Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBates 09081-09152 August 12, 2020 SLO PC Pt 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 9 AUGUST 12, 2020 PART 1 10 AGENDA ITEM 2. PROJECT ADDRESS: 12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS 11 VALLEY ROAD; CASE# SPEC 0143-2017/GENP 0737-2019/SBDV 0955-2017/EID 12 0738-2019; GENERAL PLAN (LAND USE ELEMENT) DESIGNATED: SPECIFIC 13 PLAN AREA SP-3 (MADONNA ON LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN): 14 JM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., OWNER/APPLICANT 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ADAMSKI, MOROSKI, MADDEN, CUMBERLAND & GREEN 23 6633 BAY LAUREL PLACE 24 AVILA BEACH CA 93424 25 PHONE (805) 543-0990 26 FAX (805) 543-0980 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 DATE OF TRANSCRIPT: JANUARY 6, 2021 40 TRANSCRIBER: MEGAN BOCHUM 41 MCDANIEL REPORTING 42 1302 OSOS STREET 43 SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 44 PHONE (805) 544-3363 45 FAX (805) 544-7427 46 47 48 09081 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 2 1 2 APPEARANCES 3 4 MS. HEMALATA DANDEKAR, CHAIR 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION 6 7 MR. ROBERT JORGENSON, VICE-CHAIR 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION 9 10 MR. MICHAEL HOPKINS, COMMISSIONER 11 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION 12 13 MR. STEVE KAHN, COMMISSIONER 14 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSIONER 15 16 MR. NICHOLAS QUINCEY, COMMISSIONER 17 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING 18 19 MS. MICHELLE SHORESMAN, COMMISSIONER 20 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING 21 22 MS. SHAWNA SCOTT, CONTRACT PLANNER 23 SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 24 25 MS. EMILY CREEL, PLANNER 26 SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 27 28 MS. ERICA LEACHMAN, PROJECT MANAGER 29 WOOD ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS 30 31 MR. TYLER COREY, PLANNER 32 WOOD ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS 33 34 MR. LUKE SCHWARTZ, TRANSPORTATION MANAGER 35 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 37 MR. KEVIN CHRISTIAN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 38 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 09082 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 3 CHAIR DANDEKAR: ITEM TWO ON OUR AGENDA TODAY IS A PUBLIC 1 HEARING ITEM BEFORE US TO REVIEW A PROJECT LOCATED AT 12165 AND 2 12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD. 3 I’D LIKE TO ASK EACH OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, 4 STARTING WITH VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON, FOR THEIR EX PARTE DISCLOSURES 5 OF CONTACT WITH ANYONE WHO HAS PROVIDED INFORMATION TO THE 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOT ON THE RECORD, SO THAT INFORMATION 7 MAY BE USED AS PART OF THEIR DECISION MAKING PROCESS. 8 COMMISSIONER JORGENSON? 9 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: SURE. I’VE HAD NO CONTACTS. 10 CHAIR DANDEKAR: ARE THERE ANY OTHER PLANNING 11 COMMISSIONERS? 12 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: I – YEAH, I’D LIKE TO DISCLOSE THAT I 13 WENT ON A TOUR MONDAY WITH JOHN MADONNA AND RRM AT THE SITE. 14 CHAIR DANDEKAR: SO NOTED. 15 COMMISSIONER HOPKINS: I WOULD -- I DON’T HAVE ANY EX PARTE 16 COMMUNICATIONS TO ANNOUNCE, BUT I’D LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT I’LL BE 17 RECUSING MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM AS I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. MY 18 EMPLOYER HAS BEEN IN PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS TO BE A PARTNER ON 19 THIS PROJECT, SO I’LL BE GOING AHEAD AND TURNING MY CAMERA AND 20 MICROPHONE OFF. 21 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU FOR THAT. 22 COMMISSIONER HOPKINS: HAPPY HEARING EVERYONE. 23 CHAIR DANDEKAR: COMMISSIONER KAHN, QUINCEY, WULKAN? 24 COMMISSIONER KAHN: NO, I’VE BEEN NO CONTACT. 25 09083 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 4 COMMISSIONER QUINCEY: NO CONTACT. 1 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I HAVE HAD NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH 2 THE CLIENT EITHER. 3 SO MOVING ON, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONTRACT PLANNER 4 EMILY CREEL WILL PLEASE PRESENT THE REPORT TO THE COMMISSION. 5 CITY CLERK: THIS IS DEPUTY CLERK CHRISTIAN. I’M JUST HANDING 6 THE CONTROLS OVER TO HER AT THIS MOMENT, SO JUST BEAR WITH US FOR 7 HALF A MINUTE. 8 CHAIR DANDEKAR: AND I (INAUDIBLE) I THINK -- I THINK MR. TYLER 9 COREY WAS GONNA KICK OFF THIS PRESENTATION. 10 MR. COREY: SURE. WELL, THANK YOU, CHAIR DANDEKAR AND 11 MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. WE DO HAVE A GREAT PRESENTATION FOR 12 YOU AND ON THE PROJECT. IT’S GONNA BE PRESENTED BY BOTH CITY STAFF 13 AND THE CONSULTANT TEAM. 14 IN TERMS OF GETTING – BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I JUST 15 WANTED TO KIND OF LAY OUT WHY WE HAD THE DUAL NIGHT MEETINGS FOR 16 THIS PARTICULAR HEARING. WE HAD, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY REGULARLY 17 SCHEDULED OF THE 12TH. WE ADDED THE 13TH. THIS WAS DUE TO 18 SCHEDULING A FEW WEEKS AGO. 19 WE HAD A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT WERE 20 ORIGINALLY PLANNING TO BRING FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 21 FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE 12TH, AND SO WE WEREN’T SURE AT THAT TIME 22 IF WE NEEDED ADDITIONAL TIME, SO WE ADDED THE 13TH AS AN AS NEEDED 23 ADDITIONAL DAY. 24 SINCE THAT TIME, TWO OF THOSE PROJECTS HAVE SINCE BEEN 25 09084 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 5 RESCHEDULED, AND SO NOW WE’RE -- WE’RE LEFT WITH THE FROOM RANCH 1 PROJECTS. AND SO STAFF IS -- IS HERE AND READY TO SUPPORT THE 2 COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, REVIEW THE PROJECT IN ONE NIGHT. 3 AND SO WITH THAT OVERVIEW OF KIND OF WHY WE HAD THE 4 DUAL PROJECT – DUAL NIGHT MEETING SCHEDULED, AND THE CHANGES 5 THAT HAVE SINCE OCCURRED, I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO MICHAEL 6 CODRON WHO’S GONNA START OUT WITH SOME BACKGROUND AND 7 CONTEXT FOR THE PROJECT. 8 MR. CODRON: TURN MY MIC ON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TYLER. 9 APPRECIATE THAT. AND GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. I’M MICHAEL 10 CODRON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS. AND THANK YOU, 11 TYLER, AND GOOD EVENING CHAIR DANDEKAR AND MEMBERS OF THE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION. 13 I JUST HAVE A FEW THOUGHTS TO SHARE AS WE EMBARK ON THE 14 REVIEW OF THE MAJOR NEW SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION FOR THE CITY 15 OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. 16 AND I THOUGHT I WOULD START OUT BY SHARING AN OLD 17 GENERAL PLAN WITH YOU, SO IF WE CAN GO TO THE – THE FIRST SLIDE. THIS 18 GENERAL PLAN IS FROM THE 1960S, AND GIVE A SECOND FOR THAT – THAT 19 GRAPHIC TO COME UP. 20 AND MAKE SURE SOMEBODY IS ON THE PRESENTATION. 21 MS. CREEL: IT LOOKS RIGHT ON MY END, MICHAEL. 22 MR. CODRON: OKAY. CAN OTHERS SEE THE MAP, BECAUSE IT HASN’T 23 COME – THERE WE GO. 24 SO THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE DELAY ON THE – ON THE 25 09085 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 6 PRESENTATION. JUST A HEADS UP, EMILY, AND OTHERS AS WE -- AS WE GO 1 THROUGH THIS. 2 BUT I WANTED TO START OFF WITH THIS GENERAL PLAN AND 3 THIS IS FROM THE 1960S. AND THIS WAS A TIME BEFORE WE HAD MAJOR 4 CONCERNS ABOUT GROWTH, IN TERMS OF HOW TO PROPERLY PLAN FOR 5 SERVICES SUCH AS WATER, SEWER, TRANSPORTATION, EMERGENCY 6 RESPONSE OR AG AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION. SO ALL OF THE YELLOW 7 SPACES, ALL OF THOSE YELLOW AREAS THAT YOU SEE, THOSE ARE INTENDED 8 TO BE NEIGHBORHOODS. SO GOING UP LOS OSOS VALLEY, CLARK VALLEY, 9 EDNA VALLEY, SOUTH TOWARDS PISMO BEACH. 10 AND THEN ALL THOSE BLUE CIRCLES AND TRIANGLES THAT YOU 11 SEE ARE SCHOOLS THAT WERE THOUGHT TO BE NECESSARY TO SERVE THAT -12 - THAT FUTURE POPULATION THAT WAS ENVISIONED AT THAT TIME. 13 OF COURSE, THAT ISN’T THE APPROACH OUR CITY ULTIMATELY 14 TOOK TOWARDS GROWTH, AND WITH A LOT OF THOUGHT AND CAREFUL 15 PLANNING AS FAR AS BACK AT 1977 -- AND WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE 16 NOW -- THE CITY’S GROWTH BOUNDARY HAS BEEN REALLY WELL-DEFINED 17 NOW FOR OVER 40 YEARS. 18 SO WHEN THIS NEXT MAP COMES ON, I THINK YOU’RE GONNA 19 SEE SOMETHING THAT’S QUITE A BIT MORE FAMILIAR TO YOU IN TERMS OF 20 WHAT THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO LOOKS LIKE NOW AT AT LEAST ON THE 21 MAP. 22 SO AS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, I GET CALLS 23 ALL THE TIME FROM PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT 24 POTENTIAL OF LAND OUTSIDE OUR GROWTH BOUNDARY, AND YOU CAN SEE 25 09086 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 7 THE GROWTH BOUNDARY ON THIS MAP IS PRETTY WELL-DEFINED, AND 1 THAT’S THE EDGE OF WHAT WE PLANNED FOR WHERE CITY SERVICES WILL 2 BE EXTENDED. 3 AND I GET CALLS ALL THE TIME ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE 4 OUR URBAN BOUNDARY AND MY RESPONSE IS THAT GREENBELT LAND HAS 5 NO POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. 6 AND YOU CAN SEE ON THIS MAP THAT SLIGHT CHANGES HAVE 7 BEEN MADE HERE AND THERE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK ORCUTT AREA IN 8 THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE MAP, WE RETRACTED A LARGE PORTION OF 9 THAT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, SO THE DEVELOPMENT DOESN’T GO EAST OF 10 ORCUTT ROAD AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD DO. 11 AND WITH THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, WE WENT A 12 LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD ALREADY DONE SOME 13 REZONING AND ALLOWED FOR DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR ALONG 14 OUR BORDER, AND SO THE AVILA RANCH PROJECT, AS YOU KNOW, IS 15 LOCATED DOWN IN THAT AREA ABOUT 300 FEET NORTH OF BUCKLEY ROAD. 16 BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THE CITY IS ALREADY DEFINED ITS 17 OUTER LIMITS THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS GROWTH BOUNDARY AND 18 RELATED POLICIES. AND AS EVERYONE KNOWS, THERE ARE A LOT OF 19 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE CITY. 20 AND THE POINT I WANT EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION AND IN THE 21 COMMUNITY TO BE AWARE OF IS THAT WHAT WE ARE SEEING OUT THERE 22 TODAY IS PLANNED GROWTH. 23 SIMILARLY, IF THE FROOM RANCH PROJECT BEFORE YOU 24 TONIGHT IS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WE WILL MAKE 25 09087 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 8 NO CHANGES TO THE CITY’S ULTIMATE POPULATION PROJECTION OF FIFTY 1 THOUSAND RESIDENTS. OUR WATER SUPPLY NEEDS WILL NOT CHANGE, NOR 2 WILL OUR MAJOR CIRCULATION PLANS BECAUSE THIS AREA’S ALREADY 3 BEEN PLANNED FOR URBAN SERVICES AS DISCUSSED IN THE 2014 GENERAL 4 PLAN UPDATE. 5 SO WHILE WE SEE A LOT OF GROWTH HAPPENING AROUND US, 6 THE OVERALL PLAN HAS CHANGED REMARKABLY LITTLE OVER THE PAST 7 FEW DECADES. AND WE ARE OPERATING UNDER A GROWTH PLAN THAT IS 8 BOTH CONTROLLED AND SUSTAINABLE. 9 SO I WANTED TO MAKE THOSE POINTS AND I WANTED TO THANK 10 YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME A LITTLE PREAMBLE. AND WITH THAT, I 11 WILL TURN IT OVER TO SHAWNA TO CONTINUE WITH THE PRESENTATION. 12 THANK YOU. 13 MS. SCOTT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MICHAEL. AND GOOD EVENING, 14 CHAIR DANDEKAR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. I’M SHAWNA SCOTT, 15 SENIOR PLANNER AND CITY PROJECT LIAISON FOR THE FROOM RANCH 16 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT. 17 KIND OF PICKING UP WHERE MICHAEL LEFT OFF, IN 2014, THE 18 ADOPTED LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE IDENTIFIED THREE 19 NEW SPECIFIC PLAN AND CITY EXPANSION AREAS: AVILA RANCH, WHICH IS 20 LOCATED WITHIN THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN; SAN LUIS RANCH; AND 21 MADONNA ON LOVR, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS FROOM RANCH IN THE 22 SPECIFIC PLAN BEFORE YOU TODAY. 23 AND SINCE 2014, THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND 24 THE SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN WERE APPROVED AND ARE IN THE 25 09088 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 9 PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT. 1 THIS THIRD AND FINAL SPECIFIC PLAN, THE FROOM RANCH, WAS 2 INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN APRIL OF 2016 WITH THE INTENTION 3 THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN WOULD INCLUDE A LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY, 4 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND A PUBLIC 5 PARK. 6 SINCE THAT TIME, CITY STAFF ACROSS MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS, 7 CITY CONSULTANTS, AND THE APPLICANT TEAM HAVE PUT CONSIDERABLE 8 WORK EFFORT INTO EXTENSIVE TECHNICAL STUDIES AND ANALYSIS, WHICH 9 ARE APPENDED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; PREPARATION OF 10 THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIR; THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP; AND THE 11 SPECIFIC PLAN ITSELF, WHICH HAS EVOLVED SINCE ITS INITIAL DRAFT IN 12 2017. 13 THE PROJECT HAS BENEFITED FROM MULTIPLE ADVISORY BODY 14 HEARINGS AND ASSOCIATED COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK, PUBLIC AND 15 AGENCY REVIEW AND COMMENTS, AND EXTENSIVE WORK BY STAFF AND 16 THE APPLICANT TEAM. THESE EFFORTS HAVE RESULTED IN A PROPOSED 17 SPECIFIC PLAN THAT IS IN SUBSTANTIAL ALIGNMENT WITH THE EIR 18 IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE, WHICH IS 19 PRESENTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE 20 CITY COUNCIL. 21 I AM PLEASED TO BE JOINED HERE TODAY BY EMILY CREEL, CITY 22 CONTRACT PLANNER AND PROJECT MANAGER, AND ERICA LEACHMAN, EIR 23 CONSULTANT AND PROJECT MANAGER WHO WILL BE CONDUCTING THE 24 STAFF PRESENTATION TONIGHT. 25 09089 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 10 IN ADDITION TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND OUR 1 CITY CONSULTANTS, CITY STAFF FROM ENGINEERING, TRANSPORTATION, 2 UTILITIES, FIRE, AND THE OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND NATURAL 3 RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TONIGHT TO RESPOND TO FOCUSED QUESTIONS 4 AS NEEDED. 5 I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE ENTIRE TEAM FOR THEIR TIME AND 6 EFFORTS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS PROJECT. 7 THE APPLICANT’S TEAM WILL ALSO BE PRESENTING TONIGHT 8 AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THE TEAM PRESENTING FOR THE 9 APPLICANT WILL CONSIST OF VICTOR MONTGOMERY FROM RRM DESIGN 10 GROUP AND MARK DELADO FROM VILLAGGIO. THEIR TEAM IS SUPPORTED BY 11 THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL BE AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO 12 QUESTIONS AS NEEDED: JOHN MADONNA, THE PROJECT APPLICANT; ANN 13 RICHIE, THE SPECIFIC PLAN AUTHOR; TIM WALTERS, CIVIL ENGINEER; KEVIN 14 MERCK, BIOLOGIST; JULIE HOWARD, VILLAGGIO OPERATIONS; AND BOB 15 RICHMOND, THE ARCHITECT FOR VILLAGGIO. 16 AND NOW, I WILL TURN THE PRESENTATION OVER TO EMILY 17 CREEL. 18 MR. CODRON: THANKS, SHAWNA. THIS IS MICHAEL. I’M JUST POPPING 19 IN TO SAY THAT THE PRESENTATION HASN’T BEEN ADVANCING AND I’D LIKE 20 TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT FIGURED OUT SO THAT – SO THAT THERE’S 21 CONTINUITY WITH THE -- 22 MS. SCOTT: OH, SURE. 23 MR. CODRON: WHAT WE’RE SEEING VERSUS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE 24 VERBAL PRESENTATION. 25 09090 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 11 MS. SCOTT: YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. I DIDN’T – I DIDN’T 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) HAS SLIDES FOR MY 2 PRESENTATION, SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND IF THERE’S DELAY OR 3 ISSUES, WE CAN – WE CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. I HAVE A BACK UP HERE. 4 MR. CODRON: PERFECT. THANKS. 5 MS. CREEL: YEAH, I FEEL LIKE, MICHAEL, YOUR SLIDES WERE 6 DELAYED ABOUT 20 SECONDS, PROBABLY, A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF 7 TIME, SO I PLAN ON MOVING THROUGH THESE PRETTY QUICKLY. IF IT DOES 8 GET DISJOINTED, PLEASE INTERRUPT ME, LET ME KNOW AND WE’LL TRY TO 9 FIGURE OUT AN OPTION. 10 SO THANK YOU FOR THAT WONDERFUL INTRODUCTION, 11 MICHAEL AND SHAWNA. WITH THAT, I’M JUST GONNA DIVE RIGHT IN. 12 WE DO HAVE A FAIRLY LENGTHY PRESENTATION TONIGHT. AND 13 SO I WANTED TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW FOR YOU SO YOU -- YOU HAVE A 14 ROADMAP SO TO SPEAK OF WHAT WE’RE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT. 15 WE’VE GOT KIND OF FOUR MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE 16 PRESENTATION. THE FIRST IS A DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORY OF HOW THE 17 LAND USE CONFIGURATIONS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA HAVE 18 EVOLVED SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZED INITIATION IN 2016. AND I 19 THINK THAT EVOLUTION IS IMPORTANT TO REVIEW BECAUSE I THINK IT 20 REFLECTS A PLANNING PROCESS THAT RESULTED IN A MUCH BETTER 21 PROJECT, A PROJECT THAT AVOIDS A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF 22 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ALSO GREATLY IMPROVES CONSISTENCY 23 WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN. SO THAT’S THE FIRST PIECE. 24 THEN I’M GONNA, HOPEFULLY, BRIEFLY AND QUICKLY RUN 25 09091 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 12 THROUGH A DESCRIPTION OF EACH OF THE REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS. 1 AND THEN FOR THE THIRD PIECE I’M GONNA HAND IT OFF TO 2 ERICA LEACHMAN. AS SHAWNA MENTIONED, SHE’S OUR PROJECT MANAGER 3 FOR PREPARATION OF THE EIR. AND SHE’S GONNA DISCUSS THE EIR AND 4 CEQA FINDINGS. 5 AND THEN SHE’S GONNA HAND IT BACK TO ME, AND I’M GONNA 6 DESCRIBE WHAT, I THINK, ARE SOME OF THE MOST KEY CRITICAL ISSUES 7 ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT, AND SORT OF THE – THE REASONING STAFF 8 HAD FOR BELIEVING THAT THE PROJECT, AS CURRENTLY DESIGNED, 9 ADEQUATELY AND APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSES AND RESPONDS TO THOSE 10 ISSUES. 11 SO WITH THAT, PROJECT HISTORY. 12 SO AS SHAWNA MENTIONED, THE CITY COUNCIL INITIATION – 13 INITIATED --AUTHORIZED INITIATION – OH, BOY, MOVING TOO FAST ALREADY 14 -- AUTHORIZED INITIATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN IN APRIL 2016. FOLLOWING 15 THAT AUTHORIZATION, THE APPLICANT TEAM MOVED FORWARD WITH 16 PREPARING A DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH WAS FINALIZED IN 2017. 17 THIS WAS THE – THE FIRST COMPLETE DRAFT AND SERVED AS 18 THE PROJECT THAT WAS THE EVALUATION OF THE EIR WAS BASED ON. SO 19 THE 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN INCLUDED UP TO 404 UNITS, INDEPENDENT AND 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, WITHIN A LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY KNOWN AS 21 VILLAGGIO; UP TO 174 MEDIUM-HIGH AND HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY 22 UNITS IN MADONNA-FROOM RANCH; UP TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE 23 FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES; AND A TWO POINT, I BELIEVE THAT 24 SHOULD BE SIX-ACRE – NO EXCUSE ME, 2.9-ACRE PUBLIC PARK. THAT PUBLIC 25 09092 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 13 PARK WOULD RELOCATE AND INCORPORATE THREE HISTORIC STRUCTURES 1 WITHIN THE EXISTING FROOM RANCH DAIRY COMPLEX. 2 AND UNDER THIS 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN, THE -- THE SPECIFIC PLAN 3 AREA INCLUDED APPROXIMATELY 59 ACRES, WHICH IS 54 PERCENT OF THE 4 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AS DEDICATED OPEN SPACE. SO AS PART OF THE CITY 5 COUNCIL’S AUTHORIZATION IN 2016, THEY ALSO REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT 6 OF A FEASIBLE ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD LOCATE ALL 7 DEVELOPMENT BELOW THE 150-FOOT ELEVATION AND REQUIRED THAT THAT 8 ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE BE EVALUATED IN AN EQUAL LEVEL OF DETAIL 9 THROUGHOUT THIS EIR PROCESS, SO THAT THEY COULD COMPARE BETWEEN 10 THE TWO. 11 AND SO THROUGH THE EIR PROCESS WE WORKED WITH THE 12 APPLICANT TEAM TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ONE. ALTERNATIVE ONE IS 13 THE ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE AND IT WAS EVALUATED IN THE EIR AT A 14 PROJECT SPECIFIC LEVEL OF DETAIL. 15 SO SIMILAR TO THE 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN, ALTERNATIVE ONE 16 PROPOSED THE SAME TYPE AND NUMBER OF USES WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN 17 AREA; IT JUST PROPOSED THEM ALL IN THE LOWER PORTION, EXCEPT FOR 18 THE PUBLIC PARK USE. 19 AND SO ALTERNATIVE ONE INCLUDED, AGAIN, 404 UNITS IN 20 VILLAGGIO, INDEPENDENT AND ASSISTED UNITS; UP TO 174 MULTI-FAMILY 21 UNITS IN MADONNA-FROOM RANCH; A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET 22 OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL; AND A 3.3 ACRE PARK, WHICH WOULD BE LOCATED 23 IN THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ABOVE 150 FEET IN 24 AN AREA WE CALL THE QUARRY LOCATION. I MEAN, THAT’S BECAUSE 25 09093 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 14 THERE’S ACTUALLY AN ACTIVE PERMITTED QUARRY IN THAT LOCATION 1 CURRENTLY. 2 SO THIS ALTERNATIVE REMOVED ALL THE DEVELOPMENT FROM 3 THE UPPER TERRACE, AND BASICALLY, LIFTED THAT DEVELOPMENT AND 4 PLACED IT ON TOP OF THE STRUCTURES IN THE LOWER AREA. SO AGAIN, THE 5 NUMBER OF UNITS AND THE TYPE OF USES DID NOT CHANGE. DENSITY 6 WOULD INCREASE IN THAT LOWER AREA, BUILDING HEIGHTS WOULD 7 INCREASE, ET CETERA. 8 SO A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE INITIAL, PROPOSED PROJECT 9 AND THE 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH INCLUDED THE GENERAL PLAN 10 AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 150, AND ALTERNATIVE ONE, 11 WHICH WAS DEVELOPED AS THE ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE. AS YOU CAN 12 SEE, IN THIS HIGHLY SENSITIVE UPPER TERRACE AREA, ALL OF THE 13 VILLAGGIO DEVELOPMENT WAS REMOVED AND PLACED IN THE LOWER 14 AREA. 15 WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE SECONDARY EMERGENCY 16 ACCESS WAY UP THROUGH THE UPPER TERRACE CONNECTING TO THE 17 MOUNTAINBROOK CHURCH PARKING LOT, THE EIR PROCESS IDENTIFIED THE 18 NEED FOR FURTHER EVALUATION OF EMERGENCY ACCESS POINTS INTO THE 19 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND SO THREE DIFFERENT POTENTIAL EMERGENCY 20 ACCESS POINTS WERE EVALUATED AS SHOWN. 21 AND THEN AGAIN, THE LAND USES PROPOSED IN THE QUARRY 22 AREA ABOVE 150 FEET WERE RECONFIGURED TO REMOVE ALL OF THE MULTI-23 FAMILY HOUSING AND LIMIT THAT AREA TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC 24 PARK. 25 09094 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 15 WHEN THE DRAFT EIR WAS OUT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, WE TOOK 1 THE PROJECT TO PUBLIC HEARING IN FRONT OF A NUMBER OF ADVISORY 2 BODIES AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND AT THAT TIME, THE PROJECT 3 APPLICANT PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THEIR INTENTION TO MOVE FORWARD 4 WITH ALTERNATIVE ONE AS THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED PROJECT. 5 HOWEVER, THEY CONTINUED TO QUESTION THE LOCATION OF 6 THE PROPOSED PARK AND ITS MOVEMENT UP INTO THE QUARRY AREA. AND 7 SO SINCE THAT TIME, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, RECENTLY, 8 WE’VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TEAM TO REVISE THE SPECIFIC 9 PLAN TO REFLECT WHAT WE’RE CALLING THE APPLICANT-REVISED 10 ALTERNATIVE ONE. SO IT’S A REVISION TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT MOVES 11 IT TOWARDS THIS ALTERNATIVE ONE WITH A FEW KEY DIFFERENCES, WHICH 12 I’LL HIGHLIGHT ON THE NEXT SLIDE. 13 AND WE’VE ALSO, OF COURSE, BEEN WORKING WITH THE EIR 14 CONSULTANT TEAM TO PREPARE THE FINAL EIR. 15 SO THIS IS THE APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE ONE. THIS IS 16 THE CURRENT PROJECT. IT’S REFLECTED IN THE 2020 SPECIFIC PLAN. 17 SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ITERATIONS, IT INCLUDES UP TO 404 UNITS IN 18 VILLAGGIO; 174 UNITS IN MADONNA-FROOM RANCH; A HUNDRED THOUSAND 19 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL; AND A 3.6 ACRE PUBLIC PARK, WHICH 20 WAS MAINTAINED ABOVE 150 FEET AT THAT QUARRY LOCATION. 21 THIS VERSION OF THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES SIXTY – OVER 66 22 ACRES, WHICH EQUATES TO APPROXIMATELY 60 PERCENT OF THE SPECIFIC 23 PLAN AREA, AS OPEN SPACE. 24 SO THIS IS A COMPARISON BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE ONE, WHICH 25 09095 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 16 WAS EVALUATED IN THE EIR, AND THE APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE 1 ONE. THERE WERE THREE MAIN VARIATIONS. 2 THE FIRST WAS THE EIR INCLUDED A MITIGATION MEASURE 3 THAT REQUIRED THE DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A 300-FOOT 4 WIDE BUFFER ALONG THE CONFLUENCE OF THESE DRAINAGES THAT 5 TRAVERSE THE UPPER TERRACE AND FROOM CREEK, AND TO PROTECT THAT 6 AS A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, ALTERNATIVE ONE 7 INCLUDED LAND USES IN VARIOUS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THOSE SENSITIVE 8 FEATURES. THE APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE ONE HAS INCORPORATED 9 THAT MITIGATION MEASURE INTO ITS SITE DESIGN, AND THOSE USES HAVE 10 BEEN RELOCATED OUT OF THAT -- OUT OF THAT CORRIDOR. 11 OF THE THREE OPTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY ACCESS, 12 THE APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE ONE HAS INCORPORATED TWO OF 13 THOSE, INCLUDING A NORTHERN ACCESS CONNECTION TO IRISH HILLS PLAZA 14 AND AN ADDITIONAL CONNECTION ALSO TO THE EAST TO LOS OSOS VALLEY 15 ROAD. 16 WE DID REVIEW THE THIRD OPTION EXTENSIVELY WITH THE 17 CITY FIRE MARSHALL AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION AND BOTH OF THOSE 18 GROUPS DETERMINED THAT IT WASN’T NECESSARY TO MEET EMERGENCY 19 ACCESS NEEDS AND WOULDN’T HUGE BENEFIT TRANSPORTATION OR 20 CIRCULATION, PREDOMINANTLY BECAUSE CALLE JOAQUIN IN THAT 21 LOCATION JUST LEADS RIGHT BACK TO LOVR. 22 THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE IMPOSSIBLE 23 TO CONSTRUCT WITHOUT FURTHER IMPACTING THOSE DRAINAGE FEATURES 24 AND/OR FROOM CREEK, SO IT WAS NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE 25 09096 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 17 APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE. 1 AND THEN LASTLY, THE AREA ABOVE 150 FEET. OF COURSE, 2 ALTERNATIVE ONE LIMITED USES IN THAT AREA EXCLUSIVELY TO PUBLIC 3 PARK. THE APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE MAINTAINED THE PARK IN 4 THAT LOCATION, IN FACT, INCREASING THE SIZE OF IT BY REDUCING SOME 5 OPEN SPACE ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THAT AREA, BUT ALSO THIS PROJECT 6 WOULD ALLOW SOME LIMITED MULTI-FAMILY USES IN THAT LOCATION 7 ABOVE 150 FEET. 8 OKAY. SO THAT’S THE HISTORY. THAT WAS THE FIRST PART OF 9 OUR PRESENTATION. ARE THESE SLIDES ADVANCING OKAY? THUMBS UP? 10 OKAY. 11 SO NOW I’M GONNA RUN THROUGH EACH OF THE REQUESTED 12 ENTITLEMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE, OF COURSE, THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE 13 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND 14 ANNEXATION. 15 THE SPECIFIC PLAN INCLUDES NINE CHAPTERS. I’M GONNA RUN 16 THROUGH EACH OF THESE AS BRIEFLY AS POSSIBLE SO I WON’T ADDRESS 17 THEM HERE. 18 THE INTRODUCTION, YOU KNOW, SETS THE GENERAL STAGE FOR 19 THE SPECIFIC PLAN AN ITS CONTENTS AND FOCUSES ON THE TWO KEY 20 FEATURES OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH IN THE TABLES BELOW YOU CAN 21 SEE ARE THIS LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY KNOWN AS VILLAGGIO AND ALSO 22 MADONNA-FROOM RANCH, WHICH WOULD BE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AND 23 ALSO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL, ANTICIPATED, POTENTIALLY, 24 HOTEL, AND TRAILHEAD PARK USES. 25 09097 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 18 BUT CHAPTER TWO ESTABLISHES THE LAND USE AND ZONING 1 DESIGNATIONS FOR AREAS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ALSO 2 ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THOSE ZONES. 3 SO AS YOU COULD SEE ON THE LEFT, THERE’S A ZONING 4 SUMMARY, WHICH ADDRESSES DENSITY, ACREAGE FOR EACH OF THESE 5 LAND USES, BOTH WITHIN VILLAGGIO AND MADONNA-FROOM RANCH. THE 6 GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT IS THE PROPOSED LAND USE MAP. 7 THIS CHAPTER ALSO ADDRESSES CONSISTENCY WITH THE 8 GENERAL PLAN’S REQUIREMENT THAT AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT 9 OF THE SITE BE MAINTAINED IN OPEN SPACE, AND ALSO CONSISTENCY WITH 10 GENERAL PLAN GOAL OF PROVIDING COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL USES ONSITE 11 THAT COMPLIMENT ADJACENT USES AND ALSO SERVE LOCAL RESIDENTS 12 AND REGIONAL VISITORS. 13 THIS CHAPTER INCLUDES GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS AND 14 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. THOSE INCLUDE, YOU 15 KNOW, PROVIDING A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES FOR A VARIETY 16 OF FAMILIES, EFFICIENT USES OF LAND, GOALS FOR PROVIDING PRIVATE 17 SPACES AS WELL AS COMMON OUTDOOR SPACES AND POTENTIAL FOR -- 18 THAT PROVIDE POTENTIAL FOR SOCIALIZING. THE DEVELOPMENT 19 STANDARDS SET, YOU KNOW, MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DENSITIES, 20 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS, MINIMUM SETBACKS, MINIMUM LOT SIZES 21 AND CONFIGURATIONS FOR EACH OF THESE ZONING CATEGORIES. 22 SIMILAR SET OF GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS ARE 23 PROVIDED FOR COMMERCIAL USES. AS WE DISCUSSED, THIS CHAPTER 24 ESTABLISHES CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR 25 09098 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 19 PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE. AND IT ALSO PROVIDES DESCRIPTION OF THE 1 AUTHORIZED PARK USES WITHIN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DESIGNATION. 2 LASTLY THIS CHAPTER ALSO DESCRIBES AND ANALYZES HOW 3 THE PROJECT WOULD MEET CITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4 AND ALSO AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY. SO THE TABLE SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE 5 REPRESENTS A MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, 6 SO THAT’S THE ONE HUNDRED -- THE 404 UNITS IN VILLAGGIO AND THE 174 IN 7 MADONNA-FROOM RANCH. SO AGAIN, THAT’S A MAXIMUM. 8 THESE NUMBERS THEREFORE REPRESENT A MAXIMUM OF WHAT 9 WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS. SO WITHIN THE SPECIFIC 10 PLAN AREA, IT’S A TOTAL OF NINE – UP TO NINE LOW-INCOME AND UP TO 11 MODERATE-INCOME UNITS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED, FOR A 12 TOTAL OF 27. 13 THE – THE EIR AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN ALSO FOUND THE 14 PROJECT TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH APPLICABLE SAFETY AREA ZONES OF THE 15 AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN. THE SITE IS OUTSIDE OF ANY AIRPORT NOISE --16 NOISE CONTOURS. AND THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DID REVIEW 17 THE PROJECT IN JULY OF 2020, AND FOUND THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO BE 18 CONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN, WITH SOME STANDARD 19 CONDITIONS. 20 SO CHAPTER THREE OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN DESCRIBES THE -- THE 21 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR CONSERVATION, OPEN SPACE AND 22 RECREATION WITHIN THAT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. THESE INCLUDE EXTENSIVE 23 POLICIES FOR PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, HISTORIC AND 24 PREHISTORIC RESOURCES, AND SCENIC RESOURCES. THEY ADDRESS THE 25 09099 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 20 SPECIFIC PLAN’S MEANS OF COMPLYING WITH STATE LAW RELATED TO 1 DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO FAULT LINES. 2 THEY ALSO PROVIDE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR RECREATIONAL 3 RESOURCES WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. THOSE INCLUDE BOTH THE 4 PUBLIC TRAILHEAD PARK WITHIN MADONNA-FROOM RANCH, AS WELL AS A 5 VARIETY OF PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN VILLAGGIO. 6 CHAPTER FOUR DESIGN GUIDELINES PROVIDE REALLY THE 7 OVERALL GOALS FOR QUALITY AND CHARACTER WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN 8 AREA. THAT CHAPTER INCLUDES GENERAL SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES, SUCH 9 AS CONSIDERATIONS OF VIEWS AND TRANSITIONS, GRADING PRINCIPLES, 10 LANDSCAPING PRINCIPLES. IT ALSO PROVIDES GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL 11 DESIGN GUIDELINES INCLUDING POLICIES ON ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, 12 POLICIES FOR THE PROVISION OF WIND PROTECTION THROUGH SITE DESIGN, 13 AND IT INCLUDES MORE SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTI-FAMILY 14 RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES, INCLUDING GUIDELINES FOR SITE 15 DESIGN, BUILDING FORM, FENCING, LIGHTING, SIGNAGE, ET CETERA. 16 LASTLY, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND -- AND GIVE DUE CREDIT 17 TO THIS PORTION OF CHAPTER FOUR RELATED TO ENERGY CONSERVATION 18 AND SUSTAINABILITY. THE SPECIFIC PLAN PROVIDES A REALLY 19 SUBSTANTIAL SET OF POLICIES RELATED TO ENERGY CONSERVATION AND 20 SUSTAINABILITY. IT’S LIKE SIX PAGES OF POLICIES, AND A LOT OF THOSE 21 WERE DEVELOPED THROUGH INCORPORATING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 22 EIR INTO THE POLICIES OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. 23 SOME OF THE NOTABLE FEATURES THAT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED 24 THROUGH THE EIR AND ARE PART OF THESE POLICIES ARE: THE ENTIRE 25 09100 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 21 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WOULD BE SERVED BY ELECTRICITY AS THE SOLE 1 ENERGY SOURCE, WITH SOME LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, BACK-UP 2 GENERATORS FOR THE MEDICAL FACILITIES. MANY COMPONENTS OF THE 3 PROJECT WOULD BE DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CAL GREEN TIER ONE 4 AND TIERS TWO STANDARDS, SO HIGH STANDARDS OF SUSTAINABILITY. 5 AND THE PROJECT HAS ALSO INCORPORATED A SUBSTANTIAL 6 NUMBER OF TRIP REDUCTION MEASURES. BECAUSE OF THE RESULTS OF THE 7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THE APC GUIDANCE SAYS, BASICALLY, 8 WE HAVE THIS TOOLKIT OF TRIP REDUCTION MEASURES THAT ARE 9 AVAILABLE TO HELP REDUCE TRIPS AND TRAFFIC RELATED EMISSIONS 10 ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, AND IF YOU TRIP A 11 CERTAIN THRESHOLD, WHICH THIS PROJECT JUST BARELY DID, THE APCD’S 12 GUIDANCE IS IMPLEMENT AS MANY OF THESE AS YOU CAN. AND SO WE’VE 13 WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH THE PROJECT APPLICANT TEAM AND WITH THE 14 EIR TEAM TO IMPLEMENT LITERALLY AS MANY OF THOSE TOOLS AS COULD 15 FEASIBLY IMPLEMENTED INTO THE PROJECT. 16 AND LASTLY, THIS SECTION DISCUSSES SECURITY PLANNING. 17 THOSE ARE -- DEAL WITH ISSUES NOT ONLY RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, THE 18 FENCING AND SECURITY OF THE VILLAGGIO COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO 19 MINIMUM LIGHTING STANDARDS, HOW LOCKED GATES WOULD WORK, THOSE 20 TYPES OF – OF ISSUES. 21 CHAPTER FIVE ADDRESSES THE PLANS FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN 22 THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. IT CLASSIFIES A ROADWAYS WITHIN THE AREA 23 AND PROVIDES STANDARDS FOR EACH TYPE OF – OR EACH CLASSIFICATION 24 OF ROADWAY. IT DESCRIBES AND PROVIDES POLICIES FOR THE 25 09101 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 22 DEVELOPMENT OF BIKE AND PEDESTRIAL (SIC) FACILITIES, INCLUDING 1 CONNECTION TO EXISTING OFFSITE TRAILS AND, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTED 2 FACILITIES. 3 IT CLARIFIES MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THESE 4 FEATURES, WHICH WOULD BE PUBLICLY MAINTAINED WITHIN MADONNA-5 FROOM RANCH, BUT PRIVATELY MAINTAINED WITHIN VILLAGGIO. IT 6 DESCRIBES POLICIES FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT AND ALSO IDENTIFIES THE 7 PROPOSED PROVISION OF A NEW BUS STOP NEAR THE MAIN ENTRANCE INTO 8 THE SPECIFIC PLAN, AREA AND IT PROVIDES STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION 9 GUIDELINES AS WELL. 10 CHAPTER SIX IDENTIFIES MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC 11 UTILITIES THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO SERVICE THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. 12 SO MAJOR BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDED -- INCLUDES WATER, 13 RECYCLED WATER, WASTEWATER, AND DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER 14 FACILITIES, AND IN PARTICULAR, THOSE -- THE ANALYSIS OF THAT THOSE 15 FACILITIES ADDRESS VERY SPECIFICALLY THE RELOCATION OF FROOM 16 CREEK, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS OFFSITE DETENTION BASIN TO ADDRESS 17 DRAINAGE, AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 18 FOR STORMWATER PROPOSED WITHIN THE SITE. 19 AGAIN, LIKE THE CIRCULATION INFRASTRUCTURE, THESE 20 FACILITIES WOULD BE PUBLICLY MAINTAINED WITHIN THE MADONNA-21 FROOM RANCH AND PRIVATELY MAINTAINED WITHIN VILLAGGIO. 22 CHAPTER SEVEN RELATES TO PUBLIC SERVICES. SO THIS 23 CHAPTER ANALYZES THE, YOU KNOW -- THE POPULATION OF WITHIN THE 24 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND THOSE IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS, POLICE, FIRE 25 09102 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 23 EMERGENCY, AND SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING . THE EIR DID NOT 1 IDENTIFY ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO THOSE SERVICES, HOWEVER, AS 2 YOU’LL HEAR ERICA DESCRIBE LATER ON, THE – WE DID DO A VERY 3 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES RELATED TO 4 EVACUATION. AND THIS CHAPTER OF THIS SPECIFIC PLAN INCLUDES 5 POLICIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE, WHICH 6 IS REFLECTED IN THAT ORANGE – GENERALLY IN THAT ORANGE BAND. 7 CHAPTER EIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN DESCRIBES THE PUBLIC 8 FINANCING PLAN FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND IT DESCRIBES A PAY-AS-9 YOU-GO FINANCING STRATEGY. PAY-AS-YOU-GO WOULD -- REFERS TO THE 10 FACT THAT THE PHASING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED 11 OT ENSURE THAT FUNDS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO COVER THE COSTS OF 12 THOSE FACILITIES WHEN THEY’RE REQUIRED. 13 SO THIS STRATEGY INCLUDES TWO MAIN GOALS: FIRST, TO 14 ENSURE PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE CONSTRUCTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND 15 CERTAINLY BEFORE THEY’RE NEEDED TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 16 THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. BUT SECOND, TO ENSURE THAT THOSE FACILITIES 17 ARE ALSO PHASED IN AS FEES THAT COME AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR THEIR 18 CONSTRUCTION. 19 THIS CHAPTER ALSO INCLUDES A -- AN ANALYSIS OF FACILITY 20 NEEDS AND COST ESTIMATES FOR THOSE FACILITIES, INCLUDING A VERY 21 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ON- AND OFFSITE TRANSPORTATION 22 IMPROVEMENTS. THIS CHAPTER INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF THE COST OF 23 DEVELOPING THE ONSITE PUBLIC PARK. IT INCLUDES AND ANALYSIS OF CITY 24 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND HOW THOSE WOULD APPLY TO THE 25 09103 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 24 SPECIFIC PLAN, AND ALSO PROVIDES A FACILITY PHASING AND CASH FLOW 1 DISCUSSION, WHICH DESCRIBES HOW THE PAY-AS-YOU-GO STRATEGY 2 WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. 3 AND THEN LASTLY, CHAPTER NINE RELATES TO ACTUAL 4 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. SO THIS 5 DESCRIBES THE EIR PROCESS, THE ANNEXATION PROCESS, AND THE 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. LIKE -- ONE THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY 7 WAS THE LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY IS INTENDED TO BE AN ALLOWED USE 8 WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, SO SUBSEQUENT ENTITLEMENTS FOR THAT 9 PRO – FOR THAT COMPONENT WOULD BE MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, 10 WHICH WOULD COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. HOWEVER, I 11 WANTED TO CLARIFY THIS BECAUSE YOUR STAFF REPORT INACCURATELY 12 INCLUDED A REFERENCE TO A USE PERMIT. AND THAT WAS NOT INTENDED. 13 VILLAGGIO WOULD BE AN ALLOWED USE. 14 THIS CHAPTER ALSO DISCUSSES VERY GENERALLY THE 15 ANTICIPATED PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. SO AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE 16 GRAPHIC PHASE ONE WOULD INCLUDE THE RELOCATION OF FROOM CREEK, 17 DEVELOPMENT OF A STORMWATER BASIN AND THAT BACKBONE 18 INFRASTRUCTURE, SO INTERNAL ROADWAYS AND ALSO THOSE UTILITIES. 19 PHASE TWO IS ANTICIPATED TO BE THE DEVELOPMENT OF 20 VILLAGGIO AND THEN PHASE THREE, MADONNA-FROOM RANCH. 21 OKAY. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ENTITLEMENT. THE PROJECT 22 DOES STILL INCLUDE AND WOULD REQUIRE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 23 AND WE’RE ANTICIPATING TWO REVISIONS IN TWO SEPARATE LOCATIONS OF 24 THE LAND USE ELEMENT. THE FIRST WOULD BE TO AMEND POLICY 6.4.7 25 09104 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 25 HILLSIDE PLANNING AREAS AND PARTICULARLY THE POLICY RELATED TO 1 THE 150-FOOT ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT LIMIT IN THE IRISH HILLS AREA. 2 AND WE WOULD AMEND THAT SECTION TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 150 3 FEET IN THAT QUARRY AREA, AND PROVIDE SOME SORT OF A GRAPHIC 4 LIKELY TO, YOU KNOW, REFLECT EXACTLY WHERE THAT AREA IS. 5 THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO 8.1.5, WHICH IS 6 SPECIFIC TO MADONNA LOVR ON LOVR SPECIFIC PLAN, FROOM RANCH 7 SPECIFIC PLAN, AND IT WOULD INCLUDE AN AMENDMENT OF THE IDENTIFIED 8 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS UP TO 578, WHICH IS THE MAX 9 IDENTIFIED BUILDOUT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THAT’S THE 404 PLUS THE 174. 10 THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A (INAUDIBLE) TENTATIVE TRACT 11 MAP. A TRACT MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IT INCLUDES SUBDIVISION OF 12 THE SPECIFIC PLANS INTO 13 LOTS, FIVE OF THOSE WOULD BE WITHIN 13 VILLAGGIO AND EIGHT OF THOSE WOULD BE IN THE MADONNA-FROOM 14 RANCH PORTION OF THE SITE. NOTABLY THE VILLAGGIO PORTION INCLUDES 15 LOT ONE, WHICH IS A OVER 46-ACRE CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE 16 PARCEL. THAT -- THAT WOULD LIE PREDOMINANTLY IN THAT UPPER 17 TERRACE, THAT HIGHLY SENSITIVE UPPER TERRACE AREA, AND ALSO 18 ENCOMPASS THE REALIGNED FROOM CREEK CHANNEL. 19 WITHIN MADONNA-FROOM RANCH, THE SUBDIVISION INCLUDES 20 TWO R-4 LOTS, THREE R-3 LOTS. HOWEVER ONE OF THOSE LOT 10, WHICH 21 YOU CAN SEE IS 0.09 ACRES, THAT’S THE LOCATION OF THAT EXISTING CELL 22 TOWER, THE FAUX WATER TOWER. AND THEN TWO COMMERCIAL RETAIL 23 LOTS AND ONE FOR THE PUBLIC FACILITY, THE PUBLIC PARK. 24 AND THEN LASTLY, REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS INCLUDE 25 09105 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 26 AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT AN ANNEXATION APPLICATION TO THE SAN LUIS 1 OBISPO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE THAT 2 ANNEXATION PROCESS. 3 SO THOSE ARE THE FIRST TWO COMPONENTS OF THOSE FOUR WE 4 WENT OVER. AND SO NOW AT THIS TIME, I’M GOING TO HAND THE 5 PRESENTATION OVER TO ERICA LEACHMAN WHO’S GOING TO TALK ABOUT 6 THE FINDINGS OF THE EIR AND CEQA FINDINGS. LET ME MAKE SURE I CAN DO 7 THIS. 8 MS. LEACHMAN: THANKS, EMILY. OKAY. GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU 9 VERY MUCH, EMILY, FOR AN EXCELLENT OVERVIEW FOR THE PROJECT 10 BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY. 11 AS I’M PULLING UP MY PRESENTATION HERE, I JUST WANTED TO 12 SAY THAT IT’S AN HONOR TO BE HERE WITH THIS TEAM AT THIS IMPORTANT 13 MILESTONE HAVING WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH CITY STAFF AND THE 14 APPLICANT TEAM AND TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS TO PREPARE THE EIR, IT’S 15 BEEN QUITE A JOURNEY, SO IT’S GREAT TO BE HERE TODAY. THANK YOU FOR 16 THE OPPORTUNITY. 17 OKAY. GREAT. OUR INTENT TODAY IS TO BRIEFLY RECAP THE 18 EIR PROCESS, AND WITH SOME ATTENTION ON WHAT’S TRANSPIRED SINCE 19 WE WERE LAST HERE, NOT HERE ON THE COMPUTER, BUT IN CHAMBERS, 20 PRESENTING THE DRAFT EIR BACK IN NOVEMBER. AND WE’LL DO THAT, 21 BRING EVERYBODY UP TO SPEED AND THEN ALSO REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF 22 THE FINAL EIR, WHICH IS ON OUR PLATES TODAY. 23 SO LET ME BEGIN WITH A BRIEF EIR OVERVIEW. GIVEN THE MIX 24 OF PROPOSED USES AND THE FROOM RANCH SITE SETTING IN A LARGELY 25 09106 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 27 UNDEVELOPED, BIOLOGICALLY-RICH AREA AT THE BASE OF THE IRISH HILLS, 1 THE EIR IS A FULL SCOPE EIR, ADDRESSING EVERY APPLICABLE CEQA 2 RESOURCE. AND, YOU KNOW, IN STEPPING BACK AND REVIEWING THE FINAL, 3 I WAS REMINDED THAT THE ONLY RESOURCE AREA THAT WAS FOUND TO BE 4 INSIGNIFICANT WAS FORESTRY, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE ARE NO FORESTRY 5 RESOURCES -- CALIFORNIA STATE RESOURCES IN SLO. SO IT REALLY LOOKS 6 AT EVERYTHING THAT CEQA ASKS US TO LOOK AT UNDER APPENDIX G. 7 THE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS WAS CONDUCTED BASED ON THE 8 CEQA GUIDELINES AND ALSO LOCAL THRESHOLDS, SUCH AS THE CITY’S 9 INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS, FOR EXAMPLE, OR SLO APCD’S EMISSION 10 THRESHOLDS, AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN POLICIES. WE TALKED 11 A LOT ABOUT THE 150-FOOT ELEVATION LINE, AND THAT’S – IN TERMS OF THE 12 EIR, BEEN A LAND USE THRESHOLD A PARTICULAR PHYSICAL LINE THAT HAS 13 HELPED UP DEFINE WHEN PHYSICAL CHANGES AND IMPACTS WERE 14 SIGNIFICANT FROM A LAND USE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE. 15 THE EIR CONSIDERED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL 16 IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AS WELL AS CUMULATIVE 17 IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FROOM RANCH SITE, COMBINED 18 WITH THE LIST OF 93 PENDING AND APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE CITY AND IN 19 NEARBY COUNTY AREAS, INCLUDING THE SAN LUIS RANCH PROJECT AND 20 THE AVILA RANCH PROJECT. SO IN REVIEWING THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS 21 AND THE FINDINGS RELATED TO CUMULATIVE PROJECTS, YOU’RE LOOKING 22 AT THE PROJECT IN CONTEXT OF ALL THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING IN THE 23 REGION. 24 IMPACTS WERE FOUND TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND 25 09107 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 28 WERE MITIGATED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE WITH PROGRAMMATIC 1 MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WILL CARRY FORWARD AS EITHER PART OF 2 THE SPECIFIC PLAN OR AS IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES AND MITIGATIONS 3 REQUIRED IN THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4 THAT WORKS HAND-IN-HAND WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. 5 THE MMRP IS -- IS INCLUDED IN TONIGHT’S MATERIALS AND IS ASSOCIATED 6 WITH FINDINGS. 7 THE FINAL EIR ALSO CONSIDERED FOUR ALTERNATIVES TO THE 8 PROJECT. MISS CREEL DESCRIBED THOSE ALTERNATIVES. I WON’T GO INTO 9 THEM TOO MUCH, BUT I WILL RECALL THAT ALTERNATIVE ONE, WHICH WAS 10 CONSIDERED A CLUSTERED VERSION OF THE PROJECT, ELIMINATED 11 DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 150 FEET IN ELEVATION, AND THAT AS MISS CREEL 12 MENTIONED -- THAT ALTERNATIVE WAS REVIEWED AT A PROJECT LEVEL OF 13 ANALYSIS SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON OF 14 THAT ALTERNATIVE AGAINST YOUR ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PROJECT. AND 15 ULTIMATELY THAT ALTERNATIVE, ALTERNATIVE ONE, WAS DETERMINED TO 16 BE THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE IN THE EIR. 17 SO WHEN JUXTAPOSED, YOU’LL SEE SOME NOTABLE 18 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVE ONE. I WON’T 19 BELABOR THIS SINCE NEITHER OF THESE SCENARIOS ARE THE CURRENT 20 PROJECT BEING PROPOSED, BUT WHAT YOU’LL SEE IN THE MAIN POINT IS 21 HERE IS HOW DRAMATICALLY ALTERNATIVE ONE WAS ABLE TO REDUCE 22 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT, AND WE’LL ADDRESS THIS 23 A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN THE PRESENTATION. 24 YOU’LL SEE THE MAIN CHANGES THAT THAT MISS CREEL WAS 25 09108 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 29 ABLE TO POINT OUT ABOUT REMOVING DEVELOPMENT FROM THE UPPER 1 TERRACE AND SOUTH – SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE AND THEN 2 ALSO THE CHANGES OT THE NORTH WESTERN PORTIONS OF THE SITE, THE 3 QUARRY AREA, THAT WAS THE MAIN SOURCES OF THE CHANGES IN IMPACTS. 4 WHEN WE LOOK AT THE IMPACT NUMBERS ALTERNATIVE ONE 5 DRAMATICALLY REDUCES IMPACTS, MOST NOTABLY BY REDUCING 13 6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS DOWN TO NINE, INCLUDING ALL 7 PROJECT SPECIFIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS. IT WAS THAT 8 IMPORTANT. THOSE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT REMAIN UNDER 9 ALTERNATIVE ONE RELATE TO ISSUES THAT WOULD LIKELY PERSIST UNDER 10 ANY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONSIDERED AT THE SITE AND CAME UP FOR 11 OTHER ALTERNATIVES AS WELL IN THE EIR. 12 SO WHEN WE LAST WERE TOGETHER IT WAS DURING THE PUBLIC 13 REVIEW PERIOD. THE DRAFT EIR WAS RELEASED IN NOVEMBER 2019 AND 14 DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD, WE RECEIVED SEVERAL COMMENTS ON 15 THE DRAFT, INCLUDING 46 VERBAL COMMENTS AND 26 WRITTEN LETTERS 16 FROM A RANGE OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE 17 COMMUNITY. THOSE COMMENTS IDENTIFIED A RANGE OF QUESTIONS AND 18 ISSUES FOR OUR TEAM TO RESPOND TO IN THE FINAL EIR. 19 SOME OF THOSE KEY COMMENTS INCLUDED -- HIGHLIGHTING 20 JUST A FEW, THIS ISN’T A COMPREHENSIVE LIST, BUT INCLUDED: 21 AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION, 22 PARTICULARLY RELATED TO LAFCO POLICIES. SINCE THE PROJECT INCLUDES 23 ANNEXATION AND WILL BE SEEN AND COMPARED AGAINST LAFCO POLICIES 24 MAKING – MAKING CLEAR STATEMENTS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE 25 09109 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 30 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE VALUE ONSITE IS IMPORTANT FOR THAT PART OF 1 THE PROCESS. 2 WE ALSO RECEIVED COMMENTS ON AIR EMISSIONS FROM 3 REGIONAL COMMUTES, ASBESTOS AND LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARDS 4 ASSOCIATED WITH THE ONSITE STRUCTURES OF THE FROOM RANCH DAIRY 5 COMPLEX, WHICH ARE HISTORIC. THE – WE HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT THE 6 PROJECT’S CONSISTENCY WITH THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN RELATED TO 7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CONCERNS ABOUT THE LONGEVITY OF THE CALLE 8 JOAQUIN WETLANDS IN LIGHT OF HYDROLOGIC CHANGES ONSITE AND 9 BIOLOGIC RESOURCE CHANGES PROPOSED. 10 WE ALSO HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT -- CONCERNS ABOUT 11 FLOODING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN -- IN CONTEXT OF THOSE 12 CHANGES, THOSE SAME HYDROLOGIC CHANGES PROPOSED, INCLUDING THE 13 REALIGNMENT OF FROOM CREEK. 14 IN TERMS OF NOISE IMPACTS, WE HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT 15 CONCERNS FOR NOISE RECEPTORS AND SPECIFICALLY THE NOISE 16 GENERATED FROM THE ADJACENT IRISH HILLS PLAZA, WHERE -- FOR THOSE 17 THAT THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION OF HOME DEPOT, THE 18 LOADING DOCK IS ADJACENT TO THE SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE. SO WE 19 HEARD COMMENTS RELATED TO THAT, AS WELL AS EMERGENCY ACCESS. 20 ENSURING THAT THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS IS PLANNED ACCORDINGLY AND 21 IS APPROVED BY SLO FD AND IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 22 AND SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO TRAFFIC, WE HEARD COMMENTS 23 ABOUT AND QUESTIONS MORE THAN COMMENTS, ABOUT THE EXISTING 24 TRAFFIC DATA. WE’LL COME BACK TO THIS A LITTLE LATER IN THE 25 09110 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 31 PRESENTATION, BUT QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE -- THE 1 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA THAT WAS USED AS THE BASIS FOR THE TRAFFIC 2 STUDY AND THE AGE OF THAT DATA. 3 AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE HEARD SEVERAL – SEVERAL 4 COMMENTS RELATED TO ALTERNATIVE ONE, MOSTLY IN SUPPORT AND -- 5 AND ASKING STAFF AND THE EIR TEAM TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE ONE AS 6 A -- AND SUPPORT IT AS THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE, 7 WHICH TH EIR DOES. 8 SO IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, WE HAVE PREPARED -- -- EACH 9 COMMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED VERBAL OR WRITTEN, RECEIVED A WRITTEN 10 RESPONSE AND ALL OF THOSE RESPONSES ARE COLLATED INTO CHAPTER 11 EIGHT OF THE FINAL EIR. 12 THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS, SEVERAL REVISIONS WERE 13 MADE. IN RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS, INCLUDING A AN EXPANDED AND 14 MORE RIGOROUS AND MORE SPECIFIC MITIGATION FOR POTENTIAL LOSS OF 15 WETLANDS. NOW THIS MITIGATION HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO REQUIRE A 16 SEVEN YEAR MONITORING PROGRAM TO TRACK AND MONITOR THE CALLE 17 JOAQUIN WETLANDS IN TERMS OF HEALTH AND EXTENT. AND THE 18 MITIGATION BUILDS IN TRIGGERS SO THAT IF THE HEALTH OR EXTENT OF 19 THAT WETLAND CHANGES SUBSTANTIALLY AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT, 20 MITIGATION WOULD TRIGGER AND REQUIRE OFFSITE – OFFSITE 21 REPLACEMENT. 22 ADDITIONAL CHANGES INCLUDED ADDITIONAL NOISE DATA TO 23 ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS ABOUT NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 24 LOADING DOCKS AT HOME DEPOT AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM THE 25 09111 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 32 IRISH HILLS PLAZA. ESSENTIALLY, IT CORROBORATED THE EIR’S ANALYSIS 1 AND PROVIDED SOME JUST SITE SPECIFIC DETAIL IN AN AREA WHERE INITIAL 2 ANALYSIS HAD -- HAD CONCLUDED SIMILAR FINDINGS. 3 IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, A SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS WAS 4 PREPARED TO THE TRANSPORTATION STUDY TO CONFIRM THE ANALYSIS 5 AND SHARE ADDITIONAL DETAIL ABOUT WHAT WENT INTO THAT ANALYSIS. 6 IN ADDITION, MITIGATION MEASURES FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WERE 7 ALSO REFINED TO BETTER CLARIFY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF 8 IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE MEASURES AND TO SPECIFY THE SHARED 9 RESPONSIBILITY OF THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES BETWEEN SEVERAL 10 LARGE PROJECTS, INCLUDING SAN LUIS RANCH AND AVILA RANCH. THOSE 11 COMMENTS CAME FROM SEVERAL SOURCES, YOU KNOW, TO HELP CLARIFY 12 WHAT PORTION AND WHAT FAIR SHARE THE PROJECT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR. 13 AND LASTLY, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS SUPPLIED IN 14 TERMS OF GREENHOUSE GAS AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES TO ADDRESS 15 INTEREST FROM THE SLO APCD RELATED TO THE GHG POLICY CONSISTENCY 16 THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE EIR TO ENHANCE IT AND EXPAND IT, AND AND 17 ALSO IN RESPONSE OT LAFCO COMMENTS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, 18 RELATED TO THE ANNEXATION REQUEST. 19 THE FINAL EIR WAS PUBLISHED ON JULY 15TH AND IS CURRENTLY 20 AVAILABLE AS PART OF THE MATERIALS TONIGHT, BUT ALSO ON THE 21 WEBSITE, AND WE’LL PROVIDE THAT LINK A LITTLE LATER. 22 ALSO WE UNDERSTAND THAT AS PART OF TODAY’S 23 PROCEEDINGS YOUR COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED AGENDA 24 CORRESPONDENCE, INCLUDING SOME COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE FINAL 25 09112 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 33 EIR. KEY ISSUES SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, BIOLOGIC – BIOLOGICAL 1 RESOURCES AND AIR QUALITY CONCERNS PARTICULARLY RELATED TO 2 HEALTH RISKS WERE BROUGHT UP, SO WE WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, BE 3 RESPONSIVE AND PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION RELATED TO THOSE AND 4 WE’LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS LATER ON IN THE 5 SESSION. 6 BUT AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE SUPPLEMENTAL 7 TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO CONFIRM THE ANALYSIS 8 IN THE EIR. AND TO SHOW DETAILS REQUESTED BY CALTRANS AS A 9 COMMENTER ON THE DRAFT. IT DID NOT SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGE THE EIR 10 IN THE ANALYSIS, AND I THINK THAT’S ONE THING THAT’S IMPORTANT TO 11 CLARIFY IS THAT IT WAS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO 12 COMMENTS, BUT DID NOT CHANGE THE ANALYSIS OR THE FINDINGS OF THE 13 EIR. 14 REGARDING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE MITIGATIONS, AS A 15 PROGRAM EIR, MANY MITIGATION MEASURES ARE PROGRAMS. YOU’LL SEE 16 THAT IN THE FINAL. THEY WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED ALONGSIDE 17 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THIS IS OKAY. THIS IS -- IT’S 18 NOT DEFERRED MITIGATION TO HAVE MITIGATION TAKE THE FORM OF A 19 PROGRAM. IT’S ALLOWED UNDER CEQA SECTION 15126.4B, BUT IT’S 20 IMPORTANT THAT THESE TYPES OF MITIGATIONS INCLUDE PERFORMANCE 21 STANDARDS FOR THE PROGRAM THAT ARE CLEAR AND ENFORCEABLE 22 THROUGH THE MMRP. 23 OUR MITIGATION MEASURES, THE EIR’S MITIGATION MEASURES 24 FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INCLUDE AT LEAST 20 VERY SPECIFIC 25 09113 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 34 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. FOR EXAMPLE, ALL SPRINGS AND SEEPS 1 WETLANDS ONSITE WOULD BE PROTECTED WITH -- WITH FENCING AND 2 MONITORING TO ENSURE THAT THE -- THAT THE -- THAT RESOURCES ONSITE 3 ARE PROTECTED IN WHEREVER THEY ARE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 4 ONE THING ABOUT A SPECIFIC PLAN IS THAT IT’S HARD TO 5 FORECAST WHAT THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE AT THE TIME OF THE 6 IMPLEMENTATION, SO MITIGATION PROGRAMS LIKE THIS WILL ALLOW FOR 7 FLEXIBILITY AND SPECIFICITY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 8 AND LASTLY, IN TERMS OF OF AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH RISK, 9 WE -- WE REVIEWED A COMMENT THAT ADDRESSED THE POTENTIAL FOR 10 DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER TO CREATE HEALTH PROBLEMS FOR -- FOR 11 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS EITHER ONSITE OR IN THE VICINITY. AND GOING TO 12 THE FINAL EIR, YOU’LL SEE THAT THERE ARE NO EXISTING SENSITIVE 13 RECEPTORS AS DEFINED BY -- BY APCD AND THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN. 14 THAT BEING SAID, THE EIR DOES LOOK AT OPERATIONAL 15 EMISSIONS FOR DIESEL PARTICULATES AND MODELS THOSE ASSOCIATED 16 WITH THE PROJECT OPERATIONS, INCLUDING VEHICLES. THE ANALYSIS 17 CONCLUDED THAT THE DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH 18 OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXCEED SLO APCD THRESHOLDS, 19 AND -- AND IN DOING SO, WOULD NOT PUT ANY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS 20 WITHIN HARM’S WAY BY THE NATURE OF THE -- OF THE TOTAL EMISSIONS 21 THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. 22 IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 23 ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT WOULD LIE WELL WITHOUT -- WELL 24 OUTSIDE THE 500 BUFFER IDENTIFIED BY THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES 25 09114 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 35 BOARD AS A POTENTIAL ZONE WHERE DPM’S – DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER 1 -- COULD PRESENT HEALTH RISKS TO RESIDENTIAL USES. SO WE’RE NOT IN 2 THAT HAZARD ZONE. 3 I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS 4 INCLUDED COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF DIESEL PARTICULATES AND WERE 5 FULLY ANALYZED FROM A CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE, INCLUDING HEAVY 6 HAUL TRIPS FOR SOIL MOVEMENT AND DISPOSAL AND THOSE TYPES OF 7 SOURCES. 8 AND LASTLY, IT’S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE SLO APCD 9 REVIEWED AND COMMENTED ON THE DRAFT EIR AND DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY 10 CONCERNS OR DEFICIENCIES IN THIS ANALYSIS. AND SO -- SO THOSE ARE 11 JUST SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER AND WE CAN COME BACK AND ANSWER 12 ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE TOPICS. 13 SO SINCE -- SINCE WE RESPONDED TO COMMENTS -- SINCE THE 14 DRAFT EIR WAS REVIEWED, THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS WAS PREPARED, 15 AS MISS CREEL DESCRIBED, THE PROJECT HAS CHANGED SLIGHTLY. AND THE 16 PROJECT BEFORE US TODAY IS REFERRED TO AS THE APPLICANT-REVISED 17 ALTERNATIVE, IS WHAT WE SEE ON THE SCREE HERE. AND SO WHAT WE 18 WANT TO FOCUS ON NOW WAS HOW THIS PROJECT RELATES TO THE EIR. 19 THE APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE ONE IS AS REVISED 20 VERSION OF ALTERNATIVE ONE IN THE EIR. IT CURRENTLY COMBINES 21 ALTERNATIVE ONE WITH FEATURES OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT THAT WAS 22 FULLY ANALYZED IN THE EIR, INCLUDING THE QUARRY AREA DEVELOPMENT 23 ABOVE 150 FEET IN ELEVATION, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY IT INCORPORATES 24 SOME MITIGATION STRATEGIES, INCLUDING ADDRESSING AND FINALIZING 25 09115 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 36 THE PROPOSAL FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS IN A WAY THAT IS SATISFACTORY 1 TO SLO FIRE DEPARTMENT. 2 ALL THE FEATURES ANALYZED WERE ARE ANALYZED IN EITHER 3 ALTERNATIVE ONE OR THE PROJECT -- AND THAT’S AN IMPORTANT THING TO 4 KNOW IS THAT THERE ISN’T A COMPONENT ON THE -- AS PART OF THIS 5 PROJECT NOW THAT HAS NOT BEEN LOOKED AT IN THE FINAL EIR. 6 IT ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCES IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE 7 ORIGINAL PROJECT, SIMILAR TO ALTERNATIVE ONE. AND THE FINDINGS 8 BEFORE YOU TODAY REFLECT THIS ALTERNATIVE AND NOT EITHER 9 ALTERNATIVE ONE FROM THE EIR OR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. 10 SO WHEN JUXTAPOSED, WE’VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, BUT AS YOU 11 CAN SEE HOW ALTERNATIVE ONE AND THE APPLICANT-REVISED 12 ALTERNATIVE ONE ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT IN THE SWEEPING 13 CHANGES THAT WERE MADE COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, THEY 14 WERE QUITE SIMILAR. 15 SO TO BRIEFLY REVIEW WHAT HAS CHANGED, SIMILAR TO 16 ALTERNATIVE ONE, THE APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE ONE 17 SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCES IMPACTS TO VISUAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING 18 VIEWS FROM THE IRISH HILLS, INCLUDE – THE THE TRAILS PARTICULARLY 19 FROM THE IRISH HILLS NATURAL RESERVE, INCLUDING NEIL HAVLIK WAY, 20 AND THE ESTABLISHED VIEW CORRIDORS THAT OVERLOOK THE UPPER 21 TERRACE OF THE SITE. THE PROJECT WOULD NO LONGER SUBSTANTIALLY 22 OBSTRUCT OR CHANGE THE QUALITY OF THOSE VIEWS AND WOULD NOT BE 23 SUBSTANTIALLY VISIBLE FROM LOCAL ROADWAYS OR HIGHWAYS, SIMILAR 24 TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. 25 09116 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 37 IN TERMS OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, AS I MENTIONED, ALL 1 PROJECTS SPECIFIC SIGNIFICANT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS WOULD BE 2 MITIGATED UNDER THIS PROJECT, UNDER THIS REVISED ALTERNATIVE. NO 3 LONGER WOULD DEVELOPMENT ADVERSELY AFFECT SENSITIVE SPECIES, 4 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, OR TREES IN THE UPPER TERRACE AREA AND THAT’S 5 THE MOST BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA OF THE SITE. 6 AND LASTLY, THE CURRENT PROJECT WOULD BE MORE 7 CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN IN TERMS OF HILLSIDE AND 8 BIOLOGICAL PROTECTION POLICIES BY LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF 9 DISTURBANCE ABOVE 150 FEET IN ELEVATION TO THE QUARRY AREA ONLY. 10 SO – HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT ISSUES THAT 11 WOULD PERSIST FOR THIS ALTERNATIVE, FOR THE APPLICANT-REVISED 12 ALTERNATIVE THAT WERE FULLY ANALYZED IN THE EIR FOR ALTERNATIVE 13 ONE AND THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. 14 SO -- WHILE AS I MENTIONED THE VIEWS FROM THE IRISH HILLS 15 OVERLOOKING THE UPPER TERRACE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY PRESERVED, 16 THE VIEWS FROM THE FROOM CREEK TRAILHEAD ON THE NORTHERN SIDE 17 AND THE CONNECTOR TRAIL, WHICH LEADS HIKERS AND MOUNTAIN BIKERS 18 TO A PRETTY IMPORTANT TRAIL HEAD AND TRAIL SYSTEM IN THE IRISH 19 HILLS, WOULD STILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED, AND THE CHANGE WOULD 20 REMAIN SIGNIFICANT EVEN WITH MITIGATION TO SHIELD THE PROJECT IN 21 THAT AREA. THE CHANGE IS FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL COMPARED TO THE OPEN 22 VIEWS AND -- AND HISTORIC FROOM DAIRY THAT IS SEEN CURRENTLY. 23 IN TERMS OF LONG TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS INCLUDING 24 GREENHOUSE GASES, THOSE WOULD CONTINUE TO EXCEED NUMERIC 25 09117 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 38 THRESHOLDS BOTH IN TERMS OF GHG’S AND NOXES, THOSE ASSOCIATED 1 WITH OPERATIONS OF THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THIS OUTCOME IS LARGELY 2 BECAUSE THE ROBUST AND DETAILED MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED BY 3 SLO APCD ARE DIFFICULT TO QUANTIFY. 4 MISS CREEL MADE THIS POINT EARLIER, THAT AS MANY 5 MITIGATION MEASURES AS POSSIBLE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE 6 EIR TO ADDRESS OPERATIONAL AIR QUALITY. THE CHALLENGE FOR A CEQA 7 PRACTITIONER IS ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO DO THE MATH ON THOSE 8 MEASURES AND SAY QUANTIFIABLY THIS IS THE REDUCTION YOU WOULD 9 GET. AND FOR MANY MEASURES IT’S NOT POSSIBLE. 10 FOR EXAMPLE, SUPPORT FOR WALKABILITY AND USE OF 11 TRANSIT IS -- IS -- IS AN EXCELLENT GOAL AND A COMPONENT OF A 12 MITIGATION MEASURE, BUT BEING ABLE TO SAY THAT THAT CREATES A 13 MEASURABLE REDUCTION IS IS CHALLENGING IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE. 14 SO WHILE IT’S POSSIBLE THAT THE COMBINATION OF EFFICIENCY 15 MEASURES COULD REDUCE EMISSIONS BELOW THE THRESHOLDS, WE DIDN’T 16 FEEL CONFIDENT TO STATE THAT WITHOUT SHOWING THE MATH, AND SO A 17 CONSERVATIVE APPROACH WAS TAKEN TO -- TO CLASSIFY THE IMPACT AS 18 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE NOTING ALSO THAT THIS IS A VERY CLEAN 19 PROJECT AND THE MITIGATION WOULD RESULT IN A -- AN EFFICIENT PROJECT 20 AND SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN POTENTIAL EMISSIONS. 21 FURTHER THE PROJECT WOULD REMAIN INCONSISTENT WITH 22 THE CLEAN AIR PLAN AND LOCAL STATE GHG GOALS, BUT LARGELY THIS IS 23 BECAUSE OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS. CURRENT POPULATION 24 PROJECTIONS FOR THE CLEAN AIR PLAN ARE OUTDATED AND THINGS HAVE 25 09118 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 39 CHANGED SINCE THAT PLAN WAS ADOPTED, SO APPARENTLY THERE’S SOME 1 INCONSISTENCY WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT IN -- IN THE REGION. 2 AND ALSO GREENHOUSE GAS TARGETS ARE CHANGING AT THE 3 STATE LEVEL AND HAVE NOT BEEN REALIZED IN LOCAL DOCUMENTS YET, SO 4 WHILE WE HAVE INCONSISTENCIES, YOU’LL SEE IN THE ANALYSIS THAT 5 THAT’S ACKNOWLEDGED. AND THE -- AND THE REASONING FOR THE 6 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IS -- IS RELATED TO TIMING AND EVOLVING 7 LEGISLATION AND SCIENCE ASSOCIATED WITH GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 8 AS I MENTIONED, BIOLOGIC – PROJECT SPECIFIC BIOLOGICAL 9 RESOURCES HAVE IMPACTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO LESS THAN 10 SIGNIFICANT, BUT THE CUMULATIVE LOSS OF HABITAT AND WILDLIFE 11 CORRIDORS WHEN CONSIDERING THIS PROJECT PLUS AVILA RANCH PLUS SAN 12 LUIS RANCH PLUS ALL THE REGIONAL GROWTH THAT’S HAPPENING IN THE 13 SAN LUIS AREA WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL 14 IMPACT TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 15 WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE -- THE HISTORIC 16 RESOURCES ONSITE. AS -- AND TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT THERE, ARE SEVEN 17 BUILDINGS THAT ARE PART OF THE FROOM RANCH HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND -18 - AND THE FROOM RANCH DAIRY COMPLEX. THE PROJECT PROPOSES THE 19 LOSS OF THREE OF THOSE STRUCTURES. WHILE THE LOSS OF THE 20 INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES IS NOT SIGNIFICANT, BECAUSE THEY CONTRIBUTE 21 TO THE POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, THEIR LOSS WOULD BE A 22 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. SO THAT -- THAT CONTINUES WITH THE PROJECT. 23 WILDFIRE RISKS ARE SIMILAR GIVEN THE SETTING FOR THE 24 PROJECT AND -- AT THE BASE OF THE IRISH HILLS, AT THE BASE OF THE 25 09119 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 40 FROOM RANCH WATERSHED, WHICH IS BACK BY THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF 1 UNDEVELOPED -- UNDEVELOPED WILDLANDS AND -- AND VEGETATION, SO IN 2 THE EVENT OF WILDFIRE, THERE’S A POTENTIAL FOR THE PROJECT TO 3 EXACERBATE THOSE RISKS AND ALSO BE SUBJECT TO DIRECT IMPACTS OF 4 WILDFIRE AND THEN ALSO POST FIRE DEBRIS FLOWS AND HAZARDS 5 ASSOCIATED WITH POST FIRE CONDITIONS. 6 AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 7 IMPACTS REMAIN SIMILAR, WHERE PROJECT TRAFFIC -- PARTICULARLY 8 BECAUSE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT, 404 UNITS PLUS 9 COMMERCIAL USES, WOULD REMAIN SIMILAR ACROSS THE BOARD, AND SO 10 THAT AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD GENERATE APPROXIMATELY THE 11 SAME AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AND HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF IMPACT ON 12 LOCAL ROADWAYS. 13 AS YOU CAN SEE THE FINDINGS FOR APPLICANT-REVISED 14 ALTERNATIVE ONE ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE -- THE FINDINGS FOR THE 15 ALTERNATIVE ONE. THERE ARE THREE KEY DIFFERENCES THOUGH. 16 FIRST OF ALL, THAT IMPACTS TO VIEWS WOULD BE SLIGHTLY 17 DIFFERENT. AS I MENTIONED BECAUSE YOU COULD -- THE PROJECT WOULD 18 BE STILL HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM THE FROOM CREEK TRAILHEAD AND THE 19 CONNECTOR TRAIL. IT’S A MUCH MORE FOCUSED IMPACT UNDER THIS 20 ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, BUT NONETHELESS, 21 THAT AREA IS STILL VISUALLY AFFECTED AND THAT LOCATION OF IMPACT 22 CONSTITUTES THAT SIGNIFICANT FINDING. 23 ALSO NOTE THAT THE IMPACTS TO WETLANDS WOULD BE 24 REDUCED WITH THE EXPANDED MITIGATION MEASURE TO ENSURE THAT ANY 25 09120 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 41 WETLAND IMPACT WOULD BE MITIGATED, THE -- THAT IMPACT WOULD 1 CHANGE TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. 2 AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, BECAUSE OF THE PROPOSED 3 DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 150 FEET AND THAT BEING A THRESHOLD FOR THE EIR, 4 THE FINDING ASSOCIATED WITH LAND USE REMAINS SIGNIFICANT AND 5 UNAVOIDABLE. 6 SO WHAT’S BEFORE US TODAY IS THE -- IS THE FINDINGS 7 ASSOCIATED WITH THE EIR AND THEN ALSO A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING 8 CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE ONE. A 9 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IS REQUIRED BY THE LEAD 10 AGENCY TO OVER – WHEN THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 11 ASSOCIATED WITH A PROJECT. 12 IN THE FINDINGS YOU’LL SEE A FEW MINOR EDITS TO 13 MITIGATION MEASURES, MAINLY IN TERMS OF CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY 14 WITH WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED NOW, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF REFERENCES 15 TO THE UPPER TERRACE VERSUS LOWER VILLAGGIO SINCE VILLAGGIO IS ALL 16 LOWER VILLAGGIO NOW, AS WELL AS THE INCREASED PARK ACREAGE TO 3.6 17 ACRES, COMPARED TO 2.9. 18 WE ALSO REMOVED REFERENCE TO THE SOUTHERN EMERGENCY 19 ACCESS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED THROUGH THE PROPOSED 20 STORM DRAIN – STORMWATER BASIN FROM CALLE JOAQUIN. AND THEN 21 ALSO SOME ENHANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVIEW PROCESS FOR 22 CONSTRUCTION APPROXIMATE TO HISTORIC RESOURCES, WHICH IS 23 STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE CITY. 24 THESE FINDINGS AND THE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS THAT -- THAT 25 09121 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 42 CAME THROUGH THE -- THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS AND THEN ALSO THE 1 COMPLETION OF THE FINDINGS FOR THIS REVISED PROJECT ARE AVAILABLE 2 IN THE FINAL MMRP THAT IS -- THAT IS PART OF OUR MATERIALS TONIGHT. 3 ONE THING, AND THIS IS JUST ONE KIND OF OVERARCHING BIT OF 4 INFORMATION RELATED TO REVISIONS TO THE EIR FOLLOWING THE 5 PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL EIR, THIS IS -- THIS IS OKAY IN CERTAIN 6 CONDITIONS. CEQA CLARIFIES THAT THE PROJECT ULTIMATELY PROPOSED 7 AND ADOPTED BY THE LEAD AGENCY DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXACTLY THE 8 SAME PROJECT THAT WAS IN THE EIR. 9 THAT BEING SAID, IT HAS TO HAVE BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED AND 10 THE IMPACTS CONSIDERED FULLY, SO THAT DECISION MAKING CAN BE MADE 11 IN AN INFORMED WAY. THE PURPOSE OF CEQA IS TO ENSURE -- ENSURE 12 INFORMED DECISION-MAKING AND AS LONG AS PART OF THE RECORD -- THE -13 - THE INFORMATION THAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE INFORMED DECISION MAKING 14 IS AVAILABLE, THEN THAT THAT’S OKAY. 15 AND IN THIS SITUATION, WHEN THE CHANGES ARE CONSISTENT 16 WITH THE CEQA IN THIS WAY, REVISION AND RECIRCULATION IS NOT 17 REQUIRED. 18 SO WITH THAT OVERVIEW, I WANT TO JUST WANT TO THANK 19 YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE EIR TONIGHT. I’M 20 GOING TO HAND IT BACK OVER TO MISS CREEL. AND WHAT’S AVAILABLE ON 21 THE SCREEN HERE IS A LINK TO THE FINAL EIR AND PROJECT INFORMATION IF 22 ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT. 23 THANK YOU, AND EMILY, I’LL HAND IT RIGHT BACK TO YOU. 24 MS. CREEL: OKAY. DOES THE SCREEN LOOK RIGHT? 25 09122 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 43 COMMISSIONER QUINCEY: YES, LOOKS GOOD. 1 MS. CREEL: THANK YOU. OKAY. SO MOVING INTO THE FOURTH AND 2 FINAL PIECE OF WHAT I OUTLINED FOR THIS CITY’S PRESENTATION. I 3 WANTED TO HIT ON KIND OF THE KEY ISSUES AND STAFF’S THOUGHTS ABOUT 4 HOW THE CURRENT PROJECT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES THESE ISSUES. 5 THE FIRST ONE, OF COURSE, IS THE DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 150 6 FEET. THIS HAS BEEN A POLICY IN THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN FOR A LONG 7 TIME. WE’VE HEARD A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT IT. THE PROJECT, 8 OF COURSE, ORIGINALLY PROPOSED A SUBSTANTIAL MORE AMOUNT OF 9 DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 150. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 10 THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ONE AND WHAT’S 11 CURRENTLY PROPOSED. 12 SO AS WE DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, THE 3.6 PUBLIC TRAILHEAD PARK 13 WOULD REMAIN AT THIS LOCATION ABOVE 150. THE PROJECT ALSO, 14 HOWEVER. WOULD ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 0.7 ACRE OF R-3 MULTI-FAMILY 15 USES AND 0.4 ACRE OF ROADWAY. SO APPROXIMATELY 1.1 ACRES OF 16 ADDITIONAL USE IN THIS QUARRY AREA ABOVE 150 FEET. 17 FOR FULL DISCLOSURE, THIS ACRE -- THIS AREA ALSO INCLUDES 18 APPROXIMATELY 0.7 ACRES OF CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE. AND THAT’S 19 ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY WHERE THE FROOM CREEK CHANNEL 20 TRAVERSES THE QUARRY AREA. 21 THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE QUARRY AREA, SO YOU 22 CAN GET A SENSE FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THAT AREA AS WELL AS 23 ITS HEAVILY DISTURBED USE ASSOCIATED WITH QUARRY AND MINING 24 ACTIVITIES. THE -- THE AREA, AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, IS A PERMITTED 25 09123 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 44 ACTIVE MINE, REGULATED BY SMARA AND CURRENTLY USED BY JOHN 1 MADONNA TO -- AS PART OF HIS CONSTRUCTION YOU KNOW OPERATIONS. 2 HE ANT – JOHN MADONNA, THE PROPERTY OWNER, ESTIMATES 3 THAT SINCE HIS FAMILY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, THE ELEVATION OF 4 THIS AREA HAS LIKELY CHANGED BY AS MUCH AS 50 FEET, AND OVER TIME 5 HAS BEEN AS LOW AS 130 FEET APPROXIMATELY IN ELEVATION AND AS HIGH 6 AS MAYBE 180 FEET WITH STOCKPILING, YOU KNOW, OPERATIONS. 7 AND SO THE ACTUAL ELEVATION OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA 8 HAS FLUCTUATED SUBSTANTIALLY OVER TIME. THE 150-FOOT ELEVATION 9 LINE WAS DRAWN EARLY IN THE PROCESS THROUGH THE, YOU KNOW, 10 SURVEYING OF THE SITE, HOWEVER, IT’S SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY IN THE 11 LONG TERM FOR THIS LOCATION BECAUSE OF THOSE USES. 12 THIS SITE IS ACTUAL -- IS ALSO, YOU KNOW, NOT HIGHLY VISIBLE 13 FROM PUBLIC VIEWING LOCATIONS. THE EIR DETERMINED THAT POTENTIAL 14 IMPACTS WERE RELATED TO VISUAL RESOURCES WOULD BE LESS THAN 15 SIGNIFICANT FROM VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY, EXCEPT THOSE 16 OPEN SPACE TRAILS DIRECTLY TO THE WEST, BECAUSE OF THAT CHANGING 17 CHARACTER FROM A RURAL TO A MORE DEVELOPED SITE. SO THIS QUARRY 18 AREA’S NOT HIGHLY VISIBLE, EXCEPT FROM THAT ONE LOCATION. 19 THE AREA, AS YOU CAN TELL, IS VERY HEAVILY DISTURBED, SO 20 DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION WOULD NOT IMPACT SENSITIVE 21 RESOURCES, AS OPPOSED TO THE -- THE VERY SENSITIVE UPPER TERRACE 22 AREA. 23 AND THE PROPOSED PARK AND TRAILHEAD USES THAT WOULD 24 ENCOMPASS THE MAJORITY OF THIS AREA, YOU KNOW, THEY’RE LOW 25 09124 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 45 IMPACT AND THEY WOULD ALSO SUPPORT THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ADJACENT 1 AND OPEN SPACE, AND PROVIDE A COMMUNITY AND A REGIONAL BENEFIT IN 2 THAT REGARD. THE RELOCATION OF THE PARK TO THIS LOCATION UNDER 3 ALTERNATIVE ONE WAS ALSO, YOU KNOW, DETERMINED TO REDUCE AND/OR 4 VOID A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. 5 I’VE HIGHLIGHTED HERE TOO -- THESE ARE THE FOUR 6 STRUCTURES THAT WOULD BE RELOCATED INTO THE PUBLIC PARK, SO 7 THOSE INCLUDE THE MAIN RESIDENCE, THE CREAMERY SLASH HOUSE THE 8 ROUNDNOSE DAIRY BARN AND THE GRANARY. 9 NOTABLY A CHANGE BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE ONE AND THE 10 APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE ONE IS THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN 11 WORKING WITH HISTORIC -- AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN ON THE PLAN 12 FOR RELOCATION OF THESE FEATURES, AND THEY ACTUALLY ADDED THE 13 GRANARY AS A FOURTH STRUCTURE TO BE RELOCATED AND INCORPORATED. 14 SO AS ERICA MENTIONED, THERE WERE SEVEN STRUCTURES DETERMINED TO 15 BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE ELIGIBLE HISTORIC DISTRICT, HOWEVER, FOUR OF 16 THOSE STRUCTURES WERE DETERMINED TO BE INDIVIDUALLY SIGNIFICANT 17 HISTORICAL RESOURCES, AND THESE ARE THE FOUR. SO THE PROJECT 18 WOULD RELOCATE, RESTORE AND REHABILITATE ALL FOUR OF THE 19 INDIVIDUALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC STRUCTURES. 20 OKAY. REALIGNMENT OF FROOM CREEK. WE DID WORK WITH 21 THE WOOD TEAM AND THE APPLICANT TEAM WHEN WE WERE DEVELOPING 22 ALTERNATIVES FOR THE EIR. WE COORDINATED WITH THEM EXTENSIVELY 23 ON AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD LEAVE FROOM CREEK IN ITS CURRENT 24 LOCATION, BECAUSE WE JUST FELT THAT WAS NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY THE 25 09125 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 46 WIDE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES IN THE EIR THAT -- THAT COULD, YOU KNOW, 1 BE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS FOR THE SITE. IT’S SUCH A LARGE 2 PROJECT COMPONENT. YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD DEVELOPMENT LOOK LIKE 3 WITHOUT THAT? 4 AND WHAT WE ULTIMATELY DETERMINED WAS WHAT 5 DEVELOPMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITHOUT THAT REALIGNMENT WOULD BE 6 EITHER VILLAGGIO OR EITHER MADONNA-FROOM RANCH. THE 7 DEVELOPABLE AREA IN THAT LOWER PORTION, WITHOUT THE REALIGNMENT 8 OF FROOM CREEK, WAS DETERMINED JUST WOULD NOT SUPPORT BOTH 9 COMPONENTS. 10 AND SO WE FELT THAT VILLAGGIO, OF COURSE, WAS AN 11 IMPORTANT COMPONENT. THE WORKFORCE HOUSING AND MULTI-FAMILY 12 HOUSING OF MADONNA WAS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT, AND SO THE -- THE 13 ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD LEAVE FROOM CREEK IN ITS CURRENT 14 ALIGNMENT REALLY DIDN’T MEET THOSE PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND SO THEY 15 WERE SCREENED OUT IN THE EIR ANALYSIS FOR A MORE DETAILED 16 EVALUATION. 17 THE REALIGNMENT -- THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT HAS ALSO 18 BEEN EXTENSIVELY STUDIED THROUGH THE EIR PROCESS. IT IS PROBABLY 19 THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY THE EIR PROCESS HAS TAKEN UPWARDS OF 20 TWO YEARS. IT’S BEEN THOROUGHLY VETTED WITH ALL APPLICABLE REL -- 21 REGULATORY AGENCIES. WE’VE MET WITH THOSE AGENCIES UPWARDS OF 22 FIVE TO SIX TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF TWO TO THREE YEARS, AND AT 23 NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS DID THEY RAISE A CONCERN ABOUT RELOCATION 24 OF THE CREEK. 25 09126 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 47 YOU KNOW, THEY -- THEY WERE YOU KNOW PROVIDED 1 FEEDBACK THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE REMISS IN MOVING 2 FORWARD WITH THAT ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT. 3 AND OF COURSE, ADDITIONAL COORDINATION WITH THOSE AGENCIES WILL 4 BE NECESSARY SHOULD WE MOVE FORWARD. 5 THE CURRENT CREEK CHANNEL, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO 6 ON THE LEFT, ALSO IS PRETTY MUCH DEVOID OF OF VEGETATION SO IT 7 DOESN’T SUPPORT HIGHLY VALUABLE RIPARIAN CORRIDOR. AND AS YOU 8 CAN SEE ON THE GRAPHIC TO THE RIGHT, THE REALIGNMENT DOES YOU 9 KNOW REALIGN THE CREEK TO CLOSER TO ITS HISTORIC LOCATION WITHIN 10 THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT IS VERY MUCH THE 11 RESULT OF MANMADE CHANGES IN THE SURFACE GRADE AT THE -- AT THE 12 SITE. YOU KNOW, BY BERMING IT’S REALLY PUSHED THE CREEK CHANNEL 13 UP AGAINST THE -- THE BASE OF THE FOOTHILLS. 14 AS ERICA MENTIONED, WE’VE ALSO DEVELOPED A VERY ROBUST 15 MITIGATION STRATEGY THAT WOULD ADDRESS POTENTIAL IMPACTS 16 RELATED TO THAT REALIGNMENT AND THEIR CONNECTION TO THE CALLE 17 JOAQUIN WETLANDS. THE REALIGNMENT OF THE CREEK ALSO PROVIDES 18 ADDITIONAL INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES FOR WETLAND AND RIPARIAN 19 RESTORATION BY RECONNECTING IT TO THOSE LOWER WETTER PORTIONS OF 20 THE SITE. 21 THE NEXT ISSUE IS WETLANDS. AGAIN, AS ERICA DISCUSSED THE 22 ALTERNATIVE ONE AND THE APPLICANT-REVISED ALTERNATIVE ONE 23 SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED THE PROJECT’S IMPACTS ON WETLANDS. THERE 24 ARE A NUMBER OF SMALL, SEEP-FED WETLANDS IN THE UPPER TERRACE 25 09127 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 48 ALONG THESE DRAINAGES. THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY SERPENTINE ROCK 1 OUTCROPPINGS AND THEY SUPPORT A VERY HIGH NUMBER OF RARE PLANT 2 SPECIES. 3 AND SO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, ANY IMPACTS TO THOSE 4 WETLANDS WE DETERMINED WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE 5 IMPACT, BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT LIKELY BE FEASIBLE TO RECREATE THOSE 6 SITE CONDITIONS AND RECREATE THOSE TYPES OF WETLANDS ANYWHERE 7 ELSE. 8 THE SAME WAS NOT TRUE FOR CALLE JOAQUIN, BUT WE STILL 9 HAVE A VERY EXTENSIVE MITIGATION IN PLACE TO MONITOR, FOR A 10 MINIMUM OF SEVEN YEARS, ANY CHANGES TO THAT WETLAND RELATED TO 11 THE REALIGNMENT OF THE CREEK AND THE CHANGE TO THE CONNECTIVITY 12 TO THAT HYDROLOGY TO THE WETLANDS. SO AGAIN, THIS PROJECT IS 13 SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCES THE IMPACTS TO WETLANDS. ANY IMPACTS TO 14 THAT CALLE JOAQUIN WETLAND WOULD BE MITIGATED ONSITE THROUGH 15 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND/OR VERY LAST THE LAST CASE 16 OFFSITE REPLACEMENT TO ENSURE NO NET LOSS OF WETLANDS. 17 OKAY. AMENDMENT OF THE AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE 18 EASEMENT. THE SITE CURRENTLY INCLUDES A 7.1-ACRE AGRICULTURAL AND 19 OPEN SPACE EASEMENT SHOWN IN RED, AND THIS WAS A REQUIREMENT OF 20 THE PERFUMO DEVELOPMENT IN THE PAST AS A PART OF COMPLYING WITH 21 LAFCO POLICIES. AND THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO AMEND THAT EASEMENT 22 TO RECONFIGURE IT TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF VILLAGGIO BUT ALSO 23 TO FURTHER PROTECT WETLANDS ONSITE. 24 09128 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 49 THIS AMENDMENT IS CLEARLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE EASEMENT 1 LANGUAGE, WHICH DESCRIBES THE STEPS NEEDED TO AMEND THE 2 EASEMENT. WETLAND AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION IS ALSO 3 CLEARLY ALLOWED AS A – AS A USE UNDER THE EASEMENT. AND SO THE 4 RECONFIGURATION THAT’S PROPOSED WOULD CAPTURE ALL OF THE ONSITE 5 WETLANDS THERE ADJACENT TO CALLE JOAQUIN, INCLUDING THE SMALL 6 SEGMENT OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF CALLE JOAQUIN, WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY 7 PROTECTED. THE EASEMENT WOULD BE INCREASED FROM 7.1 TO 7.8 ACRES, 8 SO THERE’S ALSO A BENEFIT THERE AND CREATING A LARGER AREA THAT 9 WOULD BE PERMANENTLY PROTECTED. 10 WILDFIRE IS A KEY ISSUE. CITY STAFF DID COORDINATE VERY 11 EXTENSIVELY WITH THE CITY’S FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE MARSHALL. 12 I FEEL FORTUNATE TO HAVE AN EIR CONSULTANT ON OUR TEAM WHO IS 13 BASED OUT OF AN OFFICE IN SANTA BARBARA AND REALLY INITIATED THIS 14 WORK PRETTY CLOSELY FOLLOWING THE HEELS OF THE THOMAS FIRE. AND 15 SO THEY WERE REALLY -- VERY UP TO SPEED ON THIS ISSUE AND DID A VERY 16 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS IN THE EIR. 17 WE’VE WORKED WITH THE CITY FIRE MARSHALL TO DEVELOP 18 NOT ONLY THE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE SITE THAT YOU SAW REFLECTED 19 IN THE -- THE CURRENT PROJECT WITH THOSE TWO NEW ENTRANCES, BUT 20 ALSO TO IMPROVE AND PROVIDE A BETTER ACCESS TO THAT WILDLAND 21 AREA WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU CAN SEE THE THREE BLUE STARS 22 ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROJECT. THOSE WOULD ALL PROVIDE 23 DIRECT ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES INTO THE WILDLAND AREA FOR 24 FIREFIGHTING ACCESS. 25 09129 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 50 THE CURRENT PROJECT ALSO PROVIDES A BUFFERED USE 1 BETWEEN THE OPEN SPACE AND – 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) IN MY ROOM. 3 MS. CREEL: OKAY, BUD. JUST A SEC. CAN YOU SHUT THE DOOR 4 PLEASE? 5 ALMOST MADE IT WITHOUT THE KIDS. 6 THERE’S CITY POLICIES FOR PROVIDING A BUFFER BETWEEN 7 OPEN SPACE AND DEVELOPED USES, AND THE RELOCATION OF THE PARK TO 8 THAT QUARRY AREA DOES THAT. AND THE EIR FOUND THAT IT WOULD 9 REDUCE IMPACTS BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THAT BUFFER. 10 AND THE EIR REQUIRED SOME PRETTY HEAVY MITIGATION 11 RELATED TO THIS ISSUE. SO YOU CAN SEE THE ORANGE BAND ON THIS 12 GRAPHIC. THAT IS AN IDENTIFIED FUEL MODIFICATION AREA, SO MITIGATION 13 IN THE EIR REQUIRES PREPARATION OF A COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION 14 PLAN, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE 15 MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE CITY FIRE 16 DEPARTMENT, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE THE CREATION AND MAINTENANCE 17 OF REQUIRED – OF FUEL BUFFERS AND FUEL MANAGEMENT ZONES, 18 INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS FOR VEGETATIVE COVER, VEGETATIVE TYPE, 19 SETBACKS BETWEEN STRUCTURES, LANDSCAPING AND PLANTING 20 STANDARDS FOR REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PARTICULAR TREATMENT 21 APPROACHES FOR FUEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN SENSITIVE AREAS, SUCH AS 22 DOWN NEAR THE CONFLUENCE OF THE DRAINAGES, AND THAT PLAN WOULD 23 ALSO BE REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY’S NATURAL RESOURCES 24 STAFF. 25 09130 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 51 THE EIR ALSO REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT OF AN EVACUATION 1 PLAN THAT INCLUDES -- OR ADDRESSES BOTH VILLAGGIO AND MADONNA-2 FROOM RANCH. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PLAN INCLUDE 3 ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE ASSISTED LIVING AND SPECIAL CARE 4 INDIVIDUALS; SHELTER IN PLACE ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN THE SITE; 5 SPECIFIED QUANTITY AND CAPACITY OF VEHICLES THAT WOULD BE 6 REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGGIO AND MAINTENANCE 7 OF THOSE VEHICLES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY; SIGNAGE THAT WOULD 8 IDENTIFY EVACUATION ROUTES; SPECIFIED EGRESS POINTS FOR VEHICLES; A 9 RELOCATION PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE PLAN THAT WOULD RELOCATE THE 10 POPULATION TO A SECONDARY FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED 11 TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE THAT RELOCATION; CONTINGENCY PLANS 12 FOR CHANGES TO THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE OR PROJECT PHASING THAT 13 COULD AFFECT THE PRIMARY EVACUATION PLAN. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF A 14 CERTAIN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTE WAS PROPOSED OT BE DEVELOPED IN A 15 LATER PHASE, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A CONTINGENCY 16 PLAN RELATED TO THIS EVACUATION. 17 AND THEN LASTLY, REGULAR PRACTICE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 18 THE PLAN. THE EIR IDENTIFIES A YEARLY PRACTICE. 19 AND THE LAST ISSUE WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WAS 20 TRANSPORTATION. AS A KEY ISSUE, IT’S, OF COURSE, BEEN LOOKED AT IN A 21 VERY HIGH LEVEL OF DETAIL. IT’S VERY TECHNICAL, SO I’D LIKE TO ASK 22 LUKE SCHWARTZ TO TALK -- SPEAK TO THIS SLIDE AND TALK ABOUT SOME 23 OF THE HIGH POINTS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION AND THE COMMENTS 24 WE HAVE RECEIVED ON THAT ISSUE. 25 09131 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 52 MR. SCHWARTZ: SURE. THANK YOU, EMILY. GOOD AFTERNOON, 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. LUKE SCHWARTZ, TRANSPORTATION MANAGER 2 WITH THE CITY. 3 AS EMILY MENTIONED AND AS ERICA MENTIONED IN HER 4 PRESENTATION, THE ANALYSIS FINDINGS AND MITIGATION 5 RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED IN THE EIR ARE -- ARE GUIDED BY 6 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM A VERY COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION 7 IMPACT ANALYSIS. YOU CAN SEE WITH THE LENGTH OF THE STUDY AND 8 APPENDICES. THE ANALYSIS COVERED A LOT OF TOPICS IN AREAS WITHIN 9 THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDED ANALYSIS OF 24 INTERSECTIONS, 10 13 STUDIED ROADWAY SEGMENTS; AND INCLUDED ANALYSIS OF THE 11 HIGHWAY 101 MAINLINE, THE INTERCHANGES AT THE LOVR, PRADO ROAD, 12 AND MADONNA ROAD; FOCUSED ANALYSIS ON THE LOVR CORRIDOR 13 INCLUDING THROUGH THE INTERCHANGE AREA; AND ANALYSIS OF ACCESS 14 CONSIDERATIONS AT THE LOS VERDES PARK PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS. 15 THE ANALYSIS COVERED SEVERAL DIFFERENT ANALYSIS 16 SCENARIOS, INCLUDING BOTH EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS AS 17 WELL AS WHAT DO CONDITIONS LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE WITH BUILDOUT 18 OF OUR GENERAL PLAN, AS WELL AS KIND OF AN INTERIM NEAR TERM 19 SCENARIO THAT LOOKED AT IMPACTS WITH THE PROJECT IN THE NEXT, YOU 20 KNOW, FIVE TO TEN YEARS WITH NOT ONLY WITH ADDITION OF THE PROJECT, 21 BUT ADDITION OF OTHER DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL, PLANNING PROJECTS, 22 DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE AND APPROVED THAT 23 WOULD BE ADDED TO THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM BY THE TIME THAT THIS 24 DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE OCCUPIED. 25 09132 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 53 THERE’VE BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU KNOW THE AGE 1 OF THE TRAFFIC DATA. YOU KNOW, WE START THE CEQA PROCESS A COUPLE 2 YEARS AGO, AS EMILY MENTIONED, AND THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME. AND 3 THE BIG -- YOU KNOW, OUR ANALYSIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR TRAFFIC 4 IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES, CEQA BEST PRACTICES IN TERMS OF WHEN WE 5 STARTED THE ANALYSES AND THE AGE OF THE DATA. 6 BUT THAT’S A BIG REASON WHY WE LOOK AT THIS NEAR TERM 7 SCENARIO THAT FORECASTS TRAFFIC TO THE FIVE-TEN YEAR HORIZON, SAY, 8 WHAT IT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION NEEDS NOT JUST FROM WHEN WE 9 STARTED THE STUDY, BUT WHEN THIS PROJECT WOULD ACTUALLY BE 10 OCCUPIED. AND THAT INCLUDES THE FULL BUILDOUT OF THE SAN LUIS 11 RANCH PROJECT, THE AVILA RANCH PROJECT, AND CONSERVATIVELY, IT 12 ASSUMES THAT THE THE PRADO INTERCHANGE IS NOT YET IN PLACE FOR 13 THAT NEAR TERM HORIZON TO SEE WHAT’S THE WORST CASE SCENARIO 14 THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING OUT WITH BUILDOUT OF THIS PROJECT. 15 THE ANALYSIS, AS I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT 16 DETAILS WITH THE PRADO INTERCHANGE AND PHASING OF THIS PROJECT 17 AND, AS I MENTIONED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS, ASSUMES IT WOULD NOT 18 BE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD BE COMPLETED. 19 ANOTHER THING THAT I WANT TO MENTION THAT’S COME UP IN 20 SOME QUESTIONS IS, YOU KNOW, THERE’S A SERIES OF WAYS THAT THE 21 PROJECT’S REQUIRED TO MITIGATE IMPACTS, WHETHER THAT’S THROUGH 22 DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSTRUCTING PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS 23 BEFORE THE PROJECT OCCUPIES, TO NEAR TERM AND CUMULATIVE 24 IMPROVEMENTS WHERE THE PROJECT SIMPLY REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN 25 09133 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 54 A FAIR SHARE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION, WHETHER THAT’S A DIRECT 1 PAYMENT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT OR THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN THE 2 CITY’S TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM. 3 THERE’S A COUPLE QUESTIONS, TOO, SAYING WELL, IF A PROJECT 4 COMES THROUGH THE PIPELINE AND ULTIMATELY HAS A DIFFERENT LAND 5 USE TOTAL OR SMALLER TRAFFIC GENERATION THAN WHAT WAS ASSUMED 6 IN OUR IMPACT FEE PROGRAM, ARE YOU STILL COLLECTING ENOUGH FUNDS 7 TO FUND THOSE IMPROVEMENTS? AND TO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE UPDATE 8 OUR IMPACT FEE PROGRAM REGULARLY, ABOUT EVERY FIVE YEARS, OFTEN 9 MORE FREQUENTLY WHEN THERE IS LARGE SUBDIVISIONS, SPECIFIC 10 PLANNED PROJECTS, OR WHERE ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATES HAVE 11 CHANGED FOR THE PROJECTS THAT WE’RE FUNDING TO MAKE SURE ALL THE 12 DATA IS ACCURATE, UP TO DATE, AND THAT WE’RE COLLECTING 13 APPROPRIATE FEES FOR EACH DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES THROUGH THE 14 PIPELINE. 15 ALSO MENTIONED BY EMILY AND ERICA TOO, IS THAT WE IN 16 RESPONSE TO CAL TRANS COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR, WE PROVIDED A 17 SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS THAT FOCUSED ON THE LOVR AND 101 18 INTERCHANGE. AND THE REASON IS THAT IS WE KNOW THAT THERE’S A 19 MITIGATION STRATEGY IN PLACE TO EXTEND THE CAPACITY OF 20 SOUTHBOUND OFFRAMP AND COORDINATE THE SIGNALS ALONG THAT 21 WHOLE CORRIDOR, SO THEY PROGRESS MORE EFFICIENTLY. AND THE 22 PURPOSE OF THAT SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS REALLY GET INTO FINER 23 DETAIL, LOOK AT SPECIFIC SIGNAL TIMING PLANS, A MORE SOPHISTICATED 24 ANALYSIS TOOL TO LOOK AT QUEUEING AND SPILL BACK JUST TO VERIFY 25 09134 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 55 THAT, YES, THOSE MITIGATION STRATEGIES DO FULLY ADDRESS THAT 1 IMPACT. AND THAT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF THAT SUPPLEMENTAL 2 ANALYSIS. 3 ANOTHER QUESTIONS, JUST TO KEEP THIS MOVING, WAS, HEY, 4 WHAT ARE THE FAIR SHARE MITIGATION COSTS FOR MITIGATION 5 REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE PROJECT’S JUST PROVIDING A PAYMENT? WE DO 6 HAVE THOSE. THEY WEREN’T INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEQA, BUT 7 THOSE ARE PROVIDED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE 8 FINANCING CHAPTER THAT GOES THROUGH ALL THE FINANCIAL 9 OBLIGATIONS THAT THE PROJECT’S RESPONSIBLE FOR. 10 I’LL LET EMILY CONTINUE THIS PRESENTATION. I’M AVAILABLE 11 FOR OTHER QUESTIONS AS THEY MAY COME UP. 12 MS. CREEL: THANK YOU, LUKE. OKAY. THIS IS THE LAST THING WE 13 WANTED TO DO BEFORE WE CONCLUDE STAFF’S PRESENTATION. OVER THE 14 COURSE OF THE LAST WEEK OR TEN DAYS WHILE WE’VE DONE EXTENSIVE 15 REVIEW OF THE AGENDA ITEM PACKET THAT WAS POSTED FOR THIS 16 HEARING, WE’VE IDENTIFIED THE NEED FOR A HANDFUL OF CLARIFICATIONS 17 AND MINOR EDITS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH WE WOULD PROPOSE YOUR 18 RECOMMENDATION INCLUDE THAT WE MAKE THOSE BEFORE TAKING THE 19 SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL IF -- IF ULTIMATELY THAT’S WHAT WE 20 DO. SO I WANTED TO RUN THROUGH THOSE CLARIFICATIONS SO YOU KNOW 21 EXACTLY WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE CHANGED. 22 THE FIRST IS TO CLARIFY A POLICY IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO 23 REFLECT THAT THE LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY IS AN ALLOWED USE AS 24 INTENDED, SO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NOT A USE PERMIT. I 25 09135 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 56 DISCUSSED THAT EARLIER. 1 SECOND WOULD BE TO DELETE HOMELESS SHELTERS FROM THE 2 LIST OF PROHIBITED USES IN THE R-3 AND R-4 ZONES, BASED ON A FURTHER 3 REVIEW OF THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS. 4 WE PROPOSE TO AMEND SECTION 2.4 ON AIRPORT 5 COMPATIBILITY TO ONLY IDENTIFY POTENTIAL DENSITY UP TO 578 UNITS 6 RATHER THAN MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROPOSED AND POTENTIAL. 7 THAT WAS AN ERROR. 8 SECTION 5.1, WE PROPOSE TO CLARIFY THERE’S A -- A 9 STATEMENT THAT LOCAL ROAD B IS NOT AN INTERIOR PUBLIC ROAD, WHICH 10 IT IS, SO WE WOULD CLARIFY THAT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GRAPHICS 11 IN THAT CHAPTER. 12 WE WOULD AMEND FIGURE 5 DASH 11 TO SHOW A TRAIL -- THE 13 FROOM CREEK TRAIL, WHICH IS CURRENTLY SHOWN WITHIN THAT 300 FOOT 14 WILDLIFE CORRIDOR BUFFER – ENDING, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO THAT BUFFER, 15 SO THAT THAT TRAIL WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THAT -- THAT 16 CORRIDOR. AND ALSO TO CLEARLY SHOW SIDEWALKS ALONG THE LOVR 17 FRONTAGE. THAT’S INTENDED TO BE SHOWN ON THAT GRAPHIC, BUT IT’S 18 KIND OF OVERLAID WITH A BIKE PATH. 19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) IN MY ROOM. 20 MS. CREEL: OKAY. BUD. I CAN’T LOOK AT IT RIGHT NOW. CAN 21 YOU PLEASE SHUT THE DOOR? I NEED YOU TO. THANK YOU. 22 OKAY. I THINK THAT WAS ALL OF THEM HERE. SO SOME 23 AMENDMENTS TO FIGURE 5-11. 24 AND THEN WE PROPOSE DELETING A REFERENCE IN SECTION 5.5-3 25 09136 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 57 WHERE, WHICH REFERS TO PRIVATE TRAILS WITHIN VILLAGGIO. THOSE 1 WERE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED IN THE UPPER TERRACE AREA, AN EXTENSIVE 2 SET OF PRIVATE TRAILS. HOWEVER, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE ARE 3 MORE LIMITED NOW THAT ALL THE DEVELOPMENT’S IN THE LOWER AREA, SO 4 THAT WOULD BE DELETED. 5 WE PROPOSE TO AMEND THE DISCUSSION RELATED TO 6 WASTEWATER GENERATION TO CORRECTLY REFLECT THE WASTEWATER 7 FLOW, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED IN THE TABLE. THERE IS A TEXT REFERENCE, 8 WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT TABLE, BUT THE TABLE IS CORRECT. 9 AND THEM HERE’S A NOISE DISCUSSION THAT WE PROPOSE TO 10 AMEND TO CORRECTLY REFLECT THE FINDINGS OF THE EIR AND CLARIFY 11 THAT VEGETATIVE PLANTING AS A NOISE MITIGATION STRATEGY IS NOT 12 REALLY EFFECTIVE OR INTENDED TO BE EFFECTIVE AS A MITIGATION 13 MEASURE. BUT IT CAN BE HELPFUL WHEN USED IN COMBINATION WITH 14 OTHER IDENTIFIED NOISE MITIGATION AND ATTENUATION MEASURES. 15 AND THEN LASTLY THERE’S AN INCONSISTENT REFERENCE TO 16 AN EIGHT-INCH PUBLIC WATER MAIN WITHIN MADONNA FROOM RANCH. 17 AND A SIX-INCH PUBLIC WATER MAIN WITHIN MADONNA-FROOM RANCH, SO 18 WE WOULD CORRECT THAT TO MAKE THOSE CONSISTENT. 19 AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF’S PRESENTATION, SO JUST TO 20 RECAP OUR RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME IS FOR THE PLANNING 21 COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL 22 EIR, ADOPT THE CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING 23 CONSIDERATIONS, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 2020 SPECIFIC PLAN 24 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND 25 09137 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 58 ANNEXATION. 1 AND LIKE SHAWNA MENTIONED, WE HAVE A WHOLE HOST OF 2 PEOPLE HERE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, AND SO THANK 3 YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH THAT LENGTHY PRESENTATION, AND LOOK 4 FORWARD TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. 5 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS EXTENSIVE 6 AND DETAILED PRESENTATION THAT’S COMPLICATED AND LARGE PROJECT 7 AND I THINK THAT STAFF DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF GIVING US A WALK 8 THROUGH. 9 THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO HAVE MEMBERS OF THE 10 COMMISSION ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE OF STAFF. I’M GOING 11 TO CALL ON YOU ALPHABETICALLY. COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN. 12 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: I HAVE NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. 13 CHAIR DANDEKAR: COMMISSIONER KAHN. 14 COMMISSIONER KAHN: YES. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. 15 IT’S A TRANSPORTATION QUESTION. WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED 16 COMPLETION DATE OF THE PRODUCTION OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRADO 17 ROAD INTERCHANGE? 18 MR. SCHWARTZ: LUKE SCHWARTZ AGAIN, TRANSPORTATION. SO THE 19 -- THE WHERE THE PROCESS IS AT RIGHT NOW IS WE’RE JUST APPROACHING 20 COMPLETION OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY 21 PLANNING. WE’LL BE STARTING DETAILED DESIGN LATER NEXT YEAR. AND 22 THE ANTICIPATED START OF CONSTRUCTION IS THE SECOND HALF OF 2022. 23 IT’S A FOUR YEAR CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, SO WE’RE LOOKING AT 2026 OR SO 24 FOR OPENING OF THE INTERCHANGE. 25 09138 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 59 COMMISSIONER KAHN: THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THAT IS THE 1 ONLY QUESTION I HAVE. 2 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER QUINCEY. 3 COMMISSIONER QUINCEY: I DON’T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK 4 YOU. 5 CHAIR DANDEKAR: COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN. 6 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: SORT OF ALONG THE LINES OF THAT 7 LAST QUESTION, I KNOW IT’S -- MIGHT BE HARD TO PREDICT AND THIS 8 PROJECT IS SLOWLY IN THE WORKS FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW SINCE 2016, BUT 9 WITH THE MULTIPLE STAGES OR PHASES PROPOSED, JUST FOR MY 10 INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION WITH TH IN COMPARISON TO THE 11 COMPLETION OF THE PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE, WHEN DO YOU THINK THIS 12 PROJECT WOULD BE COMPLETED OR HABITABLE? I’M NOT SURE WHO THAT 13 QUESTION IS BEST FOR. EMILY, MAYBE? 14 MS. CREEL: YEAH, I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA SAY THAT QUESTION 15 MIGHT BE BEST SUITED FOR THE APPLICANT. THE EIR MADE ASSUMPTIONS 16 ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY’RE -- THEY’RE 17 REALLY OUTDATED AT THIS POINT, SO THEY REPRESENT, SORT OF A FOR EIR 18 PURPOSES, A WORST CASE SCENARIO BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, VEHICLES GET 19 CLEANER ET CETERA. SO THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE A BETTER SCHEDULE 20 -- UPDATED SCHEDULE FOR THAT PHASED DEVELOPMENT. 21 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: OKAY. YOU TALKED ABOUT IN YOUR 22 PRESENTATION AND I KNOW WE GOT A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT THE 23 TRAFFIC IMPACTS, AND IT WAS HEAVILY TALKED ABOUT IN THE EIR. I THINK 24 YOU MENTIONED THAT TRIP REDUCTION MEASURES. 25 09139 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 60 I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR THOSE WHO WEREN’T ABLE 1 TO READ THE 300 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED, MAYBE YOU 2 COULD OUTLINE BRIEFLY THOSE TRIP REDUCTION MEASURES IN ADDITION 3 TO THE ONES THAT WERE MENTIONED THAT WERE MITIGATION MEASURES 4 FORM THE EIR. 5 MS. CREEL: SURE. LET ME FIND THE RELEVANT PAGE TO DO THAT. OF 6 THE EIR. 7 MS. SCOTT: SHAWNA SCOTT. SENIOR PLANNER. I JUST WANT TO – I 8 PULLED UP THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PHASING, WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED 9 IN THE EIR, WHICH EMILY MENTIONED WAS A LITTLE BIT AGGRESSIVE. SO IT 10 IT FIRST ANTICIPATED ABOUT -- ABOUT THREE YEARS TO CONSTRUCT 11 VILLAGGIO, AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL YEAR TO CONSTRUCT THE 12 MADONNA-FROOM RANCH SIDE, SO ABOUT A TOTAL OF THREE TO FOUR 13 YEARS. 14 MS. CREEL: I WANTED TO CLARIFY, TOO, THAT CHAPTER EIGHT OF 15 THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE PAY-AS-YOU-GO STRATEGY, 16 DOES INCLUDE SOME UPDATED SCHEDULE INFORMATION. THEY -- THEY 17 SHOW VILLAGGIO PHASE ONE BEING DEVELOPED STARTING IN 2022. 18 MADONNA-FROOM RANCH 2024. THE HOTEL COMMERCIAL COMPONENT, 19 MAYBE 2025. AND EXTENDING DEVELOPMENT THROUGH 2028. 20 SO AGAIN, PHASING IS – IS DEFINED PRETTY GENERALLY AT THIS 21 TIME. BUT THE FINANCING PLAN IDENTIFIES DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, 22 2022 THROUGH 2028, APPROXIMATELY. 23 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. 24 MS. CREEL: SURE, AND LET ME JUST LOCATE THOSE AIR QUALITY 25 09140 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 61 MEASURES. 1 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: I DON’T WANT YOU TO TAKE TOO 2 MUCH TIME, BUT MAYBE YOU COULD POINT OUT THE PAGE AND AND SORT 3 OF SUMMARIZE 4 MS. CREEL: YEAH THEY’RE LOCATED IN – 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE.) 6 MS. CREEL: SURE. GREAT -- GREAT POINT. THEY’RE SUMMARIZED IN 7 TABLE 3.3-9 OF THE EIR, WHICH IS A TABLE THAT I REFERENCED AS PART OF 8 THE APCD GUIDELINES, AND WHICH THE EIR SAID, BASICALLY, GO 9 IMPLEMENT EVERYTHING YOU CAN IN THIS TABLE. 10 AND SO THAT TABLE INCLUDES MEASURES SUCH AS PROVISION 11 OF ONSITE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE; REQUIREMENTS TO EDUCATE AND 12 ENCOURAGE RIDESHARE AND CARPOOLING FOR EMPLOYEES AT THE 13 COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AS WELL AS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE 14 RESIDENTIAL AREAS; REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING FREE WI-FI IN 15 COMMON AREAS OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU 16 HAVE AN APARTMENT WITH A COMMON AREA, FREE WIFI WOULD BE 17 REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED SO FOLKS COULD WORK THERE. 18 THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CHILDCARE FACILITIES 19 ONSITE TO REDUCE TRIPS ACROSS TOWN TO DROP OFF KIDS. AND VILLAGGIO 20 IS ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN PROVIDING THAT USE. HOWEVER, I 21 UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME, YOU KNOW, LICENSING REQUIREMENTS 22 THAT MAKE THAT DIFFICULT. 23 THE TABLE AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TABLE, NOTABLY 24 REQUIRE ALL-ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SHUTTLES. FOR EXAMPLE, 25 09141 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 62 THE HOTEL, IF IT HAS A SHUTTLE, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED. THEY HAVE TO 1 SET ASIDE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CHARGING, INFRASTRUCTURE FOR 2 ELECTRIC SHUTTLES. SAME WITHIN VILLAGGIO. ALL OF THEIR SHUTTLES 3 WOULD BE ELECTRIC AND THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. 4 THE PROJECT HAS TO SET ASIDE AN AREA FOR A BIKE SHARE 5 NODE, WHICH WOULD BE DEVELOPED AT A LATER DATE, BUT THEY HAVE TO 6 SET ASIDE THAT AREA SO THAT IT CAN BE DEVELOPED AND TIED INTO THE 7 CITY’S LARGER BIKE SHARE SYSTEM AT A FUTURE DATE IF THAT BECOMES 8 FEASIBLE. 9 THERE’S A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROJECT ADD AN ELECTRIC 10 CHARGING STATION AT THE PARK AND RIDE LOT -- EXISTING PARK AND RIDE 11 LOT ADJACENT TO THE HOTELS ON CALLE JOAQUIN, UP TO A COST OF ABOUT 12 SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE COORDINATED 13 WITH WITH LUKE AND KRIS REED ON THAT REQUIREMENT, WHO 14 COORDINATED WITH SLOCOG ON WHAT THE COST OF THAT IS. AND KRIS 15 IDENTIFIED THAT SLO REALLY HAS – IT’S KIND OF A HOLE IN THE SYSTEM 16 AND THAT A CHARGING STATION AT THAT LOCATION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, 17 IN HIGH DEMAND. 18 SO WITHOUT READING THROUGH TABLE 3.9, WHICH I CALLED 19 THE SUMMARY, BUT IT’S ALSO LIKE 20 PAGES LONG. 20 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: THAT -- THAT’S PERFECT. I JUST 21 WANTED YOU TO GIVE US A LITTLE FLAVOR TO FOLKS OF WHAT THE PLANS 22 WERE AND THAT -- ON THAT FRONT. 23 AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION, I THINK, IS I DIDN’T REALLY 24 UNDERSTAND UNTIL YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL PLAN 25 09142 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 63 AMENDMENT, BUT FROM SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID IT MADE ME 1 QUESTIONS, SO IS THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BASICALLY REQUIRED 2 BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT’S PLANNED TO BE BUILT EXCEEDS 3 THE AMOUNT THAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED? IS THAT – I SAW SOMETHING 4 ON ONE OF YOUR SLIDES THAT SAID 350-UNITS, AND OBVIOUSLY, WE’RE 5 LOOKING AT 400 IN JUST THE VILLAGGIO ALONE PLUS 175 MORE, AND SO IS 6 THAT THE REASON YOU HAVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT? 7 MS. CREEL: RIGHT. THAT’S ONE OF TWO. THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, 8 AS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED BACK DURING THE UPDATE OF THE LAND USE 9 PLAN IN 2014, ENVISIONED MUCH MORE COMMERCIAL RETAIL INTENSIVE 10 DEVELOPMENT. AND SO WHEN THE APPLICANT WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 11 IN 2016, THEIR AUTHORIZATION DID INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, A SUBSTANTIAL 12 INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WOULD BE 13 ALLOWED WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. 14 AND THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IS 15 WITHIN THE RANGE CURRENTLY PROVIDED IN THE LUCE FOR THE SITE, BUT 16 IT’S AT THE LOWER END. SO THE BASICALLY THEY’RE AT THE KIND OF LOW 17 END OF THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL USE THAT’S ALLOWED AND MAXED OUT 18 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AT THE SITE. 19 THE SECOND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, OF COURSE, IS TO 20 ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 150 FEET. 21 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: YEAH. THANK YOU, EMILY. I WOULD 22 JUST ADD TO THAT THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO LOOK AT PACKET 23 PAGE 26, THERE’S A TABLE FROM THE LAND USE ELEMENT, WHICH 24 IDENTIFIES, FOR THIS AREA, 200 TO 350 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 50,000 TO 25 09143 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 64 350,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL. 1 THAT’S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. THANK YOU. 2 CHAIR DANDEKAR: COMMISSIONER WULKAN. DO YOU HAVE 3 QUESTIONS? 4 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: YES. THANK YOU. I HAVE TWO 5 QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY TRANSPORTATION MANAGER. AND THEN I HAVE 6 ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE, BUT I’LL DEFER 7 THAT UNTIL AFTER THEIR PRESENTATION. 8 SO FOR THE CITY TRANSPORTATION MANAGER, FIRST I BELIEVE 9 THAT OTHER MAJOR PROJECTS ARE PHASED OR HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE 10 PHASED TO ALLOW A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT BEFORE THE 11 PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. THERE’S NOT A 12 SIMILAR PHASING REQUIREMENT AS FAR AS I KNOW ON THIS PROJECT. 13 SO THE QUESTION IS, WITH -- WITHOUT THE PRADO ROAD 14 INTERCHANGE IN PLACE, HOW MUCH DEVELOPMENT OR WHAT PHASES OF 15 DEVELOPMENT COULD BE OCCUPIED WITHOUT TRIGGERING SIGNIFICANT 16 UNAVOIDABLE TRAFFIC IMPACTS SUCH AS TO THE SOUTH HIGUERA TANK 17 FARM ROAD INTERSECTION? 18 MR. SCHWARTZ: I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO, YEAH, 19 THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LOOKED AT THE PHASING PLAN THAT WAS 20 PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT TEAM, WHICH ESSENTIALLY BROKE -- FOR 21 THE PURPOSES OF THE MITIGATION AND IMPACT PHASING, IT WAS BROKEN 22 INTO WHAT IMPACTS ARE TRIGGERED AND MITIGATIONS REQUIRED WITH 23 THE VILLAGGIO COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT, AND THEN WHAT IMPACTS 24 AND MITIGATIONS MEASURES ARE TRIGGERED WITH THE ADDITIONAL 25 09144 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 65 COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE FROOM RANCH 1 COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT? 2 AND SO WHAT THE FINDINGS WERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW -- 3 THERE’S ABOUT -- THERE’S TWO -- THERE’S TWO IMPACTS THAT DAY ONE 4 EVEN A SMALLER ITERATIVE OF THE VILLAGGIO PROJECT YOU’RE STILL 5 GONNA SEE SOME SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS UNTIL THE 6 PRADO INTERCHANGE IS IN PLACE. 7 SO VILLAGGIO COMES IN FIRST. THERE’S -- THERE’S A COUPLE OF 8 IMPACTS THAT THERE’S NO WAY TO RESOLVE. THERE’S ABOUT FOUR TO SIX 9 OTHER SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT ARE TIED TO THE 10 ULTIMATE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRADO INTERCHANGE THAT ACTUALLY 11 AREN’T TRIGGERED UNTIL THE LATER PHASE OF THE MADONNA-FROOM 12 RANCH COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT. 13 SO AS YOU MENTIONED, THAT THE MITIGATION MEASURES 14 IDENTIFIED THAT TRIGGER POINT AND WHEN THOSE MITIGATIONS ARE 15 REQUIRED. AS OF RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO FORMAL CONDITIONS THAT 16 WOULD RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT UNTIL THE PRADO 17 ROAD INTERCHANGE IS IN PLACE. 18 AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WAS AN INITIAL CONDITION OF 19 THE APPROVALS FOR SAN LUIS RANCH. THERE WERE PHASES THAT COULD 20 MOVE FORWARD UP UNTIL THE INTERCHANGE WAS IN PLACE, AND THEN 21 OTHER PHASES THAT COULD NOT. BUT ULTIMATELY, THE -- THAT PROJECT 22 WENT BACK WITH A SUPPLEMENTAL EIR AND RECEIVED APPROVAL TO MOVE 23 FORWARD AND ACCEPT THAT THERE WERE SOME INTERIM UNAVOIDABLE 24 IMPACTS THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE AS THE PROJECT BUILDS OUT BETWEEN 25 09145 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 66 THAT POINT AND WHEN THE PRADO INTERCHANGE WOULD BE COMPLETE. 1 SO THERE IS INFORMATION WITHIN THE EIR AND THE TRAFFIC 2 STUDY THAT IDENTIFIES WHICH IMPACTS ARE TRIGGERED WITH THE LATER 3 PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT UNTIL THE INTERCHANGE IS IN PLACE. 4 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IF I UNDERSTAND 5 CORRECTLY, THERE’S CERTAIN IMPACTS THAT WOULD OCCUR -- CERTAIN 6 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH 7 DEVELOPMENT GOES IN, BUT THERE’S OTHER IMPACTS THAT COULD BE 8 AVOIDED IF THE SECOND PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE MADONNA-FROOM 9 WERE DELAYED UNTIL AFTER THE INTERCHANGE WERE CONSTRUCTED. IS 10 THAT RIGHT? 11 MR. SCHWARTZ: THAT’S CORRECT, AND I I HAVE THE OUTLINE OF 12 THOSE SPECIFIC IMPACTS IF YOU’RE INTERESTED IN GETTING INTO THAT 13 LEVEL OF DETAIL. 14 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: OKAY. THAT’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR NOW. 15 THANK YOU. 16 AND MY SECOND QUESTIONS HAS TO DO WITH A LETTER THAT 17 WE RECEIVED FROM AN OWNER OF THE BEAR VALLEY SHOPPING CENTER ON 18 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE REQUIRED 19 CENTER MEDIAN THAT’S TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG LOVR. 20 AND MAYBE THIS ISN’T EXACTLY THE APPLICANT’S 21 RESPONSIBILITY, BECAUSE I’M PRESUMING THAT THE DESIGN OF THE 22 MEDIAN IS THE CITY’S DESIGN, BUT IS IT STILL POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY TO 23 WORK WITH PROPERTY OWNERS BEFORE THAT MEDIAN’S DESIGN IS FINAL TO 24 ALLOW FOR OPENINGS WHERE APPROPRIATE FOR ACCESS TO PROPERTIES? 25 09146 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 67 MR. SCHWARTZ: YEAH, ABSOLUTELY AND I’VE SPOKEN WITH THAT 1 PROPERTY OWNER, TOO. THE MEDIAN DESIGN, I’LL BE CLEAR, IS NOT AN 2 IMPROVEMENT THAT’S PROVIDED IT’S SIMPLY FOR AESTHETIC VALUE OR 3 FOR A STREET SCAPE IMPROVEMENT. 4 IT’S A MITIGATION THAT’S TIED TO ONGOING SAFETY CONCERNS 5 DUE TO LIMITED -- THE LACK OF ACCESS RESTRICTIONS ALONG THAT 6 STRETCH OF LOVR, SO THE MITIGATION IS THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME FORM 7 OF MEDIAN. WHEN WE GET INTO THE DESIGN IS WHEN WE LOOK AT THE 8 DETAILS OF WHERE CAN WE STILL PROVIDE SOME LEFT TURN ACCESS POINTS 9 AND WORK WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO TRY TO FIND A 10 DESIGN THAT WORKS AS BEST AS POSSIBLE TO RETAIN ACCESS WHERE WE 11 CAN, BUT THAT PROVIDES ADEQUATE SAFETY AND ACCESS CONTROL TO 12 REDUCE THE COLLISION CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ALONG THAT STRETCH. 13 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: OAKY THANK YOU. I’M’ PRESUMING THAT 14 THE -- THE -- THE OPENINGS, IF THERE ARE OPENINGS PROVIDED, IT WOULD 15 PROBABLY BE FOR SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURNS INTO THOSE PROPERTIES ON 16 THE EAST SIDE RATHER THAN LEFT TURNS OUT FROM THOSE PROPERTIES, 17 RIGHT? 18 MR. SCHWARTZ: YEAH, ULTIMATELY, THE DESIGN WILL LIKELY HAVE 19 A FEW LEFT TURN IN ACCESS POINTS. WE’LL HAVE TO GET INTO A FINER 20 LEVEL OF DETAIL, BUT IT’S THE LEFT TURNS OUT THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE 21 MORE SIGNIFICANT TYPES OF COLLISIONS WHERE WE’LL HAVE MORE 22 RESTRICTED ACCESS. 23 AND THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE OPPORTUNITIES 24 TO MAKE RIGHTS OUT AND MAKE U-TURNS, SO THERE WILL BE SOME FORM 25 09147 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 68 OF ACCESS. IT MAY BE LESS CONVENIENT THAN EXISTS CURRENTLY, BUT IT 1 WILL TRY TO BALANCE ACCESS AND SAFETY THE BEST THAT WE CAN. 2 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE 3 MY ONLY QUESTIONS. 4 COMMISSIONER KAHN: CAN I HAVE A FOLLOW UP ON THAT 5 QUESTION? 6 CHAIR DANDEKAR: YES. 7 COMMISSIONER KAHN: WOULD THERE BE LEFT ALLOWED AT THE 8 EXISTING SIGNALS AND THE NEW SIGNAL PUT ON LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD? I 9 MENTIONED THAT LEFT U-TURNS, WOULD THOSE BE ALLOWED? 10 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: THE U-TURNS. IT DEPENDS ON THE 11 FINAL GEOMETRICS AND HOW WHAT KIND OF WIDTH WE HAVE. 12 COMMISSIONER KAHN: RIGHT. 13 MR. SCHWARTZ: BUT IN GENERAL, IT’S SOMETHING WE’D LOOK AT IN 14 THE DESIGN STAGE. IN GENERAL, ON HIGH VOLUME CORRIDORS WE SEE 15 CONCERNS WITH U-TURNS LIKE YOU’LL SEE RIGHT NOW AT -- AT FROOM 16 RANCH AND LOVR WHERE THE U-TURNS ARE HEAVY AND SLOW DOWN THE 17 OVERALL CAPACITY OF THAT MOVEMENTS, SO IT’S SOMETHING WE’LL LOOK 18 AT. AND WE HAVEN’T DETERMINED YET THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL. 19 COMMISSIONER KAHN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 20 CHAIR DANDEKAR: SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM 21 COMMISSION, I HAVE A QUESTION PROBABLY FOR EMILY OR SHAWNA. 22 I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE UNITS THAT ARE ABOVE THE – 23 THE R-3 UNITS THAT ARE ABOVE THE 150-FOOT LINE IN THE QUARRY AREA. 24 HOW MANY UNITS, APPROXIMATELY? I SEE TWO BUILDINGS, TWO AND A 25 09148 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 69 HALF BUILDINGS THERE. HOW MANY UNITS ARE PROPOSED ABOVE THE 150-1 FOOT LINE, APPROXIMATELY? AND WHAT KIND OF HEIGHT WOULD IS ONE 2 SORT OF ANTICIPATING THERE? 3 AND THEN THE THIRD RELATED QUESTION WAS, WERE ANY VIEW 4 ANGLES SIGHT ANGLES DEVELOPED FROM, SAY, THE COSTCO FUELING AREA 5 TO THIS -- TO THIS AREA? HOW MUCH OF THESE BUILDINGS DID WE -- WOULD 6 ONE BE SEEING BEHIND THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES? 7 MS. CREEL: SO TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION THERE’S 0.7-ACRE 8 OF R-3 ZONED ABOVE THAT 150-FOOT ELEVATION LINE. AND THE DENSITY 9 RANGE FOR THAT DESIGNATION IS 13 DWELLINGS UNITS PER ACRE MINIMUM 10 TO 20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. SO THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU A FEEL FOR 11 APPROXIMATELY THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, MORE 12 SO THAN THE CONCEPTUAL, YOU KNOW, BUILDINGS THAT ARE REFLECTED IN 13 THE GRAPHICS. 14 CHAIR DANDEKAR: SO YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT 14 UNITS JUST TO 15 CLARIFY, APPROXIMATELY? 16 MS. CREEL: UP TO -- 17 CHAIR DANDEKAR: POINT SEVEN. 18 MS. CREEL: POINT SEVEN TIMES 20. 19 CHAIR DANDEKAR: SO ABOUT 14? 20 MS. CREEL: THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. 21 CHAIR DANDEKAR: OKAY. 22 MS. CREEL: YES. FOURTEEN SO UP TO 14. AND OF COURSE, THAT 23 DOESN’T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DIFFERENT -- THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 24 A DENSITY UNIT AND A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. SO, YOU KNOW, STUDIOS FOR 25 09149 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 70 EXAMPLE, ONLY ACCOUNT FOR HALF A DENSITY UNIT, I BELIEVE. 1 BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE R-3 AREA I BELIEVE ARE LIMITED TO 2 35 FEET. I’M TRYING TO CONFIRM THAT. 3 MS. SCOTT: EMILY, YOU HAVE THAT CORRECT ON THE HEIGHT. 4 AND -- AND JUST A CLARIFICATION, TOO, ABOUT DENSITY AND 5 NUMBER OF UNITS, YOU KNOW, THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6 PROPOSES LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION, SO DEPENDING ON WHAT DEVELOPMENT 7 PROJECT COMES IN FOR THE MADONNA-FROOM SIDE AND THAT R-3 ZONE, 8 THEY -- YOU KNOW, THEY MAY RE-SUBDIVIDE, YOU KNOW, THAT PORTION, 9 WHICH WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROPER DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. 10 AND SO IF THAT LOT EXTENDED AND SO A PORTION OF IT IS 11 ABOVE, YOU KNOW, THAT LINE AND THEN A PORTION OF THAT LOT IS BELOW 12 THAT LINE WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT GROSS ACREAGE. AND THEN A 13 DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD BE PROPOSED PURSUANT TO THE DESIGN 14 GUIDELINES IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. 15 SO REALLY WE’RE LOOKING AT A CONCEPT HERE. AND THEN 16 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SITE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER 17 ENTITLEMENTS AND REVIEW. 18 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. I HAVE NO -- 19 MS. CREEL: THANK YOU -- 20 CHAIR DANDEKAR: SORRY. 21 MS. CREEL: NO, I’M SORRY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, 22 SHAWNA. VERY GOOD POINT. 23 AND THEN I THINK TO ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION, THE 24 SPECIFIC PLAN DID INCLUDE SOME ADDITIONAL VIEWSHED ANALYSIS AND 25 09150 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 71 DIAGRAMS THAT SHOWING VIEWS FROM LOVR PREDOMINENTLY TO THE 1 RIDGELINE, WHICH REFLECT THOSE MAX BUILDING HEIGHTS. 2 THE EIR PROVIDED, OF COURSE, SIMULATIONS OF THE PROPOSED 3 PROJECT, THE 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN, AND ALTERNATIVE ONE, WHICH WOULD 4 BE SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT PROJECT, BUT WE DID NOT GO AND PRODUCE 5 ADDITIONAL OR NEW SIMULATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT FROM AREAS LIKE 6 HOME DEPOT. 7 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 8 SO I THINK WE ARE DONE WITH COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OF 9 STAFF, UNLESS THERE’S SOME OUTSTANDING I DON’T SEE ANYBODY. 10 WE’VE BEEN AT THIS FOR TWO HOURS. I THINK WE SHOULD 11 HAVE BREAK, PERHAPS, OF TEN MINUTES BEFORE WE GET THE APPLICANT TO 12 PRESENT. SO I’D LIKE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING FOR – IT’S FIVE PAST 8:00. 13 IF WE COULD RECONVENE AT QUARTER PAST 8:00 THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 14 MS. CREEL: THANK YOU. 15 CHAIR DANDEKAR: MEETING IS ADJOURNED UNTIL 8:15. 16 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: THANK YOU. 17 (END OF RECORDED MATERIAL.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09151 09152