HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, RowleyF114E
COUNCIL MEETING: y -q -1
ITEM NO., APR 0 3 2017
-
From: RQN of SLO [
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 2:01 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emaiicouncil@slocity_or >
Subject: Item 16, Appeal of Project at 71 Palomar
Please include the attached letter in council correspondence.
Residents for [duality Neighborhoods
Meeting date: April 4, 2017
SUBJECT: Item 16, Appeal of Residential Project at 71 Palomar
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the Council,
The Mission Statement of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods is: To Preserve, protect and
improve the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods and, thus, in our city. Because of
that, two aspects of this project are especially troubling for health, welfare and safety reasons.
Sewer line capacity.
On October 4, 2016, staff presented a comprehensive report on Wastewater Collection System
Capacity Constraints. The focus of the report was on inflow and infiltration of the sewer system
during rainy weather. At the time only inflow and infiltration of sewer laterals was discussed.
However, after the presentation staff agreed that increased density in the affected areas,
unanticipated years ago when the collection pipes were installed, was also a factor.
Three areas of the city were deemed "capacity constrained areas." The northern -most of these
areas includes the property at 71 Palomar as well as the newly approved project at 22 Chorro. If
this project with its proposed density were to be added to this already capacity constrained area
it would exacerbate the sewer problems in this region. As explained in Richard Schmidt's letter,
when the sewer flow from this area exceeds the capacity of the collector system, raw sewage is
discharged through manholes onto the street where it is splashed by cars into bike lanes and
onto sidewalks. The discharge is then carried elsewhere by cars, bikes and shoes.
Land Use Element (LUE) 1.13.10, Solid Waste Capacity, states: "In addition to other requirements
for adequate resources and services prior to development, the City shall require that adequate
solid waste disposal capacity exists before granting any discretionary land use approval which
would increase solid waste generation" (emphasis added). We do not believe that this statement
refers only to capacity at the Sewage Treatment Plant since it is equally important to be able to
get the sewage to the treatment plant.
It appears that the current sewage collection system has insufficient capacity for the amount of
discharge produced when it rains, whether due to the size of the collection pipe(s) running down
Broad Street or a deficiency in another part of the City system that serves this area. Regardless
of the reason, we submit that the current constraints to the capacity of the City's sewer
collection system in this area and the possibility of sewage discharge when it rains is a significant
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of current and future residents and must be fixed
before granting approval of this project. Allowing the project's projected wastewater flow to be
off -set by off-site sewer rehabilitation does not fix this serious problem and, thus, does not
mitigate the health, welfare and safety issues that are present today.
Parking and Traffic.
The proposed development consists of 33 units with 73 bedrooms. If the five studios and each of
the bedrooms house only one adult, 73 residents will live at the project. However, if there are
two adults in each of the bedrooms, the occupancy could exceed 130 adults. If the ICON student
housing on Taft Street is any indication, occupancy will be closer to the higher number than the
lower number.
Given the fact that these are residential streets not designed for heavy traffic or significant on -
street parking, and that this is already an impacted neighborhood with insufficient off-street
parking and a significant amount of traffic, we think the addition of 73+ adults in a relatively
small space will create both parking and traffic safety issues.
Summary.
Both of these issues create significant, direct and unavoidable adverse impacts to the health,
welfare and/or safety of both the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, we
strongly recommend the appeal be upheld.
1) We do not think that the health, welfare and safety issues created by inadequate sewer
capacity in this area will be solved by replacing some sewer laterals. The problem appears much
greater than that and, in our opinion, requires investigation of the City's portion of the collection
system in this capacity -constrained area. This is a community health problem which should
concern all of us until there is no sewage discharge during rainy weather. The provisions of LUE
1.13.10, Solid Waste Capacity, should apply - with no more new projects approved in this area
until the discharge of untreated sewage during rainy weather no longer exists.
2) The safety issues created by the increased parking and traffic generated by this project
cannot be mitigated without requiring a smaller development. We recommend the appeal be
upheld with direction to return with a reduced project that can accommodate all vehicles on-site.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
`a