Who knew?
Nov. 15, 2007
To the Ladies and Gentlemen of the San Diego City Planning Commission:
As members of the Kensington community and more specifically as residents involved in the forKensington.com
effort, we feel it is important to address the Commission on the issue
of public notification that has occurred for this project. We feel it is
important to establish some understanding among the various parties as
to how it is possible for this many residents to have been unaware of
the project until late October of 2007.
I. First, we
would like to raise the following concerns about the noticing required
of the applicant:Within 300 feet of the proposed site, there are a
higher number of businesses and rentals than throughout the rest of
Kensington. Since the Notices of Application had to go to property
owners/tenants, it is fair to say that a significant number of those
notified were not representative of the residents who are just now
learning about the project and speaking out about it. Business owners,
retail tenants, renters, and non-resident property owners would most
likely not have the same concerns for the Kensington community as
resident home owners. They also would most likely not have engaged in
any kind of networking in the neighborhood to help spread the word about
the project.We would also ask if there is a fair distinction to be made
here between the law requiring that property owners within 300 feet be
notified and the spirit of this law which requires that affected
neighbors be notified? Based on the spirit of this law, there is no
question that residents beyond 300 feet of the site are affected by this
development and should have been notified.
II. Second,
we would like to raise the following concerns about the Ken-Tal Planning
Group (KTPG) and their duty to provide information and encourage
participation from the community. We refer to the city document titled
COUNCIL POLICY which defines Standard Operating Procedures and
Responsibilities of Recognized Community Planning Groups (CP-600-24).
It
is important to note that the PURPOSE of the COUNCIL POLICY document is
to identify responsibilities and to establish minimum operating
procedures governing the conduct of planning groups (1). As such, the
duties we focus on below are what planning groups should do, at a
minimum.
(Article VI. Section 2.a.i) Regular Meeting Agenda Posting:
The KTPG does sufficiently post their agendas at 2 websites and at the
Library. However, we feel the project in its current form was not on the
Agenda in a manner that would have allowed the Kensington Community to
participate. In September and October of 2006 the project appears on the
Agenda, but at that point it only entailed the gas station site. In
January of 2007, it appears as 2 separate items, Project #105244 for the
gas station site at 4142 Adams Ave., and Project #115334 for 4166 Adams
Ave. It was not until July of 2007 that the project in its current
form, encompassing 4142, 4166, 4178 Adams Ave. and 4708 Edgeware,
appeared on the Agenda. And, it was at this meeting that the group
approved the height deviation. Then, it was not until October of 2007
that it again appeared on the agenda, and yet it was at this meeting
that the group approved the project. There seems to have been no time at
which the project appeared on the Agenda for general discussion by the
community. To put this in some perspective, we wonder how it is possible
that the agenda item to discuss the Ken-Tal Chairman's cell phone
appeared 5 times on the agenda between Jan 2007 and May 2007, and this
project, in its current form, only appeared twice: once when the vote
was taken on the height deviation and once when Ken-Tal voted to approve
the project.
(VI.2.a.vii) Development Project Review: The
document states that It shall be the duty of a planning group, when
reviewing development projects, to allow participation of affected
property owners, residents and business and not-for-profit
establishments within proximity to the proposed development. First, we
would like to make the point that the duty to allow participation
carries with it the duty to inform the community sufficiently so that
there can be participation. Second, the duty of the KTPG to determine
who is affected by this development would extend well beyond the
applicant's legal responsibility to only notify those within 300 feet of
the project. As our community planning group, their responsibility
extends to the entire community, especially considering the scale of
this project and its potential impact on the main street through which
we all must drive to reach our residences. Finally, and perhaps most
disturbing, there are actual reports by residents that they were not
allowed to participate when in fact they did attend the meetings.
Individual cases are not cited here, but it is perhaps something to be
investigated further.
(VI.3): The document
states that planning groups have the duty to periodically seek
community-wide understanding of, and participation in, the planning and
implementation process as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the
same document. Article II, Section 1 refers to the planning group's
involvement in land use matters and their responsibilities to the
City Council, Planning Commission, City staff, and other governmental
agencies. We feel the KTPG has not made any effort to seek
community-wide understanding of, and participation in their work to
date on the Kensington Terrace project. The result of this is a vast
number of residents who knew nothing about the project until word began
spreading among residents in late October of 2007 after they had already
approved the project.
(VI.5): The document
specifically allows for planning groups to develop a policy for
financial contributions from the citizens of the community for the
purposes of furthering the efforts of the planning group to promote
understanding and participation in the planning process. In a community
like Kensington it would have been fairly easy to fund periodic
newsletters or flyer campaigns for issues affecting the whole community.
We feel the KTPG failed to use the resources of the community to assist
them in their responsibilities to us, and instead acted independently
and without community-wide understanding or participation.
(VIII) Planning Group Policies and Procedures: This
section of the document provides that each planning group shall
include policies and procedures that address five topics. The first
topic provided is for Community Participation and it suggests that
policies include, but not be limited to, community outreach [and]
assurances of seeking diverse representation on the planning group.
Perhaps the KTPG has policies and procedures in place for community
outreach, but we have no evidence of any specific action taken by the
KTPG to reach out to the entire community concerning the Kensington
Terrace development. Furthermore, that the planning group voted
unanimously to approve this development, and that there is now a large
number from the community voicing their opposition to it, seems to
indicate that they did not adequately assure diversity of representation
within the planning group.
(IX) Rights and Liabilities of Recognized Community Planning Groups:
Planning
groups found to not be operating in compliance with this Council Policy
document can be considered to be in non-compliance with the Brown Act.
The document states that planning groups are encouraged to proactively
cure violations themselves . . . . to prevent legal actions that would
void planning group actions . . . . [and possibly] forfeit its status as
a recognized advisory body and lose its right to indemnification and
defense by the city. While it is not our intention at this point to
report alleged violations by the KTPG to the City for investigation by
the Mayor's office, we would welcome a response by the KTPG on their
public outreach efforts concerning the Kensington Terrace project. We
would also request that the Planning Commission void this planning
group's vote of approval on the Kensington Terrace Project and allow
time for the project to go back to the Planning Group with direction
that they pro-actively seek community-wide understanding and
participation.
III. In conclusion, as several of the
Commissioners acknowledged at the November 8, 2007 Planning Commission
Hearing, the 300 feet notice area did not achieve the law's goal of
providing actual notice to those residents possibly affected by the
project. This, combined with the lack of notice from KTPG, resulted in a
failure of actual notice to the community. Once the community learned
of the project, they very quickly became galvanized. Indeed, the speed
with which residents reacted is a strong indicator of the level and
intensity of concern.
Actual notice has now been achieved. But
now we are told that despite legitimate concerns, our input is not
welcome because, according to rules that did not work as intended, we
are too late by just a little. Because of this application of
the inadequate rules, our community must live for decades to come with a
development that may be very bad for the community, merely to save 60
days on a project that takes several years to complete.
We again
request a 60 day continuance to enable the community to narrow and
clarify our concerns and to have a meaningful workshop with the
developer to address those concerns. Our hope is that by the time of
the continued hearing, there will be agreement on the project, and no or
little opposition.
Sincerely,
Residents
forKensington.com
