99-DP 052
This neighborhood association of over 3000 homeowners has appealed this project for planning commission review because the negative declaration and development plan have raised many issues which we believe are inaccurate, incorrect or have not been satisfactorily answered. The impacts of the project on air quality, traffic safety and congestion, and neighborhood compatibility will be long-lasting and with great effect on this north Goleta neighborhood. Without the planning commission’s careful scrutiny of all our concerns addressed below, the "health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare" of the community is being not only ignored but jeopardized.
A review of information in the director’s review staff report highlights the inadequacies of the conceptualization of the development plan and its relationship to the neighborhood: "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 is not merely one service station replacing another that preceded it. 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 will increase customer-related noise and other nuisances.
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 (now both with medians), 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. Also, the previous station was also sited differently on the property than the proposed project.
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. (exhibit)
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.
Increased night lighting of this project from the last one will change the aesthetics of the property and its relationship to the neighborhood.
Traffic
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 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. Are these projects included in the annual 4% increase in traffic on these roadways, and if not why not?
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. Is it the intent of the project to have traffic diverted through the neighborhoods? Eighteen wheelers have been seen trying to make U-turns at University to return to south Patterson.
There is no mention of pedestrian traffic and the project’s effect on them.
Rob Easton, asst. traffic engineer for the county of Santa Barbara recommended in the traffic study that " given the level of public concern regarding project-related traffic impacts the projects contributions to U-turn at the Patterson intersection. . ., computer-simulated demonstration of intersection operation is highly recommended. Here are some of the reasons why this information would be important.
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. First of all, 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 to return to south Patterson . 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 on highway 101.
To characterize the 20% of traffic from the north Patterson area as "pass-by" or diverted" is problematical because access to the site from any north Patterson Ave. traffic is accomplished only by a U-turn, since there is no direct access to the site from traffic coming from north Patterson. This is not traffic that would otherwise be "stopping-by" on a trip to work, for example. Further, access to the station cannot be made by a U-turn at the intersection closet to the station for U-turns are prohibited at this traffic light. Currently U-turns are only permitted at the 2nd intersection (which is the intersection to the southbound on-ramp to Highway 101). What will the effect of this U-turn traffic be if there is queuing in the left turn lane (which is the entrance for the northbound on-ramp to Highway 101) or on north-bound Patterson Ave.?
Traffic from Calle Real will be affected by these U-turns. Currently, there is a right-turn-on-red from Calle Real onto Patterson. The increase in conflicting volumes of U-turn traffic with those turning right-on-red will result in fewer gaps allowing right turns on red. What will this mean for easterly bound Calle Real traffic?
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.
Vehicle turning movements for delivery trucks have not been provided to the public to ensure that these trucks can negotiate the turns of the project. Also, can the site accommodate fuel delivery trucks (7 AM to 5 PM), vender delivery vehicles, and customer vehicles at the same time?
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 accessing Patterson from this exit while vehicles slow to enter or exit the project. (exhibit)
At the time of the traffic study, the Patterson/U.S. Highway 101 interchange was operating in the LOS D-F range with diversion. The traffic study anticipated that the operation of these intersections will return to acceptable levels of service once the Fairview overpass project is completed. What are the acceptable LOS now with Fairview open?
Air Quality
To meet air quality guidelines, the consultant estimated that the average urban trip length standard of 2.0 miles rather than 10.2 miles for stations in highway commercial zones applies to this ARCO station. If the consultant’s estimate were 2.2 miles for the average urban trip length, then this station would have exceeded reactive organic compound standards. Further, 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 this ARCO station just because it applies to another gas station in the area. If, as traffic study indicates that 50% of the traffic-generated for the project is from the freeway, how can the consultant only use 2.0 miles as the average urban trip length.
See Jack Hawxhurt’s letter.
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. Delivery vehicle back-up-warning (BUD) devices are a noise nuisance at any hour. 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.
Aesthetics/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. (Exhibit) In recognition of this fact, we believe that the 3,300 square foot fueling canopy, where one this size did not previously exist, and other elements traditionally associated with service station architecture will greatly change the aesthetics of not only the visual corridor from Patterson Ave. but of the neighborhood.
It is my understanding from the architect that the BAR added a freestanding 20 foot sign to the project where none existed before. Because of the special character of this particular property and its relationship to the neighborhood, a sign that is essentially an advertisement for the station will considerably detract from the neighborhood.
Extension of existing retaining wall to eastern property line and the addition of myoporums will be needed to shield adjacent property and homeowner from night lighting. (Exhibit)
The removal of the specimen-size junipers at the rear of the property and other vegetation without like-scale replacement should be required.
The retaining wall on the northern property line may not be structurally sound since it appears to be leaning. (exhibit) The adjacent property owner previously tried to contact ARCO about this wall and its stability. A report on the stability of this wall is important, for should it be found that the wall needs replacement, it will affect the retention of the myoporums. Should they need to be removed, similar plants in scale and kind must be used to replace them.
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 fuel and other delivery trucks concurrently on the site.
Retaining walls:
Extension of one along northern property line?
Other retaining walls: why only partially landscaped?
Neighborhood Compatibility
The negative declaration did not discuss the effects of the operation of 24-hour gas station on this neighborhood. However, this aspect of the development is one of the most troublesome. There has been both written correspondence and public testimony concerning the operation of the previous ARCO service station and minimart and the increased nuisance/crime and litter pollution it created in the adjacent neighborhoods.
The effects of this project on the neighborhood shouldn’t entail a degradation in community standards.
Twenty-four operation of this project serving a largely residential neighborhood is not appropriate. The industrial/commercial neighborhood to the southwest of this freeway operates generally during business hours. (The storage facility next door operates from 7 AM to 7 PM). Five service stations located about 1.5 miles from this project (in the vicinity of Calle Real/Fairview intersection) operate at the maximum of 18 hours/day. Thus, for the welfare and safety of the neighborhood, a schedule of 6 AM to 10 PM or 7AM to 11 PM would seem to be more appropriate.
To report any incident involving customers of this station or problems with station operation, the community should have a way of communicating with ARCO other than voice mail or email, which is now the only method available. The adjacent property owner has already provided evidence of ARCO’s unresponsiveness in dealing with problems. What is the community’s redress if they are unable to reach ARCO on a timely basis?
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 totally 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 visibility by the pedestrian and bicyclist is important.
Biologic Resources
The removal of the specimen-size junipers at the rear of the property and other vegetation without like-scale replacement will be a detriment to the project. The myoporum "shrubs" are the screening between the project and adjacent neighbors. Any pruning will greatly affect their screening ability. Previously, ARCO had indicated to this correspondent that an arborist would report on the health of the myoporum to ascertain whether they were in sufficient health to retain on the property. Was one done?
Further, the negative declaration indicates that the myoporums, which are the only screening device between the project and the adjacent property, will be pruned. This process may reduce the screening ability of these trees and subsequently reduce their ability to screen the noise and light pollution for the adjacent neighbors. Furthermore, since the myoporums do not extend to the rear of the property, additional trees will have to be planted to ensure total screening of the property (exhibit).
A mature lemonade berry (rhus integrifolia) at the Patterson Ave. edge of the property has recently been pruned ( before and after photo). There are mature junipers at the rear of the property but it is unclear from any documentation whether these plants will be maintained. (exhibit) Because of the visual impact of new construction on this site, we believe that it is important to retain as much of the current landscaping as possible and to install trees that are in scale with the myoporums.
What is the protection owner should runoff from this project affect the creek revegetation project that the adjacent property owner has recently completed. The project should be conditioned so ARCO has responsibility for creek revegetation in this area should they negatively impact it.
Fire Protection
The Goleta Community Plan indicates that all but one of the fire station currently serving the Goleta Valley are close to capacity or at capacity in terms of population/fire fighter rations. Due to the over-utilized status of existing stations, significant cumulative impacts on fire protection were identified with cumulative development in the area (we have previously identified those projects as Maravilla, Orchard Park, Sumida Gardens, and the Christmas Tree Farm). This project would add incrementally to this deficiency. A one-minute response time from the nearby fire-station will be inadequate if the nearby firefighters are responding to other emergencies. While the proposed development would not hamper fire prevention, it will add incrementally to the deficiency. The negative declaration completely fails to mention the impact this project has and what it means for the community.
Further, will there be areas restricted from parking because there are in a fire lane? These areas need to be identified.