HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-30-2017 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Neumann) Meetin : R12,t/ 1- Jl% • rr
From: Ann Neumann < Item:
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 9:57 PM
To: Advisory Bodies
Cc: Tom (email)
Subject: ARC Communications --71 Palomar -- Request for Postponement of Approval Until Further Review
Attachments: 201 _29_ 17... mitigatednegdec.pdf
We are concerned residents who live near 71 Palomar and who are disturbed by the apparent disregard of Professor Matt
Ritter's letter, dated Dec. 16, 2016, outlining serious errors in the arborist's report.
We respectfully request that at tomorrow's meeting (January 30) before you begin deliberations on 71 Palomar, you call for a
motion and a vote postponing any review of this project until the Tree Committee has the opportunity to request and
deliberate on a correctly prepared tree inventory and accurate arborist's report. We echo Allan Cooper's email request to you,
attached and dated today, and ask that you act responsible, prudently, and carefully.
Thank you,
Tom and Ann Neumann
130 S. Tassajara Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JAN 3 0 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: SLO Architectural Review Commission
Re: 71 Palomar - Review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
From: Allan Cooper
Date: January 29, 2017
We are asking you, at the beginning of tomorrow's meeting and before you begin deliberations
on 71 Palomar, that you call for a motion and a vote on postponing any review of this project
until the Tree Committee has the opportunity to deliberate on a correctly prepared tree inventory
and arborist's report. Based on our meeting with Community Development Director Michael
Codron on Friday, January 27, 2017, it is clearly within your purview to do this.
Your purview is also delineated in staff's draft resolution (see below) which requires you to
"adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration...". However, you should not adopt this
Mitigated Negative Declaration if you are not convinced that the Initial Study "properly
characterizes the "...project's potential significant impacts" and that the "mitigation measures"
are "appropriate".
Even if you had not read the Tree Committee meeting minutes of December 12, 2016
questioning the adequacy of the Rincon Peer Review Report, expert testimony provided you by
Dr. Matt Ritter in his letter dated December 13, 2016 should be more than sufficient to persuade
you to follow through on this course of action. Thank you!
Finding number 9 under Section 1 in staff's draft resolution states that "...the Initial Study of Environmental Impact
and resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration properly characterize the project's potentially significant impacts
and that the incorporated mitigations measures appropriately ensure that potentially significant impacts are
mitigated to a less than significant level.
Section 2 in staff's draft resolution states that "...the Architectural Review Commission hereby
adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact that finds that with incorporation
of mitigation measures, environmental impacts will be less than significant.