Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBates 09153-09234 August 12, 2020 SLO PC2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 9 AUGUST 12, 2020 PART 2 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 49 09153 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 2 1 2 3 4 5 APPEARANCES 6 7 8 9 MS. HEMALATA DANDEKAR, CHAIR 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION 11 12 MR. ROBERT JORGENSON, VICE-CHAIR 13 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION 14 15 MR. MICHAEL HOPKINS, COMMISSIONER 16 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION 17 18 MR. STEVE KAHN, COMMISSIONER 19 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSIONER 20 21 MR. NICHOLAS QUINCEY, COMMISSIONER 22 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING 23 24 MS. MICHELLE SHORESMAN, COMMISSIONER 25 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING 26 27 MS. SHAWNA SCOTT, CONTRACT PLANNER 28 SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 29 30 MS. EMILY CREEL, PLANNER 31 SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 32 33 MR. LUKE SCHWARTZ, TRANSPORTATION MANAGER 34 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 36 MR. KEVIN CHRISTIAN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 37 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 39 MR. VICTOR MONTGOMERY, PROJECT MANAGER 40 RRM DESIGN 41 42 MR. ALEX MADONNA, APPLICANT 43 44 MR. TIM WALTERS, ENGINEER 45 RRM DESIGN GROUP 46 47 48 09154 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 3 1 2 3 4 APPEARANCES (CONT’D) 5 6 7 MS. PAM RITCHIE, CONSULTANT 8 RRM DESIGN GROUP 9 10 MR. MARK DE LOTTO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 11 VILLAGGIO AT SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 13 MR. MICHAEL CODRON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 14 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 09155 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 4 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT’S 8:15. WE ARE BACK. 1 I THINK STAFF IS HERE. YES? 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: YES. 3 CHAIR DANDEKAR: GREAT. SO THE NEXT ORDER OF THE MEETING IS 4 TO HAVE APPLICANT PRESENTATIONS, AND I UNDERSTAND MS. RITCHIE AND 5 MR. MONTGOMERY WILL BE LEADING THAT PRESENTATION, SO THE FLOOR IS 6 YOURS. 7 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: THIS IS DEPUTY CLERK CHRISTIAN. LET -- GIVE 8 ME ABOUT A MINUTE TO TURN ON THEIR MICROPHONES AND THEY’LL BE 9 ABLE TO TAKE OVER THE PRESENTATION. 10 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. 11 MS. CREEL: THIS IS EMILY. I’LL BE ADVANCING THEIR SLIDES. SO 12 AGAIN, IF IT – IF THE DELAY CREATES AN ISSUE, LET ME KNOW AND WE’LL 13 TRY TO FIGURE SOMETHING ELSE OUT. 14 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. 15 MR. MONTGOMERY: CHAIRPERSON DANDEKAR AND COMMISSIONERS 16 CAN YOU HEAR ME? 17 CHAIR DANDEKAR: YES, THANK YOU. 18 MR. MONTGOMERY: OKAY. GOOD EVENING. WE ARE VERY PLEASED 19 TO BE HERE. MY NAME IS VICTOR MONTGOMERY. I’M A PRINCIPAL WITH 20 RRM DESIGN GROUP AND I’M THE PROJECT MANAGER. 21 AND I’M GOING TO START THE PRESENTATION AND I’M GOING TO 22 TURN IT OVER TO A PERSON NAMED MARK DE LOTTO WHO IS GOING TO GIVE 23 YOU SOME INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT VILLAGGIO, THE LIFE PLAN 24 COMMUNITY COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT. 25 09156 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 5 AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, WE HAVE 1 SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE TEAM THAT ARE REGISTERED AND AVAILABLE 2 TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. JOHN MADONNA, THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY 3 OWNER, IS AVAILABLE. TIM WALTERS, THE RRM CIVIL ENGINEER, IS 4 AVAILABLE. PAM RITCHIE, WHO IS THE PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT -- AUTHOR OF 5 THE SPECIFIC PLAN, IS AVAILABLE. BOB RICHMOND, THE ARCHITECT FOR 6 VILLAGGIO, IS AVAILABLE. KEVIN MERCK, THE BIOLOGIST FOR THE PROJECT, 7 IS AVAILABLE. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, JULIE HOWARD, WHO IS THE ONE 8 US WHO BEST KNOWS THE OPERATIONS OF A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT 9 FACILITY, IS AVAILABLE. 10 OUR PRESENTATION SHOULD LAST NO MORE THAN 20 MINUTES, 11 UNLESS WE GET STOPPED FOR QUESTIONS, SO WE’RE GONNA GO PRETTY 12 RAPIDLY THROUGH A SERIES OF SLIDES. CAN I GET THE NEXT SLIDE? 13 HI EMILY. 14 MS. CREEL: HI VIC. IT’S SHOWING ON MY SCREEN. 15 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: MAKE IT FULL SCREEN, TOO. 16 MS. CREEL: I WASN’T SURE HOW TO DO THAT. I’VE GOT A PDF IS 17 WHAT I’M WORKING WITH. 18 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: YEAH, UNDER VIEW, THE VIEW MENU. 19 MS. CREEL: OH, FULL SCREEN. LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERYDAY. 20 THANK YOU. 21 MR. CODRON: AND THIS IS MICHAEL. I BELIEVE KEVIN HAS A COPY OF 22 THIS AND HE CAN RUN IT, TOO, AND THAT MIGHT BE FASTER JUST 23 DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THIS TAKES. 24 MS. CREEL: YEAH, IT APPEARS TO, AGAIN, BE ABOUT A 20 SECOND 25 09157 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 6 DELAY, 15 -- MAYBE 15 SECONDS. 1 MR. MONTGOMERY: SHALL I BEGIN AGAIN? 2 MS. CREEL: SURE. 3 MR. MONTGOMERY: SO PROJECT BACKGROUND. VERY QUICKLY. 4 NEXT SLIDE. 5 MR. CODRON: LET’S START OVER AND SEE IF WE CAN GET KEVIN TO 6 RUN IT? 7 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: I’M WORKING ON PULLING IT UP NOW. WAS 8 THAT – SHAWNA, WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU DROPPED INTO THE FILE? 9 MS. SCOTT: THAT IS CORRECT. 10 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: GREAT. THANK YOU. 11 MR. MONTGOMERY: GREAT. I’M READY TO START WITH THIS SLIDE, 12 IF WE’RE READY TO GO. 13 MS. SCOTT: JUST HOLD ON A MOMENT VIC. WE’RE GONNA HAVE 14 KEVIN TAKE OVER AND SO THE SLIDES WILL PROBABLY ADVANCE A LITTLE 15 QUICKER. 16 MR. MONTGOMERY: OKAY. NO PROBLEM. 17 MS. SCOTT: YEAH. WE’LL HAVE THIS GOING. JUST A MOMENT. 18 KEVIN. YOU’LL SEE IN THE FOLDER, IT WILL BE THE PDF FROOM 19 2 VILLAGGIO PC HEARING 8/20. FINAL HIGH RES. 20 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: YEAH, I FOUND THE FILE. JUST GET IT SET UP 21 HERE NOW. 22 MS. SCOTT: GREAT THANK YOU SO MUCH. 23 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: ALL RIGHT. I’VE CHANGED IT, SO I’M JUST 24 WAITING FOR IT TO POP UP AND SHOW FOR YOU GUYS. 25 09158 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 7 MS. SCOTT: I’M SEEING IT KEVIN. 1 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: OH, GOOD. PERFECT. 2 MS. SCOTT: THANK YOU. 3 MR. MONTGOMERY: I SEE IT AS WELL. 4 COMMISSIONER KAHN: IT COULD BE ENLARGED, BUT I COULD ALSO 5 SEE IT. 6 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: IS IT LARGE ENOUGH OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME 7 TO SEE IF I CAN SWITCH THAT TO 8 MR. MONTGOMERY: HEY -- 9 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: IS THAT BIG ENOUGH? 10 COMMISSIONER KAHN: THAT’S PRETTY GOOD. 11 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: ALL RIGHT. PERFECT. JUST LET ME KNOW 12 WHEN YOU NEED THE SLIDES SWITCHED. 13 MR. MONTGOMERY: OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. SO ON THE LEFT IS A MAP OF 14 THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT. AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE GENERAL PLAN 15 GUIDANCE THAT’S CONTAINED IN THE LUCE UPDATE IN 2014. THIS 16 GUIDANCE IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE FROOM RANCH PROPERTY. IT WAS 17 KNOWN AS SP AREA 3. 18 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE WENT THROUGH THESE POLICY 19 STATEMENTS INCLUDING THE PURPOSE AND THE THE PERFORMANCE 20 STANDARDS. I’M NOT GONNA READY ALL OF THESE OT YOU, BUT IN 21 REVIEWING THEM WE BELIEVE WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE 22 PURPOSED STATEMENTS IN THE SP-3 GUIDANCE. 23 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I WANTED TO SPEND JUST A MOMENT ON 24 THIS ONE. THIS IS THE GUIDANCE RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 25 09159 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 8 I WANTED YOU TO NOTICE IT SAYS 350 UNITS MAXIMUM. THE COMMENT WE 1 WANTED TO MAKE HERE IS THAT, ALTHOUGH THE NUMBER IS HIGHER, IN THE 2 CITY’S PARLANCE OF UNITS, NOT ALL UNITS ARE CREATED EQUAL. 3 MANY OF THE UNITS, IN FACT MOST OF THE UNITS IN THIS 4 PROJECT, ARE CONTAINED IN VILLAGGIO, WHICH IS A SENIOR HOUSING 5 COMPONENTS, SO IT GENERATES A LOT LESS TRAFFIC THAN A NORMAL 6 PROJECT WOULD. 7 LIKEWISE WITH COMMERCIAL. THE GUIDANCE WAS UP TO 8 350,000 SQUARE FEET. WE’VE PROPOSED 100,000, GENERATING SIGNIFICANTLY 9 LESS TRAFFIC. 10 AND THE LAST COMMENT IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN 11 SPACE IS 50 PERCENT, AND WE HAVE 60 PERCENT PROPOSED. 12 NEXT SLIDE. WE STARTED WITH AN EXPLORATION OF IDEAS. 13 AND THESE ARE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN 2016, WHEN WE HAD A 14 DESIGN CHARRETTE AT OUR OFFICE WITH CITY STAFF. AND YOU CAN 15 PROBABLY IDENTIFY SEVERAL MEMBERS OF STAFF IN THE EXPLORATION. 16 WE HAD THE GUIDANCE FROM SP-3 CRITERIA FROM THE 17 GENERAL PLAN. EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF THE 150-FOOT ELEVATION KEY 18 ISSUE. AND SO WE EXPLORED IDEAS WITH SOME DEVELOPMENT BELOW 150, 19 SOME DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 150, THE CREEK WHERE IT IS, AND THE CREEK 20 WHERE IT COULD BE MOVED. 21 NEXT SLIDE. WITH REGARD TO MOVING THE CREEK, THIS IS A 22 VERY OLD MAP THAT I THINK BOB HILL FOUND IN SOMEBODY’S ARCHIVES 23 THAT SHOWS THE 18 – LATE 1800S, I BELIEVE IT IS, ALIGNMENT OF FROOM 24 CREEK TO MEET PERFUMO CREEK. AND THEN THE PURPLE IS THE EXISTING 25 09160 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 9 CREEK AND THE BLUE IS THE PROPOSED CREEK ALIGNMENT. 1 NEXT SLIDE. THIS WAS DESIGN CONSTRAINTS WE WORKED WITH 2 ASSUMING THE REALIGNMENT OF FROOM CREEK. 3 NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PREPARED IN 4 TWO SEVEN – 2017, AND WAS EVALUATED IN THE EIR THE PROPOSED 5 PROJECT. YOU’LL NOTE THIS WAS THE PROJECT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IN 6 THE UPPER TERRACE AREA ABOVE 150. 7 NEXT SLIDE. WE HAD SOME DECISION-MAKER GUIDANCE. WHEN 8 WE WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED IN 2016, 9 I’VE UNDERLINED THEIR GUIDANCE TO US. BASICALLY, IT WAS YOU MUST 10 HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE WITH DEVELOPMENT OBSERVING THE 150-FOOT 11 DEVELOPMENT LIMIT. 12 SO THE BULLETS BELOW, OTHER AGENCY MEETINGS AND 13 CONSULTATIONS. WE’VE MET WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, FISH 14 AND WILDLIFE, NOAA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 15 AND THE REGIONAL BOARD. 16 AND ONE THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS, AT THE VERY FIRST 17 MEETING WE HAD WITH THIS GROUP OF AGENCIES, WE ASKED THEM A VERY 18 SIMPLE QUESTION. WE SAID, “IF MOVING FROOM CREEK IS A BAD IDEA, TELL 19 US NOW AND WE WILL DROP IT. WE WILL NOT PROPOSE TO MOVE IT.” THAT 20 WAS IN 2016, AT OUR FIRST MEETING. 21 AS OF TODAY, WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY ONE OF THOSE AGENCIES 22 SAY THEY BELIEVE FROOM CREEK SHOULD NOT OR COULD NOT BE MOVED. 23 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A SLIDE OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS 24 THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO DATE. EXCLUDING THE MEETING TODAY, THERE 25 09161 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 10 HAVE BEEN 19 PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THIS PROJECT. 1 NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE EIR. THE CITY COMMISSIONED THE EIR, 2 SELECTED THE CONSULTANT, AND THE EIR WAS IN PRODUCTION FROM LATE 3 2017 UNTIL EARLY THIS YEAR. 4 NEXT SLIDE. OOPS. NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS. 5 NEXT SLIDE. 6 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: I’M GETTING SOME STRANGE MESSAGES. 7 INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR AN IMAGE. LET’S SEE IF I CAN GO PAST IT. 8 MR. CODRON: KEVIN, THAT HAPPENS TO ME FROM TIME TO TIME, AND 9 IF I CLOSE FILES, IT HELPS. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE A LOT OF PDFS OPEN OR -- 10 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: ALL RIGHT. 11 MR. CODRON: NEED TO RESTART THIS ONE. 12 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: LET ME CLOSE THIS ONE. 13 MS. SCOTT: KEVIN. – I JUST I JUST PULLED IT UP, KEVIN. IF YOU WANT 14 TO JUST SWITCH CONTROL OVER TO ME, I CAN TRY TO FINISH THIS UP. 15 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: OKAY. SHAWNA. 16 MS. SCOTT: THIS IS SHAWNA. 17 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: YEP. WE’LL TRY THAT FIRST. 18 MS. SCOTT: THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THREE BACK UP PLANS. 19 MR. MONTGOMERY: THANK YOU. 20 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: I SWITCHED IT TO YOU, SHAWNA. 21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: TAG TEAM. 22 MR. MONTGOMERY: OKAY. THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE ONE FROM THE 23 EIR. WELL, THERE IT WAS. 24 MS. SCOTT: IT SHOULD COME BACK UP. I SWITCHED TO FULL SCREEN. 25 09162 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 11 MR. MONTGOMERY: OKAY. EMILY COVERED THIS PRETTY WELL, SO 1 I’M NOT GONNA COMMENT ON IT FURTHER. THERE WERE THREE CHANGES -- 2 THE -- THAT WERE REQUESTED BY US OR EVALUATED FURTHER. 3 EMERGENCY ACCESS, THE CALLE JOAQUIN ACCESS WAS REALLY NOT 4 WORKABLE. WE ADDED ACCESS ONTO LOVR AND THE PARK MOVED FROM 5 THE PROPOSED LOCATION IN THE ORIGINAL PROJECT UP TO THE QUARRY 6 SITE. 7 NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE LAND USE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 8 AS IT’S BEEN ADJUSTED WORKING WITH STAFF AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL 9 CONSULTANT. IT’S PRETTY SELF EXPLANATORY. THE GREEN AREA IS OPEN 10 SPACE. THE OTHER LAND USES YOU CAN IDENTIFY, AND THE PARK IS 11 IDENTIFIED IN THE QUARRY AREA CORNER. I WOULD NOTE THAT 60 PERCENT 12 OF THE SITE IS OPEN SPACE. 13 NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A RENDERED SITE PLAN ON THE PROPOSED 14 PROJECT WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU’LL NOTE HERE 15 IS THAT THE VILLAGGIO PROJECT IS CONSIDERABLY SET BACK FROM LOVR. 16 IT’S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE REALIGNED CREEK. SO THE CREEK WOULD 17 BE BETWEEN LOVR AND THE PROJECT. 18 NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS 68 19 PERCENT. I’VE HIGHLIGHTED THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. THE WILDLIFE 20 CORRIDOR, AS YOU’LL SEE, GOES PARTIALLY OFFSITE. THAT LITTLE AREA 21 OFFSITE IS PART OF AN OPEN – EXISTING OPEN SPACE EASEMENT ON THE 22 CHURCH PROPERTY. 23 ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THE RECONFIGURED OPEN SPACE EASEMENT 24 ENLARGING IT FROM 7.1 TO 7.8 ACRES, AND INCLUDING ALL OF THE 25 09163 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 12 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IDENTIFIED ADJACENT TO CALLE JOAQUIN. 1 NEXT SLIDE. THIS SITE -- IT’S THE SITE PLAN. IT’S IDENTIFIES 2 BUILDING HEIGHTS BY COLOR. THE BUILDING HEIGHTS VARY FROM ONE 3 STORY TO FOUR STORIES. 4 NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A MAP OF TRAIL CONNECTIONS. AND THERE 5 ARE TRAIL CONNECTIONS -- PUBLIC TRAIL CONNECTIONS PROPOSED AT TWO 6 LOCATIONS. ONE IS AT THE TRAILHEAD PARK IN THE UPPER NORTHWEST 7 CORNER. THE OTHER A TRAIL CONNECTION ON -- THAT CONNECTS DIRECTLY 8 TO THE NEIL HAVLIK TRAIL FROM THE FROOM CREEK PUBLIC TRAIL, SO YOU 9 CAN GO RIGHT UP INTO THE OPEN SPACE AS YOU WALK THE FROOM CREEK 10 TRAIL AND IT CONNECTS TO THE NEIL HAVLIK TRAIL WHICH GOES OVER TO 11 JOHNSON AVENUE. 12 THE RED IS SIDEWALKS. WE’VE PROPOSED EMERGENCY 13 ACCESSES AT THE FROOM RANCH CONNECTION, AT THE CONNECTION TO THE 14 IRISH HILLS SHOPPING CENTER -- THAT WOULD BE JUST ABOVE THE 15 ROUNDABOUT -- AND WE’VE PROPOSED ACCESS ONTO LOVR AT THE STAR 16 OVER THERE BY LOVR. THOSE ACCESSES WOULD BE OPEN FOR PEDESTRIAN 17 AND BICYCLES. THE ONE OFF LOVR AND THE ONE FROM IRISH HILLS BOTH 18 HAVE EMERGENCY ACCESS CONTROL GATES, SO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN 19 GO IN AND (INAUDIBLE) GO OUT. 20 NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING FOR THE 21 TRAILHEAD PARK. AND I WANT TO NOTE HERE THAT IT CONTAINS ALL OF 22 THE KEY INGREDIENTS, I’LL CALL THEM, IDENTIFIED BY THE PARK AND 23 RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFF. IT CONTAINS THE CONNECTION TO THE 24 IRISH HILLS TRAILS, THE PARK AND REC FACILITIES INCLUDING A RANGER 25 09164 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 13 STATION, INTERPRETIVE CENTER, PUBLIC RESTROOMS, COURTYARD, 1 BUILDING NUMBER THREE, IS THE BIG BARN. THAT WOULD BE USED BY THE 2 PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO STORE THEIR EQUIPMENT. AND 3 THE ARE BEHIND IT IS AN AREA TO MOVE AND DEAL WITH THEIR EQUIPMENT. 4 ALSO CONTAINS ACCESS FOR VISITORS TO PARK, BUS ACCESS WAS 5 REQUESTED SO THERE’S AN AREA TO BRING A BUS ONTO THE SITE AND TURN 6 IT AROUND. CHILDREN’S PLAY AREAS PICNIC PLAY AREAS AND OTHER 7 FEATURES. 8 NEXT SLIDE. FIRE PROTECTION. EMILY COVERED THIS VERY -- 9 VERY WELL. THE ORANGE AREA IS A FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE AND WE’VE 10 WORKED CLOSELY WITH BOB HILL AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO DEFINE 11 WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN THAT ZONE WHERE IT SHOULD BE LOCATED, WHAT 12 CANNOT HAPPEN IN THAT ZONE. 13 I WANT TO MENTION AS WELL, AND EMILY TOUCHED ON THIS, 14 THE COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION PLAN THAT ADDRESSES HOW THIS 15 PROJECT WOULD RESPOND IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE OR OTHER EMERGENCY. 16 NEXT SLIDE. WE’RE VERY – I’M VERY BRIEFLY GONNA LOOK AT 17 THE APPLICANT’S REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MITIGATION 18 MEASURES AND FINDINGS. 19 NEXT SLIDE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. WE’RE URGING YOU TO 20 TAKE THE ACTIONS THAT ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED BY 21 THE STAFF REPORT. 22 AND WITH REGARD TO THE RESOLUTION AND THE FINDINGS, 23 WE’RE LIKEWISE URGING YOU TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AND MAKE THE 24 FINDINGS AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT INCLUDING SECTIONS ONE 25 09165 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 14 THROUGH NINE, SUBJECT TO CORRECTIONS IDENTIFIED BY STAFF AND MADE 1 AT THIS HEARING. 2 SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I THANK YOU VERY 3 MUCH FOR THE TIME. 4 MARK DELADO IS NOW GOING TO COMPLETE THE PRESENTATION 5 AND HAS SOME SLIDES ABOUT THE VILLAGGIO COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT. 6 THANK YOU. 7 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: MARK, I BELIEVE THAT YOUR MIC IS SELF-8 MUTED. WANT TO TRY IT AGAIN, NOW? I SEE IT KEEPS POPPING BACK AND 9 FORTH BETWEEN BEING MUTED BY ME AND THEN MUTED BY YOU. 10 MR. DELADO: THERE WE GO. 11 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: EXCELLENT. 12 MR. DELADO: CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. 13 THANK YOU, VIC, AND THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, FOR GIVING US THE 14 OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR PROJECT. 15 I’D LIKE TO START BY EXPLAINING WHAT A LIFE PLAN 16 COMMUNITY IS. IT IS A SPECIAL TYPE OF SENIOR HOUSING. IT PROVIDES 17 RESIDENTS WITH, NOT ONLY A PLACE TO LIVE, BUT ALSO A BUNDLE OF 18 AMENITIES AND SERVICES THAT ARE ESPECIALLY TAILORED TO MEET THE 19 NEEDS AND PREFERENCES OF ADULTS WHO ARE 60 YEARS AND OLDER. 20 THE OVERARCHING GOAL OF A LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY IS TO 21 PROVIDE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT ADVANCES HEALTHY AND LIFE-22 ENRICHING LIVING WHILE PROVIDING THE SUPPORT AND CARE RESIDENTS 23 NEED AS THEY GROW OLDER, ALL IN A SINGLE LOCATION. 24 LIFE PLAN COMMUNITIES ARE LICENSED AND REGULATED BY 25 09166 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 15 THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. 1 THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 2,000 LIFE PLAN COMMUNITIES IN 2 THE UNITED STATES, AND 102 IN CALIFORNIA. THERE ARE NO LIFE PLAN 3 COMMUNITIES IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY OR WITHIN A 90-MILE RADIUS OF 4 OUR LOCATION. THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR A LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY IN 5 THE COUNTY. 6 FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS, VILLAGGIO HAS GROWN A 7 PRIORITY RESERVATION PROGRAM, WHICH GIVES INTERESTED FUTURE 8 RESIDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE A SPOT IN THE COMMUNITY BY 9 MAKING A FULLY REFUNDABLE ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR DEPOSIT. SINCE ITS 10 INCEPTION OVER 500 HOUSEHOLDS HAVE SIGNED UP TO BECOME MEMBERS 11 OF THE COMMUNITY. EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT OF THESE HOUSEHOLDS COME 12 FROM SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY. 13 AT PRESENT THERE ARE 394 HOUSEHOLDS OR MEMBERS 14 REMAINING IN THIS PROGRAM. YOU MAY ASK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 15 OTHER 106? THEY WENT ELSEWHERE. THEY LITERALLY COULD NOT WIAT. 16 NEEDING CARE AND OTHER SERVICES, MANY LEFT THE AREA FOR LIFE PLAN 17 COMMUNITIES OUTSIDE THE COUNTY. 18 I WANTED TO REFER THE COMMISSIONERS TO VILLAGGIO GROUP 19 LETTER OF SUPPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. OF THE 394 20 CURRENT MEMBERS, 304 SIGNED THAT LETTER SUPPORTING THIS 21 COMMUNITY AND URGING ITS APPROVAL. 22 I DO WANT TO TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHO 23 VILLAGGIO SAN LUIS OBISPO IS. IT’S A LOCAL COMMUNITY-BASED 24 ORGANIZATION, WHOSE SINGULAR PURPOSE IS TO BRING A LIFE PLAN 25 09167 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 16 COMMUNITY TO SAN LUIS OBISPO. IT’S COMPRISED OF 71 LOCAL INVESTORS 1 WHO HAVE PROVIDED THE SEED MONEY FOR THE PROJECT AND MOST OF 2 WHOM PLAN TO LIVE WITHIN IT. THE ORGANIZATION’S GOVERNED BY LOCAL 3 BOARD OF MANAGERS AND IT’S ADMINISTERED BY A SMALL GROUP OF 4 LOCAL PROFESSIONALS. 5 NEXT SLIDE. THE SITE. THE SELECTION OF THE SITE IS THE 6 CULMINATION OF A 15-YEAR PLUS SEARCH BY VILLAGGIO PRINCIPAL 7 FOUNDERS BOB RICHMOND AND KEN AND JUDIE REINER. THEY 8 COLLECTIVELY EXPLORED OVER 20 LOCATIONS IN AND AROUND SAN LUIS 9 OBISPO BEFORE THE FROOM RANCH SITE BECAME AVAILABLE AND WAS 10 SELECTED. 11 AS PART OF THE SELECTION PROCESS, THE SITE WAS EVALUATED 12 BY LIFE CARE SERVICES. LIFE CARE SERVICES IS -- IS VILLAGGIO’S LIFE PLAN 13 COMMUNITY ADVISOR AND CONSULTANT. THEY’RE A NATIONALLY-KNOWN 14 DEVELOPER AND OPERATOR OF LIFE PLAN COMMUNITIES. THEY’VE 15 DEVELOPED OVER 48 LIFE PLAN COMMUNITIES IN THE LAST 50 YEARS, AND 16 THEY CURRENTLY MANAGE 115 COMMUNITIES IN 29 STATES, INCLUDING 17 SEVEN IN CALIFORNIA. 18 THEIR OPINION OF THE SITE IS THAT IT’S EXCEPTIONAL, NOT 19 ONLY FOR ITS SCENIC SETTING WITHIN ONE OF THE MOST DESIRABLE 20 COMMUNITIES IN CALIFORNIA, BUT ALSO FOR ITS CONVENIENT ACCESS TO 21 THE COMMERCIAL, MEDICAL, CULTURAL, AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES IN 22 THE BROADER COMMUNITY. 23 NEXT SLIDE. VILLAGGIO’S THE VISION OF BOB RICHMOND, WHO 24 IS A SAN LUIS OBISPO DESIGN -- BASED DESIGNER AND ARCHITECT FOR THE 25 09168 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 17 LAST 50 YEARS. IT IS -- IT HAS BEEN THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN GIVES 1 SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO THE QUALITIES AND AESTHETICS OF SLO. IT 2 HAS AN OVERARCHING MEDITERRANEAN VILLAGE DESIGN THAT INCLUDES 3 TIGHTLY CLUSTERED BUILDINGS, NARROW ROADWAYS, AND OUTDOOR 4 PLAZAS. 5 IMPORTANTLY, THE COMMUNITY’S DESIGNED TO PROMOTE 6 WALKING, SOCIAL INTERACTION, WELLNESS, AND CONTINUING CARE. CARS 7 ARE PARKED IN UNDERGROUND PARKING FACILITIES OR GARAGES. ALL 8 COMPONENTS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE TIED TOGETHER WITH MULTIPLE 9 WALKING PATHS. 10 THE CENTERPIECE OF THE COMMUNITY IS THE VILLAGE 11 COMMONS, WHICH IS A MULTI BUILDING CLUSTER DESIGNED AROUND A 12 PEDESTRIAN COURTYARD. THE VILLAGE COMMON CONTAINS THE 13 COMMUNITY’S CORE AMENITIES, INCLUDING EATING VENUES, LIBRARY, 14 MOVIE THEATER, COMMUNITY ROOM, ARTS AND CRAFTS STUDIO, AND OTHER 15 COMMUNITY AMENITIES. 16 INTERCONNECTED TO THE VILLAGE COMMONS IS THE WELLNESS 17 CENTER THAT INCLUDES AN INDOOR-OUTDOOR POOL, PHYSICAL THERAPY 18 CENTER, AND SPA. THE COMMUNITY INCLUDES A HEALTHCARE CENTER, 19 WHICH PROVIDES ASSISTED LIVING, MEMORY SUPPORT, AND SKILLED 20 NURSING ACCOMMODATIONS. 21 NEXT SLIDE. SO WHO WILL LIVE IN VILLAGGIO? VILLAGGIO, AS 22 I’VE SAID, IS INITIATED AND IT’S DESIGNED BY AND FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 RESIDENTS. IT’LL PROVIDE HOUSING SERVICES AND HEALTHCARE FOR SLO 24 RESIDENTS. AND AS I DEMONSTRATED EARLIER, IT’S NEEDED AND WANTED 25 09169 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 18 BY SLO RESIDENTS. 1 FORTY-ONE PERCENT OF OUR MEMBERS ARE FROM BUSINESS 2 OCCUPATIONAL BACKGROUNDS, 38 ARE FROM EDUCATIONAL 3 BACKGROUNDS. THERE’S A LARGE CONTINGENT OF RETIRED CAL POLY 4 PROFESSORS. NINE PERCENT COME FROM HEALTHCARE. FIVE PERCENT 5 FROM LEGAL. AND THE BALANCE COME FROM VOCATIONAL AND CIVIL 6 SERVICE BACKGROUNDS. WE REALLY HAVE A VERY DIVERSE GROUP OF 7 FUTURE RESIDENTS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 8 NEXT SLIDE. I’D LIKE TO CONCLUDE BY SHARING WITH YOU FIVE 9 ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF OUR COMMUNITY. THIS 10 FIRST ONE IS THE PROJECT ENTRY. YOU’LL NOTICE THERE’S A PORTE 11 COCHERE THERE. IF YOU GO THROUGH THE PORTE-COCHERE, IT LEADS TO 12 THE MAIN LOBBY AND BEYOND THE MAIN LOBBY IS THE VILLAGE COMMONS, 13 WHICH IS THE NEXT SLIDE. 14 THIS IS A VIEW OF THE VILLAGE COMMONS FROM THE -- FROM 15 THE -- THE PROJECT’S LOBBY, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT LARGE ARCHWAY 16 LEADS TO A LARGER PLAZA AND TO THE WELLNESS AREA, WHICH IS THE 17 NEXT SLIDE. 18 THIS IS LOOKING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AT THE ARCH AND 19 IT CAPTURES THE VILLAGE PLAZA, WHICH IS A LARGE -- WHICH WILL BE OUR 20 VENUE FOR LARGER OUTDOOR TYPES OF EVENTS. HERE YOU CAN SEE A 21 FARMER’S MARKET. 22 NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS GOING BACK INTO THE VILLAGE COMMON 23 AND LOOKING OUT TOWARD THE PLAZA FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE, AND 24 YOU CAN SEE IT LOOKS BACK AT THE HILLSIDE AND THE MULTI-FAMILY 25 09170 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 19 UNITS THAT WE HAVE INCORPORATED IN – IN THE COMMUNITY. AND TO THE 1 LEFT IS THE -- THE ONE AND ONE AND A HALF STORY BUILDING IS THE 2 WELLNESS CENTER. AND THE WELLNESS CENTER IS ON THE NEXT SLIDE AS 3 WELL. 4 THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE WELLNESS CENTER. AND THE NEXT 5 SLIDE INCLUDES A VIEW FROM THE REAR OF THE WELLNESS CENTER WITH 6 THE POOL AND SPA THERE. 7 AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. 8 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO COMMISSIONERS, 9 THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 10 YOU MIGHT HAVE. AND I’LL START WITH COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN. 11 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: I’M INTERESTED IN THE QUESTION OF SORT 12 OF THE INTERFACE BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE ONE AND THE APPLICANT-13 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ONE, AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY 14 CONSIDERATION -- SINCE WE’RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT GENERAL PLAN 15 AMENDMENTS -- TO CONSIDER REZONING THAT TOP PIECE IN THE QUARRY 16 TO SOMETHING LESS DENSE THAT MAY NOT BE AS HIGH FOR INSTANCE? AND 17 WHETHER THAT WAS CONSIDERED AT ALL. 18 I DON’T KNOW IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF OR THE 19 APPLICANT, BUT THERE’VE BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS, AND I DO 20 APPRECIATE HOW MUCH WORK HAS BEEN DONE TO COME TO WHAT, 21 HOPEFULLY, WILL BE A HAPPY MEDIUM. 22 BUT THE QUESTION STILL DOES RAISE ITS HEAD, BUT THOSE TWO 23 TO THREE STRUCTURES ARE STILL ABOVE THE 150-FOOT LINE AND CAN GO UP 24 TO 35 FEET. SO IT’S MORE THAN JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A PARK THERE AND I’M 25 09171 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 20 JUST CURIOUS OF THE THINKING ABOUT THAT. 1 MS. SCOTT: HI, COMMISSIONER. I’LL – OH, MAYBE VIC, YOU CAN TAG 2 ONTO THIS. YOU KNOW, THE EIR DID LOOK AT WIDE RANGE OF 3 ALTERNATIVES. YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE LOOKED AT KIND OF THE MINIMUM 4 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BASED ON THE GENERAL PLAN, BUT WE DID NOT 5 LOOK AT A SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE THAT IDENTIFIED LESS, YOU KNOW -- 6 LESS DENSE HOUSING THAN LIKE R-2 OR R11 IN THAT AREA, OR ANY 7 REDUCTION IN HEIGHT IN THAT LOCATION. 8 YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE VISUAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS, THERE 9 WAS NO NEXUS TO REQUIRE LOWER HEIGHTS IN THAT LOCATION. YOU 10 KNOW, BASED ON -- BASED ON VIEWS FROM PUBLIC ROADWAYS. 11 MR. MONTGOMERY: COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN, I DON’T KNOW IF 12 I’M -- 13 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: YEAH. 14 MR. MONTGOMERY: WITHIN THE QUARRY AREA, THERE’S NOT A 15 UNIFORM HEIGHT. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL 16 HISTORIAN RELATIVE TO THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS WAS THAT THEIR 17 PLACEMENT MIMIC THEIR EXISTING RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER, BOTH 18 HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY. AND SO THE PLACEMENT OF THOSE 19 THREE, FOUR BUILDINGS, IS THE EXISTING HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE THE 20 RANGER STATION, IS LOCATED AT JUST ABOUT THE 150 ELEVATION. 21 THE NEXT BUILDING UP STEPS UP ABOUT 11 FEET. AND THEN THE 22 BARN STEPS UP FROM THAT ABOUT ANOTHER 6 FEET, AND SO THE MOST 23 PROMINENT BUILDING ON THE SITE AS YOU COME UP THE ROAD, IS PRETTY 24 CLEARLY GONNA BE THE BARN. IT’S ABOUT 26 FEET TALL AND IT’S GONNA 25 09172 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 21 BE ABOUT 15 FEET HIGHER THAN THE -- THE THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 1 THAT ARE THERE AND THE RANGER STATION THAT WOULD BE THE 2 RESTORED HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET. 3 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: I SEE. SO YOU’RE SAYING THAT THE 4 BUILDINGS, THE STRUCTURES, THE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING THEN, 5 IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH, WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE AT THAT SAME 6 HEIGHT? 7 MR. MONTGOMERY: CORRECT. 8 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: UH-HUH. ARE EITHER OF THEM CAN I JUST 9 ASK CONDITIONALLY OR HOW DOES THE BARN HEIGHT RELATE MAYBE TO 10 THE WATER TANK CELL TOWER? 11 MR. MONTGOMERY: THE CELL TOWER BASE IS, I BELIEVE, AT ABOUT 12 A HUNDRED AND – 155 FEET. THE TOP OF THE CELL TOWER -- THE CELL 13 TOWER ITSELF IS IN EXCESS OF 30 FEET TALL. SO IT -- IT -- BECAUSE IT WILL 14 REMAIN, IT WILL CLEARLY BE THE MOST VISIBLE OBJECT ON -- 15 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: I SEE. 16 MR. MONTGOMERY: (INAUDIBLE). 17 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT 18 WAS HELPFUL. 19 CHAIR DANDEKAR: COMMISSIONER KAHN, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? 20 COMMISSIONER KAHN: YES, I HAVE ONE QUESTION AND THE SAME IS 21 FOR ME, WHETHER IT BE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT. 22 THE QUESTION IS WHY DID THEY NOT ALLOW ACCESS THROUGH 23 THE HOME DEPOT SHOPPING CENTER AREA? I KIND OF THINK I KNOW THE 24 ANSWER, BUT I JUST LIKE IT ADDRESSED. IT SEEMS LIKE ANOTHER ACCESS 25 09173 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 22 POINT THROUGH THERE MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA. 1 MR. MONTGOMERY: COMMISSIONER KAHN, I’LL TRY TO ANSWER 2 THAT QUESTION. EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS, MR. MADONNA CONTACTED 3 THE OWNERS OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND THAT SHOPPING CENTER IS 4 OWNED BY MULTIPLE PARTIES, NOT BY ONE. 5 AND SO WE GOT IN CONTACT WITH HOME DEPOT, AND WE GOT IN 6 CONTACT WITH COSTCO, AND TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE POTENTIAL TO 7 OPEN THAT FOR VEHICLE TRAVEL. AND THE RESPONSE WE GO FROM HOME 8 DEPOT OVER A PERIOD OF -- I THINK IT WAS ALMOST SIX MONTHS THAT JOHN 9 MADONNA WAS IN CONVERSATION WITH THEM -- WAS THEY WERE AFRAID 10 THAT IF IT WAS OPENED TO VEHICLES THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO 11 CONTROL THE USE AND REARRANGEMENT POTENTIALLY OF THEIR PARKING 12 LOT, AND SO THEY WOULD NOT AGREE TO ACCESS. 13 COMMISSIONER KAHN: YEAH. 14 MR. MONTGOMERY: COSTCO PRETTY MUCH FLAT SAID NO. THEY 15 SAID YOU’D HAVE TO GO TO ALL -- EVERY TENANT IN THAT ENTIRE COMPLEX 16 AND GET THEM TO INDIVIDUALLY SAY YES BEFORE YOU COULD ACCESS 17 THAT WITH A VEHICLES. AND SO WE CHANGED WE CHANGED THE PLAN TO 18 PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND EMERGENCY ACCESS AT THAT 19 LOCATION. 20 COMMISSIONER KAHN: SO EARLY ON, YOU DID PLAN ON LOOKING AT 21 PUTTING VEHICLES THROUGH THERE, BUT YOU RUN UP AGAINST SOME 22 ROADBLOCKS, SO TO SPEAK? 23 MR. MONTGOMERY: CORRECT. 24 COMMISSIONER KAHN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT’S ALL I HAVE. 25 09174 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 23 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER QUINCEY. 1 COMMISSIONER QUINCEY: I DON’T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK 2 YOU. 3 CHAIR DANDEKAR: COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN? 4 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: YEAH, I HAVE A FEW. TRY TO GROUP 5 THEM BY TOPIC. A FEW ABOUT VILLAGGIO. I CAN’T TELL BY THE DRAWINGS 6 HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE THE VILLAGGIO COMPLEX 7 HAVING AND WHERE -- WHAT’S THE PARKING PLAN FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES? 8 MR. DELADO: THE ANTICIPATED -- THE -- TO RUN THE COMMUNITY, 9 THERE -- THERE’LL PROBABLY BE ABOUT 200 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES 10 WORKING ON DIFFERENT SHIFTS. AND THE PARKING IS FACILITATED 11 THROUGH A SURFACE LOT AROUND THE HEALTHCARE BUILDING, AS WELL 12 AS IN UNDERGROUND PARKING UNDER THE COMMONS AREA. THAT’S HOW 13 IT’S CURRENTLY PLANNED. 14 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: OKAY. AND THEN I NOTICED THAT 15 THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR SOME LOW-INCOME UNITS AND HOW WILL 16 THOSE – REFRESH MY MEMORY. I THINK IT’S FOUR OR FIVE -- HOW WILL 17 THOSE -- I’LL JUST GO WITH MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS HOW WILL THOSE 18 BE DISTRIBUTED AND HOW WILL THEY BE DETERMINED WHO GETS THEM? 19 MR. DELADO: THOSE -- OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATIONS 20 WILL BE SATISFIED WITH THE PARCEL THAT IS RIGHT OUTSIDE THE ENTRY. IF 21 YOU’RE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, WHEN YOU’RE COMING IN OFF THE OFF 22 OF LOVR, IT IS THE FIRST PARCEL TO THE LEFT. 23 AND JOHN MADONNA IS WORKING WITH A COUPLE OF NOT-FOR-24 PROFITS TO DETERMINE THE BEST WAY OF DELIVERING THOSE UNITS TO 25 09175 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 24 MARKET. 1 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: WHAT -- AND YOU MENTIONED – AND 2 MAYBE I MISSED THIS WHEN I WAS READING THE PLAN -- THAT THERE WILL 3 BE SOME BUILDINGS AND THE THAT COMPLEX THAT ARE FOUR STORIES. 4 AND WHAT’S THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THOSE -- THOSE TALLEST BUILDINGS 5 GONNA BE? 6 MR. DELADO: VIC, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? I THINK IT’S 45 FEET, BUT 7 I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT VIC CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? 8 MR. MONTGOMERY: YES, I BELIEVE IT’S HANG ON FOR JUST ONE 9 SECOND. 10 MS. SCOTT: SURE. I CAN JUMP IN HERE. PER THE SPECIFIC PLAN, 11 WITHIN THAT AREA, THERE’S A HEIGHT IDENTIFIED UP TO 50 FEET AND THEN 12 THERE COULD BE AN ADDITIONAL TEN FEET FOR YOU KNOW EITHER 13 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, AND I BELIEVE THE TOWER GOES UP TO ABOUT 14 55 FEET. AND THAT’S IN VILLAGGIO ONLY. 15 MR. MONTGOMERY: THAT’S CORRECT. 16 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: AND THE 55 FEET FOR THE TOWER 17 DOESN’T REQUIRE ANY KIND OF AMENDMENT OR ANYTHING THAT GOES 18 OVER THE 50 FEET? 19 MS. SCOTT: IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE 20 ARE IDENTIFYING THAT HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. SO THAT 21 WOULD GOVERN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SITE. 22 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: OKAY. TWO OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT 23 THE, I GUESS -- THE MADONNA-FROOM RANCH PORTION AS OPPOSED TO THE 24 QUESTIONS THAT I HAD ABOUT VILLAGGIO. ABOUT HOW MANY PARKING 25 09176 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 25 SPOTS ARE WE ANTICIPATING IN THE PARK AREA? 1 MR. MONTGOMERY: THAT’S – CURRENTLY, IT’S LAID OUT TO HAVE 2 ABOUT 30 PARKING SPACES PLUS BUS PARKING. 3 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: IN ADDITION TO THE BUS PARKING. 4 MR. MONTGOMERY: CORRECT. 5 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: AND THEN JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE 6 IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA, THE THAT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE 7 THERE’S SUPPOSED TO BE OR THERE’S PROPOSED TO BE A HOTEL GOING IN. 8 JUST NOTICED, YOU KNOW -- I MEAN, THERE’S FOUR OTHER HOTELS RIGHT 9 THERE PLUS THE EMBASSY SUITES. I’M JUST WONDERING WHY THE IDEA 10 WAS THAT THERE MIGHT BE A DEMAND FOR A FIFTH OR I GUESS A SIXTH 11 HOTEL IN THAT AREA AND HOW THAT CAME TO BE? 12 MR. MONTGOMERY: THERE’S -- THERE’S PROBABLY SEVERAL 13 ANSWERS TO THAT QUESTION. ONE OF THEM IS THAT CURRENTLY THE 14 DEMAND FOR HOTEL ROOMS, PARTICULARLY IN OUR COUNTY, IS 15 EXTREMELY STRONG. CURRENT HOTEL OCCUPANCY RENTS ARE RUNNING AT 16 80 PERCENT PLUS. SO THERE IS DEMAND THERE. 17 PART OF THE RATIONALE WAS SOME -- AS WITH MOST CCRC’S, 18 THERE ARE GOING TO BE VISITORS THAT COME TO VISIT THEIR PARENTS, AS 19 AN EXAMPLE, AND MAY WANT TO STAY. IT WOULD PROVIDE A WAY TO KEEP 20 THEM, ESSENTIALLY, QUOTE UNQUOTE ON CAMPUS AS THEY VISIT THEIR 21 PARENTS OR LOVED ONES AND VILLAGGIO, AND SO THERE’S SOME USE THAT 22 MAY OCCUR THERE, AS WELL AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC USING THE HOTEL. 23 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: I THINK THAT’S ALL MY QUESTIONS. 24 THANK YOU. 25 09177 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 26 CHAIR DANDEKAR: COMMISSIONER WULKAN. 1 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: YES, THANK YOU. MY QUESTION HAS TO 2 DO WITH THE VILLAGGIO PART OF THE PROJECT AND THE COMMISSION 3 RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE -- I THINK IT WAS YESTERDAY -- THAT 4 SUGGESTED THAT SOME LANGUAGE IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING A 5 TRAIL NETWORK IN VILLAGGIO MIGHT BE DELETED. AND SO I WAS 6 CONCERNED BY THAT, SO I’LL JUST ASK THE QUESTION DIRECTLY. WILL 7 THERE BE AN INTERCONNECTED PEDESTRIAN TRAIL OR PATH NETWORK IN 8 VILLAGGIO THAT ALSO CONNECTS TO PUBLIC TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS 9 OUTSIDE OF VILLAGGIO? 10 MR. MONTGOMERY: I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU 11 COMMISSIONER WULKAN. THE ANSWER IS YES. THE STAFF REPORT 12 DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ELIMINATION OF TRAILS -- THERE WAS A TRAIL 13 SYSTEM GOING UP TO THE UPPER TERRACE AND TRAILS AROUND THE UPPER 14 TERRACE, AND THEN A TRAIL CONNECTING TO MOUNTAINBROOK CHURCH. 15 AND WHEN THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE UPPER TERRACE 16 WAS ELIMINATED, THAT TRAIL SYSTEM WAS ELIMINATED ALONG WITH IT. 17 IN THE LOWER PORTION WHERE VILLAGGIO IS NOW PROPOSED, 18 THERE WILL BE AN INTERNAL TRAIL CONNECTION AND WALKING FACILITIES 19 FOR WELLNESS, AND THERE’S A CONNECTION TO THE FROOM CREEK TRAIL, 20 WHICH THEN CONNECTS TO ALL OF THE SIDEWALKS IN THE PROJECT, SO YOU 21 CAN WALK ON THE SIDEWALK TO GET TO THE IRISH HILL SHOPPING CENTER. 22 AND IT CONNECTS TO THE IRISH HILLS TRAIL SYSTEM, IN PARTICULAR THE -- 23 THE NEIL HAVLIK TRAIL. 24 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: OKAY. I’M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. SO THEN 25 09178 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 27 YOU WOULD NOT OBJECT TO HAVING A BRIEF STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT 1 IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN? 2 MR. MONTGOMERY: NO, WE ANTICIPATED THAT WHEN WE COME 3 BACK WITH THE DETAILED PLANS FOR VILLAGGIO TO GO TO THE ARC, WE 4 WOULD HAVE A VERY REFINED SITE PLAN SHOWING ALL OF THE INTERNAL 5 TRAIL SYSTEM AND WALKWAYS FOR VILLAGGIO. 6 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: OKAY. SO AT THIS TIME THOUGH, YOU 7 WOULDN’T OBJECT TO INCLUDING A STATEMENT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT 8 BASICALLY STATES WHAT YOU -- WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED? 9 MR. MONTGOMERY: NO, THAT’S FINE WITH US. 10 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. 11 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION. AND THAT HAS TO 12 BE -- TO DO WITH THE UNITS ABOVE 150 LINE. 13 WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE VARIATIONS AND DESIGN 14 VARIATIONS, DID YOU EXPLORE PERHAPS DENSIFYING BELOW THE 150 LINE. 15 I KNOW THERE ARE FOUR FOR THE DOWNHILL. WAS THERE ANY WAY YOU 16 COULD SEE TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE UNITS BELOW THE 150 LINE THAT MET 17 THE PURPOSES OF THE PROJECT? 18 MR. MONTGOMERY: WELL, THE ANSWER IS -- THERE ARE A COUPLE 19 OF THINGS ABOUT THOSE UNITS. WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE STAFF TO 20 WORK WITH US TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE UNITS FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS, 21 AND THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THE CHANGES THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN THE 22 EIR ALTERNATIVE ONE AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH ITS VARIATIONS. 23 AND ONE OF THOSE IS WE WERE CONCERNED THAT THE 24 LOCATION OF THE PARK AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC WAS GOING TO 25 09179 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 28 HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE SOME SECURITY ISSUES, IN PARTICULAR 1 HOMELESS, USING THE PARK BECAUSE OF THE FACILITIES THERE, AND IT’S 2 RELATIVELY ISOLATED BACK IN THAT CORNER. 3 AND SO WHAT WE TERMED IT WAS WE WANTED TO HAVE EYES 4 ON THE PARK. WE DIDN’T WANT TO HAVE A LOT OF UNITS AND IMPACT THE -5 - THE IMPRESSION OF THE PARK AS YOU COME UP TO IT, BECAUSE YOU’RE 6 DRIVING THROUGH RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET TO THE PARK, BUT 7 WE WANTED TO HAVE UNITS CLOSE TO THE PARK THAT COULD ABSORB -- 8 COULD OBSERVE IT 24 HOURS A DAY MOST LIKE MOST PARKS THAT ARE 9 LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET OR IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL. AND 10 THAT’S WHY WE KEPT THOSE TWO AND A HALF BUILDINGS THERE. 11 THE SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWS THE DENSITY IN THAT AREA, THE R-12 3 ZONE, TO VARY BETWEEN 13 UNITS AND 20 UNITS PER ACRE. AND WE 13 HAVEN’T DONE ANY SPECIFIC DESIGN OF THAT PROJECT. IT WOULD COME 14 FORWARD AND GO TO THE ARC, LIKE ALL OTHER PROJECTS IN THE CITY, AND 15 THEN COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PRESUMABLY, WHEN THE 16 ACTUAL DESIGN HAPPENS. 17 AND SO WE WERE REQUESTED THE STAFF TO LEAVE THAT 18 FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE THOSE UNITS AND PUT EYES ON THE PARK KNOWING 19 WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK WITH SPECIFIC SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE 20 ARC. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. 21 CHAIR DANDEKAR: YEAH, THANK YOU. WAS THERE ANY 22 CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE TYPOLOGY OF THE UNITS? I 23 UNDERSTAND YOUR EYES ON THE PARK IDEA. BUT WAS THERE ANY 24 THOUGHT GIVEN TO CHANGING THE TYPOLOGY OF THE UNITS THAT WOULD 25 09180 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 29 BE ABOVE THAT 150-FOOT LINE, MAYBE TWO STORY DUPLEXES, TERRACED 1 HOMES, ANYTHING LIKE THAT? 2 MS. CREEL: THE COMPLETE ANSWER -- IF I COULD JUMP IN, AND ADD 3 TO THE LAST RESPONSE. ANOTHER CONSIDERATION THAT STAFF TOOK INTO 4 CONSIDERATION WAS THE PARK IN ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION FACILITATED 5 THE INCLUSION OF THE A SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD TO THAT 6 UPPER PORTION OF MADONNA-FROOM RANCH. AND THAT WAS BUILT IN 7 THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THE PARK PARKING FACILITIES. 8 AND WHEN THE PARK WAS MOVED TO THE QUARRY AREA, THAT 9 ELIMINATED THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS WHICH ORIGINALLY CONNECTED 10 THE R-3 USES NEAR THAT QUARRY AREA TO THE EMERGENCY ACCESS POINT 11 TO IRISH HILLS, SO IT PROVIDED THAT LINK. WHEN THE PARK WAS MOVED, 12 THAT LINK WAS REMOVED, AND THE LENGTH OF THE ROAD FROM THE CUL-13 DE – EXCUSE ME, FROM THE ROUNDABOUT, INTERNAL – AT THE CENTRAL 14 PORTION OF THE MADONNA-FROOM RANCH TO THE TOP OF THE QUARRY 15 AREA, WAS TOO LONG TO MEET STANDARDS FOR PROVIDING SECONDARY 16 ACCESS TO A DEAD END ROAD LIKE THAT. 17 AND SO THE R-3 USES THAT WERE RELOCATED TO THE ORIGINAL 18 PARK LOCATION HAD TO BE MOVED SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE AWAY FROM 19 THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY WITH IRISH HILLS PLAZA, SO THAT -- THAT 20 ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTE COULD BE PROVIDED UP TOWARD 21 THE CUL-DE-SAC. 22 SO THE PARK ORIGINALLY WAS ABLE TO FACILITATE THAT 23 WITHIN A MUCH SMALLER AREA THAN THE R-3 UNITS COULD FACILITATE 24 THAT ACCESS, AND THAT WAS ANOTHER CONSIDERATION THAT STAFF TOOK, 25 09181 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 30 YOU KNOW -- PLAYED A – PLAYED A PART IN STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION 1 THAT THIS LIMITED AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BE ALLOWED 2 OVER THE 150-FOOT ELEVATION. 3 MR. MONTGOMERY: MRS. DANDE -- 4 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: CAN I ASK A QUESTION? 5 MR. MONTGOMERY: WITH REGARD TO THE TYPOLOGY OF THE UNITS, 6 WHAT YOU’RE SEEING IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE ILLUSTRATIONS IS A 7 CONCEPT. WE HAVE NOT DESIGNED THAT PROJECT. WE PLACED BUILDINGS 8 IN THERE IN ORDER FOR THE RENDERING TO GIVE SOME SENSE OF THIS BEING 9 A VISION FOR A REAL PROJECT, AS OPPOSED TO JUST A LAND USE MAP. 10 THERE IS NO DESIGN FOR THOSE UNITS OR FOR THE SITE PLAN 11 FOR THOSE UNITS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. IT EXISTS AS A PARCEL IN THE 12 PARCEL MAP. 13 CHAIR DANDEKAR: COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN, YOU WANTED TO 14 GET IN ON THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK. 15 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: YES, PLEASE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I 16 JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IF FEELS LIKE THERE’S A LITTLE BIT OF A 17 CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE 150-FOOT LINE AND THE R-3. IF THERE’S 18 GOING TO BE APPROXIMATELY 14 UNITS, AS YOU WERE CALCULATING 19 EARLIER, CHAIR DANDEKAR, THEN THAT’S POTENTIALLY A TWO TO THREE 20 STORY BUILDINGS. 21 I -- I’M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN RECTIFY 22 THAT THOSE TWO THINGS, BUILDING ABOVE THE 150-FOOT LINE WITH THE – 23 WITH THE DENSITY THAT’S BEING PROPOSED. 24 AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST SAID THAT IT’S JUST A 25 09182 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 31 CONCEPT, BUT I’M NOT CLEAR HOW IT COULD ANYTHING OTHER THAN A 1 COUPLE OF TWO TO THREE STORY BUILDINGS TO FIT THAT MANY UNITS IN 2 THAT -- IN THAT ACREAGE. 3 MAYBE THAT’S NOT A VERY WELL-PHRASED QUESTION, BUT I 4 GUESS IT IS STILL SORT OF A QUESTION. 5 MR. MONTGOMERY: I GUESS, COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN, I WOULD 6 SAY THAT YOUR INTUITION IS CORRECT. WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT 7 TWO STORY BUILDINGS IN THAT AREA. 8 BUT AS I EXPLAINED TO COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN, YOU KNOW, 9 THERE ARE – THERE IS TOPOGRAPHY GOING ON IN THIS DIALOGUE AND THE 10 TOPOGRAPHY SHAPES THE WAY YOU’RE GOING TO PERCEIVE THINGS AS YOU 11 DRIVE UP THE STREET. 12 AND WE -- AND I’M GONNA COME BACK TO WE WANTED TO KEEP 13 EYES ON THE PARK. WE ARE STILL CONCERNED THAT THAT IS AN ISSUE AND 14 WOULD APPRECIATE THE ABILITY TO DESIGN A PROJECT THROUGH THE ARC 15 PROCESS THAT ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE UNITS ADJACENT TO 16 THE PARK WITHOUT PREEMPTIVELY EXCLUDING THEM. 17 MR. CODRON: CHAIR DANDEKAR, IF I COULD JUMP IN. I’D JUST LIKE 18 TO ASK STAFF TO TALK A LITTLE BIT, TOO, ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE 19 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS IN AESTHETICS AS IT RELATES TO THIS 20 PARTICULAR AREA. AND WHAT I’M JUST GETTING AT IS THAT THE 21 EVALUATION CLEARLY LOOKED AT DEVELOPMENT ABOVE THE 150 IN THIS 22 AREA. 23 AND WE BELIEVE IT’S AN APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION, WHEN 24 YOU’RE WORKING ON A SPECIFIC PLAN, TO REALLY FINE TUNE THE EDGES 25 09183 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 32 THE BOUNDARIES OF DEVELOPMENT IN THESE HILLSIDE AREAS. AND SO 1 WE’RE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE FULL 2 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS. 3 AT THE SAME TIME THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, 4 SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS 5 COMING FORWARD IN TERMS OF SUBDIVISION AND MAJOR DEVELOPMENT 6 PROJECT, AND SO WHAT -- I WOULD SAY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION 7 CAN LOOK AT HERE IS WHAT ARE THE POLICIES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES IN 8 THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT ARE GONNA GUIDE YOU THROUGH THAT DECISION 9 MAKING PROCESS? AND YOU’LL WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS 10 SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IN THERE IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, SO WHEN THE 11 SUBDIVISION COMES FORWARD AND YOU’RE LOOKING AT ACTUAL 12 DEVELOPMENTS WITH BUILDING TYPOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURE AND 13 EVERYTHING, AND HOW IT FITS INTO THAT SPACE, THAT -- THAT YOU’VE GOT 14 SOME YOU’VE GOT SOME GUIDANCE TO BASE THAT DECISION ON. 15 AND SO WITH THAT, I’D ASK SHAWNA JUST TO HIGHLIGHT SOME 16 OF THE POLICIES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT RELATE TO DEVELOPMENT 17 IN THIS AREA, SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT YOUR – WHAT THE CONTEXT OF YOUR 18 DECISION-MAKING WILL BE IN TH FUTURE WHEN A -- WHEN AN ACTUAL 19 DEVELOPMENT COMES FORWARD UNDER THIS SPECIFIC PLAN. 20 MS. SCOTT: YEAH SURE. I THINK, MICHAEL, FIRST TOUCHING ON YOUR 21 -- YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT VISUAL IMPACTS -- I THINK WE COVERED THAT A 22 BIT EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION -- WHERE WE’RE RECOGNIZING THAT 23 DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM SOME OF THE TRAIL 24 NETWORKS IN THE IRISH HILLS, BUT THAT LOCATION HAS LIMITED 25 09184 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 33 VISIBILITY FROM, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC ROADWAYS, LIKE LOS OSOS VALLEY 1 ROAD – LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD AND OTHER ROADWAYS. 2 SO, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE VISUAL SIMULATIONS THAT WERE 3 PREPARED THAT KIND OF MODEL THAT CONCEPT PLAN AND WHAT COULD 4 POTENTIALLY BE CONSIDERED IN THAT LOCATION, THERE WERE NO 5 SIGNIFICANT VISUAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED FROM PUBLIC ROADWAYS. 6 AND SO I THINK LOOKING TO YOU KNOW YOUR SPECIFIC PLAN IN 7 LIKE CHAPTER TWO THERE’S SOME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO 8 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 9 AND -- AND IN CHAPTER FOUR IS WHERE WE REALLY HAVE THE 10 DESIGN DEADLINES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO IF YOU HAVE 11 YOUR PDF OF THIS SPECIFIC PLAN, THERE ARE YOU KNOW STARTING IN 12 SECTION 4.4, THERE ARE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GUIDELINES. 13 AND ONE THING I -- I WOULD LIKE TO PREFACE IS THAT THE 14 SPECIFIC PLAN IS INTENDED TO, YOU KNOW, REALLY RELY ON ADOPTED 15 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES, SO IT REALLY BUILDS ON THAT AND IT 16 USES OUR -- IT’S COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES AS -- AS A BASIS. 17 AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, LOOKING AT -- I THINK, KIND OF 18 RELATED TO, I THINK, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I’M HEARING, IF YOU 19 LOOK AT SECTION 4.4.2, BUILDING FORM AND DESIGN, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A 20 POLICY STANDARD TO MINIMIZE BUILDING MASS USING VERY, YOU KNOW, 21 WALL PLANES AND MATERIAL CHANGES. YOU KNOW, IDENTIFYING – OR 22 HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL SIDING IS USED AT A MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, IT 23 SHOULD WRAP AROUND THE OUTSIDE CORNERS OF BUILDINGS TO A FENCE 24 LINE OR INTERIOR CORNER, YOU KNOW, ALL OF WHICH IS -- KIND OF BUILDS 25 09185 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 34 ON OUR EXISTING DESIGN GUIDELINES. 1 THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR -- FOR 2 EXAMPLE, ROOF DESIGN WHICH, I THINK -- THE FACT OF THE VISIBILITY OF 3 THE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, STATING IN 4.4.3 “BUILDING DESIGNS ROOF 4 PLANES, ACCENT DETAILS AND COLOR AND MATERIALS ARE ENCOURAGED 5 TO ENHANCE THE DIVERSITY AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. A 6 PORTION OF UPPER STORIES SHOULD BE SET BACK TO CREATE A VARIETY OF 7 ROOF LINES AND PITCHES. ROOFING COLORS SHOULD BE IN EARTH TONES TO 8 MINIMIZE REFLECTIVE GLARE AND VISUAL IMPACTS.” AND OF COURSE, 9 SCREENING OF ALL ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT. 10 SO, YOU KNOW, THE DESIGN STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN THIS 11 SPECIFIC PLAN ARE FAIRLY LIMITED BECAUSE IT’S INTENDED TO RELY ON 12 THE COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES, BUT IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE 13 TO SEE THOSE -- THOSE GUIDELINES BUILT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE OR 14 INCLUDE SOME ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THAT SECTION, WE’D BE GLAD 15 TO TALK THROUGH THAT. 16 MS. CREEL: I JUST HAVE ONE TO ADD. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: SHAWNA. 18 MS. RITCHIE: COMMISSIONER, COULD I SPEAK? IT’S PAM RITCHIE. 19 ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PLAN. 20 MS. CREEL: PAM. 21 CHAIR DANDEKAR: YEAH. 22 MS. RITCHIE: (INAUDIBLE.) 23 CHAIR DANDEKAR: PLEASE GO AHEAD, PAM. 24 MS. RITCHIE: I RAISED MY HAND, BUT I’M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS 25 09186 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 35 ACKNOWLEDGED. 1 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I’M SORRY. 2 MS. RITCHIE: IN SECTION 3.5 SCENIC RESOURCES, THERE IS A 3 PROGRAM, 3.5.2A, ABOUT STRATEGIES TO LIMIT ANY IMPACTS OF NEW 4 BUILDINGS ABOVE 150 FEET TO VISUAL RESOURCES, AND IT TALKS ABOUT 5 STRATEGIES ABOUT ANY KIND OF RETAINING WALLS USE OF EARTH TONE 6 COLORS, LIMITING EXTERIOR LIGHTING, SO THAT MAY BE A LOCATION IF 7 YOU WANT TO ADD ANY OTHER GUIDANCE ABOUT TRANSITIONING OR -- OR 8 ANY ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ABOUT WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR IN THAT 9 AREA, 10 BUT THERE IS A GOAL HERE ABOUT LIMITED DEVELOPMENT OF 11 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE THE 150-FOOT ELEVATION AND THEN SOME 12 POLICIES AND A PROGRAM. 13 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. 14 MS. CREEL: I THOUGHT -- I THOUGHT IT MIGHT ALSO BE – I THOUGHT 15 IT MIGHT ALSO BE HELPFUL TO POINT YOU TO SECTION 4.2, WHICH IS 16 GENERAL SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND INCLUDES A NUMBER OF POLICIES 17 FOR VIEWS AND TRANSITIONS INCLUDING “SITE DESIGN THROUGH GAPS AND 18 BUILDINGS AND PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES SHOULD RETAIN VIEWS TO THE 19 UPPER ELEVATIONS OF THE IRISH HILLS. TRANSITIONS SUCH AS OPEN SPACE 20 SETBACKS AND BUFFERS SHOULD BE PROVIDED BETWEEN IRISH HILLS OPEN 21 SPACE AREAS AND ADJACENT DEVELOPED LAND USES. AND SCREENING 22 LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE MADONNA-FROOM 23 PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE AND THE IRISH HILLS PLAZA.” 24 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN. 25 09187 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 36 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: I THINK ALSO THERE’S SOME LANGUAGE 1 THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO EARLIER. I REMEMBER READING IT 2 SOMEWHERE IN THE LAST WEEK, BUT I DON’T REMEMBER WHERE, THAT -- 3 THAT ANY STRUCTURES ABOVE THE 150 LINE, ESPECIALLY IN THIS PARK -- 4 ‘CAUSE THERE IN THIS PARK AREA WITH THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS, OUGHT 5 TO ACKNOWLEDGE, AT LEAST, THE -- THE ARCHITECTURE OF THOSE -- OF 6 THOSE HISTORIC BUILDINGS AS WELL AS THIS IS DEVELOPED. I THINK THAT 7 WOULD BE IMPORTANT. 8 I DO KIND OF AGREE THAT EYES ON THE PARK -- KIND OF GONNA 9 INVOKE JANE JACOBS -- ISN’T A BAD IDEA. IT’S JUST THAT 150-FOOT LINE, 10 WHEN WE’VE DONE IT AROUND THE CITY IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT. I JUST 11 -- IT’S HARD FOR ME TO LET GO OF IT COMPLETELY. 12 I UNDERSTAND IN A QUARRY SLOPE IS NOT AN ISSUE AND 13 WORRYING ABOUT STEEP SLOPES OR SOMETHING THAT COULD CAUSE A 14 PROBLEM. THE -- I’D LIKE -- I DO LIKE THE IDEA THAT YOU WERE PULLING 15 OUT LANGUAGE HERE THAT WOULD AT LEAST GIVE US SOME GOOD DESIGN, I 16 HOPE. THANK YOU. 17 MS. CREEL: YEAH. 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I SORRY. 19 MS. CREEL: I WAS GONNA ADD, THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT, 20 TOO, COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN. THERE WAS A MITIGATION MEASURE IN 21 THE EIR THAT REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT OF A -- A GUIDELINES AND A 22 PROCESS FOR EVALUATING DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO, AT THAT TIME, 23 WAS JUST THE MAIN RESIDENCE WHICH WAS THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE 24 LOCATED MOST CLOSELY TO THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL AREAS. 25 09188 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 37 WITH THE RELOCATION OF THE PARK AND THE ADDITION OF 1 THIS LIMITED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THAT UPPER AREA, THAT WAS 2 ONE OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WAS REVISED IN THE FINDINGS IN 3 THE CURRENT MMRP TO REFLECT THE NEW PROJECT. AND IT REQUIRES THE 4 SAME GUIDELINES IN A PROGRAM, BUT TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY OF THAT 5 ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT WITH ALL OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES. 6 SO THERE WOULD BE A PROGRAM THAT WOULD NEED TO BE 7 DEVELOPED TO ENSURE THOSE USES DIDN’T INDIRECTLY AFFECT THE 8 HISTORIC RESOURCES. 9 CHAIR DANDEKAR: AND SHAWNA, JUST A CLARIFICATION ON THE 10 VISUAL STUDIES THAT WERE DONE. IT’S BEEN SOME TIME SINCE WE SAW 11 THEM. BUT THEY WERE ALL FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND I 12 UNDERSTAND THAT’S YOU’RE THE SCENIC CORRIDOR, IT’S THE PUBLIC RIGHT 13 OF WAY. 14 BUT I THINK I REMEMBER AT THAT TIME, TOO, RAISING THIS 15 ISSUE OF THE FACT THAT THESE HISTORIC PROPERTIES ACTUALLY ARE A 16 SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE WHEN YOU GO INTO THE PROPERTIES AND PLACES 17 LIKE COSTCO AND BEYOND -- BEHIND HOME DEPOT. EVEN IN THEIR CURRENT 18 LOCATION, THEY ARE A -- THEY ARE A LANDMARK, AND -- AND VERY 19 VISUALLY PROMINENT AND EVOCATIVE. 20 AND THAT’S GOING TO INCREASE AS THEY GO UP THE HILL, AND 21 I APPRECIATE THAT CHC AND THE -- AND THE APPLICANT WORKING SO HARD 22 TO TALK ABOUT LAYING OUT THE FARMSTEAD IN AS CLOSE TO THE 23 ORIGINAL RELATIONSHIPS AS POSSIBLE. IT’S VERY EASY TO REPLICATE A 24 FARMSTEAD, BUT THE FACT THAT FOUR UNITS ARE THERE AND THERE’S A 25 09189 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 38 METHOD TO TRY AND GET THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE HOMESTEAD IS -- IS 1 VERY MUCH APPRECIATED BY ME. 2 MY PROBLEM, AGAIN, THOUGH IS THAT THE VIEWPOINT -- THAT 3 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS ONE THING, BUT EVEN LAST TIME, WE WERE SHOWN 4 THESE VISUAL DEPICTIONS. THAT WERE MOST -- I THINK THEY WERE 3-D AND 5 (INAUDIBLE) KIND OF THING. WE STILL ISSUE OF HOW YOU LOOK AT THIS 6 PROPERTY FROM OTHER PARTS, HIKERS WILL SEE IT THAT WAY. PEOPLE 7 WHO APPROACH THE TRAIL WILL SEE IT THAT WAY. THAT’S ALSO A PUBLIC 8 RIGHT. IT’S A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC VIEW ANGLE. 9 AND I’M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SORT OF MODERNISTIC 10 (INAUDIBLE) ELEMENTS BEHIND THESE HISTORIC PROPERTIES, WHICH WE’RE 11 SO -- SO HARD TRYING TO KEEP, AND THEY ARE SO EVOCATIVE OF THE PAST. 12 AND I REALLY APPRECIATE MR. MADONNA’S EFFORTS TO WORK 13 WITH CHC TO -- TO BE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. 14 I’M JUST REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEW ELEMENTS THAT 15 WE’LL ALSO ALLOWING ABOVE THE 150-FOOT LINE AND -- AND HOW WE’RE 16 GOING TO TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO COME TO US WITH THE SAME KIND 17 OF IDEA THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE’S SOME MITIGATING REASONS, ACCESS, 18 PARKING, WHATEVER -- I DIDN’T FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT EMILY WAS 19 SAYING ABOUT ACCESS WITHOUT SEEING THE SITE PLAN. I’M SORRY, EMILY. 20 I WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW IT, BUT I DIDN’T GET IT. BUT THEY’RE ALWAYS 21 SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. 22 BUT BREAKING THAT 150-FOOT LINE, I -- I JUST -- I’M 23 UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT. AND I’M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE HEIGHTS 24 OF THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE – SO I MEAN, I WANT TO RAISE THIS NOW WHILE 25 09190 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 39 THE APPLICANT IS STILL INVOLVED WITH THE DISCUSSION, IN CASE THEY 1 HAVE ANY COMMENTS. 2 MR. MONTGOMERY: THE ONLY COMMENT I COULD MAKE, 3 COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, IS IF YOU’VE BEEN ON THE SITE, AND LOOKED 4 AT WHAT WE’RE DEALING WITH, AS EMILY POINTED OUT IN HER 5 PRESENTATION, THE HEIGHT HAS BEEN PROBABLY 30 FEET LOWER THAN IT IS 6 NOW. IT’S PROBABLY BEEN 25 FEET TALLER THAN IT IS NOW. AND SO IN THE 7 CONTEXT OF AN ACTIVE WORKING ROCK QUARRY, I THINK THE QUESTION 8 OF, IS THE 150-FOOT ELEVATION SACROSANCT IN SOME FASHION, IS 9 PROBABLY MOOT. I MEAN, THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT IT 10 PHYSICALLY AT THAT SITE ANY LONGER. 11 MR. CODRON: AND JUST IF I COULD ADD, CHAIR DANDEKAR, FROM A 12 THE CONTEXT OF PRECEDENT, AND YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, IF WE IF WE 13 DO IT HERE, WHAT WILL WE TELL OTHERS? AND I -- I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT 14 THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN PROCESS IS A MUCH MORE DETAILED PLANNING 15 PROCESS THAN THE GENERAL PLAN OR THE HILLSIDE PLANNING PROJECT 16 THAT ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED THAT 150-FOOT CONTOUR. 17 IF WE WERE REALLY MAPPING OUT ALL OF THE VISUAL AND 18 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES WHEN THAT LINE GOT ESTABLISHED, IT WOULDN’T 19 JUST FOLLOW A SINGLE CONTOUR. IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE VERY 20 DETAILED. 21 SO WHAT THE -- WHAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN PROCESS DOES IS 22 ALLOW US TO LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT THE SPECIFICS OF THE AREA AND 23 MAKE THE DETERMINATIONS BASED ON ALL OF OUR POLICIES ABOUT WHERE 24 DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE AND WHERE IT ISN’T. 25 09191 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 40 AND IN THIS CASE, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT 1 DEVELOPMENT IN THIS SMALL AREA ABOVE THE 150 IS APPROPRIATE. 2 JUST OTHER AREAS WHERE THIS HAS OCCURRED, RIGHETTI HILL. 3 WE MODIFIED THE URL ALONG RIGHETTI HILL IN ONE AREA IN EXCHANGE 4 FOR ANOTHER AREA, ESSENTIALLY. 5 WE DID IT ALSO IN THE IRISH HILLS WITH PERFUMO CREEK 6 COMMONS, SO THERE’S A SUBDIVISION ON THE WEST SIDE OF PERFUMO 7 CREEK THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN RESERVE, BUT THAT WAS 8 APPROVED AND THE DEVELOPMENT WAS ALLOWED. AND THERE WAS A BIG 9 TRADEOFF THERE A MAJOR DONATION OF OPEN SPACE TO THE CITY, SO IN 10 TERMS OF JUST LAND USE AND BALANCING THE PRESERVATION COMPONENT 11 OF THAT EXCHANGE, YOU KNOW, IT MADE SENSE FOR THAT PROJECT. 12 SO WE LOOK AT EACH PROJECT ON ITS OWN MERITS IN 13 DEVELOPING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, WANNA 14 HIGHLIGHT FOR THE -- IN THIS CASE THAT THE 150 -- AND WE’VE LOOKED AT 15 IT VERY CLOSELY ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE AND HAVE MAINTAINED IT IN 16 MOST LOCATIONS AND THIS IS JUST ONE WHERE STAFF THINKS THAT IT’S 17 CONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICY TO ENABLE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 18 HERE. 19 AND THAT’S – THAT’S FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND 20 RECOMMENDATION. I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE 21 RECOMMENDATION IS WHAT IT IS. 22 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANKYOU. 23 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: CHAIR DANDEKAR, THIS DEPUTY CLERK 24 CHRISTIAN. I SEE THAT THAT JOHN MADONNA HAS RAISED HIS HAND IF YOU 25 09192 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 41 – I DIDN’T KNOW IF YOU WERE CALLING ON THE -- SINCE YOU’RE HAVING A 1 BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT STILL. 2 CHAIR DANDEKAR: YEAH, I – I 3 MR. CODRON: STILL NEED TO DO PUBLIC TESTIMONY AS WELL, SO I 4 WANTED TO JUST 5 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: CORRECT. 6 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I THINK WHAT I -- IF IT’S ALL RIGHT WITH THE 7 COMMISSIONERS, I -- I’D LIKE COMMISSIONER SHORSEMAN, WHO RAISED HER 8 HAND ABOUT THIS, JUST TO FINISH UP, AND THEN LET MR. MADONNA HAVE A 9 SAY, AND THEN CLOSE THIS PART OF THE OF THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER 10 SHORESMAN. 11 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: THANK YOU. SO I GUESS JUST TO 12 CONCLUDE THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION, I KNOW WE’VE TALKED ABOUT -- 13 THE APPLICANT SAID THAT THE -- THAT THE ALTITUDE OF THAT LOCATION 14 HAS VARIED OVER TIME. I’M CURIOUS IF ANYBODY HAS ACCURATE 15 KNOWLEDGE RIGHT NOW OF WHAT LEVEL -- WHERE IN COMPARISON TO THE 16 150-FOOT LINE THAT PROPERTY -- THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY IS RIGHT 17 NOW? ‘CAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT RIGHT 18 NOW IS WHERE IS IT NOW AND WHAT WILL IT BE, YOU KNOW, FOR OUR 19 CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF THE -- IN TERMS OF NEW BUILDINGS BEING 20 PLACED THERE. AND IF THEY WERE AT A 150 FEET OR HIGHER IT DEPENDS ON 21 WHAT IT IS NOW. DO WE KNOW THAT? 22 MR. CODRON: I’M NOT SURE STAFF HAS AN ANSWER TO THAT. OR 23 MAYBE THE APPLICANT’S ENGINEER. 24 09193 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 42 MR. MONTGOMERY: THIS IS VIC -- VIC MONTGOMERY. IF YOU WERE 1 TO GO OUT TO THE SITE TODAY, AND WALK UP INTO THE QUARRY AREA, 2 YOU’LL FIND THAT ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE AS YOU WALK UP IS THE BIG 3 BARN. THE BIG BARN’S FLOOR IS RIGHT AT ABOUT 150. AND SO THE ROAD 4 AREA, WHICH IS RIGHT DOWN BELOW IT, IT’S PROBABLY NOT MORE THAT 30 5 OR 40 FEET AWAY, YOU -- WHEN WE’RE OUT THERE, IT’S PROBABLY AT LEAST 6 10 FEET BELOW THE BARN SO THE CURRENT ROAD GOING UP INTO THE 7 QUARRY IS PROBABLY TODAY AT ABOUT 140, THAT WOULD BE MY GUESS. 8 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: THANK YOU. AND THEN MY LAST 9 QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, KIND OF SWITCHING GEARS JUST A LITTLE 10 BIT, IS I NOTICED IN THE RESOLUTION AND IN THE PLAN THERE IS A CLASS 11 FOUR BIKE PATH THAT’S PROPOSED, AND I’M GRATEFUL -- AND I AM 12 INCREDIBLY GRATEFUL FOR THE PROPOSAL, AND PART OF THE PLANNED 13 MITIGATION TO PLACE A CLASS FOUR BIKE LANE PRETTY MUCH ALL THE 14 WAY ACROSS LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, ALL -- 15 ALL ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. 16 AND THE -- THE CLASS FOUR BIKE PATH GOES A LITTLE BIT UP 17 INTO THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE ROUNDABOUT, AND I’M WONDERING IF 18 THE APPLICANT WOULD BE AMENABLE TO CONTINUING THAT CLASS FOUR 19 BIKE PATH UP TOWARDS THE PARK. I THINK IT’S A -- WOULD BE A GREAT 20 ASSET TO HAVE BETTER BIKE FACILITIES GOING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE 21 PARK TO BETTER ACCOMMODATE YOUNG CHILDREN TRYING TO GO UP THAT 22 HILL, AS I KNOW WHEN I WALKED THAT WITH YOU EARLIER THIS WEEK, 23 THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A GRADE THERE. 24 09194 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 43 AND IF CHILDREN ARE TRYING TO RIDE UP THAT ROAD, IT GETS 1 EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR A YOUNG CHILD TO KEEP UP THE SPEED 2 NECESSARY TO STAY SAFE IN A SHARED ROADWAY, AND SO I WOULD -- I 3 WOULD WONDER IF YOU WOULD BE AMICABLE TO KIND OF REWORKING THE 4 ROAD A LITTLE BIT TO CONTINUE THAT LL THE WAY TO THE PARK? 5 MR. MONTGOMERY: COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN, I THINK TIM 6 WALTERS IS THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT IS -- IS AVAILABLE FOR 7 COMMENTS. I DON’T PROFESS TO KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE ACTUAL 8 DETAILED DESIGN OF THE ROAD. MY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT ADDING 9 THE CLASS FOUR FACILITY IS GOING TO WIDEN THE ROAD CONSIDERABLY, 10 BECAUSE IF IT’S CLASS FOUR ON BOTH SIDES, I BELIEVE YOU’RE TALKING 11 ABOUT 16 FEET OF ADDITIONAL WIDTH ON THE ROAD, SOMETHING LIKE 12 THAT. TIM, ARE YOU AVAILABLE AND COULD YOU JUMP IN? 13 MR. WALTERS: YEAH. THIS IS TIM WALTERS. I’M THE ENGINEER ON 14 THE PROJECT. 15 MICHELLE, THE ADDING OF THE CLASS FOUR WOULD BE A 16 MINIMUM OF PROBABLY 14 FEET TO GET IT UP ON IN ON BOTH SIDES. RIGHT 17 NOW, WHAT WE’VE DONE IS PROVIDE TRAFFIC CALMING ON THAT CUL-DE-18 SAC IN ORDER TO KEEP TRAFFIC AT A LOW SPEED. 19 BUT IT’S MEANT TO BE A VERY LOW IMPACT ROADWAY. IT’S 20 NOT MEANT TO LOOK LIKE A -- A WIDE ROADWAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IS 21 DESIGNED FOR – IT’S MORE DESIGNED AS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD 22 THAT HAS A PARK -- A TRAILHEAD PARK AT THE END OF IT. IT’S NOT 23 DESIGNED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, MAJOR THOROUGHFARE OF BIKE FACILITIES 24 THROUGH THERE. 25 09195 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 44 I HEAR WHAT YOU’RE SAYING AND I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT IT’S 1 REALLY MEANT TO BE ON PAVEMENT (INAUDIBLE) BIKING WITH SOME 2 TRAFFIC CALMING DESIGN ON THE CUL-DE-SAC ITSELF OR THE ROAD GOING 3 UP, SO THAT IT CAN KEEP A VERY LOW IMPACT FOOTPRINT. 4 YOU KNOW, THERE’S -- THERE’S GONNA BE RESIDENTIAL ON 5 EITHER SIDE OF THIS OF THAT CUL-DE-SAC IN THE ULTIMATE DESIGN. IT’S 6 NOT REALLY MEANT FOR A CLASS FOUR CONDITION. IT’S A LOCAL ROAD. 7 MR. MONTGOMERY: THANK YOU. 8 MR. WALTERS: I HOPE THAT HELPED. 9 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: THANK YOU. 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I MAY ADD TO (INAUDIBLE) 11 CHAIR DANDEKAR: IF – IF YOU -- I’D LIKE TO GIVE MR. MADONNA A 12 CHANCE PERHAPS TO COMMENT. I UNDERSTAND HE’D LIKE TO SPEAK. 13 MR. MADONNA: WELL, JUST LOOKING AT -- WE KEEP -- THE FEELING IS 14 WE’VE BEEN WE KEEP GETTING PINCHED BY EVERY TURN. AND ONE THING 15 THAT OF MY -- YOU MIGHT NOT BE AWARE, OF THAT WHEN WE MOVED THE 16 PARK FROM -- FROM WHERE WE HAD PLANNED IT TO MOVING IT TO THE 17 BACK AND HAVING TO PUT THROUGH THE EMERGENCY ROAD THROUGH 18 WHERE THE PARK WAS, AND THEN THE ENLARGING THE PARK FROM WHAT IT 19 WAS PLANNED TO BE, WE COULD’VE GONE FROM ABOUT 100 HOMES TO 75 20 HOMES BASED ON THE, YOU KNOW, COMPUTABLE AREA. 21 AND THEN COMMENTING ON YOU KNOW THE THOUGHT OF 22 ENLARGING THE ROAD FOR A CLASS FOUR BIKE LANE, THAT WOULD 23 PROBABLY -- WE WOULD -- WE’VE GONE FROM 100 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES 24 DOWN TO 75, AND IT’S KIND OF AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE. AND WITH A 25 09196 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 45 14-FOOT BIKE ACCESS OR CLASS FOUR BIKE, WE WOULD LOSE PROBABLY 1 ANOTHER EIGHT HOMES -- EIGHT OR NINE HOMES. AND -- AND THEN SO WE’D 2 GO TO 75 TO 65. 3 AND A LOT OF THE AMENITIES THAT WE’RE PERFORMING FOR 4 THE PROJECT IS THE CLASS FOUR BIKE LANE FOR ONE OF THE LOS OSOS 5 VALLEY ROAD TO HIGUERA STREET AT A COST OF SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 6 THREE AND FOUR MILLION DOLLARS. AND THOSE AMENITIES ARE – ARE, 7 YOU KNOW, PAID FOR WITH THE -- WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME UNITS. 8 AND THEN WHAT I WANTED TO SAY EARLIER ABOUT THE -- THE 9 150 ELEVATION OF WHERE THE QUARRY WAS, AND YES, WE’RE ASKING FOR A 10 -- A LITTLE BIT MORE AREA UP ABOVE IN THE QUARRY AREA THAT WAS 11 TECHNICALLY ABOVE, AT THE POINT IN TIME WHEN EIR WAS COMMISSIONED, 12 IT WAS IN THAT AREA A HUNDRED AND – ABOVE 150. AS OF RIGHT NOW, 13 THERE’S PROBABLY MORE THAN AN ACRE OF THAT GROUND THAT HAS BEEN 14 LEVELED AND IS NOW BELOW 150. 15 IT IS -- AND IT’S UNDER A SMARA PERMIT. IT IS AN ACTIVE MINE. 16 IT IS NOT A PRISTINE PIECE OF GROUND THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR 17 AS 150-FOOT CONTOUR ON, YOU KNOW, THE IRISH HILLS. IT’S AN ACTIVE 18 QUARRY THAT’S BEEN – IT WAS SO LOW AT ONE POINT IN TIME WHEN IT WAS 19 -- THAT -- THAT I WENT BACK THERE AND REALIZED IT ACTUALLY BECAME A 20 LAKE. SO IT IS VERY -- IT’S BEEN A VERY DYNAMIC AREA. 21 AND -- AND SO I JUST I WANTED TO PUT MY THOUGHTS TOWARDS 22 THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACT THAT IT IS ABOVE 150. IT WAS JUST THAT 23 MOMENT IN TIME THAT, IN FACT, EVEN RIGHT NOW THERE’S ANOTHER ACRE 24 OR SO IT IS BELOW 150. THAT WASN’T THE SAME WAY BECAUSE IT IS AN 25 09197 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 46 ACTIVE MINE. SOME AREAS ARE HIGHER THAN THEY WERE. SOME AREAS 1 ARE LOWER. 2 BUT ANYWAY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW -- FEW POINTS. I 3 WAS TRYING TO BE QUIET THOUGH. SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING. 4 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE IT. 5 I’D LIKE TO BRING THE MEETING BACK AND ASK -- CLOSE THE 6 MEETING WITH -- WITH THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION AND ASK THE 7 DEPUTY CITY CLERK IF WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? 8 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: AT THIS POINT I SEE ONE HAND THAT’S BEEN 9 RAISED FOR QUITE SOME TIME. PJ MALONE. I’LL UNMUTE THEM AND THEY 10 CAN CONTRIBUTE IF THEY WISH TO. 11 I HAD SENT THEM A NOTE EARLIER AND I DIDN’T GET A REPLY, 12 SO I’M NOT SURE IF THEY MEANT TO RAISE THEIR HAND. 13 LET ME CHECK IN CASE THERE’S ANY ADDITIONAL INPUT VIA E-14 MAIL BY ANY CHANCE. NO, THERE’S NONE THERE. SO WE ACTUALLY DON’T 15 HAVE ANYBODY THAT’S ASKING TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. 16 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO COMMISSIONERS, I -- 17 HEARING NO PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE HAVE HAD A SLEW OF -- SLEW OF 18 MATERIAL THAT WAS SENT OUR WAY OF MANY -- MANY COMMENTS IN THE 19 WRITTEN FORM. SO SINCE WE HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THOSE, I’D LIKE 20 TO OPEN THIS UP FOR YOUR DELIBERATIONS. 21 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: THIS IS COMMISSIONER WULKAN. I GUESS 22 I CAN START OFF. 23 IT’S A COMPLICATED PROJECT. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF 24 MATERIAL TO GO THROUGH, AND IN REVIEWING THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE 25 09198 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 47 EIR AND THE STAFF REPORT AND THE CORRESPONDENCE, I FIND THAT THE -- 1 THE PROJECT MEETS THE OBJECTIVES THAT ARE LAID OUT IN THE GENERAL 2 PLAN FOR THIS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA THREE. 3 I ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE PROJECT, AS REVISED AND 4 PROPOSED NOW, IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICIES IN THE 5 GENERAL PLAN. 6 AND AS FAR AS THE -- THE IMPACTS -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL 7 IMPACTS, THE EIR INCLUDES AN EXTENSIVE LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES. 8 IN FACT, THE OFFSITE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROBABLY THE MOST 9 EXTENSIVE I’VE EVER SEEN. I HAVEN’T REVIEWED -- I HAVEN’T REVIEWED 10 THE -- THE SAN LUIS RANCH EIR, SO I’M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT ONE, BUT I’VE 11 REVIEWED QUITE A FEW EIRS IN THE PAST, AND I DON’T THINK I’VE EVER 12 SEEN AS AN EXTENSIVE A LIST OF OFFSITE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS AS I 13 HAVE IN THIS ONE -- FOR THIS PROJECT. 14 SO I’M IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, BUT I DO HAVE SEVERAL 15 CHANGES OR -- OR SUGGESTIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, BUT BEFORE 16 I DO THAT, I’LL WEIGH IN ON THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT 17 ABOVE THE 150-FOOT ELEVATION IN THE QUARRY AREA. AND I THINK FOR 18 ME THE BIG QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE ARE VISUAL IMPACTS, BECAUSE I 19 THINK THAT’S – THAT’S -- TO ME, THAT’S THE MAIN CONCERN HERE. 20 AND I HEARD STAFF SAY, AND I THINK I READ IN THE EIR, THAT 21 THERE WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANT VISUAL IMPACTS AS SEEN FROM PUBLIC 22 ROADWAYS TO THE QUARRY SITE. SO -- SO FOR ME THE -- THE TWO OR THREE 23 – THREE BUILDINGS IN THAT AREA ARE NOT A REAL CONCERN, ESPECIALLY 24 09199 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 48 WITH ALL THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WERE -- THAT ARE IN THE EIR 1 AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY STAFF. 2 SO -- SO I’M OKAY WITH THE TWO OR THREE STRUCTURES ABOVE 3 THE 150 IN THE QUARRY AREA, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY, A -- A DEGRADED AREA, 4 NOT – NOT PRISTINE AND DOESN’T REPRESENT ANY PHYSICAL CHANGE FROM 5 THE LOWER SLOPES TO THE UPPER SLOPES. THERE’S NO SLOPE BREAK 6 THERE. THERE’S NO CHANGE IN VEGETATION OR VEGETATION COMMUNITY 7 THERE. SO THAT’S WHY I THINK IT’S -- TO ME, IT’S A QUESTION OF VISUAL. 8 AND THE EIR CONCLUDES THAT THERE’S NO VISUAL IMPACTS AS 9 SEEN FROM PUBLIC ROADWAYS. THERE WOULD BE VISUAL IMPACTS AS SEEN 10 FROM ABOVE, BUT TO ME, THAT’S NOT REALLY THAT SIGNIFICANT. 11 FIRST OF ALL, KIND OF DIFFICULT TO TELL A 35-FOOT BUILDING 12 FROM A 10-FOOT BUILDING WHEN YOU’RE WAY ABOVE LOOKING DOWN. AND 13 ALSO WHEN YOU’RE LOOKING DOWN FROM THAT TRAIL SYSTEM, WHAT YOU 14 SEE IS A LOT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT. SO I DON’T THINK PUTTING A LITTLE 15 MORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT THERE IS REALLY A SIGNIFICANT VISUAL 16 IMPACT. 17 SO WHEN WE SAW THE DRAFT IN DECEMBER, THE DRAFT EIR, I 18 MADE THAT COMMENT THAT I DIDN’T THINK IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT 19 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AND I STILL DON’T THINK IT’S A SIGNIFICANT 20 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WHEN YOU’RE ON THE TRAIL LOOKING DOWN 21 INTO A LARGE AREA OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, WITH COSTCO AND HOME 22 DEPOT AND THE HOTELS ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THE FREEWAY. I DON’T 23 SEE THAT’S SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. 24 09200 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 49 ANYWAY, THAT’S MY -- THAT’S MY COMMENT ON THE -- THE 1 DEVELOPMENT ABOVE THE 150. 2 BUT THERE ARE A FEW SUGGESTIONS I’D LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS -3 -THIS POINT IF THAT’S OKAY. 4 CHAIR DANDEKAR: YES. 5 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: CHAIR DANDEKAR? 6 CHAIR DANDEKAR: YES. 7 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: OKAY. THE FIRST IS THAT WE DO HAVE AN 8 OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE TRAFFIC 9 IMPACTS, AND I -- I KIND OF I ASKED TRANSPORTATION -- THE 10 TRANSPORTATION MANAGER ABOUT THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT TO 11 AVOID SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACTS. 12 SO MY SUGGESTION, AND SINCE THIS WOULD BE A MAJOR -- I 13 THINK, A MAJOR CONDITION, WE MAYBE WE CAN HEAR FROM THE 14 APPLICANT IF THEY WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT IT -- MY SUGGESTION WOULD 15 BE THAT PHASE TWO OF THE -- OCCUPANCY OF PHASE TWO OF THE 16 DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE MADONNA-FROOM RANCH PORTION OF THE 17 DEVELOPMENT, NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE IS IN 18 PLACE. AND THAT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF REDUCING SOME OF THE 19 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS INCLUDING THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 20 AT THE SOUTH HIGUERA AND TANK FARM ROAD INTERSECTION, WHICH 21 WERE -- COULD NOT BE MITIGATED DOWN TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. 22 SO THAT WOULD BE MY FIRST SUGGESTION. 23 MY SECOND WOULD BE THAT, BECAUSE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT 24 DEVELOPMENT UP TO 174 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IN THE MADONNA-FROOM 25 09201 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 50 RANCH PART OF THE PROJECT, THAT THERE SHOULD BE ONE OR MORE AREAS 1 FOR ACTIVE RECREATION. THAT’S NOT INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, 2 BUT I THINK THAT NUMBER OF UNITS JUSTIFIES SOME ACTIVE RECREATION 3 AREA. THAT COULD BE A POOL OR VOLLEYBALL COURTS OR TENNIS COURTS 4 OR JUST AN AREA -- A FIELD AREA OR FO PEOPLE TO -- TO PLAY CATCH OR 5 WHATEVER OR RUN AROUND. 6 BUT I THINK THAT NUMBER OF UNITS SHOULD -- SHOULD JUSTIFY 7 -- ESPECIALLY IN A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS WHERE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT 8 HIGH QUALITY AMENITIES -- SHOULD JUSTIFY ACTIVE RECREATION AT LEAST 9 ONE ACTIVE RECREATION AREA. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WON’T BE 10 AN ACTIVE RECREATION AREA IN THE PARK, SO I THINK THE MULTI-FAMILY 11 NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD HAVE ONE. AND I THINK I CAN CITE SOME -- SOME 12 CITY POLICIES THAT WOULD SUPPORT HIGH QUALITY AMENITIES FOR THIS 13 AREA. 14 MY OTHER SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE JUST TO AMEND THE 15 SPECIFIC PLAN AS -- AS MR. MONTGOMERY, I THINK, AGREED TO EARLIER, TO 16 STATE THAT THERE WOULD BE THERE SHOULD BE AN INTERCONNECTED 17 NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN AND PATHS WITHIN THE VILLAGGIO AREA THAT 18 CONNECT TO PUBLIC -- A PUBLIC TRAIL AND SIDEWALK ULTIMATELY. 19 AND THERE WAS ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM THAT I -- I WOULD 20 SUGGEST, AND THAT IS A POLICY IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN -- IT’S ON PAGE 4-5 OF 21 THE SPECIFIC PLAN -- AND IT SAYS THAT “HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING SHOULD 22 INCORPORATE SMALL PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREAS,” SO I THINK WHAT IT’S 23 TALKING ABOUT IS THAT THE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IN MADONNA-FROOM 24 SHOULD HAVE BALCONIES OR DECKS OR PORCHES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT 25 09202 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 51 -- PRIVATE SPACE, SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT -- THAT SHOULD APPLY TO 1 ALL THE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN THE FROOM-MADONNA PORTION OF THE 2 PROJECT. 3 SO THOSE ARE MY SUGGESTIONS, AND I DON’T KNOW, CHAIR 4 DANDEKAR, IF YOU WANT TO OPEN IT UP BACK TO THE APPLICANT TO SEE 5 WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THAT IDEA WITH THE PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE 6 AND THE PHASING, OR IF YOU JUST WANT TO -- WE CAN CONTINUE AND SEE IF 7 THERE’S ANY INTEREST IN OTHER ON THE COMMISSION IN THAT APPROACH 8 FOR HAVING THE – THE LIMIT ON HOW MANY UNITS COULD BE BUILT BEFORE 9 THE PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE IS COMPLETE. 10 MAYBE WE’LL SEE IF THERE’S OTHER -- IF THERE’S INTEREST IN 11 THAT IDEA, THEN MAYBE WE COULD ASK THE APPLICANT WHAT THEY 12 THINK. 13 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I’D PREFER IF WE COULD GO THROUGH THE 14 COMMISSION AND THEN WE CAN ASK BOTH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO 15 RESPOND TO THE VARIOUS IDEA THAT COMMISSION HAS PUT FORWARD, IF 16 THAT’S OKAY WITH THE COMMISSION? 17 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: THAT SOUNDS GOOD, AND YES, THANK 18 YOU FOR BEARING WITH ME ON ALL MY -- MY COMMENTS. 19 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. WHO WOULD LIKE --COMMISSIONER 20 KAHN? 21 COMMISSIONER KAHN: YEAH, IF I CAN JUST WEIGH IN ON 22 COMMISSIONER WULKAN’S COMMENTS, I CAN SUPPORT THE DELAYING OF 23 THE PRADO – EXCUSE ME DELAYING OF OCCUPANCY ONCE A CERTAIN LEVEL 24 HAVE BEEN MET UNTIL THE PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE IS IN. 25 09203 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 52 I WOULD AGREE WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENT I HEARD QUITE A 1 BIT IN ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE WE HAD THAT IT’S TIME TO START 2 BUILDING SOME OF THIS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE THAT’S 3 GONNA MITIGATE THESE IMPACTS. 4 AND, YOU KNOW, NUMBER ONE, LET’S GET THAT THING BUILT SO 5 THAT IT DOES HELP MITIGATE IT. AND, NUMBER TWO, IS IF WE HAVE 6 DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE WAITING TO BE INSTALLED AND PUT IN THEY IN 7 TURN WILL BE PUTTING A LITTLE PRESSURE ON SAYING, “HEY, GET THAT 8 THING BUILT. LET’S GO. WE GOT ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT I WANT TO 9 PRODUCE.” SO I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER WULKAN ON THAT. 10 AND THAT’S THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE. 11 CHAIR DANDEKAR: SUPPORT -- SUPPORT THE PHASING TO SYNC WITH 12 THE PRADO ROAD. 13 COMMISSIONER KAHN: WELL, AGAIN, I’D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE 14 APPLICANT THINKS ABOUT THE IDEA. YOU KNOW, I DON’T -- 15 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I’D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE STAFF, TOO. I KNOW 16 THEY’VE BEEN WORKING HARD ON THIS ISSUES. SO OTHER COMMISSIONERS 17 COMMENTS OR – COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN. 18 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: STILL GONNA WAIT UNTIL THE END OT 19 SPEAK ‘CAUSE I DON’T WANT THE (INAUDIBLE) OF SPEAKING TOO SOON, BUT 20 I’LL JUMP IN AND JUST LET’S KEEP THIS MOVING SO WE CAN ALL GET TO BED 21 TONIGHT. 22 CHAIR DANDEKAR: RIGHT. 23 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: I LIKE COMMISSIONER WULKAN’S IDEA. I 24 THINK IT’S A VERY SMART IDEA ABOUT THE PRADO INTERCHANGE. I -- I’M 25 09204 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 53 CONCERNED THAT FINANCING THIS PROJECTS IS A REALLY COMPLICATED 1 MATTER, AND TO SOME EXTENT ON SOME LEVEL, DEVELOPERS OF THESE 2 VARIOUS PROJECTS, WHETHER IT’S AVILA RANCH OR SAN LUIS RANCH OR 3 FROOM RANCH AND SOME OF THE OTHER CONTRIBUTORS, SAY, ALONG TANK 4 FARM AND -- AND THAT -- HAVE TO RAISE, I MEAN, THEY COME IN WITH 5 INVESTORS WITH SOME FUNDS, BUT IT’S IN SOME WAYS THE DEVELOPMENT 6 IS SALE AND OR LEASE OF SOME OF THE PROPERTIES TO HAVE THESE THINGS 7 UP AND RUNNING THAT CREATE THE FUNDING THAT ALLOWS THEM TO PAY 8 THE TRAFFIC FEES. THERE’S A CHICKEN OR EGG PROBLEM THAT I’M NOT 9 SURE WE CAN RESOLVE COMPLETELY. 10 SO MY GUT FEELING IS WHILE I LIKE IT AT A GUT LEVEL, BUT MY 11 FEELING IS THAT IT MAY BE SMARTER FOR US TO TRY TO LEAVE THIS TO THE 12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH. 13 WE KIND OF DID THIS SAME KIND OF THING WITH SAN LUIS 14 RANCH IN SOME WAYS, SOME ISSUES AROUND PHASING CAME UP AND WE 15 NEEDED TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS AND PART OF IT HAD TO DO WITH 16 HOW THE HECK TO THESE THINGS GET FINANCED, WHAT GETS BUILT FIRST 17 AND WHATEVER. SO I WOULD BE RELUCTANT FOR US TO KIND OF SET 18 THINGS IN STONE WHEN THESE ARE VERY COMPLICATED PROJECTS AND A 19 LOTS GOTTA WORK TOGETHER. SOMEBODY AT THE TOP LEVE -- I’M LOOKING 20 AT MICHAEL CODRON -- TO BE KIND OF A MAGICIANS -- AND THAT SAME 21 GOES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTS, THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES IS 22 TOUGH. SO I LIKE THE CONCEPT, BUT I’M A LITTLE NERVOUS ABOUT HOW IT 23 PLAYS OUT. 24 09205 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 54 I ASLO JUST WANTED TO SAY REAL QUICKLY. I THINK THERE’S A 1 LOT OF PUBLIC BENEFIT TO THIS PROJECT. AND I ABSOLUTELY CAN SUPPORT 2 IT, AND I REALLY AM WAY IMPRESSED WITH THE AMOUNT OF PLANNING AND 3 GOOD WILL ON EVERYBODY’S PART. EVERYBODY STUCK WITH THIS, AND I 4 THINK A MUCH BETTER PROJECT, AND A REAL CASE STUDY OF HOW TO DO A 5 REALLY INNOVATIVE IMPROVEMENTS. I’M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH ALL 6 THE BENEFITS RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE’S A WHOLE LOT OF WAYS THIS 7 WORKS. 8 ONE LAST COMMENT, JUST THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT, JUST 9 THINKING ABOUT THE MISSION OF MORE PARK SPACES. I’D HATE TO GIVE UP 10 THE TRAILHEAD PARK FOR LITTLE MINI PARKS HERE AND THERE WHEN WE 11 ALSO HAVE A WALKWAY ALONG THE WHOLE FROOM CREEK AREA. 12 I DO THINK THOUGH THAT SOME PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE, 13 PARTICULARLY PROTECTED FROM THE WIND, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE EVEN IF 14 THEY’RE COMMUNAL TO A BUILDING EVEN, SEVERAL UNITS IN A BUILDING I 15 THINK WOULD BE A REALLY GOOD IDEA FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER 16 WULKAN’S SENSE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME ELBOW ROOM HERE FOR 17 FOLKS, A LITTLE BIT OF -- WELL, HE SAID PRIVATE SPACE. I GUESS I’M 18 THINKING AT LEAST SEMI-PRIVATE SPACE. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTH 19 US PUSHING A BIT ON THAT. 20 AND I THINK I’D LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU. 21 COMMISSIONER KAHN: CAN I JUST COMMENT ON COMMISSIONER 22 JORGENSEN’S COMMENTS? 23 CHAIR DANDEKAR: LET ME -- 24 COMMISSIONER KAHN: JUST ONE. 25 09206 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 55 CHAIR DANDEKAR: OKAY. GO AHEAD. 1 COMMISSIONER KAHN: VERY QUICK. I LIKE COMMISSIONER 2 JORGENSEN’S COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF KNOWS QUITE A BIT 3 MORE ABOUT THIS THAN ANY OF US DO. IT’S A VERY COMPLICATED PROJECT 4 THAT’S BEEN IN THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR YEARS AND YEARS. 5 BUT WHAT I’M GONNA JUST TRY TO WEIGH IN ON IS, IF WE HAVE 6 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS 7 OF PROJECT AND THEY ARE COMPLICATED FUNDING. I’VE BEEN IN THE 8 BUSINESS FOR 33 YEARS. I KNOW THEY’RE COMPLICATED FUNDING, BUT IF 9 YOU CAN’T ENSURE THEY’RE BUILT, THEN THEY’RE NOT GONNA MITIGATE 10 THE IMPACT, SO YOU HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THEY’RE GONNA BE BUILT. 11 ‘CAUSE THAT AREA IS VERY CONGESTED AND IT’S BAD. IT’S 12 REALLY BAD. I DRIVE OVER THERE ALL THE TIME, AND I JUST WANT TO 13 MAKE SURE FOUR YEARS FROM NOW WHEN I’M DRIVING THROUGH THERE, 14 IT’S NOT REALLY -- REALLY -- REALLY BAD. SO THAT’S MY ONLY COMMENT. 15 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. AND WE’VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT 16 THAT FROM THE COMMUNITY IN THEIR LETTERS. 17 I’D LIKE TO GET COMMISSIONER QUINCY AND COMMISSIONER 18 SHORESMAN IN ON THIS. 19 AND MICHAEL, I KNOW YOU ARE CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO -- 20 MR. CODRON: I THOUGHT I WOULD JUMP IN. YOU KNOW, I CAN JUST 21 REALLY QUICKLY, JUST SAY THAT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT THE 22 PHASING CONDITION -- IF THERE’S A PHASING CONDITION HOW WE 23 IMPLEMENT THAT IS THAT THE DEVELOPERS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 24 09207 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 56 DELIVERING THAT IMPROVEMENT. THAT’S A CITY PROJECT. AND THE CITY IS 1 WORKING TOWARDS DELIVERING THE PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE. 2 BUT TYING DEVELOPMENT PHASING TO THAT THEN PUTS IT 3 OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL, AND SO THAT DOES MAKE IT MORE 4 CHALLENGING. 5 AND THEN AND THE FEES FROM THE UNITS WILL BE SOMETHING 6 THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO OUR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT. 7 THAT IS TRUE AS WELL. 8 AND THEN I DIDN’T KNOW IF LUKE IS AVAILABLE TO, YOU KNOW, 9 TO TALK ABOUT WHAT PHASING MIGHT LOOK LIKE OR HOW WE MIGHT 10 STRATEGIZE AROUND PHASING IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS THE PROJECT TO 11 MOVE FORWARD WITH -- AS WE MAKE PROGRESS ON THE INTERCHANGE. 12 I DON’T KNOW IF THERE’S PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, 13 CONSENSUS THAT THAT PHASING IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I JUST WANT 14 TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL YOUR QUESTIONS GET ANSWERED AND -- AND 15 THAT YOU CAN BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE BEST INFORMATION. 16 SO I WILL CLICK OFF, BUT LET ME KNOW IF THERE ARE OTHER 17 QUESTIONS ON THAT POINT. 18 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I JUST SAW LUKE TRYING TO -- HERE THIS IS AN 19 IMPORTANT ISSUE I THINK. LET’S FINISH THE INPUT ON IT. 20 MR. SCHWARTZ: YEAH, SURE. NO IT’S A GREAT QUESTION. IT’S AN 21 INTERESTING TOPIC. 22 YOU KNOW, AS YOU MANY RECALL, THERE WAS A SIMILAR 23 DISCUSSION WITH SAN LUIS RANCH DEVELOPMENT. AND WE’VE ANALYZED 24 THIS PROJECT AND THE PHASES THAT THE APPLICANT EXPRESSED THAT 25 09208 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 57 THEY WERE INTERESTED IN -- IN BUILDING THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE 1 VERY REASONS, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THOSE TRIGGER POINTS WHERE 2 SOME OF THESE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TAKE PLACE. 3 I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THOSE SIGNIFICANT 4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE TRIGGERED WITH JUST EVEN 5 WITH THE INITIAL PHASE OF THE LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY, SO DEFERRING 6 CERTAIN PHASES TO BEING TIED TO THE INTERCHANGE DOESN’T RESOLVE 7 ALL OF THOSE. 8 THERE WOULD STILL LIKELY BE SOME INTERIM ISSUES, LIKE 9 MADONNA-101 RAMPS ALONG LOVR QUARTERS AS WELL. THE -- THERE ARE 10 SEVERAL OF THOSE IMPACTS THOUGH THAT DO OCCUR LATER WITH THE 11 MADONNA-FROOM RANCH DEVELOPMENT. 12 WITH A SENSITIVITY TO THAT WE’VE LOOKED AT JUST THAT 13 WHOLE PHASE, MADONNA-FROOM RANCH, THERE’S A POINT WITHIN THAT 14 PHASE WHERE THOSE IMPACTS ACTUALLY OCCUR AFTER A CERTAIN 15 NUMBER OF UNITS OR A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE COMMERCIAL 16 SPACE. WE HAVEN’T LOOKED AT THAT INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL. 17 ULTIMATELY AS -- AS MICHAEL HAD INDICATED AND AS 18 COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN, A LOT OF THIS TIES INTO WHAT IS FEASIBLE 19 FROM THE APPLICANT’S END, TOO. THERE’S THIS CHICKEN AND THE EGG 20 DILEMMA IN THAT, YOU KNOW -- IT -- IN BUILDING AND OCCUPYING, IT ALSO 21 BRINGS IN FEES TO OUR TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM, WHICH IS 22 PARTIALLY FUNDING THE INTERCHANGE PROJECT. 23 SO WE OBVIOUSLY DON’T WANT TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT 24 THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE CAN’T SUPPORT, BUT IN TURN, THE 25 09209 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 58 DEVELOPMENT IS HELPING US INFRASTRUCTURE THAT’S NEEDED AND IN 1 TURN AS WELL. CERTAINLY, OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. 2 I’M HAPPY IF THERE’S ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT A 3 PHASING STRATEGY THAT WE CAN ELABORATE MORE ON, BUT AS YOU 4 MENTIONED I’D NE INTERESTED OT SEE THE APPLICANT’S RESPONSES TO 5 THAT CONCEPT. 6 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. I THINK I WANT TO GET 7 COMMISSIONER QUINCEY AND SHORESMAN, AND I’D LIKE TO MAKE A 8 COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND THEN ASK THE -- ASK THE APPLICANT TO 9 RESPOND. COMMISSIONER QUINCEY TO YOU HAVE THINGS YOU’D LIKE TO 10 PUT -- 11 COMMISSIONER QUINCEY: SURE I CAN BRIEFLY OFFER MY INPUT. I 12 THINK THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS SAID IT MUCH MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN 13 I COULD HAVE. 14 FIRST OF ALL, I SUPPORT THE PROJECT WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I 15 THINK IT’S NEEDED. 16 I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE ABOUT THE INTERCHANGE. MY GUT 17 REACTION, MY GUT FEELING ABOUT IT WAS SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER 18 KAHN, IN THE SENSE THAT I THINK HAVING A DEVELOPER WITH AN 19 INCENTIVE TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE CITY TO GET THIS DONE MAKES SENSE 20 TO ME. I THINK THAT -- I THINK IT WOULD GET IT DONE. I THINK IT WOULD 21 PUT PRESSURE AND I THINK IT WOULD EXPEDITE IT. 22 BUT THE FINANCING PART OF IT IS ADMITTEDLY SOMETHING I 23 DON’T KNOW VERY MUCH ABOUT, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. 24 09210 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 59 SCHWARTZ JUST SAID THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CLEARLY IS FINANCING 1 THAT, SO YOU KNOW I DON’T KNOW HOW TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE. 2 AND LASTLY, YOU KNOW, I AM VERY SYMPATHETIC WITH -- TO 3 WHAT I THINK MR. MADONNA SAID IN THE SENSE THAT HE FEELS LIKE HE’S 4 GETTING KIND OF PINCHED EVERY STEP OF THE WAY HERE. 5 IN REVIEWING THIS PROJECT AND HOW FAR BACK IT GOES AND 6 HOW MANY PUBLIC MEETINGS THERE’S BEEN AND HOW MUCH COMMENT OR 7 HOW MUCH CHANGE HAS GONE INTO THIS PROJECT, IT’S CLEAR THAT THE 8 APPLICANT’S BEEN VERY ACCOMMODATING, SO AT THIS POINT I’M HESITANT 9 TO ADD ANYTHING MORE TO WHAT THEY’VE ALREADY DONE. I’M 10 IMPRESSED WITH WHAT THEY’VE DONE, AND I THINK AS COMMISSIONER 11 JORGENSEN SAID, THEY’VE WORKED WITH THE CITY QUITE WELL. 12 SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. 13 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN, DID 14 YOU HAVE ANY -- 15 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: YEAH, I – I -- I SUPPORT EVERYTHING 16 THAT YOU HAVE ALL SAID. I AGREE WITH IT. I SEE THE COMPLEXITIES -- 1 -- 17 IN TRYING TO WORK THE TIMING AROUND THE INTERCHANGE BEING BUILT, 18 AND ALL THE COMPLEXITIES OF ALL THE OTHER DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS 19 THAT ARE --THAT ARE BEING BUILD RIGHT NOW. 20 AND WHEN I FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT THIS PLAN I WAS 21 INITIALLY VERY IMPRESSED. AS YOU ALL HAVE SAID, YOU CAN TELL THAT 22 THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY STAFF HAVE ALL REALLY WORKED TOGETHER 23 CLOSELY AND THEY’VE THOUGHT OUTSIDE THE BOX AND THEY’VE PUT 24 TOGETHER A PROJECT -- A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT, AND 25 09211 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 60 EVEN IN SOME CASES, LEAVES THE PROPERTY BETTER THAN IT STARTED, 1 WITH THE REROUTING OF THE CREEK. 2 THE VILLAGGIO DEVELOPMENT IS CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT 3 OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS. IT’S NEEDED IT FOR A LONG TIME. IT COULD 4 PROBABLY USE MORE THAN JUST ONE, TO BE FRANK, AS OUR POPULATION 5 CHANGES. 6 AT THE SAME TIME, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A BLANK SLATE AND 7 WHILE A LOT OF GREAT IDEAS HAVE GONE INTO IT AND CLEARLY A LOT OF 8 COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION AND NEGOTIATION, I FEEL LIKE 9 THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE COULD STILL DO BETTER. 10 AND ONE OF THEM IS DEALING WITH TRAFFIC ISSUE, THE 11 MITIGATION. I THINK THERE’S MORE THAT WE CAN DO THERE. I THINK 12 THERE’S WAYS THAT WE COULD MAKE THIS PROJECT A LITTLE BIT MORE 13 FRIENDLY TO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION EVEN MORE THAN WE HAVE. 14 I PROPOSED ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION. I SUSPECTED THAT THE 15 CLASS FOUR ALL THE WAY UP TO THE PARK MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST 16 POPULAR IDEA, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT WE -- THAT TRAFFIC 17 CALMING IN A FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD IS -- IS NOT ENOUGH ANYMORE IF WE 18 WANT TO TRULY CHANGE OUR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND GET 19 FAMILIES TO START RIDING BIKES AND USING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION. 20 OUR -- 50 PERCENT OF OUR CITY’S GREENHOUSE GASES STILL 21 COME FROM CARS, SO EVEN THOUGH WE’RE PROPOSING TO PUT LOTS OF 22 CHARGING STATIONS INTO THE HOMES, IT’S NOT GOING TO REDUCE THE 23 TRAFFIC CONGESTION PROBLEMS. THERE ARE MORE HEALTHY SOLUTIONS 24 09212 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 61 THAT I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY START EMBRACING A LITTLE BIT MORE. 1 AND MY IDEA WAS JUST ONE SMALL PIECE OF THAT. 2 SO I WOULD I WOULD STILL LIKE TO CONSIDER AND MY FELLOW 3 COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER DIRECTING STAFF AND THE APPLICANT OR 4 ASKING THE APPLICANT TO LOOK AT SOME OTHER CREATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR 5 GETTING A SAFER BIKE WAY, OTHER THAN JUST A RESIDENTIAL STREET, ALL 6 THE WAY UP TO THE PARK, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THAT CLIMB -- THAT 7 SMALL CLIMB AS IT MAY BE, IS NOT SAFE FOR A FAMILY TO RIDE UP TO GET 8 TO THE PARK. 9 AND I THINK THOSE PARKING SPOTS ON THE TOP OF THAT PARK 10 ARE GONNA FILL UP REALLY FAST BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE A 11 POPULAR TRAILHEAD PARK, WITH -- WITH A GREAT ACCESS TO THE 12 TRAILHEADS THERE. 13 SO I WOULD EVEN BE INTERESTED IN MAYBE PURSUING SHAVING 14 OFF SOME OF THE PARKING AND MAKING A LITTLE MORE GREEN SPACE AS 15 COMMISSIONER -- I CAN’T REMEMBER IF THAT WAS KAHN OR WULKAN OR 16 JORGENSEN -- WAS PROPOSING, THAT THERE’S NOT VERY MUCH GREENSPACE 17 THERE IN THAT PARK, SO IF WE COULD ENCOURAGE BIKERS TO RIDE THEIR 18 BIKES ALL THE WAY UP TO THE PARK, MAYBE WE WOULDN’T NEED QUITE AS 19 MUCH PARKING UP THERE. 20 THERE IS ALSO ONE SECTION OF THE CLASS FOUR BIKE PATH IN 21 FRONT OF THE MADONNA – MADONNA SHOPPING CENTER BETWEEN 22 MADONNA ROAD AND, I THINK IT’S, LAGUNA THAT I SPOKE TO STAFF ABOUT 23 AND THEY’RE SOME LOGISTICAL ISSUES THAT I’LL LET THEM GO INTO IF 24 THEY CHOOSE TO ABOUT WHY THAT SECTION OF THE CLASS FOUR BIKE PATH 25 09213 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 62 ISN’T BEING COMPLETED AT THIS POINT, OR AT LEAST AS PART OF THIS PLAN, 1 BUT I WOULD -- ANY TIME THERE’S A BREAK IN A PATH LIKE THAT, IT TAKES 2 PEOPLE EITHER OFF ONTO SIDEWALKS ON THEIR BIKES OR IT TALKS THEM 3 OUT OF USING THEIR BIKES AT ALL. 4 AND SO I’D LIKE TO FIGURE OUT WAYS THAT WE CAN MAKE 5 THOSE ROUTES MORE CONTINUOUS ALL THE WAY TO DESTINATIONS. 6 SO I WOULD -- AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE. I’D LIKE TO SEE IF WE 7 CAN ADD A RECOMMENDATION TO FIND SOME MORE CLASS TWO OR CLASS 8 FOUR TYPE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE ROUNDABOUT AND THE PARK, AND 9 LOOK FOR WAYS TO EXTEND THE CLASS FOUR BIKE PATH IN FRONT OF THE 10 MADONNA SHOPPING CENTER WHERE IT’S BEEN -- WHERE ITS BEEN 11 DISCONTINUED. 12 CHAIR DANDEKAR: SO I -- YOU KNOW, I REALLY -- I THINK THIS IS A 13 PROJECT THAT’S COME A HUGE WAY FORM THE LAST TIME WE SAW IT IN 14 PLANNING COMMISSION. AND I -- I THINK IT’S A SPECIFIC PLAN. WE -- I DON’T 15 ’T WANT TO TRY AND BUILD INTO THE SPECIFIC PLAN THINGS THAT PERHAPS 16 THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE DONE AT -- WHEN PROJECTS COME FOR DESIGN 17 REVIEW AND -- AND ENTITLEMENT AND -- AND -- AND WHEN THEY’RE MORE 18 FULLY DEVELOPED IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFICS OF LAYOUTS AND SO ON. 19 SO I THINK WE -- I WOULD BE OPEN FOR A STAFF TO GUIDE US WHAT 20 SORTS OF THINGS WE SHOULD BUILD INTO THIS SPECIFIC PLAN AND WHAT 21 SORTS OF THINGS PERHAPS ARE BETTER LEFT WHEN DISPARATE PIECES OF 22 THE PROPERTY START GETTING -- COMING FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND 23 APPROVAL. 24 09214 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 63 I DID -- AND SO I’M MAKING THE SUGGESTION, WITH THIS 1 CAVEAT, THAT PERHAPS THIS MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT PLACE TO MAKE THE 2 SUGGESTION I’D LIKE TO, WHICH IS – AGAIN, IF THERE’S AN ALTERNATIVE -- I 3 -- I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE 150 FOOT LINE, AND SORT OF THE FACT THAT 4 THIS IS A QUARRY AREA AND, YOU KNOW, THE ELEVATIONS ARE SHIFTING 5 AND THE QUARRY BUSINESS CARRIES ON. 6 HOWEVER IF -- IF THEIR RATIONALE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL IS 7 EYES ON THE PARK AND SAFETY ISSUES AND AMBIANCE ISSUES, TOO, 8 REALLY, PERHAPS ONE COULD SUGGEST THAT THE STYLE OF THE 9 RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT ARE ABOVE THE 150-FOOT LINE AND RELATED TO 10 THE FARMSTEAD COMPLEX WOULD BE PERHAPS MORE IN THE FARMHOUSE 11 VERNACULAR STYLE. THEY COULD BE PERHAPS LOWER IN TERMS OF 12 PROFILE AND THINK ABOUT A SHIFT IN TYPOLOGY JUST IN THAT AREA, SO 13 THAT THEY SEEM MUCH MORE CONGRUENT -- THAT THE RATIONALE FOR 14 ALLOWING THIS MIGHT BE THAT YOU IN FACT CREATE A MUCH MORE 15 ENHANCED KIND OF SENSE OF PLACE. 16 BUT AGAIN, I WOULD -- I WOULD SEEK STAFF’S SORT OF 17 COMMENTS ON THINGS LIKE EVEN WITH THE 174 UNITS, IS THIS THE PLACE TO 18 MAKE SUGGESTIONS ABOUT OPEN SPACES ‘CAUSE OUR CODES HAVE BUILT IN 19 CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF OPEN SPACE AND SO ON. 20 SO I DON’T WANT TO OVERREACH IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN LEVEL 21 IF OUR CODES ALREADY COVER SOME OF THESE THINGS. 22 SO MICHAEL, I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT 23 ALL THE THINGS THAT COMMISSION HAS TALKED ABOUT, AND THEN AFTER 24 09215 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 64 YOU’VE HAD SOME -- AFTER YOU’VE HAD TIME TO COMMENT, PERHAPS WE 1 COULD ASK THE APPLICANT WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE. 2 MR. CODRON: SURE. AND THANKS, SHAWNA, FOR COMING ON. I’M 3 SURE YOU’VE BEEN TAKING NOTES WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENTS OF 4 THE COMMISSIONERS. THOSE ARE, CHAIR DANDEKAR, GREAT QUESTIONS 5 AND STAFF IS HAPPY TO PLAY A ROLE HERE IN TERMS OF -- JUST TRYING TO 6 THINK. IT’S 10:00 O’CLOCK RIGHT NOW, SO THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO 7 DECIDE ABOUT WHETHER TO EXTEND THE MEETING OR NOT. 8 ONE THING THAT -- THAT COMMISSION -- IF WE ARE NOT GONNA 9 COME TO A CONCLUSION TO NIGHT AND WE HAVE TONIGHT’S SPECIAL 10 MEETING SET ASIDE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION 11 COULD DO TONIGHT IS RESOLVE ON THOSE SUGGESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO 12 THE ISSUES THAT YOU’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, SO THAT IF THERE’S A 13 MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS -- IF WE HAVE AT LEAST FOUR 14 COMMISSIONERS THAT SUPPORT AN IDEA ABOUT THE BIKE ACCESS TO THE 15 PARK, FOR INSTANCE. OR PHASING OF TRAFFIC, STAFF TOMORROW CAN 16 WORK TO DEVELOP AND COME BACK AND RECOMMEND THE BEST WAY TO 17 IMPLEMENT THOSE IDEAS IN TERMS OF IT MIGHT BE A NEW POLICY IN THE 18 SPECIFIC PLAN. 19 IT MIGHT BE GUIDANCE AND IT RELATES TO WHEN A 20 SUBDIVISION COMES FORWARD THAT A PHASING PLAN WILL BE PROPOSED IN 21 CONSIDERATION OF AREA TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, SO THERE 22 COULD BE A POLICY TO THAT EFFECT. SO THERE’S A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS 23 THAT WE CAN APPROACH THIS BASED ON HOW -- WHERE THERE IS A 24 09216 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 65 MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION THAT WANTS TO SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT 1 THAN WHAT’S PROPOSED OR RECOMMENDED. 2 AND SHAWNA MAY HAVE SOME OF THOSE THOUGHTS RIGHT 3 NOW IN TERMS OF HOW TO APPROACH THOSE THINGS, BUT WE MIGHT ALSO 4 JUST WAIT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO KIND OF RESOLVE WHERE 5 THERE IS MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR THOSE IDEAS AND CHANGES, AND THEN 6 WE CAN COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATION ON HOW TO ACCOMPLISH 7 THAT. 8 AND YOU KNOW, WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT TONIGHT. 9 I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. 10 AND ALSO WE CAN WORK WITH THEM TOMORROW TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT 11 THERE’S SOMETHING -- THERE’S SOME PROPOSALS WE CAN MAKE WHERE 12 EVERYBODY’S IN ALIGNMENT. 13 MS. SCOTT: SURE. THANK YOU, MICHAEL. MAYBE I’LL JUST TOUCH 14 ON A FEW THINGS. I THINK THERE WAS AN OVERARCHING QUESTION ABOUT, 15 YOU KNOW, WHAT’S APPROPRIATE TO LOOK AT IN A SPECIFIC PLAN AS 16 OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT MORE FOCUSED DEVELOPMENT, AND I’LL JUST 17 KIND OF SCROLL THROUGH THE HIGHLIGHTED COMMENTS THAT I’VE SEEN. 18 YOU KNOW, REGARDING HAVING A POLICY, YOU KNOW, 19 IDENTIFYING THAT THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST ONE ACTIVE, YOU KNOW, 20 RECREATION AREA IN THAT THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE A VARIETY OF 21 DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTIVE USES, I THINK, YOU KNOW -- I THINK THAT IS 22 POTENTIALLY AN APPROPRIATE POLICY THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS 23 SPECIFIC PLAN. 24 09217 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 66 AND -- AND REGARDING INCORPORATION OF A POLICY FOR 1 INTERCONNECT NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN PATHS IN VILLAGGIO THAT 2 CONNECT OT PUBLIC TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS, I THINK THAT’S APPROPRIATE 3 AS WELL. WE’VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING 4 TO DO THAT AND THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO A POLICY RELATED TO THAT. 5 YOU KNOW, ONE CLARIFICATION I WANTED TO MAKE. 6 COMMISSIONER WULKAN, YOU IDENTIFIED A POLICY REGARDING BALCONIES 7 PRIVATE DECKS AND PRIVATE SPACE IN THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 8 AREA, AND CURRENTLY IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WOULD APPLY TO ALL 9 OF THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS SO IT’S NOT EXCLUDED TO ANY 10 PARTICULAR AREA. IT’S UNDER THE OVERALL SECTION 4.4 MULTI-FAMILY 11 RESIDENTIAL GUIDELINES. SO I FEEL LIKE THAT – YOU KNOW, THAT 12 COMMENT YOU HAD IS ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THE PLAN. 13 LETS SEE. I THINK LOOKING AT THE CLASS FOUR BIKE PATH, I 14 THINK THAT’S, YOU KNOW -- THAT’S SOMETHING I’D WANT TO HEAR FROM 15 THE APPLICANT A LITTLE BIT MORE. WE HEARD FROM THE CIVIL ENGINEER 16 ALREADY A BIT ABOUT THAT. 17 AND THEN REGARDING CHAIR DANDEKAR’S SUGGESTION ABOUT 18 SOME DESIGN GUIDELINES RELATED TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 19 NEAR THE PARK. AS EMILY MENTIONED, THE EIR INCLUDES THE MITIGATION 20 MEASURE THAT REQUIRES SOME DESIGN GUIDELINES, YOU KNOW, FOR THAT 21 LOCATION RELATIVE TO ALL THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN THE PARK. WE 22 COULD INCORPORATE AND FURTHER ADAPT THAT MITIGATION MEASURE 23 AND INCORPORATE IT INTO THE SPECIFIC PLAN, PERHAPS IDENTIFYING, YOU 24 KNOW, SOME STYLES. 25 09218 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 67 YOU KNOW, I THINK THE INTENT OF THAT MITIGATION WAS TO 1 HAVE, YOU KNOW, A PROFESSIONAL CREATE THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 AND, YOU KNOW, SUBMIT THOSE FOR REVIEW. 3 AND I THINK -- I THINK THAT COVERS IT. IF I MISSED ANYTHING, 4 LET ME KNOW. YOU KNOW, BUT THE OUTLYING ISSUE RELATED TO PROJECT 5 PHASING, WHICH I THINK LUKE ADDRESSED AND IT THINK THE APPLICANT 6 PROVIDING SOME COMMENTS REGARDING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 7 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I THINK I’D LIKE TO – I THINK IF THE 8 COMMISSIONERS ARE AGREEABLE, WE’D LIKE TO HEAR TO HEAR FROM THE 9 APPLICANT ABOUT THEIR REACTIONS. 10 COMMISSIONER KAHN: YEAH, THAT’D BE FINE. 11 COMMISSIONER QUINCEY: GOOD WITH ME. 12 CHAIR DANDEKAR: IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO SAYING 13 THAT --THAT WE SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, SO IT’S A MATTER OF HOW MUCH 14 DETAIL DO WE NEED TO HAMMER OUT TODAY. 15 COMMISSIONER KAHN: IF -- IF -- IF I CAN JUST SPEAK. I’M AGREEING 16 WITH YOU. I’M FOR THIS PROJECT. AND I THINK WE HAVE SOME DETAILS WE 17 WANT TO TALK ABOUT. I WOULD PREFER -- AND I’LL WEIGH WITH THE 18 OTHER COMMISSIONERS AS TO FINISH THE ITEM TONIGHT AND -- AND MOVE 19 ON. 20 I APPRECIATE MICHAEL’S YOU KNOW, CONSIDERATION OF GOING 21 BACK AND WRITING SOME STUFF UP, AND COMING BACK TOMORROW, BUT I 22 DON’T KNOW. I’D PREFER TO FINISH THIS TONIGHT, I THINK. 23 CHAIR DANDEKAR: WELL, I THINK -- 24 COMMISSIONER QUINCEY: THAT’S TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. 25 09219 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 68 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I’M HEARING A LOT OF YESES ON THAT. 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: WE THINK THAT. 2 MR. CODRON: WE’RE HERE TO SUPPORT YOU WORK THROUGH THAT, 3 SO -- 4 COMMISSIONER KAHN: THANK YOU. 5 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I THINK YOU’VE BEEN HEARING WHAT THE 6 GUIDANCE IS AND SO LET’S -- I THINK THERE SEEMS TO BE SUPPORT THERE. 7 IT’S 10:00 O’CLOCK. I THINK I HAVE TO ASK YOUR PERMISSION 8 TO CONTINUE FOR THE I HOPE I HAVE YOUR PERMISSION TO CONTINUE THIS. 9 IT’S NOT A NEW ITEM, SO I THINK WE’RE ALLOWED TO DO SO WITH YOUR 10 AGREEMENT. AND I’D LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN MOVE TO APPROVAL WITH 11 SUGGESTED GUIDELINES THAT STAFF CAN IMPLEMENT WITH -- WITH THE 12 APPLICANT. 13 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: YES. 14 CHAIR DANDEKAR: SO IF WE COULD GET THE APPLICANTS TO 15 RESPOND TO SOME OF THESE SUGGESTIONS OR GUIDELINES. 16 MR. MONTGOMERY: THIS IS VICTOR MONTGOMERY, AND YES, I’D BE 17 HAPPY TO RESPOND. YOU KNOW, I’M GOING TO BE BLUNT ABOUT THE 18 NOTION OF HAVING HALF OF THE PROJECT HELD HOSTAGE FOR THE PRADO 19 ROAD INTERCHANGE BEING PUT IN PLACE. MICHAEL WAS EXACTLY RIGHT. 20 WE DON’T CONTROL THAT. WE CAN’T CONTROL THE TIMING OF IT. WE CAN’T 21 CONTROL THE FINANCING OF IT. WE HAVE A PORTION OF IT THAT WE’RE 22 SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR. IF YOU CAN’T HAVE A PROJECT, YOU CAN’T 23 CONTRIBUTE. 24 09220 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 69 FINANCING ALL OF A PROJECT WHEN YOU HAVE THE THREAT OF 1 ONLY GETTING PART OF IT DONE BEFORE YOU HAVE TO STOP IS GOING TO 2 MAKE IT DIFFICULT, PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE, TO FINANCE THE PROJECT. 3 ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS TO GO IN INITIALLY IN ORDER 4 TO GET ACCESS TO ALL OF THE PARCELS. FINANCING ALL OF THAT 5 INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALL THE OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT’S CAUGHT -6 - THAT’S REQUIRED AS A PART OF THE INITIAL PHASES OF THE PROJECT AND 7 THEN SAYING, “BUT WE’RE NOT SURE YOU GET TO DO THE REST OF IT.” 8 I THINK WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE SOMEBODY SAYS, “WELL, 9 WILL WE LOAN YOU THE MONEY OR NOT?” IT’S GONNA BE COME A VERY -- 10 VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM FOR US, JUST AS IT WAS FOR SAN LUIS RANCH. 11 THEY HAD TO COME BACK AND CHANGE THINGS, BECAUSE THEY RAN INTO 12 THAT EXACT PROBLEM. SO WITH REGARD TO THE FINANCING, I WOULD SAY 13 IN SUMMARY, PLEASE DON’T. I THINK YOU’RE GOING TO MAKE IT 14 IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD IN REALITY. 15 WITH REGARD TO THE NETWORK OF TRAILS WITHIN VILLAGGIO. 16 I’VE ALREADY SAID WE’RE FINE WITH THAT. THAT’S PLANNED ANYWAY. 17 WITH REGARD TO THE COMMENT ABOUT SENSITIVE DESIGN IN 18 THE AREA NEXT TO THE PARK, ABSOLUTELY. WE CAN WORK WITH THE 19 HISTORIC RESOURCES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO IT AND MAKE IT COMPATIBLE 20 DESIGN ARCHITECTURALLY. 21 LET’S SEE. WITH REGARD TO RECREATION AREAS WITHIN THE 22 INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE MADONNA PORTION OF THE PROJECT, I 23 THINK WE CAN ACCOMMODATE RECREATIONAL AMENITIES THAT WOULD BE 24 TYPICAL FOR PROJECTS OF THAT SIZE, WHICH DEPENDING ON HOW THINGS 25 09221 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 70 GO WOULD -- THE REALITY MAY BE SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 1 85 TO 100 UNITS AS OPPOSED TO 178, BUT I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT WORK 2 IN THE PROJECT DESIGN. 3 WITH REGARD TO THE CLASS FOUR BIKE LANE UP TO THE PARK, I 4 GUESS I’M GONNA SAY, I’M HAVING A REALLY TOUGH TIME WITH THAT, 5 PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT’S GOING THROUGH A PRETTY SMALL 6 NEIGHBORHOOD. ONCE YOU GET PAST THE ROUNDABOUT, GIVEN WHAT’S 7 HAPPENED IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE PLAN, WE’RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT 8 SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 80 UNITS, MAYBE 85 UNITS. 9 TO TAKE A STREET AND MAKE IT THE FULL WIDTH OF A 10 REQUIRED PUBLIC STREET THAT WE’VE GOT AND THEN ADD 14 FEET TO THE 11 WIDTH OF IT, I THINK THE IMPRESSION GOING UP THERE IS GOING TO BE A 12 GIANT STREET GOING INTO A SMALL SPACE. 13 AND I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE VISITORS COMING INTO THE 14 PROJECT HAVE A PARALLEL SIDEWALK. IF THERE ARE YOUNG CHILDREN 15 THAT CAN’T MAKE THE GRADE, THEY COULD GO ON THE SIDEWALK, BUT I 16 JUST – I’M -- I’M RELUCTANT TO SEE FOUR FEET -- 14 FEET MORE PAVING ON 17 THE STREET, JUST AESTHETICALLY. 18 LET’S SEE WHAT ELSE? I THINK THOSE ARE ABOUT THAT’S 19 ABOUT IT UNLESS I HAVEN’T ADDRESSED SOMEBODY ELSE’S COMMENTS. 20 COMMISSIONER KAHN: I HAVE A QUESTION. ON MR. MONTGOMERY, 21 SO HOW WIDE IS THAT ROAD THAT GOES UP TO THE PARK? YOU MENTIONED 22 TWO 12-FOOT LANES WITH NO PARKING? 23 MR. MONTGOMERY: I’M GONNA ASK TIM WALTERS TO RESPOND TO 24 THAT. HE’S -- HE’S THE ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT. 25 09222 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 71 COMMISSIONER KAHN: RIGHT. THANK YOU. 1 MR. WALTERS: CORRECT. THAT’S TWO 12-FOOT LANES, TWO-FOOT 2 SHOULDERS. IT’S VERY – IT’S A VERY LOCAL ROAD SECTION, NO PARKING, 3 MEANT TO BE NARROW AND -- AND SERVE A SMALL RESIDENTIAL 4 NEIGHBORHOOD. 5 COMMISSIONER KAHN: OAKY. THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT. I DID LIKE 6 THE IDEA OF -- OF GETTING BIKE FACILITIES UP TO THAT PARK, BECAUSE I’M 7 THINKING OF A MOUNTAIN BIKER THAT WANTS TO RIDE UP THAT ROAD AND 8 THEN GO ON AND -- AND RIDE ON THE IRISH HILLS. BUT A ROAD LIKE THAT I 9 THINK THE PERSON THAT’S GONNA GO RIDING IN THE IRISH HILLS IS GONNA 10 BE A FAIRLY STRONG RIDER AND GOING FROM THE ROUNDABOUT TO THE 11 PARK AREA IS NOT THAT LONG OF A DISTANCE TO JUST RIDING IN THE ROAD. 12 I DON’T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. 13 THAT’S ALL. THANK YOU, TIM. 14 CHAIR DANDEKAR: COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN, DID YOU HAVE 15 YOUR HAND UP? 16 YOU KNOW -- WELL, I THINK WE -- WE MAYBE WE SHOULD NOT 17 JUST DISCOVER – DISCUSS COMPONENTS OF THIS. 18 I THINK WE’VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT. I’D LIKE TO BRING 19 THIS BACK INTO (INAUDIBLE), AND I’D LIKE THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE 20 WHAT YOU’D LIKE TO DO NEXT, HOW YOU’D LIKE TO PROCEED. 21 MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, I THINK WE’VE GOT VERY 22 POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM -- FROM THE APPLICANT ON PRACTICALLY ALL 23 THE ELEMENTS WE RAISED, EXCEPT FOR THE BIKE WAY, AND I’D LIKE TO 24 KNOW -- I MEAN, I THINK WE’VE HEARD FROM THE COMMISSIONER 25 09223 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 72 SHORESMAN AND COMMISSIONER KAHN. I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER THIS 1 IS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT FROM OTHER -- WHAT THE OTHER 2 COMMISSIONERS THINK ABOUT IT, HOW MUCH -- HOW COMMITTED ARE THEY 3 TO THE IDEA? 4 BECAUSE I THINK THE OTHER -- THE OTHER ELEMENTS, TO MY 5 MIND, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO PUT THEM --6 TO VERBALIZE THEM, SO THAT STAFF HAS APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE TO WORK 7 OUT WITH THE CLIENT. 8 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: ARE YOU -- WHO ARE YOU ASKING 9 CHAIR DANDEKAR? ME OR IN GENERAL. 10 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I WAS ASKING IN GENERAL HOW STRONGLY 11 PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT THE -- THE BIKE WAY ISSUE, BECAUSE EVERYTHING 12 ELSE, I THINK, HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT? 13 OR – I’M JUST GOING TO OPEN THIS UP FOR DELIBERATION AND 14 SEE WHAT WE DO NEXT, HOW TO MOVE FORWARD EXPEDITIOUSLY. 15 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: THIS IS COMMISSIONER WULKAN. 16 CHAIR DANDEKAR: YEAH. 17 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: I -- HOW ABOUT IF I START THINGS OFF BY 18 JUST PUTTING A MOTION ON THE ON THE FLOOR? 19 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL I THINK 20 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: THEN WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION. 21 SO I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION 22 ADOPT THE -- THE RESOLUTION THAT CERTIFIES THE FINAL EIR; ADOPTS THE 23 CEQA FINDINGS, THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, THE 24 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN, FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC 25 09224 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 73 PLAN BASED ON THE FINDINGS; APPROVE THE RELATED PROJECT 1 ENTITLEMENTS, WHICH IS THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THE VESTING 2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, THE PRE-ZONING, AND THE INITIATION OF 3 ANNEXATION; AND THAT WE REVISE THE SPECIFIC PLAN AS FOLLOWS: THAT 4 THE SPECIFIC PLAN BE REVISED TO INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE AREA FOR 5 ACTIVE RECREATION IN THE MADONNA-FROOM RANCH PORTION OF THE 6 PROJECT, THAT THE VILLAGGIO PORTION OF THE PROJECT INCLUDE AN 7 INTERCONNECTED NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN PATHS THAT CONNECTS TO THE 8 FROOM RANCH TRAILS, AND THAT THE DESIGN ABOVE THE 150-FOOT 9 ELEVATION BE SENSITIVE TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES IN THAT AREA, AND 10 ALSO ALL THE OTHER CHANGES THAT WERE OUTLINED BY STAFF IN THE 11 STAFF PRESENTATION. SO THAT’S -- THAT’S MY MOTION. 12 COMMISSIONER KAHN: AND I’LL SECOND THAT MOTION. 13 CHAIR DANDEKAR: COMMISSIONER KAHN SECONDS THAT MOTION. 14 COMMISSIONER KAHN: YEAH. 15 CHAIR DANDEKAR: SO THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. 16 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: I WOULD OFFER POSSIBLY A FRIENDLY 17 AMENDMENT, I GUESS IS THE RIGHT TERM, FOR THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE 18 BUILDINGS ABOVE THE 150-LINE. I APPRECIATE WHAT COMMISSIONER 19 WULKAN SAID ABOUT THEM BEING IN THE -- THE SIMILAR DESIGN TO THE – 20 TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE PARK THAT ARE ABOVE THAT ELEVATION. 21 BUT PERHAPS THERE BE SOME SENSITIVITY TO THE HEIGHT OF 22 THOSE BUILDINGS, TOO, IS THAT’S WHAT I HEARD WAS ONE OF THE MAIN 23 CONCERNS VOICED BY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WAS NOT ONLY THE 24 09225 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 74 CHARACTER OF THOSE BUILDINGS ABOVE THE 150-FOOT MARK, BUT ALSO 1 THE -- THE HEIGHT AS WELL. 2 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER WULKAN. I -- 3 I’M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHT, SO I’M -- I’M FINE WITH THE 4 PROJECT OBSERVING THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH IS 35 5 FEET FOR THAT -- FOR THOSE THREE BUILDINGS. 6 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: WELL, WE -- WE DID HEAR FROM STAFF 7 THAT THERE ARE NO MITIGATIONS THAT GO BEYOND OUR OWN COMMUNITY 8 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO ENSURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 9 THE LINE IS -- IS RESPONSIVE TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT WILL BE 10 THERE. 11 YOU KNOW, I’M NOT SURE WE CAN SAY MUCH MORE THAT GIVES 12 THE CITY COUNCIL ANYTHING USEFUL EITHER AT THIS POINT. SO I GUESS I’M 13 NOT SURE THAT IT’S CRITICAL TO INCLUDE IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN ABOUT THE 14 HEIGHT ABOVE THE 150-FOOT LINE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT I WAS ONE OF 15 THE ONES THAT RAISED IT. 16 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THE SENSITIVE LINE PERHAPS WE COULD USE THE 17 TERMINOLOGY OF FARMHOUSE VERNACULAR. 18 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: GOOD TERM. 19 CHAIR DANDEKAR: IT’S DIFFICULT TO DO VERY HIGH STRUCTURES IN 20 FARMHOUSE VERNACULAR, I MEAN, YOU KNOW. 21 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: THIS IS COMMISSIONER WULKAN. I DON’T 22 HAVE A PROBLEM INCLUDING THAT IN THE -- IN THE MOTION. 23 CHAIR DANDEKAR: THANK YOU. 24 09226 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 75 COMMISSIONER KAHN: AND I DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM EITHER, THE 1 SECOND, STEVE KAHN. 2 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: OKAY. 3 CHAIR DANDEKAR: ANY OTHER POINTS THAT COMMISSIONERS 4 WOULD LIKE TO -- 5 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: I’LL JUST -- ABOUT THE BIKEWAY IF -- 6 IF I AM IN THE MINORITY IN THIS, THEN SO BE IT. 7 BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT I KNOW THAT MY 8 ORIGINAL QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSAL OF A CLASS FOUR 9 BIKE PATH ALL THE WAY UP TO THE PARK. THAT IS SORT OF THE GOLD 10 STANDARD. I ADMIT AND UNDERSTAND, AND MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE 11 FOR THAT SMALL OF A STREET. 12 BUT MY SECOND RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE A -- HOW 13 SHOULD I SAY THIS -- A -- AN OFF-STREET -- A LEGAL OFF-STREET METHOD OF 14 PEOPLE RIDING THE REST OFF THE PARK -- TO THE PARK. 15 I KNOW IT’S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT SMALL CHILDREN OR 16 FAMILIES COULD JUST JUMP UP ON THE SIDEWALK. THAT TECHNICALLY IS 17 NOT LEGAL. AND I DON’T KNOW THAT IT’S A GOOD IDEA TO TEACH 18 CHILDREN TO BREAK TRAFFIC LAWS. 19 BUT I WOULD PROPOSE THAT STAFF COULD COME UP WITH SOME 20 AGREEABLE SOLUTION THAT DOESN’T TAKE QUITE SO MUCH SPACE AND 21 INHIBIT THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY. BUT STILL PROVIDE 22 A SAFER ROUTE UP TO THE PARK. 23 COMMISSIONER KAHN: COULD I ADD TO SHORESMAN’S COMMENT? 24 CHAIR DANDEKAR: GO AHEAD. 25 09227 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 76 COMMISSIONER KAHN: CHAIR, THANK YOU. ON PAGE 5-7 OF THE 1 SPECIFIC PLAN, IT SHOWS DETAIL OF LOCAL ROAD A. IT’S A 44-FOOT WIDE 2 RIGHT OF WAY. IT HAS FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK, A FIVE-FOOT PARKWAY, 3 WHERE I BELIEVE YOU PLANT IN, AND THEN A 24-FOOT WIDE ROAD, AND 4 THEN THE SAME THING ON THE OTHER SIDE, A FIVE-FOOT PARKWAY AND A 5 FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK. 6 SO I KNOW STAFF MIGHT NOT WANT US, YOU KNOW, MEDDLING 7 WITH THIS DESIGN, BUT IF YOU GOT RID OF THE PARKWAYS, YOU COULD FIT 8 SOME SORT OF BIKEWAY IN THERE AND YOU WOULDN’T BE MOVING INTO 9 THE DEVELOPABLE PART OF THE PROJECT, SO YOU’D BE CHANGING A 10 SECTION OF THE ROADWAY TO PUT A BIKE LANE OR SOMETHING IN THERE. 11 BUT THEN I THINK THESE PARKWAYS ARE FAIRLY ATTRACTIVE, AND THEY 12 WOULD LINE THE STREET WITH TREES AND BUSHES AND SUCH, WHICH 13 WOULD BE NICE, SO I DON’T KNOW. 14 BUT YOU COULD DO SOMETHING WITH THE CROSS SECTION A 15 AND CHANGE IT SO IT’S MORE BIKE FRIENDLY. 16 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I THINK LUKE IS TRYING TO GET IN TO TALK. 17 COMMISSIONER KAHN: OKAY. 18 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I’D LIKE TO HEAR FROM LUKE. 19 COMMISSIONER KAHN: YES. 20 MR. SCHWARTZ: THANKS. I DON’T – DIDN’T MEAN TO INTERRUPT. 21 BUT I HAVE A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS I THINK MIGHT WORTH CONSIDERING 22 THAT PROVIDE SOMEWHAT OF A COMPROMISE, BUT ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS 23 THAT COUNCILMEMBER SHORESMAN JUST MENTIONED. 24 09228 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 77 THE -- AS YOU MENTIONED, THE CURB TO CURB WIDTH RIGHT 1 NOW IS 24 FEET. AND I WON’T SPEAK FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT IF THERE’S A 2 FEASIBILITY TO GET JUST ANOTHER FOOT IN THERE, WE WOULD HAVE 3 ENOUGH WIDTH TO STRIPE IT EITHER ONE OF TWO OPTIONS: ONE, IT COULD 4 BE AN UPHILL, MINIMUM FIVE FOOT BIKE LANE, AT LEAST THE KIND THAT 5 GRADE TO GET A DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE CYCLISTS TO GET UP 6 TOWARD THE TRAILHEAD PARK. 7 THE OTHER OPTION IS THERE’S A TYPE OF BIKEWAY THAT WE’VE 8 BEEN PLANNING FOR AS PART OF OUR MORE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 9 UPDATE THAT’S CALLED AN ADVISORY BIKE LANES. IT’S ESSENTIALLY A 10 FACILITY WHERE YOU HAVE STRIPED BIKE LANES, BUT A NARROW CENTER 11 OF TRAVELING THAT’S KIND OF A YIELD LANE WHERE VEHICLES SHARE IT, 12 ARE ABLE TO YIELD TO EACH OTHER. 13 IT’S USED OFTEN IN THE NETHERLANDS. IT’S USED 14 THROUGHOUT THE US NOW. IT’S A NEW KIND OF TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX 15 THAT HAS SOME TRAFFIC CALMING BENEFIT, IN THAT IT NARROWS THE 16 STREET WIDTH, BUT IT PROVIDES A DEDICATED BIKEWAY ON EACH SIDE OF 17 THE STREET ON A NARROW STREET LIKE THIS WHERE YOU HAVE THE 18 BENEFIT OF HAVING YOUR OWN LANE. YOU CAN CLIMB THE GRADE AT YOUR 19 OWN SPEED, BUT IT ALLOWS DRIVERS TO GET AROUND YOU AND HELPS 20 SLOW THOSE SPEEDS TOO. 21 EITHER OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS COULD POTENTIALLY BE 22 DOABLE WITHIN A CROSS-SECTION THAT WAS ONE FOOT WIDER THAN IS 23 CURRENTLY PROPOSED. SO THOSE ARE JUST TWO SUGGESTIONS THAT I’VE 24 09229 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 78 BEEN KIND OF PLAYING AROUND WITH DURING THE DISCUSSION. I’M OPEN 1 FOR OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONSIDERATION. 2 COMMISSIONER KAHN: SO IF I COULD COMMENT ON THAT. NOT TO 3 TRY TO DESIGN THIS TONIGHT, SO MAYBE WE ADD TO THE MOTION THAT 4 SAYS STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON PROVIDING BIKE 5 FACILITIES ON THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE PARK AND BRING IT WHEN IT IS 6 BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, BRING TO CITY COUNCIL THE OPTIONS. 7 CHAIR DANDEKAR: I -- COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN, ARE YOU AGREE 8 -- 9 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: I’M AGREEABLE TO SOMETHING LIKE – 10 YES, I’M AGREEABLE TO SOME SOLUTION OR SOME SUGGESTED LANGUAGE 11 LIKE THAT. I’M CONFIDENT THAT STAFF CAN COME UP WITH -- THAT STAFF 12 AND THE APPLICANT CAN COME UP WITH -- WITH A GREAT PROPOSAL 13 COMMISSIONER KAHN: AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL WILL KNOW 14 OUR – YOU KNOW, WANTING OF PROVIDING BIKE IN HERE AND THEY CAN 15 TAKE IT FROM THERE. 16 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: THIS IS COMMISSIONER WULKAN. I THINK 17 THAT’S A GOOD IDEA AND I LIKE THE SUGGESTIONS BY STAFF. I WAS 18 WONDERING IF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE AMENABLE TO ONE 19 OPTION BEING BIKE A BIKE WAY ON ONE SIDE? OR TWO SIDES? 20 COMMISSIONER KAHN: I THINK A ONE SIDED IDEA IS BETTER FOR 21 THAT ROAD ‘CAUSE I HEAR I HEAR WHAT LUKE IS SAYING, BUT THERE’S 22 GONNA BE A LOT THERE’S GONNA BE A FAIR AMOUNT OF CARS GOING UP 23 THERE, GOING UP TO THE PARK AND TO THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND I 24 THINK THERE’D BE A LOT GOING ON THAT STREET WITH THE -- WITH THE 25 09230 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 79 BIKE LANES ON BOTH SIDES, AND CARS TRYING TO SHARE THE LANE, SO I 1 WOULD PREFER IF WE ONLY PUT ONE LANE IN THERE AND HAD TWO LANES 2 OF TRAFFIC, I’D PREFER ONE SIDE. 3 BUT AGAIN I DON’T WANT TO -- YOU KNOW, I WANT STAFF TO DO 4 THEIR THING WITH THE APPLICANT AND COME UP WITH WHAT THEY THINK 5 PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS IS WHAT I WAS THINKING OF. 6 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: YEAH. WELL, THE UPHILL SIDE -- 7 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: I’D LIKE TO DEFER TO STAFF. 8 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: I THINK WE SHOULD DEFER TO STAFF, TOO. 9 THE OTHER REALITY HERE IS THAT -- FROM THE PHASING THAT’S IN THE 10 PLAN SO FAR, THE PARK IS ACTUALLY THE LAST ELEMENT OF THIS WHOLE 11 PLAN. 12 COMMISSIONER KAHN: YEAH. 13 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: AND IT COULD BE SIX TO TEN YEARS OFF 14 DEPENDING ON HOW EVERYTHING PLAYS OUT. WHETHER -- SINCE THE ROAD 15 WOULD GO UP AT LEAST TO THE HOUSING, IT’S LIKELY THAT PEOPLE WILL 16 GET A CHANCE TO TRY BIKING AND EVEN IF IT’S FENCED OFF, I’D IMAGINE 17 THERE’LL BE SOME WAY TO GET TO THE TRAILS THAT ARE ALREADY UP 18 THERE, SO WE’LL HAVE SOME LIVED EXPERIENCE, I GUESS. AND IT’LL BE A 19 LOT OF WAYS THIS COULD BE SOLVED AT SOME POINT. I HOPE. 20 CHAIR DANDEKAR: AND I THINK THE NATURE OF THE -- IF I MAY, THE 21 NATURE OF THIS -- THIS PARK IS IT’S CELEBRATING AGRARIAN RURAL -- THE 22 AGRARIAN RURAL PAST, WHICH IS SMALL STREET, DIRT ROADS, YOU KNOW, 23 TREE LINED, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS SO IF WE TRIED TO GET TOO POTTAGED 24 09231 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 80 (SIC) ABOUT IT, IT’S SORT OF DIS -- DILUTES THE KIND OF PLACE THAT IS 1 ATTEMPTED TO BE CREATED AT THE -- AT THE HEAD THERE. 2 SO I WOULD PREFER I THINK THE -- THE -- APPLICANT HAS BEEN 3 EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE TO DESIGN, AND I SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT WE 4 MODIFY THE LANGUAGE TO HAVE THEM WORK OUT SOMETHING TO TAKE TO 5 COUNCIL. 6 WOULD THAT BE AGREEABLE CHAIR WULKAN -- I MEAN, 7 COMMISSIONER WULKAN, SINCE YOU MADE -- 8 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: YES – YES. SO I WOULD ADD TO MY 9 MOTION THAT STAFF PRESENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS FOR BIKE 10 WAYS ON ONE OR BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET LEADING UP TO THE PARK. 11 COMMISSIONER KAHN: AND I – THE SECOND AGREES WITH THAT. 12 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: OKAY. AS SUGGESTED BY MR. SCHWARTZ. 13 CHAIR DANDEKAR: OKAY. GOOD. SO I -- IF WE HAVE NO FURTHER 14 DISCUSSION ARE WE READY TO CALL – CALL THE ROLL? 15 IS STAFF CLEAR ON THE DIRECTION SO THAT THEY CAN WORK 16 WITH THE LANGUAGE WE’VE GIVEN THEM SO FAR? 17 MS. SCOTT: YES, ABSOLUTELY. YOU’RE -- YOUR MOTIONS HAVE BEEN 18 – YOUR DIRECTIONS ARE VERY CLEAR. 19 CHAIR DANDEKAR: OKAY. SO I DON’T SEE ANY HANDS, SO LET’S -- 20 WILL THE DEPUTY CITY CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL OF THE MOTION? 21 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: COMMISSIONER WULKAN? 22 COMMISSIONER WULKAN: YES. 23 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: COMMISSIONER KAHN? 24 COMMISSIONER KAHN: YES. 25 09232 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 81 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: COMMISSIONER QUINCEY? 1 COMMISSIONER QUINCEY: YES. 2 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN? 3 COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN: YES. 4 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: VICE-CHAIR JORGENSEN? 5 VICE-CHAIR JORGENSON: YES. 6 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: CHAIR DANDEKAR? 7 CHAIR DANDEKAR: YES. 8 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUS. 9 CHAIR DANDEKAR: GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYBODY. 10 THAT WE HAVE A GOOD PROJECT HERE. I’M VERY PLEASED WITH THE WAY 11 IT’S – IT’S COME OUT. 12 (END OF RECORDED MATERIAL.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 09233 09234