January 28, 2002

RE: ARCO AM/PM Mini Mart New Gas Station APN 067-200-005

99-DP 052

We hereby appeal the approval for the above project made by the Deputy Director of Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission because there are errors and omissions in the director’s review staff report, the development plan and the negative declaration.

Section 4.0 Issue Summary: The director’s review staff report reads as follows: "The proposed turn-of-the century stagecoach stop design is the most unique feature of the gas station/mini-mart project and the only real substantive difference between this proposed facility and the one which operated until 1988." This information is in error. Substantive changes have occurred in the neighborhood and community since the last gas station closed. Here are some of the differences between the proposed project and the one which closed in 1988:

a. The previous station had only four fueling stations, not the 12 that are proposed. This fact will increase the traffic generated by the station which will impact both Patterson Ave. and Calle Real, their intersection, and the CalTrans exit from the freeway.

b. The access from both Patterson Ave. and Calle Real to the station has been changed by a new overpass over the freeway, the subsequent widening of both Patterson Ave. and Calle Real, the relocation of Calle Real, and the addition of several stop lights.

c. The proposed project is significantly bigger than the previous gas station and minimart and thus will occupy a greater portion of the land. While it is been determined that fuel delivery truck turning movements can be accommodated, there has been no mention of the effect of customer vehicle turning movements with delivery trucks concurrently on the site.

The previous station was also sited differently on the property than the proposed project. Also, without landscaping, the proposed mini-mart at the rear of the property will affect a neighbor who will both see the mini-mart and be subjected to the noise and inconvenience of its 24-hour operation.

d. Since the previous station closed, a self-storage facility was built next to the ARCO property. The self-storage facility caretaker’s residence (living room and master bedroom) is adjacent to the ARCO property. The residents will be greatly affected by the project’s 24-hour operation with its attendant noise, light and air quality pollution

e. The previous gas station did not have a 3,300 square foot canopy over the gas pumps. This canopy will considerably change the aesthetics of the area.

f. Since the demise of the last station, vegetation at the front and rear of the property has grown considerably. The removal of this vegetation will also change the aesthetics of the property and how the community relates to it.

g. Increased night lighting of this project from the last one will change the aesthetics of the property and its relationship to the neighborhood.

Section 6.1 Environmental Review:

Traffic

a. Cumulative traffic impacts on the Calle Real/Patterson Ave. intersection have not been addressed to include projects already completed or approved, but not yet under construction. The traffic impacts of the developments adjacent to this project (the already built housing development at Orchard Park, the under-construction Maravilla retirement community of 600 residents), the 200 plus units of Sumida Gardens apartments located south of this project, and the 85 planned housing units at Christmas Tree property located on N. Patterson Ave. have not been mentioned or considered. Already, because of the increased traffic at Calle Real and Patterson, motorists are avoiding this intersection and traveling through the neighborhoods to their intended destination.

b. The director’s review staff report reads as follows: "The number of U-turns on Calle Real projected with the proposed development would not result in a reduction in level of service for Calle Real below County traffic impacts." We believe that the report should have referred to U-turns on Patterson Ave. not Calle Real. This is a critical piece of information for the following reasons. Any motorist exiting the station intending to return to the freeway eastbound or to south Patterson will have to cross four lanes of traffic in a short distance to get into the U-turn lane. Once on southbound Patterson Ave. the motorist will be in a turning lane for eastbound 101. (At the current time, there is only one turning lane on southbound Patterson Ave. for the 101 freeway east. There is a second proposed turning lane to relieve a queuing problem at the intersection of Calle Real and Patterson.) If eastbound 101 is not their intended direction, they will have to traverse through another two lanes of traffic (assuming they were in the eastern most lane) to continue southbound on Patterson Ave. or westbound 101.

Traffic from Calle Real will be affected from these U-turns. Currently, there is a right-turn-on-red from Calle Real onto Patterson. The confluence of unfettered traffic from cars turning right on Calle Real and those making U-turns could be problematical and hazardous to motorists from both Patterson Ave. and Calle Real.

Fuel delivery trucks intending to return to the freeway may well have problems negotiating a U-turn with the result they may end up on north Patterson Ave. This is unacceptable to the neighborhoods north of the project where they are not permitted.

c. The westbound 101 off-ramp to Patterson Ave. is adjacent to this project (a driveway entrance is less than 40 feet from the exit). There has been no projection of the effects of traffic exiting the freeway while vehicles slow to enter or exit the project.

Air Quality

To meet air quality guidelines, the consultant had to use an average urban trip length standard of 2.0 miles rather than 10.2 for stations in highway commercial zones, which applies to this ARCO station. Otherwise, this station would have exceeded reactive organic compound standards. What is omitted from either the negative declaration or from the director’s staff review report is why this precedent of being able to substitute one distance for another is allowed to be used for the ARCO station just because it applies to another gas station in the area.

Noise

a. If no recent (since 1980) noise contour maps have been done of the area, how is possible to certify that noise from the project’s proposed activities along with other ambient noise do not exceed the county of Santa Barbara noise thresholds?

b. ARCO customers who have turned up car sound systems, particularly in the late evening or early morning hours, will have a great impact on the quiet enjoyment of the nearby homeowners. Yet, the mitigation for these noise emitters has not been addressed in the development plan.

c. Lastly, there is no indication in the report that the acoustical shielding of the compressors used to dispense water and air, "which will be located on the northeast corner of the site" (which is adjacent to the master bedroom, living room, and patio area of the adjacent storage facility care-taker’s residence) is sufficient to protect the adjacent neighbors from this noise-generating equipment.

Visual

A recent planning commission hearing in 2001 to consider a site-determination for a self-storage facility across the street from the ARCO project elicited the recognition from a former planning commissioner, Colleen Beale, that this locale is the "gateway" to the north Patterson Ave. neighborhoods. When they gave their approval in 1999, the BAR could not have incorporated this information into their decision to approve the design of the project. Further, as described previously, a 3,300 square foot fueling canopy, where one this size did not previously exist, will change the aesthetics of the visual corridor from Patterson Ave.

Neighborhood Compatibility

The negative declaration did not discuss the effects of the operation of 24-hour gas station in this neighborhood. Yet, there was much correspondence concerning the 24-hour operation of the previous ARCO service station and minimart and the effect on the neighborhoods. A 24-hour drive-through Jack-in-the-Box fast-food restaurant at this site was turned down by the Board of Supervisors several years ago.

Cultural Resources: There is currently a marker adjacent to the sidewalk at the front of the property identifying the site as the location of an old stagecoach trail. Pedestrians and bicyclists can now stand directly in front of the sign, out of traffic, and read information about the stagecoach trail. The report’s assertions that the "current location . . . is not convenient to pedestrians and bicyclists . . ." since ". . . pedestrians and cyclists may feel uncomfortable stopping at a busy intersection (to read the marker)" is inaccurate.

Further, ARCO is proposing another site for this information which would be located at the rear of the property. Their moving it will mean a.) if you are not a customer of ARCO you will not have knowledge about this being part of the stagecoach trail and b.) pedestrians and bicyclists would have to divert their trip to read information at the proposed interpretive site. This marker was placed by a consortium of public and private entities for a purpose: to make the general public aware of this locale. If the information presented by the sign is important (and ARCO seems to think it is important since they are including an interpretive area for a similar sign at the rear of the property), then accessibility is important.

Comprehensive Plan Consistency

The biologic resources section of this plan identifies the landscape plan as using only native plants and trees. This is in error since the landscape plan includes non-native species of plants.

The impacts of this project on this neighborhood are described as though it was isolated from neighbors living as close as next door and from the adjacent traffic intersections and exit from the freeway, and lastly, from the Goleta neighborhood of which it is a part. A formal public hearing and identification of all the issues concerning this development plan is required to ensure the neighbors and the community that their concerns about air quality, noise, traffic safety and congestion, and neighborhood compatibility have been heard. The public process will be abrogated without planning commission review of the development plan. Without this, the "health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare" of the community is being not only being ignored but jeopardized.

Sincerely,
Cecilia Brown
President, PANA