the most frustrating aspects of the
current revise of the IS-ND is that the original was so deficient in its assessment of bird
life on the site – falsely claiming one would expect to find nothing more than sparrows
and doves on such a site when even the most cursory inspection would reveal so much
more, including active raptor nests (hawks and owls). After months of criticism from a
number of citizens, the city realized it had problem. It was our contention that the
issue of birds was integrally wound up with that of tree removal. So Michael
Codron said he’d have parts of the IS-ND redone to correct the deficiencies, and led us
to believe our concerns would be dealt with.
What a cruel hoax of a response the Rincon report constitutes. Our concerns about
birds have still not been dealt with responsibly, and the city has merely kicked the can
down the project review timeline, so that if at this point a responsible bird study were to
be done, it would take another year. Here are a few of our unresolved concerns.
• Birds are protected under the public trust doctrine that requires permitting agencies to
look out for their welfare. Some birds are also protected by international treaties which
our city cannot ignore. One would think, therefore, that an initial study justifying a
negative declaration of environmental impact on birds would look very carefully at bird
habitat and use on this heavily forested study site.
• This initial study utterly fails to do so, and it seriously misrepresents habitat conditions
and avian residents on the site. This apparently stems from the total absence of site
study by a competent ornithologist.
• We in the neighborhood are well aware of the abundant avian use of this site – for
nesting, for roosting, for winter shelter of migratory and native species, for feeding, and
for general habitat. It is an avian oasis of great value. Its neighborhood owl-nesting
habitat is both famous and important for neighborhood public health as the owls
suppress rat populations in the palms developers have planted in abundance to
“tropicalize” their nearby developments.
This is primo bird habitat.
One does not learn that, however, from the initial study’s brief examination of the
subject. Here is what the study says on birds:
“Urban/Developed Habitats: Based on a project site visit and observations of the
property, the site exhibits the characteristics associated with the “Urban/Developed”
habitat commonly found concentrated within and adjacent to the developed portions
of the City. . . Wildlife occurrences within urban/developed areas would consist
primarily of urban adapted avian species such as house sparrow (Passer
domesticus) and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) utilizing the
abundant tree canopy and concentrated food sources. . . The mature landscaping
present at the project site provides the tree and shrub habitats that have the
potential to support wildlife habitat limited primarily to urban-adapted avian species
discussed above.” [Initial study p. 14]
This is utter nonsense. This initial study’s contribution to understanding actual habitat
conditions on the site is totally inadequate. The study, among other things, overlooks
the presence on this site of a century-old urban forest located just a few hundred feet
from open countryside; it is therefore not in any way an “urban/developed” habitat of
scattered miscellaneous small trees and shrubs such as one would find in an intensely-
developed part of a city, or such as one would find in the proposed development after
the existing forest is clearcut and the place replanted with the proposed shrubs and
“parking lot trees.”
Here, in briefest form, is a short rebuttal sufficient to demonstrate the nonsensicality of
this consultant’s disinformative prose about birds.
I accompanied several others with better birding skills than mine on very brief “sidewalk
surveys” of the site at ecologically inopportune times in early July – i.e, during neither
nesting season when site use for avian reproduction is heavy nor during migratory
season when large numbers of part-time avian visitors are known to join year-round
natives in the site’s trees. We visited early, mid-day, and at dusk.
We were limited to a sidewalk survey because applicants have filed an intimidation
lawsuit (SLAPP suit) against opponents of their project to keep them off the property
itself, for the explicit purpose of concealing habitats that could thus be observed. We
have requested the city intervene through the development process to permit our
expert’s access to conduct a better study, but the city has refused. We further asked
that the city include an expert-recommended year-long bird survey in the revised initial
statement’s scope of work, and again the city has refused. There is thus no effort at a
bird survey in any of the city’s environmental documents.
A sidewalk survey, from the public right of way, can only assess a very small part of the
site’s habitat value. Even so, here are – in contrast to the “expert’s” nonsense about
house sparrows and collared doves – a few verified observations we came up with in
about one hour’s overall observation in the slack season for bird activity at this site.
Species observed inhabiting the site:
1. Oak titmouse.
2. Hooded oriole.
3. Scrub jay.
4. Pacific slope flycatcher.
5. Orange crowned warbler.
6. Warbling vireo.
7. Chestnut-backed chickadee.
8. Band-tailed pigeon (a native pigeon).
9. Crow.
10. Kestrel.*
11. Anna’s hummingbird.
12. Acorn woodpecker.
13. House finch.
14. House sparrow.
15. Cassin’s kingbird.
16. Mourning dove.
17. Downy woodpecker.
18. American robin.
19. Turkey vultures.
(* indicates species of local concern as per City of SLO)
In addition, we verified two very important nesting uses of the property:
1. Two hawk* nests are plainly visible in eucalyptus trees proposed for removal along
Luneta. It thus boggles my mind that any supposedly reputable “survey” by Rincon
could state that no nests were visible on the site. During a late spring neighborhood
event on Luneta, red-tailed hawks* were observed tending young in one of the nests.
Neighbors report the second nest was used by red-shouldered hawks.* Since we
cannot enter the site, we cannot say for sure there are other raptor or large bird nests in
the more distant eucalyptus, but it seems very likely there are. It is clear that this site is
important raptor nesting habitat. The initial study’s failure to mention this raises
questions about the extent of its writer’s actual site observation since any untrained
casual observer can spot the nests along Luneta, so one would not expect them to
escape an actual “expert’s” eyes.
2. A perennial barn owl* nest site in the palm (Phoenix canariensis) in front of the
Sandford house is notorious, in the good sense, in the neighborhood. Each year parents
raise kids there, and on summer evenings the cute-faced noisy kids can be seen
practicing their flying with short hops between the palm, the Italian stone pine, coast live
oak, and araucarias. As mentioned above, these owls are not only a source of
neighborhood pride, but also important public health vector control agents nature
provides for free.
Another important avian use of the property is as a major roost for turkey vultures.
Each evening they fly into the eucalyptus behind the Sandford house, roost overnight,
and in the morning spread out through the property’s 59 trees to stretch, warm up, and
get ready for another day aloft. One summer morning we counted two dozen of these
huge birds at 71 Palomar. My theory is these trees, with their dense foliage, provide
exactly the sort of protective roost vultures need and seek. In the summer evening, they
can be seen gathering in the less dense eucs behind the Mormon Church, preen for a
time, then glide over to the trees at 71 Palomar and disappear into the foliage, where
they are visible only to the seriously observant eye.
And, the site is frequeneted regularly seasonally by wild turkeys.
The IS-ND revision mentions that such a site might be used by “the State Fully
Protected and local species of concern” white-tailed kite,* which it states has been
observed “within 3.5 miles of the proposed project site.” Really! That’s the best they can
do with this remarkable bird? In fact, it has been sighted at 71 Palomar and is
commonly in the immediate area. Our late great 140-foot Monterey pine, unfortunately
removed just last month after its demise, a few hundred feet from 71 Palomar, was
frequented by these birds, much to our delight. Just last weekend I spotted a pair on
Garden Street near Islay, in downtown’s southern fringe, just over one mile from 71
Palomar. It seems not much effort was put into determining whether kites are present at
the site. Actual serious expert site observation is lacking.
We believe our snapshot sidewalk survey during a relatively “sterile” period in
early July merely scratches the surface of this site’s avian activity. A proper
environmental study of avian use of the property would take a year, to visit the site
repeatedly to document seasonal variations and events and nexting/rearing activities.
Why didn’t the city undertake such a study instead of endorsing the initial study’s clear
nonsense? Had such study been initiated at project application, the year would be well
along by now, and we’d have a lot of professional information instead of a mere
sidewalk study by residents versus a non-study by the city’s alleged “experts.”
• So, it is clear that a number of protected avian species inhabit and use 71 Palomar’s
trees, and the city to date has done absolutely nothing to try to verify that fact or to
mitigate the problems presented by development. This malfeasance sets the city up for
legal problems going forth. This lack of proper bird study must be corrected.
An initial study that so completely misrepresents avian conditions is insufficient grounds
for granting a negative declaration of environmental impact.
Trees. This site is an extraordinary urban forest with 51 significant trees, plus 8 others
that were “discovered” since the initial IS-ND was done, many about a century old or
older. The initial study fails to mention this salient fact, and is dismissive of the trees –
as if this is an ordinary building site instead of a unique and special feature of our city
deserving some degree of respect and protection. Instead of looking at the true
character of this unique site, the initial study endorses clear cutting this wonderful urban
forest without even examining it.
In a good city, an incredible site like 71 Palomar would be cherished and
protected, not viewed as just so much clearable, bulldozable nondescript land on
which to erect a generic and ugly LA-style apartment complex. That such is not
our city’s choice speaks volumes about what our city has become.
Tree Reports and Narrative Analysis
We were led to believe in the revised IS-ND there would be a substantive study of the
individual trees to determine which might be of heritage quality and which are fully
capable, arboriculturally, of preservation within a revised project. Unfortunately, none of
that took place, and we have mainly a rehash of the tree report (A&T) done by the
applicant, which, incidentally, as a submission by the developer is not a legitimate
CEQA document even though staff persists in misrepresenting that it is by including it
within the CEQA folder in the project’s CEQA file. Instead of fresh thinking, we have
something called a “peer review” of the developer’s tree report – a “review” so friendly
and shoddy as to mock the very meaning of the term “peer review.”
• The “condition” evaluations in the Rincon report, as in the A&T report, are purely
subjective, not scientific, and provide no substantive basis for deciding the fate of the
individual trees.
• The report, instead of providing basis for judging individual trees, simply attempts to
justify the wholesale cutting of this urban forest grove by going no deeper than the
cut/leave designations of trees in the original project application, which had changed
prior to the Rincon study, yet those changes are not reflected here. The Rincon report,
like the A&T report, is thus mere rationalization for wholesale tree removal.
• The report does “discover” additional trees, but then suggests that like the previously
known trees they all be cut down.
• The Rincon report includes the same sort of careless misidentification of tree species
as the original IS-ND, which failed even to mention the presence of Araucaria on the
site. The Rincon report speaks of a “Canary Island Pine” to be preserved (is there even
one on the site?) when it probably means Canary Island Palm. And it calls out other tree
species that don’t appear to be on the site as well.
• The revised report re-endorses the original’s ridiculous contention that only 4 trees are
worth saving – 4 which just happen to be the same 4 the applicant doesn’t plan to cut:
two palm trees (among the least significant/important/interesting tree species on the
site) one of which isn’t even on the site but is on the Valencia parking lot easement
owned by the fraternity property; a single eucalyptus, arguably the least significant
among the grove’s eucs; and a single Araucaria, the smaller of the two, with no
explanation why the larger perfectly healthy Araucaria is not equally worthy. The
Araucaria issue is emblematic of the shoddy tree work represented here. The smaller
tree to be preserved appears to be smaller because it’s been topped; it appears to have
a multiple leader as a result – and this correctible flaw isn’t even mentioned in the
report, while the report attempts to make a big deal out of the fact the eucalyptus have
been topped. The larger Araucaria tree is criticized because it’s “stressed;” for sure,
nobody’s cared for these trees for years; give the thing some TLC and it will be lush
again. A fine thriving example of a similar-sized Araucaria rescued from a much more
dire state is located at the southwest corner of the Student Services Building on the
CPSU campus.
• By contrast, the extensive Eucalyptus plantings are dismissed on grounds they were
poorly trimmed in the past. No mention is made of an obvious corrective and very cost-
effective alternative to removal that could save most of them: safety pruning.
Failure to properly evaluate local significance of the trees at 71 Palomar.
The initial study fails in still other ways – it fails to identify the local significance of trees
that are unique in the city yet are proposed for removal! For example, the two large
Araucarias are rare for their size and height in this area. They should both receive
“heritage” designation. (See below for their historic design significance.)
The IS-ND states:
“No designated heritage trees exist on the portion of the site to be developed.”
This is a meaningless, misleading and manipulative statement without any merit. It is
clear that many of the trees on the site would qualify for heritage status should such be
considered by the city.
To claim there are no heritage trees is to ignore the city’s very weak heritage tree
program’s multiple weaknesses coupled with city staff interference. Under the city’s
heritage designation program, trees can be nominated only by the owner. This owner
wants to clear-cut, so he’s not going to nominate his trees. When citizens became
concerned about the fate of the many clearly heritage-qualified trees on this site, they
asked the Tree Committee to study the trees to verify in advance, as part of this
environmental review process, whether any met heritage criteria. The committee agreed
to do that, but then was shut down by city staff, who went so far as to prohibit them from
even entering the property to look at the trees! Even more amazing, the minutes
prepared by staff for the meeting where the Tree Committee had agreed to study the
trees failed to contain that action taken by the committee.
The property owner plans to retain four trees on the site, as mentioned above, and is
manipulatively offering to designate those four as heritage trees, even though three of
them are of dubious heritage significance, while many others he plans to cut are of clear
heritage significance.
The IS-ND also states:
“55 small to fully mature native and non-native landscaping trees would be removed
as part of the proposed project development. This includes trees such as mulberry,
pine, olive, decorative palms, oak, ash, eucalyptus and redwood . . .”
What’s fascinating about this description is its collective incompleteness and thus
distortion of the site’s trees. No mention of perhaps the two most remarkable Araucarias
in town. With the exception of the eucalyptus and one large pine, none of the other
enumerated trees are significant for size or quality, though the olives are very good –
and are easily moved should they be in the way – i.e., there’s zero excuse for cutting
any of them.
Esthetics – Views of Trees.
During public discussion of the project prior to redoing the IS-ND, view impacts from
various points in the neighborhood and around the north quadrant of town were pointed
out. One alleged purpose of the IS-ND redo was to study this issue. Unfortunately, the
issue wasn’t so much studied as intentionally obfuscated and covered up.
The Rincon report states: “CEQA distinguishes between public and private views, and
focuses on whether a project would affect the public environment…”, and then
dismisses any impact on public views. This, however, is done by sleight of hand.
• The photos Rincon uses to make its point don’t make its point.
• For example, Photo 2 looking down Luneta has a red arrow allegedly pointing to the
site that doesn’t in fact point at anything; but the photo beautifully shows a line of
skyline trees straight down the street and to its left, all of which will be removed. How
can wholesale removal of that skyline be said not to impact public views?
• Photo 3, alleged to show no view impact from Ramona, is taken from behind trees
at the Village, which conveniently block a view of the skyline trees above, thereby
apparently proving to Rincon’s mind that there is no visual impact. However, move
over a few feet to where the Village trees don’t block things, look straight up Palomar
from Ramona, and the lost skyline tree view would have been obvious. This sort of
sleight of hand by carefully positioning one’s camera to show nothing is unworthy of
any serious CEQA document.
• In Photos 4 and 5, virtually every skyline tree looking straight ahead would be
removed, also indicating loss of viewshed amenity to this project.
Rincon’s photos simply don’t make the case their words allege. The photos show
there would be huge loss of public views towards the site.
Most incredibly the Rincon IS-ND on page 11 asserts the biggest view lie of all. It
asserts that the site “is not within a City designated [sic] scenic vista” as designated per
Figure 11 in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. (Contrary
to its name “general plan,” there’s nothing “general” about a general plan – its specific
provisions carry the weight of a law.)
• Figure 11 designates the length of Foothill Boulevard as a scenic highway, whose
views to right, left and straight ahead, are to be protected. By law.
• The site’s skyline trees are prominently visible from several locations along Foothill:
(Caption: This entire horizon of skyline trees seen from Foothill would be removed
under the “insignificant view impact” story put out by Rincon. The “non-significant”
Araucarias unmentioned in the IS-ND’s enumeration of trees on site tower in the photo’s
center.)
Had Rincon done a more thorough job of assessing distant views, it would have found
examples such as this at the intersection of Felton and Ferrini, considerably to the north
of the project site:
( Caption: The Mormon Church tower can be plainly seen below the entire skyline of
trees, silhouetted against the grassy slope of Cerro San Luis Obispo, this project would
remove. This is estimated to be ½ mile from site. Instead of this important view, Rincon
included a photo from further out Ferrini in which the view was selectively blocked,
similar to what they did in the view from Ramona with the view hidden behind nearby
trees.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The IS-ND’s discussion of greenhouse gas emissions and energy matters in general is
completely incompetent. I have personally urged Mr. Codron to correct this deficient
discussion in the revised IS-ND, but he didn’t. So the old stuff remains.
The section’s problems begin with the following questionable statement: “The major
sources GHG emissions in the City are transportation related emissions from cars and
trucks, followed by energy consumption in buildings.” There is no documentation in the
report for such a statement, it is simply presented as unquestioned fact. That lack of
documentation matters because the statement is significantly at variance with the
national breakdown of GHG sources.
The respected ARCHITECTURE 2030 website indicates almost half of US GHG
emissions come from buildings (construction plus operating energy), while about a third
come from all types of transport, of which private transport makes up about half the
transport sector. That is, private transport accounts for about 16% of total US GHG
emissions.
So, how does it become the largest local source?
This apparent conceptual error multiplies as it progresses through the report, leaving us
with no understanding how to mitigate or lessen actually significant project GHG
impacts.
While the IS-ND appears to exaggerate the transport sector’s GHG emissions, it ignores
the impact of this poorly-designed project’s rather large contributions. It states: “The
emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total
project CO2 emissions,” again without evidence to back this allegation, and downplays
project operational energy consumption throughout its life. This has the cart backwards
being pulled by a back-stepping horse.
There are a number of places where energy use could be mitigated through good
design, which this project lacks.
• The project has totally enclosed under-building parking, which by code requires 24/7
mechanical ventilation (with presumably a stinky discharge point for the exhaust), which
sucks energy a better parking design with open air circulation could completely avoid.
• Properly designed buildings in our climate can heat themselves, cool themselves,
ventilate themselves and light themselves by capturing free non-carbonized site
energies to do the work electricity and gas might otherwise be called upon to do. This
design appears to totally ignore the potential to use natural energy flows to do such
work.
• Most of the buildings have the worst possible solar orientation, with long building
facades, containing windows, facing east and west. This means morning and afternoon
interior heat buildup in the hot seasons, and an inability to capture winter heat from the
south sun. The consequence is excess use of electricity for summer cooling and excess
use of gas and electricity for winter heating, compared to a design with majority N-S
facing windows properly specified to promote winter heat gain and shaded from summer
sun.
• Most of the roofs have the worst sort of orientation (east and west) to make use of PV
electric generation on site. In this day, there is zero excuse for that on a site with
excellent southerly orientation potential. It’s just plain bad design.
• The broken-up floor plans suggest it will be next to impossible to ventilate the buildings
naturally with cross ventilation or stack ventilation. Again, there’s no excuse for this in
today’s world. We know how to do this, using “free” natural energy flows to keep our
indoor air fresh and cool in summer.
• One suspects the buildings will be air conditioned to compensate for their poor siting
and poor design configuration. That would mean a totally unnecessary energy suck for
the lifetime of the buildings, an energy albatross around the climate’s neck for the next
century or so. (Even if not air conditioned, it seems likely portable AC units will be
chosen to mitigate for summer heat buildup due to poor orientation of windows.) Not
only is this poor practice in today’s world, it is immoral. It is also hypocritical for city that
claims to be concerned about climate change to tolerate this sort of poor design.
•Why is such an energy-inefficient building complex being given a pass in 2017,
less than 3 years before California law would require such buildings to achieve
net zero energy consumption? The state PUC and Energy Commission, jointly
charged with implementing the residential net zero requirement, have recommended
local jurisdictions “ramp up” to net zero so there’s understanding all around (not the
least among staff) of various ways to implement net zero prior to the deadline. Why has
San Luis Obispo not done this? Why are we dragging our feet? Why are the huge
projects being built today being built pretty much like projects of the past instead of like
projects of the future? Does the city simply not care?
• The IS-ND concludes that Title 24 will save us all. “State Title 24 regulations for
building energy efficiency are enforced with new construction.” While not false, that
statement is deliberately manipulative. A code-compliant building is a legal building. It is
not a good building, or a green building, or an energy sipping building. It is merely a
code-compliant building. The difference between code and what can be done is vast,
and it’s not being done here. The city, if it really cares, should demand better.
• Looking at the poor design of 71 Palomar, it is clear this is yesterday’s project, not
tomorrow’s. There appears to be no obvious way it could ever become net zero.
Cultural Resources.
• Historic building preservation.
The IS-ND fails to adequately explore the project applicant’s intention to demolish
portions of the historic-listed Sandford House. It is said he will preserve the “historic”
portions of the house while demolishing “non-historic” portions.
This is verbal gobblegook.
When determining the “period” to which a restoration is to be made, one has to ask a lot
of questions that haven’t been asked in this study and its historical analysis companion
study.
The key is to decide what “period” is significant to the resource. If it’s when “George
Washington slept here,” that’s explicit.
In the current case, nothing has been made explicit. If we don’t have a rationale for a
specified “period” in mind, any pretext of an accurate or meaningful restoration is bogus.
It appears instead that the applicant has determined he wants to move the “historic”
house out of his way to maximize his profit, and so the “experts” support his lopping off
an arm here, a wing there, an ear someplace else in order to make the move easier.
This has nothing to do with historic preservation. It has everything to do with making the
developer happier.
• Let’s look at this intelligently instead of rationalizing the project’s plans. One might
argue, for example, the most important “period” of the house was its occupancy by a
pioneering female radio operator and America’s first female TV station owner, at mid-
20th century. In that case, ALL of the accretions now allegedly added onto the “original”
house are “historic” – both by period merit and by age. In that case, all must be
preserved in any historic restoration.
The IS-ND’s failure to define the period for establishing “historic” importance thus
means the determination that alleged “non-historic” features can legitimately be
removed as part of an alleged “restoration” is a bogus contention.
Without establishing the “period” of authenticity and a firm reason for choosing that
period, the ND-IS cultural heritage section is without merit.
• Historical importance of building/landscape interaction.
The IS-ND fails to look at the cultural landscape of which the house is but a part.
The entire site consists of a cultural landscape in which house, tree placement,
pathways, etc., are intentionally, by design, interlocked into a unique and meaningful
fabric. The proposed project will destroy all of this cultural meaning even if individual
pieces of it (diminished relocated house, a few individual trees) remain. The IS-ND
insensitively fails to so much as look at this aspect of cultural heritage.
• Given the current prejudice against eucalyptus trees as aliens (as if nearly everything
we plant weren’t alien), one tends to overlook that their historical vernacular use was
with good purpose, and this is demonstrated at the Sandford House site. There appear
to be two different uses of the eucs, two different historic groves, plus a few apparently
planted later without the cultural understanding of the two groves. One grove is to the
northwest of the house, clinging to the house outline but out a bit from it, to provide a
windbreak from those brisk summer winds we all know; it is a planned planted alteration
of one of this site’s less desirable natural energy flows. The other, to the southwest of
the house, appears to be a prototypical “shade grove,” providing a shaded place for
outdoor activities. These were both common vernacular design uses for eucs. The IS-
ND is mute on the cultural significance of these principal historic eucalyptus plantings.
(Caption: Illustration of the two principal historic eucalyptus groves on a site diagram for
some proposed heritage tree designations. Note also the Eugenia and Araucaria tree
locations discussed below. The Eugenias are actually on an adjacent property the
applicant plans to use for landscaping, even though he doesn’t own it.)
• This site is unique in our city, with its on-site topography determining the sensitive
placement of house and many of the trees; its hillside location offering views outwards
from the site but also views upward from below to the ancient forest on the city’s
skyline; the somewhat formal arrangement of trees, house entry, walkway indicating
whoever laid it out was familiar with the classical architectural language of approach,
entry, and object placement, as well as sensitivity to what happens as a person moves
in time through space, and how to architecturally augment that time/space journey, in
this instance with trees. The proposed plan destroys all of this by mucking with the
underlying fabric of the site – moving the house, cutting the trees, destroying the axial
spatial movement to the house entry thoughtfully laid out by some designer in the past.
This site is the nearest we have to the sort of dignity one finds in a hilltop park in
Florence, gazing out over the city to the mountains beyond while surrounded by
beautiful trees (including a lovely Italian stone pine – how appropriate for the Florentine
analogy!) in a peaceful place. Yet this project proposal ignores all of this specialness
and proposes something that’s Anyplace LA to displace it.
• Cultural landsapes are a recognized part of historic preservation and cultural heritage.
In 1981, the National Park Service, keeper of the National Register of Historic Places,
recognized cultural landscapes as a National Register preservation category, and
UNESCO followed in 1992. Cultural landscapes, says the NPS, “are composed of a
number of character-defining features which, individually or collectively contribute to the
landscape's physical appearance as they have evolved over time. In addition to
vegetation and topography, cultural landscapes may include . . . circulation features,
such as roads, paths, steps, and walls; buildings; and furnishings, including fences,
benches, lights and sculptural objects.” Vegetation, topography, paths, and building all
compose important aspects of the cultural landscape of 71 Palomar and define the
site’s significant and unique historic fabric.
NPS continues: “Most historic properties have a cultural landscape component that is
integral to the significance of the resource. . . A historic property consists of all its
cultural resources—landscapes, buildings, archeological sites and collections.”
The entire 71 Palomar site must be considered as a cultural landscape, of which the
building is but one part. If one looks only at the building, and not at the site as a
historical/cultural artifact, one misses the bulk of what there is of cultural value. One
must look at the whole site – historic building, historic grounds layout, historic trees,
topography, placement of building and plantings with respect to topography, views to
and from the site – as what has cultural heritage significance for our community and
what merits cultural heritage protection.
The NPS requires “integrity” of a resource for National Register qualification. By integrity
it means “the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evinced by the survival of
physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period.
The seven qualities of integrity as defined by the National Register Program are
location, setting, feeling, association, design, workmanship, and materials.”
When one starts moving historic buildings about on their historic cultural landscape, one
creates a muddle, disturbs the meaning, significance and integrity of the place. For
example, moving the Sandford House and cutting the historic trees as applicant
proposes totally destroys three of the essential aspects of integrity considered for
National Register qualification: location, setting and feeling. The IS-ND fails to look at
this issue.
A good cultural heritage IS-ND evaluation would thus note that historic preservation is
not about a building alone, but about a building in its setting. This IS-ND fails to do that.
• Consider just one of the simplest cultural heritage relationships that would be
destroyed, and which a good IS-ND would have analyzed: the classical axial approach
to the house, which was laid out with utmost thought by someone in the past. Passing
between two vertical elements is a classic way architects and vernacular designers alike
understood to denote entry. At the Sandford House, one does this twice, along a
walkway that leads, on axis, from a viewing platform at the top of the stairs from the
street, to the front door: First, after rising to the level of the front yard from the now-
depressed street, one passes between two Eugenia trees, then, continuing in a straight
line, between two Araucaria trees. One moves through the space between top of stairs
and front door by entering this “propylaea” formed by trees before continuing through
the open on a straight path to the front door. This timeless time/space passage is
punctuated by a culturally-recognizable object composed of trees instead of stone.
And the passage works in reverse, also, from house front door, through the “propylaea”
to the “Florentine” viewing platform offering a purposefully composed view out over the
city to the hills beyond.
(Caption: An axial approach pathway is framed three-dimensionally from viewing
platform, bottom, to house door, top, by the Eugenia trees at bottom and pair of
Araucarias further towards house. This is emblematic of the sort of land/built-object
relationship, with historic cultural meaning, the project would destroy and upon which
the IS-ND is mute.)
YET ALL OF THIS – THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PASSAGE AND THE PHYSICAL
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ARTIFACTS AND THE BROADER LANDSCAPE --
WOULD BE DESTROYED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT’S INSENSITIVITY.
Moving the house, cutting the trees, putting a mundane zig-zag walk from relocated
stairs to relocated house. Why should this wanton destruction of historic fabric and
meaning be allowed when it’s not necessary or desirable? Why does the IS-ND not look
at such issues instead of signing off on whatever the destructionist wishes to do?
CONCLUSION. This IS-ND is a very disappointing document. The first version was
clearly inadequate and non-competent. After public pressure, the Michael Codron
agreed to redo it and correct its deficiencies. Instead, it appears the emphasis was
merely on making the record deeper and thicker rather than undertaking an honest
reappraisal to correct previous faults. Old faults remain. New ones are added.
This document is unfit to be considered adequate CEQA work for the City of San Luis
Obispo. It needs to be redone again, and this time done right – a year-long bird study,
for example, and competent tree analysis rather than mere rationalization for a massive
clearcut.
RE CEIVED
DEC 12 2016
SLO CITY CL ERK
From: jody vollmer
Sent: Monday, Dec .. . .. ' . ,.. '
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slacity.org>
Cc: Codron -mcodron@slocity.org; Harmon, Heidi <hharrnon@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>;
Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy
<apease@sloc.ity.org >
Subject: Tree Committee Communication
Dear Tree committee members :
Thank you for your careful consideration of the plan to remove so many
trees from 71 Palomar Ave, and the negative impact this will have on the
neighborhood, ecosystem, and overall beauty of this property.
Please consider how many individual requests you have received over the
years to remove 1 or 2 trees on personal property, and then have denied
them for various reasons.
Even though the health of some of the trees at 71 Palomar is currently in
question-they are NOT a danger nor have they EVER been considered or
requested for removal by the owners before. It is only an issue at this
time because of a developer who wants to remove them, because they are "in
the way" of his planned massive apartment complex.
If any of the trees on this property are in questionable condition, or
were allowed to be cut/pruned improperly so that it affected their health-
-then the property owners are responsible for allowing this to happen. so
why would they now start caring for/nurturing the new trees they plan to
plant so this doesn't happen again?
The current trees are established and thus require less water to maintain
them--whereas the developer's plan to plant new smaller trees that will
presumably require large amounts of water in order to sustain them during
our continued drought.
I still believe that some of these trees could be considered Heritage
Trees, but the owners of 71 Palomar have never seemingly cared about
requesting this designation or preserving the trees on this property.
Please do not allow 55 majestic, mature, and established trees--and the
scenic screen they provide for the residents of this neighborhood--to fall
victim to a developer .
Thank you for your consideration
Jody Vollmer
1
From: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 2:52 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <adviso rvb odies@s locity.o rg >; Gallagher, Carrie <=CG=a=ll=a =h=e,_,,r ==i...:.::..:.q
Subject: Tree Committee -71 Palomar 12/12/16
Mila Vujovi ch-la Barre
San Luis Obispo, California -
December 12, 2016
San Luis Obispo CityTree Commissioners
~CA-
Dear Members of the Tree Commission ,
RECEIVE D
DEC 1 3 201 6
SLO CITY CLER J<
It is my hope that you deny the proposal for 71 Palomar that is on your agenda for this evening. Like
so many other concerned citizens , I urge you to continue your deliberations for another month , while
you conduct your own independent research.
As you recall about six months ago, you expressed a desire to study the trees on site for potential
heritage qualities in person . This important task should be done by you.
It is my understanding that your committee's purview is to protect wonderful trees in our community,
not simply to agree to their removal to facilitate development. Your committee should have been
consulted at the onset of this process.
This particular project has taken a very unusual path through the City process. It has not been dealt
with in a logical and linear fashion .
The Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission have weighed in on this
project and they too have found the process to be illogical.
Please disapprove the current project's building footprint on grounds no effort was made in designing
it to accommodate any of the site's wonderful urban forest. The ARC was criti cal of both the footprint
and massing , and asked them to be substantially revised . They have not been. The current proposal
is for high-priced students dormitories with insufficient parking -it is not for "affordable" or 11workforce"
housing .
The current property at 71 Palomar should be cherished and protected since it is a historical master
listed house, su r rounded by a healthy urban forest. The house will most certainly be damaged if it is
moved in the way that is proposed .
The roots of the trees are part of the infrastructure of the land that the house is on. Certainly the
destruction and clearin g of the trees will further destroy support of the house.
1
There is significant wildlife at this site according to experts that will be negatively impacted including
the hooded oriole, scrub jay, Pacific slope flycatcher, orange crowned warbler, warbling vireo,
chestnut-backed chickadee, band-tailed pigeon, crow, kestrel , Anna's hummingbird, acorn
woodpecker, house finch , house sparrow, Cassin 's kingbird, mourning dove, downy woodpecker,
American robin turkey vultures, barn owls and hawks.
I urge you as members of the Tree Committee to delay any approval of this project until you can
personally observe the concerns of residents and make the most informed decision.
Thank you for your service and consideration .
Cordially,
~arre
San Luis Obispo, CA-
2
1
Cohen, Rachel
From:Mila Vujovich-LaBarre <milavu@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 5:17 PM
To:Cohen, Rachel; Harmon, Heidi; Pease, Andy; Gomez, Aaron; Rivoire, Dan; carlyn christenson; Lichtig,
Katie
Subject:71 Palomar Update
Date: December 19, 2016
To: Rachel Cohen - Planner: City of San Luis Obispo
CC: City Council of San Luis Obispo
From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre
Dear Ms. Cohen,
This proposal at 71 Palomar by LR Development of El Segundo is inconsistent with
neighborhood character and poses problems for traffic circulation, impacting the traffic on
Broad, Serrano, Luneta and all nearby streets.
In addition, it threatens the existence of both trees and the master listed house at the location.
This is, in essence, an apartment complex - not “affordable” housing adjacent to an
established R-1 neighborhood.
It would also have a negative impact on the character of the established neighborhood, the
safety of our streets for bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles, and on our City’s water supply.
As an involved community member, I have read several of the communications that have been
forwarded to you about this proposal and I have also attended a variety of meetings in regard to 71
Palomar.
Suffice to say that I am in complete agreement with the research and assertions about the historical
significance of the Sandford House. I am also convinced that the house should not be moved.
In The Tribune article on this matter, published on June 18, 2016, and written by reporter Nick Wilson,
there are some other details that I hope you are aware of. The developer Loren Riehl stated that “the
home has a weak foundation” and “it’s feasible and advisable to move the structure.” That logic, to
me, is contradictory.
The current tenants invited me to the site in June to closely examine the current condition of the
home. The huge foundation is on an immense sturdy slab. Taking the century- old home off that slab
will undoubtedly cause the home to be severely damaged.
The established property, with its magnificent views, tree canopy and wildlife, is part of the history of
our town and it should be protected.
Furthermore, the developer was instructed in a past CHC meeting to reduce the number of units on
the property. He reduced the number of units but just increased the number of bedrooms in the
proposed units. They are obviously dorm rooms. He also decreased the number of original parking
spaces.
2
The ARC was critical of both the footprint and massing, and asked them to be substantially revised.
They have not been.
A development of this magnitude should not be at this site. It is inconsistent with neighborhood
character. This mastered-listed historical home should be preserved in its entirety.
While the developer may boast that he is helping with the housing crisis in our City, there are other
sites that are better suited to multi-family dwelling. One site is the defunct McDonald's that has been
empty for years on Foothill Boulevard. Since this proposed development appears to be student
housing by design, another option would be to pursue a public/private partnership with Cal Poly and
build on Cal Poly property.
On another note, I know that you are aware that the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee recently found
fault with the tree report funded by the developer. There were a minimum of 22 errors in either
identification, height, significance, or health of existing trees.
I have followed City development often for the last 15 years. This particular development has not
been dealt with logically. I also was encouraged to share some additional information with you to
shed additional light on my sentiments about how unusual this process has been.
First of all, at the request of resident Cheryl McLean and I in mid-May during public comment at a
Tree Committee meeting, the topic of 71 Palomar tree analysis and preservation was put on an
agenda in early June by the Tree Committee chair at our request. The agenda item was then “pulled
by City staff” in early June.
For many residents and members of the advisory body, it seemed that the preservation of the trees
would have a significant impact on where and what type of building can go on the site at 71 Palomar.
It was not logical or linear to not have had the input from the Tree Committee before then deciding on
the preservation of the Sandford House and then giving guidance to the developer for the eventual
plan for development for the entire parcel.
Shortly after that cancellation in early June, I announced that I was going to run for City Council at a
City Council meeting during public comment. Less than 48 hours later, I was to have a press
interview with The Tribune about 71 Palomar at 71 Palomar with other residents, a journalist, and a
photographer.
Prior to the interview, I came home to change clothes from my work day and discovered that my
home had been burglarized mid-day. I kept my composure and went on to the interview with The
Tribune and then called the police on my way home from 71 Palomar.
Approximately $20,000 in jewelry and electronics were taken from my home. I have lived there for
over 25 years and never have I had a problem. There was a man in a getaway car and I suspect two
individuals inside the house and the guest house that worked somewhat quickly. My astute neighbor
got what he thought was a complete license plate. The license plate was run through the system by
San Luis Obispo Police Department detectives and came came back as a license plate registered to
the local prison.
Although my neighbor initially stated that he was certain that he had the right number, he then stated
that maybe he “was wrong.”
ATTACHMENT 8
3
When two people in the media found out I had been burglarized, they called and then stated that they
thought it was politically motivated due to my outspokenness on this particular development. I said I
did not think that “was possible or probable.” I said that I have been very trusting over the years and
took the blame for not locking my back door.
The next day, a neighbor adjacent to 71 Palomar who has been vocal about the project had her tire
slashed. Two days later a man who has been vocal against this project had his car mirror vandalized.
Many have thought this all to be an interesting coincidence.
Since I, as a middle school teacher, did not want to think that any of these negative assumptions
were true about the owners or the developer, I took the proverbial “high road” and called members of
Delta Tau to ask about whether or not they were open to a “backup offer” on 71 Palomar, in the event
that it fell out of escrow. Delta Tau Leader, Bob Nastase, who is a real estate attorney in Southern
California had given me his card and said to “keep communication open.” He stated that day in a
telephone call, “Mila, by all means ‘Yes’! Submit a backup offer.”
That next day, I went to the Land Conservancy and also spoke with a member of the Cultural
Heritage Committee about a potential backup offer. I was excited at the possibility that this property
may fall out of escrow and that City residents could possibly have their much awaited park in the
North Broad Street neighborhood. This enthusiasm was due to the fact that the City Council, under
the direction of Mayor Jan Marx, had recently granted $900,000 on paper to purchase a piece of
property for a neighborhood park in the North Broad Street area at our request.
That very next day, I was shocked to learn that Bob Nastase, the very same man who had
encouraged me on the phone to submit a backup offer, had filed a lawsuit against me and the other
concerned citizens for “trespassing at 71 Palomar” the day of The Tribune interview. The residents
who had given us permission to be on the property were also evicted. Although we were never served
with a lawsuit, it was definitely intimidating for some.
In September, more shenanigans occurred at my home property that necessitated police
involvement. It frightened both my daughter and me. During the interview with the police, my neighbor
and the police commented that it looked “just like a fraternity prank.” I said nothing.
My home is now fully alarmed and protected.
People just need to be aware of the occurrences that have taken place.
I just wanted to share with you the fact that there appears to be an illogical path to development for
71 Palomar that needs to be corrected. I said that in May. I am saying it again now.
The current property at 71 Palomar should be protected since it is a historically master listed house,
surrounded by a healthy urban forest. The house will most certainly be damaged if it is moved in the
way that is proposed.
The roots of the trees are part of the infrastructure of the land that the house is on. Certainly the
destruction and clearing of the trees will further destroy support of the house.
The current proposal is for high-priced students dormitories with insufficient parking - it is not for
“affordable” or “workforce” housing.
ATTACHMENT 8
4
Please let logic prevail and postpone any decision on this development until a decision on the trees
and the master listed house are appropriately evaluated. That way, the project can be considered in a
logical, ethical, and legal manner that will provide a clear and transparent path for decision-making.
The Delta Tau Housing Corporation is not in financial dire straits and the developer has a number of
other projects pending from his home base in El Segundo, California.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mila Vujovich-La Barre
650 Skyline Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
milavu@hotmail.com
Cell:805-441-5818
ATTACHMENT 8
1
1336 Sweetbay Lane
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
December 19, 2016
Michael Codron, Director
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo, California
RE: 71 Palomar Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Codron:
I wish to express support for a more comprehensive revision of the above
referenced study, which is deficient. Briefly, I suggest that the following occur:
1. A qualified ornithologist prepare an independent study and analysis of the
avian population in the trees on this site, and prepare an assessment of
the impacts of losing such trees on a prime bird habitat. The current study
is clearly inadequate.
2. An independent arboreal analysis of the significance of the trees on site, in
terms of their health, environmental and cultural, historical setting, and
which ones are within the category of a heritage tree.
3. The report should use the required findings for tree removal by the Tree
Committee, in particular that their loss would cause environmental
damage to the neighborhood and public views of the site. A landscape
architect should be hired to provide an expert opinion about the site and
its trees within its setting in the neighborhood.
4. An accurate greenhouse gas should be provided which is objective about
the amounts which the proposed project will generate over time from
energy use, vehicle emissions, building operations and inability to provide
solar energy.
5. Cultural and social impacts of removing parts of the Sanford house,
moving it and building new wings and porch which are not consistent with
its historic design. An analysis of the landscape on the site which is a
cultural artifact of an estate left to deteriorate; the loss of more of this
cultural heritage should be reported.
Thank you for conveying my comments to the consultant and providing an
independent analysis with more expertise.
Sincerely,
James Lopes
1
Cohen, Rachel
From:Lydia Mourenza <mourenza@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 4:52 PM
To:Cohen, Rachel
Subject:71 PALOMAR RINCON REPORTS
71 Palomar: RINCON 10/21/2016
Arborist Report
This report is blatant advocacy to
favor the developer and his proposed
project. It contains false, incorrect
and irrelevant information intended
to creat a favorable view to tree
removal on the site.
Heritage Tree (HT) designation can
only be made the City Council. Such
designation is not voluntary when a
development permit is involved (see
attached). In this case it is unknown
whether there are any such trees on
site as the City Attorney unilaterally
removed that issue from the Tree
Committee agenda due to threat by
the developer of trespass charges
being brought against the committee
members if they entered the property
for purposes of potential HT
evaluation. This discussion is an
attempt to diminish the significance
of this 1.3 acre site of our rapidly
depleting Urban Forest, home to over
20 bird species protected under the
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. IRRELEVANT TO HEALTH
OF TREES
Findings of the Cultural Heritage
Committee are advisory only and
therefore not subject to appeal. It
remains undetermined whether the
location of the Master Listed
Historical house will be relocated
and/or whether any of the trees will
be determined as part of the
2
site/setting. Attempt to impress upon
the reader that the trees are
insignificant. IRRELEVANT TO
HEALTH OF TREES
Tree replanting/replacement IS
required by the City and will exceed
the proposed 30 for 55 removed.
Attempt to paint developer as
manganous. IRRELEVANT TO
HEALTH OF TREES
Multiple notes in Table 2 indicating
trees as "unsightly" with no mention
of the abundant birds and wildlife
living there. Attempt to devalue the
trees. IRRELEVANT TO HEALTH
OF TREES
The members of the tree committee note significant issues with the report including multiple
misidentification of trees, mis-measurement of over 30 feet in height, and additional errors and omissions. The
tree committee, as the Cultural Heritage Committee was interested in a consideration of the trees as historical
landscape in relation to the Master Listed House as a whole. Moving the Sanford House and cutting 55 trees
many of which are old large specimens and provide canopy will cause a dramatic change in the neighborhood
both aesthetically and due to loss of bird habitat.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
In following with the trend this report is full of errors, omissions and demonstrated lack of either
knowledge of attention. Two large hawk nests are readily visible from Luneta. Red tailed Hawks and at least
20 other species included in the Migratory Bird Act are readily seen on the subject property, in addition to those
enumerated by Richard Schmidt in his correspondence. Raptors include the red tailed and red shoulder hawk, in
addition to white tailed kite and turkey vultures which aid in keeping rodents at bay. Wild turkeys and mountain
quail, western-scrub and steller's jays, american crow and common Raven, American robin, mourning dove,
numerous wood-peckers and owls abound. Bats are ever present.
A year long survey by someone who is able to identify aviary species and their nest, and bats, needs to be
obtained.
THESE INADEQUATE, FLAWED AND BIASED REPORTS SHOULD BE
REJECTED.
EITHER THE DEVELOPER BE DIRECTED TO SUBMIT PLANS WHICH LEAVE THE HOUSE IN
PLACE AND PRESERVES THE URBAN FOREST I.E. BUILD WITH RESPECT TO 71 PALOMAR
RATHER THAN DEGRADE THE SITE AND NEIGHBORHOOD, OR THE PROJECT MUST UNDERGO
ADDITIONAL EVALUATION WITH UNBIASED EXPERTS TO AFFORD RELIABLE INFORMATION
WHICH SHOULD ASLO INCLUDE A FULL TRAFFIC STUDY.
Lydia Mourenza, Luneta Drive
1
Cohen, Rachel
From:Lydia Mourenza <mourenza@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 4:56 PM
To:Cohen, Rachel
Subject:71 PALOMAR
Photos of nest from Luneta
2
Sent from my iPad
1
Cohen, Rachel
From:Lydia Mourenza <mourenza@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, December 20, 2016 8:08 AM
To:Cohen, Rachel
Subject:71 PALOMAR
The photos are of 2 different nests in 2 different trees visible from Luneta by the posts. I failed to make that clear when
sent yesterday. Thank you, Lydia Mourenza
Sent from my iPhone
Minutes - DRAFT
TREE COMMITTEE
Monday, December 12, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee was called to order on Monday, December 12, 2016
at 5:03 p.m. in Conference Room A of the Corporation Yard, located at 25 Prado Road, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Ritter.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Alan Bate, Scott Loosley, Angela Soll, Jane Worthy, Vice-Chair
Ben Parker, and Chair Matt Ritter
Absent: Committee Member Rodney Thurman
Staff: Urban Forest Supervisor & City Arborist Ron Combs, Community Development
Principal Planner Tyler Corey, Community Development Associate Planner Rachel
Cohen, and Recording Secretary Brad Opstad
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER SOLL, the Minutes of the Tree Committee Meeting of October 24th, 2016,
were approved on the following 6:0:1 vote:
AYES: Parker, Soll, Bate, Loosley, Worthy, Ritter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Thurman
TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS
1.857 Santa Rosa Street
Property Manager Bill Carpenter provided a brief overview of the damage the subject ficus tree
has posed to the property and surrounding area, including sidewalk damage, destruction of the
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 7
NEW BUSINESS
1.71 Palomar Drive
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen provided a brief overview of the development plan, requesting
feedback from the committee and members of the public.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following San Luis Obispo residents spoke in opposition of tree removals as described in the
proposed development plan: Alan Cooper, David Brody, Camille Small, Lydia Mourenza, Mila
Vujovich- La Barre, Cheryl McLean, Carolyn Smith, Peter Croft, Bob Mourenza, and Cathy
Wydell.
Chip Tamagni, local arborist, supported the findings of the arborist report.
Chair Ritter opened for discussion and comments from the committee and staff.
In response to committee inquiry, Associate Planner Cohen confirmed there was one site visit by
the non-partisan arborist to provide an arborist report; stated a biological assessment was
conducted which included recommended mitigation in the initial study.
Committee Member Soll commented that she attended previous CHC and ARC meetings
regarding the subject site and these advisory bodies were interested in comments provided by the
Tree Committee.
Committee Member Loosley mentioned he was surprised by some of the findings and
inaccuracies of the arborist report, but also noted that if you look at the trees as structures the
information provided by both arborist is not that far off; topped eucalyptus can be hazardous, and
while the trees are very old they are not unique specimens. But 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.
Chair Ritter commented that the Rincon report contained many errors and inaccuracies including
species identification and tree heights. Chair Ritter noted that he measured the Norfolk Island
Pine at 95 feet tall and conducted a survey of other Norfolk pines in the City and made the
observation that the subject site has the second tallest specimen in the City. Committee Member
Ritter commented that the committee needs more time to evaluate the trees on the site since the
report does not provides sufficient or correct information.
Committee Member Soll questioned whether the tree removals were mitigatable. Chair Ritter
responded that he did not have an answer to that question.
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 8
Committee Members Bate and Parker concurred with the comments made by Committee
Member Loosley and Chair Ritter.
Chair Ritter commented that the Rincon report states that the City’s Ordinance does not provide
mitigation requirements for trees that are removed. Chair Ritter read an excerpt from the Tree
Ordinance that mentions that a property owner be required to plant a new tree unless the tree
replacement is waived by the tree committee.
City Arborist Combs mentioned that the City Council, ARC and Tree Committee can require
mitigation.
Chair Ritter suggested the Architectural Review Commission devalue the Rincon report due to
the gross inaccuracies of information; stated the challenge in forming a valuable
recommendation in the absence of an accurate and thorough tree assessment.
City Arborist Combs urged the Committee and staff to consider mitigation a key factor in
addressing the concerns of the public as well as a responsible effort to preserve the City’s urban
forest.
In response to Committee inquiry, Associate Planner Cohen clarified that the final decision, as it
pertains to the trees on the property, will be made by the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) after consideration of the Tree Committee’s comments and feedback.
Committee Members summarized their comments as follows: inaccuracies and inconsistencies
found in the consultant arborist report; 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; suggested a review of the site’s historical and cultural landscape versus a review of
individual trees and a more in-depth biological report.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Tree Committee is
scheduled for Monday, January 23, 2016, at 5:00 p.m., in Conference Room A of the
Corporation Yard, located at 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE TREE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2016