1. Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission.
2.
I’m here today to bring to your attention to the significant negative
impacts on our neighborhood relating to parking, pedestrian safety,
residential street safety, noise, air pollution and construction
traffic.
3. The applicant proposes that all retail, office and
residential traffic enter and exit by way of the alley located behind
the project site. Both alley exits intersect with our residential
streets. We did not see any required mitigation for a stop sign at
either alley exit. We also noted that the building design has minimal
setback at the rear and will most likely create a visibility problem for
pedestrians, motorists and delivery drivers. This particular sidewalk
is on the way to the church, pre-school, playground and heart of
Kensington.
4. The applicant promised us in a previous
presentation that he would mirror the existing Starbucks building plaza
on the corner. We are wondering if he will mirror this alley exit as
well.
5. Unaccountably, the analyst performing the Initial
Study that formed the basis for the Mitigated Negative Declaration
somehow determined that there would not be an increase in hazards for
vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists due to the proposed design
features.
6. At the very least, a Pedestrian Behavioral Study
and Count balanced against a study of the flow of traffic on residential
streets would be in order. We would like to see existing safety issues
mitigated as well.
7. Immediately to the north of the project
site, and in the same block, is our community church and center of
neighborhood activities. The church has no off-street parking, so many
people walk to community functions. Many of these activities take place
in the early evening as the peak hour traffic generated by the project
will be exiting the site. During elections and weekend events, however,
large numbers of people may be coming and going from this location.
Unless something is done to ensure that project traffic is directed onto
Adams Avenue, the opportunity for pedestrian/car collision will rise.
8.
With the widening of Marlborough Drive and the removal of parking north
and south of Adams Avenue, nine on-street parking spaces will be lost.
Patrons running into Starbucks for a quick cup of coffee to go,
including the local police, frequently use the gas station parking lot
for short-term parking. As you can see, delivery truck drivers just use
the red curb for their short-term parking. The applicant says that by
closing the curb cuts on Adams Avenue some on-street parking will be
restored. However, he has also said that he may re-paint some portion
of the curb on Adams white to allow Fedex trucks to make deliveries
should he have Fedex/Kinkos as a retail tenant.
9. In my
block of Edgeware Road we will feel the impact of shoppers who don’t
want to be bothered with driving underground and parking when they just
want to run in and use the ATM and the proposed bank. We will also be
the recipients of traffic when drivers realize that it will be quicker
to drive up Edgeware to Alder and then down Kensington Drive, or even
Terrace once the bollards are removed, and by pass a traffic signal or
two before getting on the freeway.
10. Edgeware Road, south of
Adams Avenue, is already the recipient of cut-through traffic from City
Heights and East Talmadge, and speeding is causing problems here today.
Parking is already impacted by the local coffee shops, including
Starbucks. Again, the lack of on-street parking brought by this project
will only exacerbate an existing problem.
11. Returning to the
problem of traffic on our residential streets, I want to point out that
as Kensington Terrace customers and tenants choose to take the faster
residential shortcuts in and out of Kensington, they will most likely
pass our pre-school on Alder Drive. The pre-school is separated from
the church on Marlborough Drive by the alley that runs directly north
from the project site and may also be used as an entrance/exit by
customers. Neither this alley nor Alder Drive were included in the
Traffic Study.
12. We have tried to have a dialogue regarding the
need for a plan to discuss a proper traffic study that includes our
residential streets. We have also asked for a plan that specifically
addresses how retail customers and office tenants will be routed
directly to and from the project parking garage and Adams Avenue. We
have had no satisfaction on either count. Posting signs “encouraging”
people to turn one way or the other is not the solution. We feel that
this omission shows a high disregard for our concerns for the safety and
well-being of our families and neighbors.With regard to CEQA, the court
noted that under Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004)
124 Cal.App.4th 903, "relevant personal observations of area residents
on non-technical subjects may qualify as substantial evidence." This
particular ruling involved the issues of traffic impact and accidents.
14.
Kensington residents already enjoy the game of “drive around the
delivery truck”. Our neighborhood streets are too narrow to support the
types of commercial traffic generated today. Even with a twenty foot
wide alley, it is to be expected that some number of delivery truck
drivers will choose to pull alongside Edgeware Road for quick drop off.
With some portion of the alley painted red and reserved for Fire and
Rescue parking, and two entrances for the parking garage and townhome
garages, there may not be enough space for concurrent deliveries behind
the building and we will see a repeat of this scene on Edgeware Road.
15.
One of my neighbors is an Environmental Health specialist and she was
kind enough to provide us with these calculations. She has provided two
numbers, not knowing from which direction trucks will exit the project
site. Assuming smaller trucks would be used if the alley were the exit
point from the site during underground excavation activities, 2,220
truckloads of soil would move along Adams Avenue, hopefully in the
direction of I-15. If the trucks exited directly onto Adams Avenue,
then perhaps larger trucks could do the job with fewer trips, estimated
here at 1,222. That is a significant number of large truckloads moving
slowly down Adams Avenue, with a corresponding amount of wear and tear.
Is there a plan to resurface what’s left of our streets after they are
done? How long will we have to drive behind these lumbering beasts?
16.
Here we have the 4700 block of Edgeware Road again, at the project
alley east exit. Note the existing condition of the roadway surface.
Can our residential streets handle the volume of traffic that the
(flawed) traffic study predicts? Has the City found money in its
stressed budget for road improvements in our neighborhood? How long
after building occupancy before my street is full of potholes?
17.
Both during construction and after project completion, a great number
of our community have major concerns about the impact of traffic, noise
and air pollution on our children as we travel to and from, and enjoy,
the library and playground. Adams Avenue and Marlborough Drive will see
an increase in traffic composed not only of cars, but of construction
equipment in the short-term, and delivery trucks in the long-term. This
is a significant impact on the health of our children.
18. I
would like to point out a discrepancy concerning the Initial Study and
Environmental Assessment that were prepared as part of the MND. In the
study the analyst stated that there were two closed cases concerning
Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks at the gas station tanks. However, a
query run against the State’s Geotracker system shows that there is a
third Open case at this site. We do not understand why this was not
reported in the Initial Study, and we have not received any information
regarding this case. We have many concerns about the proposal to
stockpile soil onsite in order to segregate contaminated soil prior to
shipment to offsite disposal facilities. Runoff of contaminants during
rainstorms, or airborne particulate matter during Santa Ana conditions
are significant environmental impacts and have not been properly
addressed.
19. Everything you hear today in our presentations
should present a fair argument that there are significant cumulative
environmental effects and substantial adverse affects on people caused
by this project. Yet in the Initial Study Checklist the analyst has
dismissed the cumulative impacts and the adverse affects on people that
we have demonstrated to you. We ask that you make no such arbitrary
decision.
20. We also ask that you Do Not Certify Mitigated
Negative Declaration Number 105244, and that you Deny the Planned
Development Permit Number 360181 and Vesting Tentative Map Number
360180.