HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, BrodieCOUNCIL MEETING:-jJ-/, ACC I
ITEM NO.: MAR 3 0 2017
To: SLO City Council LO CITY CLERK
Re: Public Hearing Item #16 - 71 Palomar Appeal
From: David Brodie
Date: March 29, 2017
Honorable Mayor and Council Members -
I am asking you to uphold the appeal filed by Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza of the
Architectural Review Commission's decision to approve 71 Palomar.
Firstly, I am urging you to keep the historical Sandford House in its present location. There are
four compelling reasons behind this:
Relocation of an historical property is considered by the City of San Luis Obispo to be "a
last resort" solution for preserving the property.
2. The proposed relocation irretrievably compromises the "cultural landscape". It does this
by destroying the symmetry that was originally achieved through the placement of the
two Norfolk Island Pines and the two Eugenias at each side of the entry walk.
3. Moving the historic house to its new location will result in the removal of a 90-95 foot tall
Norfolk Island Pine ... one of the tallest in the United States (see Dr. Matt Ritter's letter).
4. Moving this structure is unwarranted. This historic house can remain where it is without
affecting the developer's site plan, without reducing the number of units and without
adding any extra expense to the project.
Secondly, based on a letter dated December 13, 2016 submitted to you from Dr. Matt Ritter,
Chairman of the Tree Committee:
The tallest national champion Norfolk Island Pine (A. heterophylla) in Camarillo, CA is
108 ft. tall. Dr. Ritter believes that the same species of tree slated for removal at 71
Palomar is nearly as tall at 95 feet.
2. A new and accurate report needs to be done for the site. Rincon should not be involved.
The should redirect this project back to the Tree Committee so that it has the opportunity
to review a correctly prepared tree inventory and arborist's report. The current
information that the city has was not accurate or complete enough for the Tree
Committee to proceed with an informed decision on the value of the biological resources
on the project site.
Thirdly, based on the Tree Committee minutes for the December 12, 2016 meeting:
Committee member Loosley stated - with concurrence from Committee members Bate
and Parker - that in terms of the historical landscape, the trees are very significant. In
particular, the planting location of the Norfolk Island Pines and the Canary Island Date is
very traditional and is seen with old historic homes. Committee member Loosley also
commented that he did not agree that trees should be removed to move the house, but a
project should be designed around the existing large trees. Committee Member Loosely
also opined that the project would have a significant impact on aesthetics, and bird and
bat habitat and that stating that the project would have a less than significant impact is a
misrepresentation.
2. All Committee members expressed a need for more time to review the information
provided in the initial study, specifically relating to the errors in citing species and height
of trees.
3. All Committee members suggested a review of the site's historical and cultural
landscape versus a review of individual trees and a more in-depth biological report.
These trees are remarkable for their size both in height and girth. These trees are most likely
100 years old. Their age could and should be verified by coring into the bole and counting the
rings. Several of these trees are unusual specimens and because of their size are seldom seen
in home landscapes. These long-lived trees have historical interest because they most likely
were planted by the original owner who later happened to be an "orchardist" in Santa Clara, CA.
If you choose to move forward on this project, please do not move the historical Sandford
House as this is unnecessary and please recommend that the many significant trees on site
slated for removal be preserved in situ. Thank you.