HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, AshbaughCOUNCILMEE'TING: RECEIVED
ITEM NO.: APR 0 3 2017
From:
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 3:17 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.orp
Cc: Lichtig, Katie <klichtig@slocity.o>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.ore>; Johnson, Derek
<d ioh nso n @ slocity.or9>
Subject: FW: Item 16 on 4/4/17 agenda - 71 Palomar
Dear Mayor Harmon, Councilmembers, and staff:
I write to urge you to uphold the appeal by Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza of the ARC approval of the
33 -unit apartment project at 71 Palomar Drive. The scale and character of this project violates several City
policies regarding neighborhood compatibility, aesthetics, traffic circulation and parking, and the Negative
Declaration for this project fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Most importantly,
however, this project has the potential to place the public health and safety at serious risk as currently
conditioned, due to the inadequate mitigation measure proposed to address serious deficiencies in the
wastewater collection system that would serve this project.
Lack of Adequate Wastewater Mitigation - Discussion
The development of this project has a significant potential to aggravate both average and wet -weather
wastewater flows on a segment of the City's wastewater collection system that is seriously over -capacity, in wet
weather. The City does not, in my opinion, have sufficient assurance within the proposed mitigation measure
USS -1, which only requires the developer to "identify, demonstrate or implement off-site sewer rehabilitation
that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City's wastewater collection system." This
mitigation measure does not specify the amount of "quantifiable reduction" that is required; nor does it indicate
that the objective of this "rehabilitation" project is to assure that the increased wastewater flows attributed to
this project can be accommodated, along with the existing inflow and uncorrected infiltration, within the
capacities of the downstream system. Can the downstream neighbors tributary to this site be assured that the
"quantifiable reduction" from this project will be sufficient to correct the deficiencies in this part of our
wastewater collection system? We have had several significant failures of this system in recent years, as you are
aware. To permit this project to go forward with an unspecified and ambiguous mitigation measure in place is
irresponsible and potentially puts the entire Anholm neighborhood at risk.
Conclusion
I will not use this message to repeat the many other legitimate arguments that were raised by the appellants; you
have many other constituents that have documented these issues extensively. I would merely summarize by
asserting that you do have the ability under the State Density Bonus Law to curtail, delay, or modify this project
as necessary to protect the public health and safety. The inadequacy of this proposed mitigation measure clearly
gives you the ability — indeed, the obligation — to reject this project and to direct your staff to return it to your
Advisory bodies to modify as necessary in order to protect the public health and safety.
Thank you for considering my views.
Respectfully,
John B. Ashbaugh