HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, VollmerRECEIVED
COUNCIL MEETING:_ c1
1ITM NO.: i 4 -- MAR 3 0 2017
sLO
From: jody vollmer [
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 1:00 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocitv.or>
Cc: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.or >; Gomez, Aaron <a�z�slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivo_ire@slocity,org>;
Christianson, Carlyn <echristiansonCa slocity.or>
Subject: 4/4/17 APPEAL 71 PALOMAR -- Please post with Agenda Correspondence
Dear City Council members,
The magnitude of this proposed project on this beautiful historic site does nothing to retain a
residential environment. In addition, due to the higher elevation of this property, this massive
apartment complex will loom over the neighborhood .... and per many years of experience --all
noise is amplified and echoes throughout the neighborhood.
And now you have a developer who wants to remove 55 trees, and his only reason is because
they are "in the way" of his plans to build a massive apartment complex.
He uses the reasoning that the majority of these trees are in poor health anyway; however if
you use the rating system provided in the Arborist report of 1/10/17 --it notes 18 of these
trees are in "good" condition --so why/or where else in the city would you allow 18 perfectly good
trees to be removed? In addition, it notes another 18 of the trees are considered in "fair"
condition --and the criteria for a "fair" rating is these trees are still fairly normal and not in
need of being removed. Regarding the remaining trees --there was never any prior request to
have them removed because they posed a danger to anyone.
The loss of 55 very large, beautiful, mature trees --and the screen they provide --would leave an
inadequate buffer for the residents of this neighborhood. The smaller proposed "replacement
trees" would be completely ineffective. The Tree committee has also voiced concern about the
proposed loss of many of these trees,
In addition, this project proposes completely inadequate onsite parking. Valencia residents
already exhaust the limited street parking, and even though a portion of Palomar Ave is in a
Parking District at night, there are frequently numerous cars parked "illegally" and left for 2 to
3 days at a time. It's not unusual to see 2 or 3 parking tickets on these cars because their
student owners haven't bothered to check on or move their cars for several days! This is a
perfect example of what happens when large housing projects aren't required to provide ample
onsite parking for their residents.
Currently there is also an excessive amount of traffic on Palomar --much of which is generated
by Valencia residents --and it is already hazardous to seniors, students, children, and all the
residents of this neighborhood.
I
Despite the seemingly antiquated zoning regulations which may allow this type of project, the
concept and scope of this project is too large and it is not conducive to the surrounding
residential neighborhood.
When deciding the future of a neighborhood in our community and the potential impact of
adding a large development, why wouldn't you want to have as much information as possible when
making your decision—i.e. a traffic study, a biological report, and an updated Arborist Report
including informed recommendations by the City's Tree Committee --why have a Tree Committee
if you are not even going to wait to hear and consider their concerns and recommendations?
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests, Jody Vollmer
2