[Neighbors] CABQ Land Use Facilitated Meeting Re 4501 Central Ave NE

[Susan Beard via Neighbors_nobhill-nm]

I spoke at the meeting about the impact on traffic from cars originating 
from the Santana Apartments and the already approved apartments at 
Central and Montclaire/Morningside. I anticipate at least 350 or more 
cars needing to travel north from Central on a daily basis.  The only 
way to go to Smiths, Whole Foods, Trader Joes, stores on Menaul etc is 
to go north. The closest north/ south arterials are Carlisle and 
Washington. Both streets are narrow with only one lane going each 
direction. Already there are huge backups on Carlisle at rush hour. 
Already it is difficult to make a left turn from Washington onto Lomas. 
Copper is also one lane going in each direction and is used by bicycle 
riders. To exit the Santana project it is not possible to turn east on 
Central. The only choice is to turn west on Central and then go north on 
either Washington or Carlisle. Cars can to east on Copper to San Mateo 
but again Copper is a narrow road. Even if residents do not own a car, 
they will most likely use Uber or Lyft of Taxi's to get to stores that 
are north of Central.  I also fear that if there are traffic backups on 
Washington, Carlisle and Copper, drivers will start cutting through 
residential neighborhoods.

Any argument about good bus service is hollow. Yes, it is easy to travel 
by bus going east and west on Central. However, it is time consuming and 
difficult to travel north on a bus from Central in the area of 
Washington or Carlisle. I have an 82 year old playwright friend who 
lives near San Pedro and Lomas. She has to take 3 buses to travel from 
her house to the corner of Central and Girard and spends about an hour 
in travel time each way. The buses she relies on also stop running a 
little before 8:00 pm. She has had to walk home at night  from a 
playwright meeting near Washington and Lomas which is far from safe. In 
my opinion a 111 apartment building belongs on a major arterial like San 
Mateo. There are large vacant lots on south San Mateo. Of course the 
project as designed would not be economically viable without the allure 
of Nob Hill. I doubt if it is possible to attract tenants who will pay 
$1300/month to live on south San Mateo.

If the neighborhood wants to stop the project, I feel that objecting on 
the basis of traffic congestion and streets not designed to handle 
approximately 230 extra households using the existing streets. My  230  
number includes the new apartments at Montclaire and Central. Of course 
the DeAnza apartments will also add to this traffic problem. The 
apartment is zoning compliant under the new IDO. The only valid argument 
is to object on the basis of traffic. Thank you, Susan Beard

--