Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBates 09235-09307 December 11, 2019 SLO PC Pt 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 10 DECEMBER 11, 2019 PART 1 11 AGENDA ITEM 2. PROJECT ADDRESS: 12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS 12 VALLEY ROAD; CASE# SPEC 0143-2017/GENP 0737-2019/SBDV 0955-2017/EID 13 0738-2019; GENERAL PLAN (LAND USE ELEMENT) DESIGNATED: SPECIFIC 14 PLAN AREA SP-3 (MADONNA ON LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN): 15 JM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. APPLICANT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ADAMSKI, MOROSKI, MADDEN, CUMBERLAND & GREEN 24 6633 BAY LAUREL PLACE 25 AVILA BEACH CA 93424 26 PHONE (805) 543-0990 27 FAX (805) 543-0980 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 DATE OF TRANSCRIPT: JANUARY 6, 2021 41 TRANSCRIBER: MEGAN BOCHUM 42 MCDANIEL REPORTING 43 1302 OSOS STREET 44 SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 45 PHONE (805) 544-3363 46 FAX (805) 544-7427 47 48 49 09235 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 2 1 2 APPEARANCES 3 4 MR. MIKE WULKAN, CHAIR 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION 6 7 MR. JOHN MCKENZIE, COMMISSIONER 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION 9 10 MR. CHARLES STEVENSON, COMMISSIONER 11 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSIONER 12 13 MS. SHAWNA SCOTT, PROJECT LIAISON 14 SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 15 16 MS. EMILY CREEL, PLANNER 17 SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 18 19 MS. ERICA LEACHMAN, CONTRACT PLANNER 20 WOOD ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS 21 22 MR. VIC MONTGOMERY, PROJECT MANAGER 23 RRM DESIGN GROUP 24 25 MR. DAVID RICHARDS, RESIDENT 26 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 28 MR. GARY HAVIS, RESIDENT 29 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 31 MR. JONATHAN LINDENTHALER, RESIDENT 32 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 34 MS. JUDIE REINER, RESIDENT 35 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 37 MR. DAVID CHIPPING, RESIDENT 38 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 40 MR. BRIAN ACKERMAN, RESIDENT 41 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42 43 MS. JULIE HOWARD, RESIDENTIAL COUNSELOR 44 VILLAGGIO COMMUNITIES 45 46 47 48 09236 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 3 1 2 APPEARANCES (CONT’D) 3 4 MR. NEIL HAVLIK, MEMBER 5 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY 6 7 MS. SHERRY EISENLEN, RESIDENT 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 10 MR. WILLIAM WAYCOTT, PRESIDENT 11 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY 12 13 MS. LISA SCHOTT, BOARD PRESIDENT 14 LOS VERDES HOMES 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 09237 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 4 CHAIR WULKAN: OUR FIRST ITEM, IS – IT’S ACTUALLY ITEM NUMBER 1 TWO. THAT’S A REVIEW OF THE FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DURING THE 45-DAY PUBLIC REVIEW 3 PERIOD, AND THIS IS FOR THE PROJECT AT 12165-12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY 4 ROAD. IT INCLUDES A LAND USE ELEMENT. OH, LET’S SEE. PROPOSED PRE-5 ZONING SPECIFIC PLAN AND I’LL LET STAFF DE – READ THE REST OF THE 6 DETAILS AND I’LL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF NOW FOR STAFF PRESENTATION. 7 MS. SCOTT: THANK YOU, CHAIR WOKEN AND COMMISSIONERS HERE 8 TONIGHT. I GUESS THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING ON THE DRAFT EIR FOR THE 9 FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN. 10 I AM SHAWNA SCOTT, THE PROJECT LIAISON WITH THE CITY AND 11 THEN WE HAVE OUR TEAM HERE AS WELL. EMILY CREEL WITH SWCA 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. SHE’S OUR CONTRACT PROJECT MANAGER. 13 AND WE ALSO HAVE TWO CONSULTANTS FROM OUR EIR CONSULTANT TEAM, 14 ERICA AND TAYLOR, HERE TO PRESENT ON THE EIR. AND WE ALSO HAVE THE 15 APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE WITH HIS REPRESENTATIVE, RRM DESIGN 16 GROUP. 17 ALSO WITH US TONIGHT IN THE AUDIENCE IS LUKE SCHWARTZ 18 OUR TRANSPORTATION MANAGER WHO CAN RESPOND TO ANY DETAILED 19 QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY AND 20 MITIGATION MEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS. 21 SO I’LL GO AHEAD AND TURN THIS OVER TO EMILY. 22 MS. CREEL: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON 23 THE WEST SIDE OF LOVR, BETWEEN THE IRISH HILLS PLAZA AND THE HOTELS 24 ALONG CALLE JOAQUIN. THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA IS COMPRISED OF TWO 25 09238 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 5 PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 110 ACRES. 1 THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SPECIFIC PLAN, A GENERAL PLAN 2 AMENDMENT, AND RELATED ACTIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR 3 DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. IT IS 4 PRIMARILY A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND THE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE 5 PROPOSED IN TWO MAIN COMPONENTS. 6 THE AREA SHOWN IN ORANGE IS A DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS 7 VILLAGGIO, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE A VARIETY OF SENIOR LIVING UNITS. 8 UP TO 404 UNITS ARE PROPOSED WITHIN THIS AREA. 9 THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES UP TO 174 MEDIUM-HIGH AND HIGH 10 DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND THE PORTION SHOWN IN BLUE, IT’S THE 11 SIDE OF THE PROJECT THAT WE’RE REFERRING TO AS MADONNA-FROOM 12 RANCH. 13 OTHER USES PROPOSED WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 14 INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL, 15 HERE IN THE NORTH EAST CORNER ADJACENT TO THE IRISH HILLS PLAZA; A 16 2.9 ACRE PUBLIC PARK, WHICH WOULD INCORPORATE FOUR RELOCATED AND 17 REHABILITATED HISTORIC STRUCTURES WITHIN THE FROOM RANCH DAIRY 18 COMPLEX, AND WHICH WOULD PROVIDE CONNECTION TO THE ADJACENT 19 IRISH HILLS OPEN SPACE AREA. APPROXIMATELY 54 PERCENT OF THE 20 SPECIFIC ARE WOULD BE PRESERVED AS OPEN SPACE. AND NOTABLE OFFSITE 21 IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A STORMWATER BASIN ON THE ADJACENT 22 MOUNTAINBROOK CHURCH PARCEL AND A NEW SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 23 AT LOVR AND AUTO PARKWAY. 24 SO A VERY KEY COMPONENT TO THIS PROJECT IS THE PROPOSED 25 09239 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WHICH SEEKS TO REVISE LAND USE ELEMENT 1 POLICY 6.4.7, WHICH STATES, “THE IRISH HILLS AREA SHOULD SECURE 2 PERMANENT OPEN SPACE WITH NO BUILDING SITES ABOVE THE 150-FOOT 3 ELEVATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT OF 4 THE LOWER AREAS.” 5 SO AS PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL’S INITIATION OF THIS 6 PROJECT, THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIRED THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP WHAT 7 WE’RE REFERRING TO AS AN ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE, A FEASIBLE 8 ALTERNATIVE THAT LOCATES ALL DEVELOPMENT BELOW THE 150-FOOT 9 ELEVATION. 10 SO THIS IS THE ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE IN THE EIR. IT IS 11 ALTERNATIVE ONE. THIS IS THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN. IT – I THINK IT’S 12 IMPORTANT TO NOTE YOU KNOW, THE ORANGE DOTTED LINE IS THE 150-FOOT 13 ELEVATION, SO YOU CAN SEE IN THE VILLAGGIO SIDE OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN 14 AREA IN WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE UPPER TERRACE, ALL OF THAT 15 DEVELOPMENT HAS BASICALLY BEEN PICKED UP AND PLACED ON TOP OF 16 THE DEVELOPMENT AT THE LOWER PORTION OF THE SITE. SO THE LOWER 17 PORTION DENSITY’S GETTING HIGHER, BUILDINGS ARE GETTING TALLER, BUT 18 THE NUMBER OF UNITS REMAINS THE SAME WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN 19 AREA. 20 THIS ALTERNATIVE WAS DEVELOPED IN VERY LARGE PART 21 BASED ON PLANS PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT. ONE NOTABLE DIFFERENCE 22 THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT WAS MADE THROUGH PREPARATION OF THE 23 DRAFT EIR, BECAUSE IT DID SERVE TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE A HANDFUL OF 24 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, WHICH YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT 25 09240 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 7 LATER IN THE PRESENTATION. 1 BUT THAT CHANGE WAS ON THE MADONNA-FROOM RANCH SIDE 2 OF THE SPECIFIC SIDE AREA, THE NORTH PORTION. THE APPLICANT’S PLAN 3 ORIGINALLY INCLUDED THE SAME DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PORTION OF THE 4 SITE, SO IF WE GO BACK, YOU CAN SEE IT’S MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS 5 PROPOSED ABOVE 150-FEET IN THAT LOCATION. 6 WHAT WE DID WAS WE – WE BASICALLY SWAPPED THAT MULTI-7 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE WITH THE PROPOSED PUBLIC PARK, SO IN THE 8 ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE, ALTERNATIVE ONE, ALL USES ABOVE 150 FEET 9 ON THAT PORTION OF THE SITE WOULD BE LIMITED TO THAT PUBLIC PARK. 10 AND THIS SLIDE IS TO SHOW YOU WHY WE CHOSE TO ALLOW 11 SOME LIMITED DEVELOPMENT IN THE MADONNA-FROOM RANCH PORTION OF 12 THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. AS YOU CAN TELL, THE PORTION ON THE LEFT 13 HERE IS THAT UPPER TERRACE SIDE OF VILLAGGIO. 14 THIS – THIS MAP SHOWS THE EXISTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 15 THE – THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS WHERE THE PROPOSED 16 PARK IS – IS LOCATED UNDER THE ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE, AS YOU CAN 17 SEE DENOTED BY THE GRAY AREA, IS ALMOST ENTIRELY DISTURBED. IT 18 CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF AN ACTIVE PERMITTED QUARRY, SO WE’RE 19 REFERRING ACTUALLY TO THAT AREA AS THE QUARRY AREA. 20 SO BECAUSE OF THE – THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE 21 EXISTING CONDITION OF THE SITE, THE ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE, YOU 22 KNOW, LOCATED THE PARK ABOVE 150 FEET AT THAT LOCATION. 23 AND AGAIN, HERE, JUST TO COMPARE, THE LEFT SIDE OF THE 24 SCREEN IS THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN IS THE 25 09241 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 8 ALTERNATIVE ONE. AND THE BIG DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT THE UPPER 1 PORTION OF VILLAGGIO HAS BEEN PLACED BELOW 150 FEET, AND THE PUBLIC 2 PARK HAS BEEN MOVED ABOVE 150 FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE – THE 3 PROJECT SITE. 4 SO THE CITY COUNCIL, JUST FOR A QUICK RECAP, AUTHORIZED 5 INITIATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN BACK IN APRIL OF 2016. CONCEPTUAL 6 REVIEWS BY THE PRC AND THE CHC WERE TAKEN IN THE FALL OF 2016. THE 7 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN EIR WENT OUT IN JULY OF 2017. WE ALSO 8 DID A PRELIMINARY REVIEW AT ARC IN DECEMBER OF 2017. 9 OVER TWO YEARS PASSED FROM RELEASE OF THE NOP TO RELEASE OF 10 THE DRAFT EIR, AND I THINK YOU’LL – YOU’LL UNDERSTAND WHY WHEN WE 11 GET THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION. IT’S BECAUSE OF ALL THE COMPLEX 12 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT AND THE SITE. 13 WE’VE HELD ALSO FOUR NOW MULTI-AGENCY MEETINGS 14 DATING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2015, AND OUR FOURTH ONE WAS EARLIER 15 THIS WEEK. THOSE HAVE INCLUDED ARMY CORPS, US FISH AND WILDLIFE 16 SERVICE, CDFW, REGIONAL BOARD, AND NOAA FISHERIES, WHO ARE ALL 17 RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES FOR THIS PROJECT, TO PROVIDE THEM UPDATES AND 18 REQUEST FEEDBACK. SO THEIR COMMENTS ARE BEING INCORPORATED INTO 19 THE DRAFT EIR AND WILL CONTINUE BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL 20 EIR. 21 AND THEN LASTLY, THE END OF THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD ON 22 THE DRAFT EIR IS DECEMBER 23RD, AND AFTER THAT TIME, WE WILL WORK 23 WITH OUR EIR CONSULTANTS TO PREPARE A FINAL EIR. AND THAT FINAL EIR 24 AND A REVISED FINAL SPECIFIC PLAN WILL THEN COME BACK TO THE 25 09242 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 9 ADVISORY BODIES AND CITY DECISIONMAKERS. 1 AND WITH THAT, I’LL HAND IT OFF TO ERICA. 2 MS. LEACHMAN: ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. 3 THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE TONIGHT. THIS IS MOMENTOUS 4 FOR AN EIR CONSULTANT TO GET TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT EIR 5 AND AFTER THE WORK THAT’S GONE INTO THIS PROJECT, I’M VERY HAPPY 6 AND PLEASED TO BE HERE TONIGHT. 7 I’M ERICA. I’M HERE WITH TAYLOR REPRESENTING THE EIR 8 TEAM. THE REST OF THE TEAM IS NOT HERE TONIGHT, BUT THE PRODUCT OF 9 OUR WORK INVOLVES SEVERAL PEOPLE, SO I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE 10 THAT. 11 TONIGHT WHAT WE WANTED TO IS TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF 12 THE DOCUMENT AND THE – THE FINDINGS AND THE KIND OF THE KEY 13 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE PROJECT. THE DOCUMENT IS EXTENSIVE AND SO 14 DOING A PRESENTATION ON THIS EIR, OUR INTENT IS TO BE BRIEF AND 15 FOCUSED, SO IN THIS PRESENTATION, WE WANT TO FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION 16 ON SOME OF THE KEY TAKEAWAYS. I’LL BE MOVING FAIRLY QUICKLY AND 17 WON’T BE EXHAUSTIVE WITH EVERYTHING THAT’S IN THE EIR, BUT WANT TO 18 BE SURE THAT WE MOVE THOROUGH AND ADDRESS EACH TOPIC, FROM A TO 19 Z. 20 BEFORE WE – WE DIG INTO THE EIR AND ITS – ITS KEY FINDINGS, 21 WE WANT TO SET BACK FOR THE METHODOLOGY OF TH EIR A LITTLE BIT. 22 BASED ON EMILY’S DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT, WE WERE LOOKING AT A 23 LARGE SITE AND WE – THAT’S CURRENTLY NOT IN THE CITY. IT’S A SITE 24 THAT IS IN THE COUNTY, AND AS PART OF THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED FOR 25 09243 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 10 ANNEXATION. 1 SO OUR METHODOLOGY CONSIDERED A RANGE OF THOSE 2 EXISTING FEATURES AND THE LOCATION OF THE – OF THE SITE IN CONTEXT 3 OF THE CITY IN TERMS OF METHODOLOGY. WE BASED OUR ANALYSIS, OF 4 COURSE, ON CEQA, APPENDIX G, WHICH IS OUR – OUR STATE CEQA 5 GUIDELINES THRESHOLDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND ALSO 6 THE SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS WITH LOCAL THRESHOLDS AS APPROPRIATE, 7 FOR EXAMPLE, USING LOCAL NOISE STANDARDS AND SLO APCD AIR 8 EMISSION STANDARDS. YOU’LL SEE THAT REFLECTED IN EACH SECTION OF 9 THE EIR DESCRIBING WHAT METHODOLOGY WHAT APPLICABLE TO THE 10 RESOURCE. 11 THE EIR ANALYZES IMPACTS AND PROVIDES A SUITE OF 12 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL 13 IMPACTS FROM THE PROJECT AS WELL AS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE 14 PROJECT COMBINED WITH OTHER PENDING AND PAST AND FUTURE 15 DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY AND THE VICINITY. 16 WE ALSO CONSIDERED FOUR ALTERNATIVES. EMILY WAS ABLE 17 TO DESCRIBE ALTERNATIVE ONE, WHICH IS THE CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT 18 ALTERNATIVE, WHICH WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF BRINGING DEVELOPMENT 19 BELOW THE 150-FOOT ELEVATION LINE. 20 WE ALSO LOOKED AT TWO ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES AND 21 WE’LL DESCRIBE THOSE A LITTLE BIT LATER IN THE PRESENTATION. 22 AND THEN IN ADDITION, THE MANDATORY NO PROJECT 23 ALTERNATIVE. SO IN THE ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER OF THE EIR, YOU’LL SEE 24 ALL FOUR OF THOSE ANALYZED. 25 09244 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 11 ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL FOR 1 ALTERNATIVE ONE AS THE ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE IS MUCH HIGHER AND 2 MORE DETAILED COMPARATIVE TO THE OTHER TWO, WHICH WERE 3 ADDRESSED MORE PROGRAMMATICALLY FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES IN 4 LINE WITH CEQA GUIDANCE. 5 THE DRAFT EIR WAS A FULL SUITE EIR. I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE 6 AREA THAT DID NOT RECEIVE A COMPLETE ANALYSIS WAS FORESTRY 7 RESOURCES, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO FORESTRY RESOURCES ON SITE, BUT 8 EVERY OTHER CEQA RESOURCE WAS TRIGGERED BY THIS PROJECT. AND 9 YOU’LL SEE THAT REFLECTED IN THE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND THE 10 CHAPTERS AND – AND THE ANALYSIS IN CHAPTER THREE. 11 TO STEP BACK, I THINK THE FIRST THING WE WANTED TO DO 12 WAS TO LOOK AT THE EIR IN A BIG PICTURE. IN THE END, THERE ARE 56 13 PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS, INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS ABOUT A POTENTIAL 14 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT WOULD OCCUR IF THE PROJECT IS 15 IMPLEMENTED AS PROPOSED. 16 TWENTY-FIVE OF THOSE WERE FOUND TO BE LESS THAN 17 SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURE, WITHOUT MODIFICATION OF 18 THE PROJECT OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 19 EIGHTEEN OF THOSE IMPACTS WERE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT 20 WITH SOME FORM OF MITIGATION MEASURE, EITHER MODIFICATION TO THE 21 SPECIFIC PLAN ITSELF, ADJUSTMENT TO HOW IT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED, 22 OR SOME OTHER, YOU KNOW, SET OF SUITE OF MITIGATIONS OR STEPS OR 23 REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MET IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE 24 IMPACT. 25 09245 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 12 AND 13 OF THOSE IMPACTS WERE FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT 1 AND UNAVOIDABLE, EVEN AFTER MITIGATION. SO EVEN AFTER DOING THE 2 RANGE OF MITIGATION THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE, REASONABLE AND 3 APPLICABLE TO THE PARTICULAR IMPACT, FOR A REASON EXPLAINED 4 IMPACT BY IMPACT, THE FINDING WAS SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE. 5 WE WANTED TO FIRST OF ALL GIVE A REVIEW OF THOSE 13 6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS SO THAT WHEN WE DIVE INTO THE 7 RESOURCE SECTIONS, THEY DON’T GET BURIED IN THE CONTEXT FOR EACH 8 OF THE RESOURCES AND SO YOU HAVE THAT CONTEXT GOING INTO THE 9 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT. 10 IT BOILED DOWN TO A SET OF, I BELIEVE, SEVEN RESOURCES 11 THAT WERE – THAT HAD SOME ISSUE, IN SOME CASES A COUPLE ISSUES, THAT 12 WERE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE. IN THE CASE OF AESTHETICS, THE 13 KEY ISSUE WAS THE VIEW OF THE SITE AND THE CHANGE OF THE VIEW OF 14 THE SITE FROM THE IRISH HILLS, FROM THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND THE 15 TRAILS WITHIN THE IRISH HILL, AND FROM KEY SCENIC VIEW POINTS THAT 16 ARE IN PLACE CURRENTLY IN THE PUBLIC ENJOYS, RELATED MOSTLY TO 17 VISUAL CHARACTER AND THE CONTEXT OF THE SITE AND THE GREATER 18 LANDSCAPE AND THE VIEWER EXPECTATION FROM THOSE LOCATIONS. 19 IN TERMS OF AIR QUALITY AND GHGS, THE SIGNIFICANT, 20 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS -- I BELIEVE THERE WERE FOUR ASSOCIATED WITH 21 AIR QUALITY -- RELATED TO LONG TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS, SO 22 EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES, EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY DEMAND, WATER USE, 23 AND THEN ALSO IN CONSISTING – INCONSISTENCY WITH THE PROJECT WITH – 24 WITH GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSION GOALS IN THE STATE AND THEN WHAT IS 25 09246 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 13 EMERGING FOR THE CITY. SO THIS IS KIND OF A NEW TOPIC AND THE 1 DISCUSSION IN THE EIR REFLECTS THESE EMERGING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2 THAT ARE COMING FROM MANDATES AT THE STATE AND MANIFESTING IN 3 LOCAL POLICY AND REGULATION. AND THAT DESCRIPTION IS PROVIDED IN 4 THE EIR. 5 THERE’S ALSO RELATIONSHIP TO THE APCD CLEAN AIR PLAN 6 AND A POPULATION PROJECTIONS THAT BUILD IN SOME INCONSISTENCY 7 THAT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE DOCUMENT. 8 IN TERMS OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, YOU SAW THE MAP THAT 9 EMILY PUT UP. THAT’S A MAP OF A RANGE OF EXISTING BIOLOGICAL 10 RESOURCES ONSITE THAT – THAT WE KNEW ABOUT GOING INTO THE 11 ANALYSIS AND IT ALSO DOESN’T REFLECT ALL OF THEM. THAT’S – IT WAS A 12 MAP OF – OF NATURAL COMMUNITIES. THROUGH THE ANALYSIS OF A RANGE 13 OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES, 14 WHICH WE SAW, POTENTIAL SENSITIVE SPECIES, THAT ARE EITHER KNOWN 15 TO OCCUR ONSITE OR MAY OCCUR ONSITE, AND THEN ALSO PROTECTED 16 WETLANDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ONSITE. THE DIRECT IMPACTS AND 17 INDIRECT IMPACTS TO THOSE RESOURCES WERE FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT 18 AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION. 19 IN TERMS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES, WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT 20 THIS BECAUSE CULTURAL RESOURCES WILL SHOW UP ON THE LIST OF 21 SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE – SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES. BUT WE WANTED TO 22 HIGHLIGHT THIS BECAUSE THE KEY ISSUE FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES WAS 23 SPECIFICALLY HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 24 THAT’S ONSITE. IMPACTS RELATED TO SUBSURFACE CULTURAL RESOURCES 25 09247 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 14 AND INDIVIDUAL HISTORIC RESOURCES WERE NOT FOUND TO BE 1 SIGNIFICANT. BUT THAT CONFLUENCE OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 2 CONTRIBUTING TO A DISTRICT IS WHERE THAT IMPACT CAME FROM. 3 IN TERMS OF HAZARDS, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY WILDFIRE, -- 4 THIS YEAR THE COMMISSIONERS MAY BE AWARE OF THIS -- THE CEQA 5 GUIDANCE CHANGED AND INCLUDED THRESHOLDS SPECIFICALLY FOR 6 WILDFIRE HAZARD. IN THE PAST, WILDFIRE WAS ANALYZED IN CONTEXT OF 7 OTHER HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, OTHER HAZARDS ONSITE, BUT 8 THIS YEAR, GIVEN THE SETTING FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE 9 CHANGE IN CONDITIONS, THE CEQA GUIDELINES CHANGED AND SINCE 10 WILDFIRE IS TREATED AS ITS OWN RESOURCE NOW. 11 AND THE IMPACT FOR WILDFIRE IS GAUGED AGAINST WHETHER 12 OR NOT THE PROJECT WOULD EXACERBATE THE RISK OF WILDFIRE AND THE 13 ASSOCIATED RISKS OF WILDFIRE. AND IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE SITE’S 14 LOCATION AND CONSIDERING TOPOGRAPHY, PREVAILING WINDS AND OTHER 15 FACTORS, THE CONCLUSION WAS IT WAS SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE 16 FOR EXACERBATING WILDFIRE RISK. 17 IN TERMS OF LAND USE AND PLANNING, LAND USE AND 18 PLANNING IMPACTS OCCUR WHEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WOULD BE 19 INCONSISTENT WITH POLICY. AND SO IN THE CASE OF THE PROJECT, THE 20 PROJECT WOULD CONFLICT WITH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN POLICIES THAT -- 21 FOR RESOURCES SUCH AS VISUAL RESOURCES, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, 22 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND WILDFIRE HAZARDS, AND SO THE FACT THAT 23 THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FOR THOSE SPECIFIC 24 RESOURCES PUTS THEM -- MAKES THEM INCONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICY. 25 09248 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 15 AND LASTLY, FOR TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC, THE TRAFFIC 1 STUDY AND THE ANALYSIS INDICATED THAT QUEUING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2 AND POOR LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS AND 3 BICYCLES WOULD OCCUR FOR A COUPLE SCENARIOS, NOT ALL. BUT FOR 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLUS THE PROJECT, WE WOULD EXPERIENCE 5 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IN TERMS OF THOSE SERVICES IN THE VICINITY. AND 6 THEN ALSO IN THE NEAR TERMS, SO AT COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT BY 7 2025, THE – WE WOULD EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS. 8 THAT BEING SAID, AS WE’LL DISCUSS A LITTLE LATER IN THE 9 PRESENTATION, THE CUMULATIVE SETTING AT THE END OF THE LIFE OF THE 10 PROJECT ONCE IT’S IMPLEMENTED AND WHEN THE PHYSICAL 11 IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE AS MITIGATION, THAT SCENARIO WOULD NOT BE 12 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE. THAT COULD BE MITIGATED, SO IT’S A 13 NEAR TERM ISSUE. 14 WHEN WE COMPARED THOSE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO THE 15 ALTERNATIVE, IN FACT, I SHOULD STEP BACK A SECOND AND DISCUSS THE 16 UTILITY OF THE ALTERNATIVE UNDER CEQA. CEQA REQUIRES THAT -- THAT 17 AN EIR ANALYZE A RANGE OF REASONABLE, FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO 18 THE PROJECT THAT MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES, BUT ALSO REDUCE IMPACTS 19 AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS FROM 20 THE PROJECT. SO IN CONTEMPLATING A RANGE OF REASONABLE 21 ALTERNATIVES, WE ARE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY A PROJECT THAT WOULD 22 REDUCE THE SIG – THE KNOWN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT, 23 INCLUDING THOSE THAT I JUST WALKED THROUGH. 24 SO IN THE CASE OF THE ACTIONABLE ALTERNATIVE, 25 09249 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 16 ALTERNATIVE ONE, WHICH IS A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, SAME AMOUNT OF 1 DEVELOPMENT, BUT CONDENSED INTO A SMALLER FOOTPRINT AND 2 STRATEGICALLY PLACED TO AVOID PARTICULAR IMPA – PARTICULAR 3 RESOURCES, THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE IMPACTS 4 TO AESTHETIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES FROM VIEWS FROM THE IRISH HILLS; 5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS, DIRECT AND INDIRECT; CULTURAL AND 6 TRIBAL CULTURE RESOURCES, MEANING SPECIFICALLY THE -- THE IMPACTS 7 RELATED TO SUBSURFACE EXCAVATION AND DISTURBANCE OF POTENTIAL 8 RESOURCES, AND THEN ALSO RELATED TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE -9 - THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ITSELF; WILDFIRES AND 10 HAZARDS; AND LAND USE AND PLANNING AS IT REL – AS A REACTION TO THE 11 REDUCTION IN IMPACTS. 12 ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT THIS SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN 13 IMPACTS DOESN’T MANIFEST FOR TRANSPORTATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE 14 ONE, MAINLY BECAUSE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS AND THE AMOUNT OF 15 SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT’S BEING PROPOSED IS IDENTICAL TO THE PROJECT. 16 THE CONFIGURATION OF THAT DEVELOPMENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY 17 DIFFERENT, BUT BECAUSE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE, THE TOTAL 18 SQUARE FOOTAGE IS THE SAME, IT WOULD GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF 19 TRAFFIC, THE SAME – THE SAME OVERALL IMPACTS FROM THE USE OF THE 20 SITE BY THE RESIDENCE AND EMPLOYEES IN THE LONG RUN. 21 SO WITH THAT KIND OF BIGGER PICTURE, BROAD BRUSH 22 OVERVIEW OF THE KEY ISSUE -- THE KEY THINGS THAT EIR IDENTIFIED, WE 23 THOUGHT IT PRUDENT TO WALK THROUGH IT RESOURCE BY RESOURCE SO 24 THAT YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW THAT SUMMARY OF 25 09250 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 17 IMPACTS, YOU KNOW, THE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, THE LESS THAN 1 SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATIONS, THE SIGNIFICANT ALL WORK TOGETHER, 2 AND MORE IMPORTANTLY HOW THE MITIGATIONS STRATEGIES RELATE TO 3 THOSE IMPACTS AND HOW THE WERE EFFECTIVE OR INEFFECTIVE IN 4 ADDRESSING THOSE IMPACTS. 5 I’LL MENTION AGAIN THAT I’M GONNA MOVE PRETTY QUICKLY 6 AND GIVE IT KIND OF A BIG TAKE AWAY FOR EACH ONE OF THESE 7 RESOURCES, BUT IF ANYTHING ON THE SLIDES OR ANYTHING IN YOUR 8 REVIEW OF THE EIR HAS GENERATED QUESTIONS, WE’LL CERTAINLY BE ABLE 9 TO RETURN TO ANY OF THESE RESOURCES AFTER WE GIVE THIS BROAD-10 BRUSH OVERVIEW AND DIVE INTO ANY DETAILS AND ANSWER THOSE 11 QUESTIONS. 12 SO STARTING WITH A. I WILL GO ALPHABETICALLY. AESTHETICS 13 AND VISUAL RESOURCES HAD -- HAD THREE MAIN IMPACTS. ONE WE 14 LOOKED AT SCENIC ROADWAYS. THERE ARE NO SCENIC HIGHWAYS IN THE 15 VICINITY, ELIGIBLE BUT NOT ACTUALLY LISTED AS SCENIC HIGHWAYS. 16 THERE ARE MODERATE SCENIC ROADS, DESIGNATED BY THE GENERAL PLAN 17 IN THE CITY. 18 BUT THE ISSUE THERE THE LOVR OVERPASS IS THE MAIN PLACE 19 WHERE THE PROJECT IS HIGHLY VISIBLE, AND IT’S ALSO A POTENTIALLY 20 SENSITIVE VIEW UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN. THE ISSUE IS THAT THE SITE 21 ACTUALLY ISN’T THAT VISIBLE CURRENTLY. IT’S CURRENTLY HIDDEN 22 BEHIND ROYAL WILLOWS THAT GROW ALONG THE LOVR DITCH, FROM THE 23 ANGLE IT’S A PRETTY PRECISE ANGLE THAT YOU CAN GET A SWEEPING VIEW 24 OF THE SITE, SO THE RESOURCE VALUE FROM THE SCENIC ROADS IS PRETTY 25 09251 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 18 LOW. 1 WITH MITIGATION TO ENSURE THAT VIEW WOULDN’T CHANGE 2 THAT MUCH, WE WERE ABLE TO GET TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT FINDING. 3 WITH IMPACTS TO CHARACTER AND RURAL SETTING THAT’S 4 WHERE WE HAD THAT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. JUST SEEING THE SITE FROM -- 5 FROM A PLACE WHERE VIEWER SENSITIVITY AND VIEWER EXPECTATION IS 6 SO HIGH FOR HIKING IN THE IRISH HILLS AND THE RURAL SETTING FOR THE 7 PROJECT SITE, THE CHANGE WAS SUBSTANTIAL ON THAT CHANGE – THAT 8 RESULTS IN THAT IMPACT. 9 AND THEN LASTLY, LIGHT AND GLARE. THERE WILL BE LIGHT 10 AND GLARE. IT’S AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT BEING ESTABLISHED IN AN AREA 11 THAT CURRENTLY HAS VERY FEW LIGHT SOURCES, BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF 12 THE SURROUNDING VICINITY, THE AUTOMOBILE LOTS, THE IRISH HILLS 13 PLAZA, WHICH IS NEXT DOOR, AND THE HOTELS, IT’S SURROUNDED BY LIGHT 14 SOURCE. SO YOU’LL SEE THAT REFLECTED. 15 IN TERMS OF MITIGATION, THE MAIN MITIGATION IS ASSOCIATED 16 WITH LANDSCAPING TO ENSURE THAT LANDSCAPING RE-ESTABLISHES ON 17 THE SITE TO SUSTAIN SOME VISUAL SHIELDING FOR THE SITE AND NOT 18 AFFECT VIEWS FROM SCENIC ROADS AND OTHER LOCATIONS. 19 IN CONTEXT, FOR ALTERNATIVE ONE, THIS IS ONE OF THE 20 SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN IMPACT. I WANTED TO -- YOU’LL SEE SEVERAL 21 OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE EIR, IN THE AESTHETICS SECTION. BUT THIS 22 – THIS PHOTOGRAPH I -- WE PULLED OUT SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THIS IS THE 23 VIEW FROM THE FROOM CONNECTOR TRAIL AT THE BASE OF THE TRAIL HEAD 24 FOR THE FROOM CREEK TRAIL THAT HEADS UP THE WATERSHED. YOU CAN 25 09252 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 19 SEE IN THE FOREGROUND THE QUARRY AND THE FROOM RANCH DAIRY 1 COMPLEX -- HISTORIC FROOM RANCH DAIRY COMPLEX IN THE MID-GROUND. 2 THE -- THE WILLOWS THAT YOU SEE IN A LINE, THAT’S LOVR. AND FROOM 3 CREEK TURNS THAT SHARP CORNER AROUND THE BASE OF THE HILL. 4 UNDER THE PROJECT, THE SITE WOULD BE DEVELOPED WITH 5 SOME DENSITY IN THE FOREGROUND, SOME – SOME TALLER BUILDINGS IN 6 THE MID-GROUND, AND THEN ALSO THE MAIN COMPLEX, THE COMMONS 7 AREA FOR THE VILLAGGIO DEVELOPMENT IN THE BACKGROUND. 8 I’LL CAVEAT THIS THAT IN THE SIMULATION THIS IS A HIGHLY 9 CONCEPTUAL, IT DOESN’T REPRESENT ARCHITECTURE, IT’S MORE FOR MASS 10 SCALE, HEIGHT, ET CETERA SO THAT WE COULD CHARACTERIZE THE BULK OF 11 THE PROJECT ON THE LANDSCAPE, SO, YOU KNOW, DO YOU BEST TO NOT 12 FOCUS ON THE SUGAR CUBE BOXES, BUT MORE ABOUT THE OVERALL EFFECT 13 OF THE PROJECT. 14 AND UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE WITH THE SWAP OF THE PARK 15 USE INTO THE UPPER AREAS ABOVE 150 FEET, YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT 16 CONTRASTS WITH THE PROJECT ESPECIALLY IN THE FOREGROUND. 17 SO THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE. WE CONDUCTED FIVE OF THESE 18 ANALYSES OF VISUAL SCALE AND MODELING OF HOW THE PROJECT WOULD 19 FIT INTO THE LANDSCAPE AND THAT INFORMS SOME OF THE FINDINGS FOR 20 AESTHETICS. 21 IN TERMS OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES, THIS ANALYSIS WAS A 22 SURPRISING ONE. THE SITE IS A – IT HAS GRAZING LAND. IT’S USED 23 CURRENTLY FOR HORSE GRAZING. AND IT’S ALSO RECORDED WITH THE 24 FMMP AT THE STATE AS FARMLAND OF LOCAL POTENTIAL, WHICH IS A 25 09253 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 20 CLASSIFICATION WE DON’T – WE DON’T SEE VERY OFTEN. IT’S SOME -- 1 FARMLAND OF LOCAL POTENTIAL IS A RESOURCE THAT IS DEFINED 2 LOCALLY, AND HAS BEEN REPORTED TO THE STATE AS HAVING SOME VALUE, 3 BUT AS FAR AS COMPARING IT TO THE OTHER MORE FAMILIAR 4 CLASSIFICATIONS, SUCH AS PRIME FARMLAND OR PRIME – IMPORTANT 5 FARMLAND, THAT SORT OF CATEGORY, THIS IS NOT AKIN TO THOSE. 6 AND BECAUSE OF THOSE CLASSIFICATIONS, THEY DON’T – THOSE 7 CLASSIFICATIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED CEQA RESOURCES IN THE SAME 8 WAY AS PRIME FARMLAND OR OTHER -- OTHER RESOURCES. SO IT -- BECAUSE 9 OF THAT, IT’S - IT IS FARMLAND, IT IS AGRICULTURAL. BUT IN TERMS OF 10 DEFINING AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AND ALSO CONDUCTING A -- AN 11 EVALUATION OF THE VALUE OF THAT LAND, THE IMPACTS ACROSS THE 12 BOARD IN TERMS OF IMPORTANT FARMLAND, AGRICULTURAL LAND JUST 13 CONFLICTS AND ALSO THE VIABILITY OF THE ONSITE AGRICULTURAL 14 EASEMENT WERE FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. 15 AND THIS IS ALSO VERY SIMILAR TO THE ALTERNATIVE, 16 BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THOSE RESOURCES WHICH ARE ON THE 17 LOWER AREA OF THE PROJECT SITE. THOSE AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 18 DON’T EXTEND IN THE SAME WAY UP THE HILLSIDE TO THE UPPER TERRACE 19 AND SINCE THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD DEVELOP THAT LOWER AREA THE 20 IMPACTS ARE QUITE SIMILAR. 21 IN TERMS OF AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES, WE 22 LOOKED AT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS, OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS, 23 POTENTIALS FOR HEALTH RISK -- WHICH IS ANOTHER EMERGING TOPIC THAT 24 YOU’LL START TO SEE IN EIR -- AND THEN ALSO CONSISTENCY, WHETHER OR 25 09254 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 21 NOT THE PROJECT’S CONSISTENT WITH PLANS. 1 IN FOR THE EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS WE USED CALEEMOD 2 MODELING ASSUMPTIONS TO DO ESTIMATE WHAT EMISSIONS WOULD 3 EMERGE IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION FROM HEAVY EQUIPMENT, HAULING 4 ET CETERA. IN OPERATIONS WE CONSIDERED WATER USE, ENERGY USE, 5 MOBILE EMISSIONS. 6 WE EXCEEDED THE THRESHOLDS FOR OPERATIONS, BUT NOT FOR 7 CONSTRUCTIONS AFTER ROBUST MITIGATIONS TO ENSURE THAT EQUIPMENT 8 IS USED TO -- TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT THAT IS AS EFFICIENT AND CLEAN 9 AS POSSIBLE. 10 AND I MENTIONED BEFORE THE INCONSISTENCY WITH -- WITH 11 EMERGING GHG GOALS AND MANDATES FROM THE STATE AND EMERGING 12 POLICIES FROM THE CITY, SO THAT’S – WE’VE ALREADY COVERED THAT. 13 AIR QUALITY AND GHGS HAS A ROBUST MITIGATION PROGRAM 14 RANGING FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT, REQUIREMENTS 15 FOR LOW VOC PAINTS, VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, AND ALSO 16 IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL OF THE REQUIRED MEASURES FROM THE AIR 17 POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. THAT’S ALL INTEGRATED INTO THE 18 MITIGATION PROGRAM. 19 IN ADDITION TO ADDRESS GHG GENERATION, WHICH IS ALSO A 20 NUMBER THAT WAS GENERATED BY OUR MODELING, THE MITIGATION 21 STRATEGY INCLUDES CARBON-FREE ELECTRICITY, SO USE OF COMMUNITY 22 POWER TO -- TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE PROJECT IN THE LONG-RUN. 23 THAT’S NO GHG POWER IN THE LONG-RUN. AND ALSO NET ZERO ENERGY 24 ONSITE TO ENSURE THAT THE ENERGY THAT IS DEMANDED, BE IT NATURAL 25 09255 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 22 GAS OR OTHERWISE, IS OFFSET IN THE LONG-RUN SO IT BECOMES A NEUTRAL 1 PROJECT. 2 THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH EMERGING, NOT ONLY LEGISLATION 3 AT THE STATE, BUT EMERGING REQUIREMENTS AT THE CITY AS WELL. 4 THIS IS ALSO PARTNERED WITH THE VMT REDUCTION 5 STRATEGIES THAT ARE ALSO ADDRESSED IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION. 6 THE – SIMILAR TO TRANSPORTATION ACTUALLY, ALTERNATIVE 7 ONE IS ALSO SIMILAR TO THE PROJECT. AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE 8 SURPRISING IN SOME WAYS BECAUSE ONE WOULD THINK REDUCTION OF 9 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT AND REDUCTION OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE 10 PROJECT MEANS LESS GRADING, LESS CONSTRUCTION, CERTAINLY WE 11 WOULD HAVE FEWER IMPACTS WITH A REDUCED FOOTPRINT. 12 WHAT’S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PROJECT THOUGH IS THAT THERE 13 WAS A TRADEOFF BY -- BY TAKING THE DEVELOPMENT DOWN OUT OF THE 14 UPPER TERRACE, WE WOULD NOT DO THE GRADING AND THE CONSTRUCTION 15 UP THERE, BUT THE ALTERNATIVE ONE WOULD NEED TO IMPORT 16 SUBSTANTIALLY MORE FILL BECAUSE THE UPPER TERRACE WAS GOING TO 17 BE A FILL SOURCE FOR THE LOWER AREA, SO WITHOUT THE FILL FROM THE 18 UPPER TERRACE, IT MORE FILL WOULD HAVE TO COME IN FROM MORE 19 HEAVY HAUL TRUCKS AND THE EMISSIONS BASICALLY BALANCED OUT IN 20 THE END IN TERMS OF THE CALCULATIONS. 21 WE DISCUSS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- A COUPLE -- A COUPLE 22 FACTS ABOUT THE SITE IS THAT IT HAS SEVERAL SENSITIVE GRASSLAND, 23 RIPARIAN, AND WETLAND HABITATS, ALONG WITH A UNIQUE CONFLUENCE 24 OF ECOTONES. THAT’S PARTICULARLY IN THE UPPER TERRACE. YOU CAN 25 09256 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 23 SEE REFLECTED IN THE MAP HERE, AN OVERLAP OF NATURAL COMMUNITIES 1 AND SENSITIVE RESOURCES AND JUST THE CLUSTERING OF THOSE 2 RESOURCES INDICATES THE -- THE OVERLAP AND THE SENSITIVITY OF THE 3 UPPER TERRACE AREA. 4 THERE WERE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, 18 SPECIAL STATUS 5 ANIMALS AND 14 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR, 6 AND SEVERAL WERE OBSERVED ON THE SITE DURING THE SURVEYS, AND SO 7 THOSE WERE MAPPED AND DETAILED AS PART OF THIS. ONE OTHER THING 8 TO NOTICE, AND YOU’LL SEE THIS REFLECTED IN THE ANALYSIS, THAT 9 SEVERAL SURVEYS WERE CONDUCTED EARLY WHEN IT WAS STILL DROUGHT 10 CONDITIONS. SO OVER THE LIFE OF THIS EIR WE’VE HAD A CHANGE IN -- IN 11 PRECIPITATION THAT WE COULD SEE HAPPENING IN FRONT OF OUR EYES AS 12 THE SITE STARTED TO CHANGE AND REGROW AND EVERYTHING, SO WE -- WE 13 HAVE MORE RECENT SURVEYS TO DEMONSTRATE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THESE 14 PLANTS COULD BE, WHERE THEY WOULD MANIFEST AND THAT’S WHERE 15 THESE RESULTS CAME FROM. 16 IN BIOLOGIC RESOURCES, BECAUSE OF THIS RICH SETTING FOR 17 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, PARTICULARLY IN THE UPPER TERRACE AND THEN 18 ALSO IN THE WETLAND AREAS, WE HAVE SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT 19 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS. THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE WITH SEVERAL 20 OF THE RESOURCES, INCLUDING TAR PLANT AND CHORRO CREEK BOG 21 THISTLE, WHICH IS A FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES, THERE’S LITTLE THAT 22 YOU CAN DO TO MITIGATE LOSS -- DIRECT LOSS OF THOSE SPECIES. 23 REESTABLISHING INDIVIDUALS IS DIFFICULT AND USUALLY UNSUCCESSFUL. 24 AND ESPECIALLY FOR THE PROTECTED SPECIES, A LOSS IS A LOSS. AND SO A 25 09257 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 24 LOSS IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. 1 YOU’LL NOTICE THE -- IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IN THE 2 SECTION, THE MITIGATION STRATEGY IS ROBUST. IT INVOLVES A 3 CONFLUENCE OF BMPS, PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEYS, MONITORING, 4 AVOIDANCE, CERTAINLY RESTORATION IF IMPACTS DO OCCUR, AND 5 REPLACEMENT RATIOS FOR THE RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED. 6 AND THIS MANIFESTS FOR HABITAT, SPECIES AND WETLAND AREAS. 7 ONE OF THE THINGS TO MENTION IS THAT THE -- THE SITE IS -- IS 8 ALSO RICH IN TERMS OF WILDLIFE MIGRATION. THE CONFLUENCE OF 9 DRAINAGES ONE, TWO AND THREE, WHICH -- WHICH CASCADE DOWN FROM 10 THE UPPER TERRACE AND CONNECT WITH FROOM CREEK AT THE BASE OF 11 THE HILL, PROVIDE FOR WILDLIFE PASSAGE FOR, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY 12 PLAN -- ANIMALS THAT RELY ON THOSE CREEKS, BUT JUST IN GENERAL 13 THROUGH THE GRASSLANDS IN THE AREA. SO THAT CONFLUENCE IS 14 PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT RELATED TO CITY POLICY AND PROTECTION – 15 AND PROTECTIONS FOR WILDLIFE PASSAGE AND CROSSINGS AND ALSO 16 ECOTONES. 17 FOR ALTERNATIVE ONE COMPARATIVELY AS WE DISCUSSED, IT 18 SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED THIS IMPACT. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THE DIRECT 19 IMPACTS TO THAT UPPER TERRACE AREA ARE AVOIDED ENTIRELY AND THE -- 20 THE -- THE IMPACTS TO THE LOWER AREAS ARE CONFINED MORE TOWARDS 21 THE IMPACTS TO WETLAND AREAS, AND THEN ALSO, TO A MORE LIMITED 22 EXTENT, TAR PLANT, WHICH WE KNOW THERE’S OCCURRENCE OF TAR PLANT 23 IN THE ARE. 24 FOR CULTURAL AND HISTORIC AND TRIBAL CULTURAL 25 09258 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 25 RESOURCES, MAINLY WE – WE OBSERVED THAT THERE’S A POTENTIAL FOR 1 DISTURBANCE. THE SITE HAS KNOWN SENSITIVITIES AND KNOWN 2 LOCATIONS FOR SITES AND WITH THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT, 3 THERE’S KIND OF TWO CATEGORIES: EITHER DIRECT IMPACTS WHERE 4 THERE’S A POTENTIAL FOR DISCOVERY OF HISTORIC – OR SORRY PRE-5 HISTORIC RESOURCES BELOW GROUND, OR THE PROXIMITY OF THE 6 DEVELOPMENT IS -- IS SO CLOSE ENOUGH TO KNOWN RESOURCES WHERE 7 SETBACKS WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IN A WAY THAT WOULD ENSURE 8 PROTECTION OF THOSE RESOURCES IN THE LONG RUN, SO THAT’S DETAILED 9 IN THE ANALYSIS. 10 AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES -- THE -- THE 11 FROOM DAIRY COMPLEX ONSITE, IT’S A COLLECTION OF -- OF SEVEN 12 STRUCTURES THAT COMPRISE THE POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT ONSITE. 13 THE PROJECT WOULD DEMOLISH THREE OF THOSE -- OF THOSE STRUCTURES. 14 THEY’RE IN VARIOUS STATES OF REPAIR AND DISREPAIR, BUT ULTIMATELY 15 ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISTRICT BASED ON THE ANALYSIS. AND SO THAT 16 LOSS OF THOSE THREE, EVEN THOUGH FOUR WOULD BE ADAPTED OR REUSED 17 AND PRESERVED AS PART OF THE PARK PLAN, THAT LOSS CONTRIBUTES TO 18 THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. 19 WE HAVE SEVERAL MITIGATIONS, SOME THAT ARE -- THAT ARE 20 PRETTY FAMILIAR IN TERMS OF HOW TO GO ABOUT MITIGATING IMPACTS TO 21 CULTURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING SOME -- INCLUDING PHASE TWO IN 22 AREAS WHERE, YOU KNOW, CERTAINTY IS NEEDED BEFORE GROUND 23 DISTURBANCE, BUFFERS, TRAINING FOR STAFF, MONITORING FOR DISCOVERY 24 DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND MEASURES TO PROTECT KNOWN RESOURCES 25 09259 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 26 FROM ANY DISTURBANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. 1 THE ALTERNATIVE ONE IMPACTS ARE LESS SEVERE THAN THE 2 PROJECT, MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE AVOIDANCE OF THE UPPER TERRACE. 3 THE UPPER TERRACE IS SENSITIVE FOR A VARIETY OF RESOURCES, 4 INCLUDING CULTURAL, AND SO AVOIDING THAT AREA REDUCED THAT 5 IMPACT SIGNIFICANTLY. 6 THAT BEING SAID, HISTORIC RESOURCE IMPACTS WOULD BE 7 SIMILAR, BECAUSE THE PROJECT WOULD CONTINUE TO RESULT IN THE LOSS 8 OF CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES TO THE POTENTIAL DISTRICT. 9 FOR GEOLOGY AND SOILS, OF COURSE WE LIVE IN CALIFORNIA, 10 SO SEISMICITY IS ALWAYS A CONCERN, AND IN CASE OF THE SITE, THERE IS A 11 KNOWN FAULT TRAVERSING THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE IN THE FIGURE HERE, IT 12 -- RIGHT AT THE BASE OF THE HILL, BASICALLY. IT TRAVERSES THE SITE 13 FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. AND IS A SITE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A -- A 14 MINIMUM SETBACK FROM DEVELOPMENT. YOU CAN SEE THAT, ACTUALLY, 15 REFLECTED IN THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT 16 WAS FACTORED INTO THE DESIGN WHERE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE 17 OUTSIDE OF THAT BUFFER. 18 THAT COMBINED WITH STANDARD MITIGATIONS FOR GEOLOGY 19 AND BUILDING IN SEISMICALLY ACTIVE AREAS LIKE SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 APPLIED TO THE PROJECT WOULD GET THE IMPACTS TO LESS THAN 21 SIGNIFICANT LEVEL. 22 AND WE ALSO, AS PART -- AND THEN ALSO IN TERMS OF SOIL 23 HAZARDS, SIMILARLY STANDARD PRACTICES, BEST MANAGEMENT 24 PRACTICES, AND MITIGATIONS THAT ENSURE STABLE SOILS, NO EROSIONS, ET 25 09260 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 27 CETERA WOULD – WOULD REDUCE THAT IMPACT TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. 1 FOR -- THIS IS ONE – AGAIN, CHANGE. PALEONTOLOGICAL 2 RESOURCES USED TO BE DEALT WITH AS A CULTURAL RESOURCE. AND THIS 3 YEAR, WITH THE UPDATE OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES, IT NOW LIVES IN 4 GEOLOGY. POTENTIALLY, FOR GOOD REASON BECAUSE THEY ARE USUALLY 5 BURIED IN THE ROCK AND THE DIRT AND WE’RE LOOKING AT THE SOIL TYPES 6 THAT ARE LIKELY TO INCLUDE DINOSAUR BONES AND -- AND OTHER 7 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 8 IN THIS CASE, THE SOILS HAVE A POTENTIAL. YOU KNOW, THERE 9 ISN’T A WAY REALLY TO KNOW IN ADVANCE UNLESS THERE’S BEEN 10 DISCOVERIES IN THE PAST. THERE’S NO KNOWN PALEONTOLOGICAL 11 RESOURCES ON SITE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SOIL TYPES AND THE AGE, 12 THERE’S A POTENTIAL, AND SO STANDARD MITIGATIONS TO CONTROL WHAT 13 HAPPENS IF DISCOVERY OCCURS IS A MITIGATION THERE AND WE WERE 14 ABLE TO GET TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. 15 FOR HAZARDS – HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – HAZARDOUS 16 MATERIALS AND WILDFIRE, THE KEY ISSUE, AS I DISCUSSED, WAS WILDFIRE 17 RISK. THE PROJECT SITE IS RIGHT AT THE BASE OF A WATERSHED AND 18 HILLSIDE THAT IS A HIGH FIRE HAZARD ZONE, AND THIS – PORTIONS OF THE 19 SITE LIE WITHIN THE HIGH FIRE HAZARD ZONE AND A MODERATE ZONE. 20 AND BECAUSE OF THIS LOCATION AND ALSO CONSIDERATION OF 21 THE -- THE POTENTIAL FOR THE PROJECT TO IMPAIR EMERGENCY RESPONSE 22 AND ALSO BECOME A SOURCE OF IGNITION, AND PROBABLY MORE 23 IMPORTANTLY FOR THE NEW THRESHOLDS, PLACING HABITABLE SPACE AND 24 RESIDENTIAL USES IN AN AREA THAT IS -- IS RISKY FOR FIRE THAT’S -- THAT’S 25 09261 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 28 -- THAT’S WHERE THAT IMPACT COMES FROM AND THAT’S WHERE THE 1 FINDING CAME FROM. 2 THE OTHER AND ANOTHER TOPIC OF HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS 3 MATERIALS, WE FOUND THAT THOSE IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN 4 SIGNIFICANT. THE SITE IS NOT DEVELOPED, HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THE PAST 5 FOR HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES. THERE’S NO KNOWN RECORDS OF 6 CONTAMINATION ON THE SITE. AND ALSO IT’S A SUITABLY OUTSIDE THE 7 AIRPORT HAZARD ZONES. WE CAN GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT 8 BASICALLY THE SITE IS OUTSIDE OF A POTENTIAL HAZARD TO REQUIRE 9 MITIGATION FOR AIRPORT-RELATED RISKS. 10 WE HAVE SEVERAL MITIGATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TO 11 ENSURE -- MAINLY TO ADDRESS THE FIRE RISK, TO ENSURE THAT THE FIRE IS 12 – IS MINIMIZED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING SMOKING PROHIBITIONS, 13 A COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION PLAN, A -- AN APPROPRIATE EVACUATION 14 PLAN, PARTICULARLY FOR THE SENIOR COMMUNITIES, WHICH MAY HAVE 15 SPECIAL CHALLENGES AND RESPONSE NEEDS IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE IN THE 16 IRISH HILLS, AND THEN ALSO MAINTAINING FIRE ACCESS TO THE IRISH HILLS 17 TO DEFEND -- TO MAINTAIN DEFENSIBLE SPACE AND HOLD A FIRE LINE. 18 THE ALTERNATIVE ONE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCES THIS RISK, 19 BECAUSE IT BRINGS IN THAT HABITABLE SPACE AT FURTHER OUT OF THE 20 HIGH FIRE ZONE. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, MAINTAINING DISTANCE, 21 MAINTAINING VEGETATION CLEARANCES ARE THE MAIN TOOLS OF THE FIRE 22 – FIREFIGHTERS AND OUR COMMUNITIES ARE EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN TO 23 PREVENT THAT RISK, AND SO BY DOING THAT AS PART OF THE LAND USE 24 PLAN IT BRINGS THAT RISK DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY. 25 09262 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 29 IN TERMS OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, THE PROJECT 1 INVOLVES REALIGNMENT OF THE FROOM CREEK. FROOM CREEK CURRENTLY 2 FOLLOWS THE BASE OF THE HILL, AROUND THE CORNER AND THEN HEADS 3 OFF TO THE SOUTH RIGHT PAST THE HOTELS. APOLOGY – WE HAVE A MAP IF 4 WE NEED TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR ALIGNMENT, BUT 5 IN ORDER FOR THE PROJECT TO BE BUILT AS PROPOSED, IT REQUIRES A 6 RELOCATION OF THE CREEK TO – TO FOLLOW A DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT AND 7 A LOWER ELEVATION ALIGNMENT. THE ALIGNMENT WOULD SEPARATE THE 8 DEVELOPMENT FROM THE EXISTING CALLE JOAQUIN WETLANDS, WHICH ARE 9 ONSITE. AND MOVE WATER FROM WHERE ITS CURRENT LOCATION, WHICH IS 10 PERCHED AT A LITTLE BIT UP AT AN UPPER ELEVATION TO A LOWER 11 ELEVATION, AND FLOW ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADJACENT – 12 AND – AND AS BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE WETLANDS. 13 SO THE -- THERE’S A FEW IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, NOT 14 ONLY IN TERMS OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SO THE CAPACITY OF THE 15 SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE THE WATER THAT WOULD BE COMING DOWN 16 THE HILL, SHEET FLOWING ACROSS THE PROPERTY, AND BE MANAGED AS 17 PART OF THE CREEK CHANNEL, BUT THE PROJECT ALSO INVOLVES A 18 RELOCATION AND -- OF AN EXISTING STORM BASIN THAT’S ONSITE. THERE’S 19 A BASIN IN THE LOWER AREA THAT MANAGES STORMWATER THAT FLOWS 20 FROM THE IRISH HILLS PLAZA. 21 THAT BASIN WOULD BE REMOVED AND A NEW BASIN WOULD BE 22 CONSTRUCTED IMMEDIATELY OFFSITE, AS EMILY POINTED OUT AT THE TOP 23 OF THE PRESENTATION. THAT STORM BASIN WOULD RELATE TO FROOM 24 CREEK FLOWS AND THE CALLE JOAQUIN WETLANDS WOULD ALSO BE PART 25 09263 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 30 OF THAT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, WHERE OVERTOPPING 1 WOULD OCCUR. AND THOSE TWO FEATURES WOULD HELP MANAGE, STORE, 2 AND TEMPER THE FLOW OF THAT WATER OFFSITE AS IT MOVED DOWN TO 3 THE CULVERT BELOW HIGHWAY 101. 4 SO WITH THAT SYSTEM, THERE’S IMPACTS RELATED TO STORAGE 5 AND CAPACITY OF THE SYSTEM, ALSO RUNOFF FROM THE SITE ITSELF-- IF IT’S 6 GETTING TREATED AND HAVING ANY IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY, AND 7 ALSO A POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH GROUNDWATER RECHARGE. 8 THERE’S PRETTY HIGH GROUNDWATER ON THIS SITE, AND SO THE POTENTIAL 9 FOR THE -- FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES TO INTERFERE WITH THE 10 MOVEMENT OF SURFACE WATER INTO GROUNDWATER IS A POTENTIAL. 11 WITH MITIGATION, HOWEVER, AND THE -- AND THE TECHNICAL 12 REPORTS THAT WITH -- WERE THE BASIS OF THIS ANALYSIS, THOSE ISSUES 13 WERE ADDRESSED AND THE ACROSS-THE-BOARD IMPACTS WERE LESS THAN 14 SIGNIFICANT WITH THAT MITIGATION STRATEGY. 15 THE MITIGATIONS INCLUDE STORM WATER POLLUTION 16 PREVENTION PLANS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, INSTALLING THE 17 SYSTEM IN A WAY TO AVOID THE RAINY SEASON. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, YOU 18 WOULDN’T WANT TO HAVE NO CREEK WHEN THE – WHEN THE WATER 19 STARTED COMING DOWN THE WATERSHED. SO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEW 20 CREEK IS IN PLACE BEFORE IT HAS TO MANAGE ANY STORM EVENTS. 21 AND THEN ALSO REFINE BIOENGINEERING AND DESIGN FOR THE 22 CREEK ITSELF. AT A SPECIFIC PLAN LEVEL, A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE 23 ON THE DE -- ON THE PRECISE DESIGN OF THE CREEK, THE COMPOSITION OF 24 MATERIALS, THE BANK TYPES, THE AMOUNT OF ROCK YOU WOULD NEED. 25 09264 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 31 THAT’S INCORPORATED INTO OUR PROJECT DESCRIPTION, BUT WE’LL 1 REQUIRE MORE REFINED DESIGN IN THE LONG RUN. 2 ALTERNATIVE ONE IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PROJECT, BECAUSE 3 IN ORDER TO DO EITHER ALTERNATIVE ONE OR THE PROJECT THE FROOM 4 CREEK WOULD NEED TO BE REALIGNED. AND SO THAT COMPONENT STAYED 5 IDENTICAL BETWEEN THE TWO, AND AS A RESULT THE IMPACTS WERE VERY 6 SIMILAR. THE ONE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE IMPERVIOUS SPACE WOULD BE 7 SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED COMPARED TO THE PROJECT, ABOUT 18 PERCENT 8 LESS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WHICH WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON OVERALL 9 SHEET FLOW AND THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF THAT THE SYSTEM WOULD NEED 10 TO ACCOMMODATE ON -- FOR ONSITE RETENTION. 11 AS I MENTIONED AT THE -- AT THE TOP OF THE MEETING, THE 12 OVERVIEW, LAND USE AND PLANNING IS A UNIQUE CEQA RESOURCE THAT 13 WE -- WE LOOK AT. IT’S AN IMPACT IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT 14 THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICY. 15 AND FOR SEVERAL RESOURCES, ONCE WE DID THE IMPACT ANALYSIS AND 16 REACHED THESE CONCLUSIONS AND COMPARED THOSE WITH CITY POLICY 17 FOR THOSE RESOURCES, THAT’S WHERE THE IMPACTS CAME FROM, 18 INCLUDING THE – THE DEVELOPMENT -- THE DEVELOPMENT’S EFFECT ON 19 RESOURCES THAT EXIST OVER 150 FEET. 20 THE 150-FOOT POLICY IS NOT ARBITRARY. IN THE CITY POLICY IT 21 ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE REASON THAT THAT LINE IS THERE IS BECAUSE 22 THE RESOURCE SETTING CHANGES DRAMATICALLY ONCE YOU GET INTO THE 23 HILLSIDES. RESOURCE VALUES SHOOT UP. YOU HAVE NOT ONLY 24 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE VALUE, BUT ALSO THE GEOLOGY STARTS TO STARTS 25 09265 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 32 TO CHANGE. 1 ONSITE, WE HAVE SERPENTINE SOILS, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS, 2 SEVERAL OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE VALUE IN CONCERT WITH THE 3 GENERAL PLAN THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED WITH DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 4 THAT LINE. SO THAT CAME THROUGH FOR A VARIETY OF RESOURCES, 5 INCLUDING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, WILDFIRE, AND EMERGENCY ACCESS. 6 AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, ALTERNATIVE ONE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY 7 LESS -- LESS SEVERE THAN THE PROJECT. IT’S MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE 8 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD PERSIST IN A 9 SIMILAR WAY IS THE HISTORIC RESOURCE IMPACTS. 10 IN TERMS OF NOISE, EVERYTHING WAS LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT 11 WITH MITIGATION. WE LOOKED AT CONSTRUCTION NOISE. WE LOOKED AT 12 VIBRATION EFFECTS, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO THE HISTORIC 13 STRUCTURES -- IF THERE’S ANY GROUND VIBRATION THAT WOULD SHAKE 14 THE FOUNDATIONS OF A SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AND RESULT IN DAMAGE 15 FROM THE PROJECT; OPERATIONAL NOISE INCLUDING HVAC AND ALSO 16 CONSIDERING ONSITE USES, IF THERE WAS ANY SPECIAL EVENTS, THAT SORT 17 OF THING ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONS OF THE PROJECT. 18 AND THEN ALSO, MORE IN TERMS OF PLANNING -- FOR PLANNING 19 AND INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE INCLUDED AS 20 AN IMPACT, BUT IS THE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT OF -- OF -- I’M SORRY, LATER 21 PHASES OF THE PROJECT ON RESIDENTS THAT MOVE INTO THE PROJECT. 22 ONE THING WE DIDN’T COVER IS THAT THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED 23 TO BE IMPLEMENTED OVER SEVERAL PHASES OVER SEVERAL YEARS, AND 24 THERE IS A POINT WHERE THE LOWER AREA OF VILLAGGIO WOULD BE 25 09266 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 33 OCCUPIED WHILE THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE STILL 1 BEING DEVELOPED. AND SO WE INCLUDED THIS IMPACT TO DISCLOSE THAT 2 THERE’S A POTENTIAL THAT CONSTRUCTION NOISE MAY EXCEED CITY 3 STANDARDS FOR THOSE RESIDENTS, AND MOSTLY JUST FOR DISCLOSURE 4 THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THAT 5 THERE MAY BE, YOU KNOW, TRUCKS AND CONSTRUCTION THAT SHOULD BE 6 HAPPENING. 7 WE WERE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT HOWEVER WITH LIMITATIONS 8 ON CONSTRUCTION NOISE, HOURS, THINGS THAT ARE PRETTY STANDARD 9 AND FAMILIAR. AND THEN ALSO NOTIFYING PEOPLE OF THE FACT THAT THIS 10 WOULD BE HAPPENING AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE PROJECT 11 INCLUDES A COMPONENT THAT WOULD REROUTE REALLY HEAVY HAUL, 12 LOUD NOISES TO A DIFFERENT ROUTE TO AVOID THOSE POTENTIAL IMPACTS 13 TO RESIDENTS IN THE LONG RUN. SO THAT CONFLUENCE OF BOTH PROJECT 14 FEATURES AND MITIGATIONS WERE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. 15 ALTERNATIVE ONE IS LESS THAN THE PROJECT, SIMILAR, BUT 16 LESS. MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE REDUCED DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION 17 SINCE WE’RE NOT DOING PHASE THREE, THE UPPER TERRACE, IT WOULD BE A 18 SHORTER DURATION. AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD OCCUR 19 FURTHER AWAY FROM SENSITIVE RECEPTORS, INCLUDING MOUNTAINBROOK 20 CHURCH. 21 IN TERMS OF POPULATION HOUSING, THE PROJECT PROPOSES 22 RESIDENTIAL USES AND ALSO COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH WOULD 23 CONTRIBUTE EMPLOYEES -- NEW EMPLOYEES TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE 24 CITY. OUR TEAM ESTIMATED POPULATION OF THE PROJECT BASED ON A 25 09267 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 34 VARIETY OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT OCCUPANCY AND -- AND THE 1 COMMERCIAL USES IN TERMS OF HOW MANY EMPLOYEES PER THOUSAND 2 SQUARE FEET OR SO, AND COMPARED THOSE WITH THE CITY’S JOB TO 3 HOUSING RATIO TO UNDERSTAND THE EFFECT. 4 IT WOULD NOT EXACERBATE A PROBLEM WITH THE JOBS 5 HOUSING RATIO, AND IN FACT, THE CONTRIBUTION OF HOUSING WOULD 6 CONTRIBUTE TO THE BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE JOBS HOUSING RATIO. 7 AND WOULD ALSO PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE 8 MADONNA-FROOM RANCH PORTION OF THE PROJECT INCLUDES AND 9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT, SPECIFICALLY, SO THAT WOULD BE THE 10 -- THE PORTION OF THE PROJECT THAT WOULD SATISFY THE CITY’S 11 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS. 12 AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, BECAUSE THE UNITS ARE THE SAME, 13 THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS THE SAME, THE ALTERNATIVE IS 14 SIMILAR TO THE PROJECT. 15 IN TERMS OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION, THESE 16 RESOURCES WERE ALL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AND -- AND ONE WITH 17 MITIGATIONS. WE’LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN JUST A MINUTE. 18 THE POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES, THE SITE IS WELL 19 SERVED. IT’S LOCATED NEAR SERVICES AND EXISTING CAPABILITIES FOR 20 CITY POLICE AND FIRE RESPONSE IS ADEQUATE. 21 IN – AND SAME FOR SCHOOLS. THERE – WE IDENTIFIED THE 22 SCHOOLS IN THE VICINITY. ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT THE DEMAND FOR 23 SCHOOLS IS A LITTLE LIGHTER FOR THIS PROJECT, GIVEN THAT IT HAS A 24 LARGE SENIOR COMPONENT. AND WE FACTORED THAT INTO THE 25 09268 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 35 ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN THAT 1 WOULD BE GENERATED BY THE PROJECT. 2 AND IN TERMS OF PARKLAND AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, 3 THERE – WE HAVE A MITIGATION MEASURE TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL 4 PARKLAND. THE PROJECT INVOLVES OR PROPOSES A PUBLIC PARK IN THE 5 MADONNA-FROOM RANCH PORTION. AND THE VILLAGGIO DEVELOPMENT 6 WILL PROVIDE A WIDE RANGE OF AMENITIES FOR RESIDENTS. AND WE – WE 7 ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN THE ANALYSIS THAT, 8 THOUGH THEY’RE NOT KNOWN YET, THE RANGE OF AMENITIES, SUCH AS, 9 YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY CENTERS AND POOLS AND PICKLE BALL COURTS 10 AND THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD BE BUILT INTO THE OVERALL DESIGN OF 11 VILLAGGIO. 12 THAT BEING SAID, AS IT’S A LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY AND IT’S AN 13 ACTIVE SENIOR COMMUNITY, THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY SENIORS 14 WOULD STAY ONSITE AND THAT ALL NEEDS WOULD BE MET BY AMENITIES 15 ONSITE, WE -- WE WOULDN’T EXPECT THAT. WE WOULD EXPECT THAT THE 16 SENIOR COMMUNITIES WOULD BE SEEKING RECREATIONAL DEMANDS IN THE 17 COMMUNITIES RANGING FROM COMMUNITY CENTERS TO PARKS, HIKING 18 TRAILS, OPEN SPACE, ET CETERA. 19 AND ALSO IN – IN REVIEWING THAT THAT ANALYSIS AGAINST 20 THE CITY’S STANDARDS FOR PARKLAND AND PARKLAND IMPACTS, WE 21 WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THE RATIO OF PARKLAND TO THE NEW 22 POPULATION THAT WOULD BE INTRODUCED FROM THE PROJECT MATCHES 23 THE CITY’S RATIOS. SO THAT’S WHERE THE CALCULATION CAME FROM, A 24 REQUIREMENT FOR NEW PARKLAND INCLUDING NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 25 09269 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 36 WITHIN THE CITY IS PART OF THE MITIGATION MEASURE. 1 AND THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ALTERNATIVE, 2 AGAIN, BECAUSE THE POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT ARE SIMILAR. 3 FOR TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC, SEVERAL IMPACTS -- I 4 GAVE A GOOD OVERVIEW AT THE TOP ABOUT WHERE THE ISSUES WERE 5 RELATED TO THE EXISTING SETTING PLUS THE PROJECT, AND THEN ALSO 6 NEAR TERM CONDITIONS, SO NEAR TERM TRAFFIC CONDITIONS BY 2025 PLUS 7 THE PROJECT. THOSE TWO IMPACTS WERE WHERE THE SIGNIFICANT AND 8 UNAVOIDABLE ISSUES AROSE, AND THAT’S MAINLY JUST IN TERMS OF LEVEL 9 IN SERVICE, THE MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR THE 10 CITY, AND THE CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE TO 11 ACCOMMODATE THE NEW TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE GENERATED BY THE 12 PROJECT. 13 THE LONG TERM CUMULATIVE IMPACT WAS LESS THAN 14 SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION AND THAT’S MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE 15 PRADO ROAD IMPROVEMENT. THAT WOULD BE COMPLETED BY THAT 16 FUTURE YEAR AND WOULD ALLEVIATE MANY OF THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE 17 EXPERIENCED IN THE NEAR TERM. 18 IN ADDITION, THE ANALYSIS LOOKED AT CONSTRUCTION 19 TRAFFIC AND PROPOSED PROPOSES SEVERAL MITIGATION MEASURES TO 20 CONTROL AND ADDRESS POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC 21 INCLUDING ROAD CLOSURES, CONGESTION, SAFETY ISSUES, ET CETERA. WE 22 ALSO LOOKED AT SAFETY ISSUES AND EMERGENCY ACCESS SPECIFICALLY, 23 AND ALSO BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. SO SEVERAL OF THE MITIGATION 24 MEASURES ARE IN THE INTEREST OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE 25 09270 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 37 CIRCULATION AND SAFETY, ACCESS, ROAD CROSSINGS, ET CETERA. 1 IN ADDITION, THE ONE THING TO NOTE ABOUT THE MITIGATION 2 MEASURES IS THAT THE INTENDED OUTCOME OR THE IMPROVEMENT THAT 3 WOULD BE NEEDED TO ADDRESS THE IMPACT THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE 4 EIR, THE MECHANISM BY WHICH THE PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO 5 PARTICIPATE IN THAT OR IN THAT MITIGATION VARIES. SO IT COULD BE A 6 PAYMENT OF FEES, A FAIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE IMPROVEMENT. IT COULD 7 BE BUILDING THE SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENT. 8 THIS IS MOST RELEVANT FOR FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG 9 LOVR, SO THAT’S PART OF THE PROJECT AS IT IS. MITIGATION MEASURES 10 THAT SPECIFY IMPROVEMENTS OR, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC CURBS OR BICYCLE 11 FACILITIES, THAT WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT IMPROVEMENT WOULD BE A 12 PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT CONDUCTED BY THE -- THE PROJECT ITSELF. 13 OTHER THINGS THAT ARE LESS CONNECTED WITH THE PHYSICAL 14 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WOULD BE PAYMENT OF FEES AND OTHER 15 MECHANISMS. 16 THE – I MENTIONED EMERGENCY ACCESS AND THAT’S ONE 17 OTHER ASPECT OF THIS -- THIS SECTION THAT WE ADDRESSED WAS ACCESS 18 TO THE SITE, RESPONSE TIMES AND – I’M SORRY ABILITY TO RESPOND TO 19 INCIDENTS WITHIN THE SITE, AND ALSO IN THE IRISH HILLS, AND POTENTIAL 20 ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS TO ENSURE THAT THERE’S ADEQUATE EMERGENCY 21 ACCESS FROM THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND THEN ALSO TWO DIFFERENT 22 EMERGENCY ACCESS POINTS ON THE SITE. 23 AND THIS WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE PROJECT FOR THE 24 REASONS I MENTIONED BEFORE. IT’S A SIMILAR PROJECT, JUST A SMALLER 25 09271 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 38 FOOTPRINT. 1 I THINK THERE’S ONLY TWO MORE. THE UTILITIES AND ENERGY 2 CONSERVATION SECTION LOOKED AT UTILITY EXPANSION. AS PROPOSED, 3 URBAN UTILITIES AND CITY UTILITIES WOULD BE EXTENDED ONTO THE SITE, 4 SO WATER, WASTEWATER, ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, 5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS WOULD BE EITHER 6 UPGRADED OR EXTENDED ONTO THE SITE. 7 WE ALSO LOOKED AT SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND WHAT 8 WOULD HAPPEN BOTH FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND 9 MUNICIPAL WASTE THAT WOULD BE GENERATED FROM THE PROJECT. THE -- 10 OR -- AND ALSO WE ANALYZED ENERGY CONSUMPTION. ANALYZING 11 WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A -- A SUSTAINABLE USE OR SUSTAINABLE USE OF 12 ENERGY IN THE LONG RUN OR IF THERE’S ANY -- ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT 13 COULD BE ACHIEVED THERE. 14 THE ONE ISSUE THAT WE IDENTIFIED WAS THE CAPACITY OF THE 15 LAGUNA LIFT STATION. THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM WOULD REQUIRE SOME 16 PUMPING TO GET THE -- THE WASTEWATER FROM THE PROJECT SITE OVER TO 17 LAGUNA, AND WE CAN BRING UP A MAP OF THIS, BUT IT HAS TO GO UNDER 18 THE 101 CORRIDOR TO THE OTHER SIDE OF 101. AND THE LIFT STATION IS IT’S 19 A CUMULATIVE ISSUE, BUT YOU KNOW THE LIFT STATION’S GONNA NEED 20 UPGRADES GIVEN THE RANGE OF DEMANDS ON IT. AND SO THIS PROJECT 21 WOULD CONTRIBUTE IN A FAIR SHARE WAY TO THE UPGRADE OF THE LIFT 22 STATION. 23 AND FOR OUR ALTERNATIVE ONE, VERY SIMILAR TO THE 24 PROJECT. SAME DEMANDS, SAME WASTEWATER GENERATION, SAME ENERGY 25 09272 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 39 DEMANDS, ET CETERA. 1 AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THIS WAS A LATE HIT ISSUE. 2 ORIGINALLY, IT WASN’T KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN ACTUAL MINERAL 3 RESOURCE ON THE SITE. THE TEAM KNEW THAT THERE WAS A QUARRY BUT 4 DIDN’T KNOW THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY ON THE BOOKS ANYWHERE. WE 5 KNEW IT WAS OPERATED AS A PERMANENT QUARRY, BUT WE FOUND OUT IN 6 THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATING THIS SITE THAT IT’S NOT ONLY PERMITTED, 7 BUT IT’S ALSO IDENTIFIED ON THE COUNTY’S MINERAL DESIGNATION LIST 8 AND ON THE MAP. WE FOUND THE MAP AND SAID, “WHAT IS THIS?” 9 SO I – KNOWING THAT IT WAS ON THE COUNTY’S LIST AS A 10 MINERAL RESOURCE, THE MINERAL RESOURCES SECTION WAS ADDED ONTO 11 THE LIST OF RESOURCES, THAT’S WHY IT SEEMS ODD THAT IT’S THE LAST 12 CHAPTER. IT’S NOT ALPHABETICAL. 13 BUT ESSENTIALLY, THE IMPACTS ARE THE LOSS OF THE QUARRY. 14 IT’S A RED – A 5.5-ACRE RED ROCK QUARRY. THERE ARE SEVERAL RED ROCK 15 QUARRIES IN THE AREA AND WE LOOKED AT NOT ONLY THE -- THE -- THE 16 POTENTIAL FOR OTHER QUARRIES TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THIS PROJECT 17 SITE, BUT ALSO WHAT IS THE RESOURCE VALUE OF THE SITE ITSELF? 18 IT’S CURRENTLY NOT PRODUCING RED ROCK. IT’S CURRENTLY 19 USED AS A CONSTRUCTION STORAGE AREA AND AGGREGATE STORAGE AND 20 THE -- THE -- THE PLACEMENT OF THIS SMALL QUARRY IN CONTEXT OF THE 21 GREATER REGION MADE THIS ISSUE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. 22 AND THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE PROJECT. THE -- THE -- THE 23 ALTERNATIVE WOULD ALSO INVOLVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUARRY SITE. 24 SO WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING OF THE BROAD BRUSHES OF 25 09273 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 40 THE PROJECT’S IMPACTS, WE ALSO LOOK AT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. I 1 MENTIONED THE LAGUNA LIFT STATION AS A CUMULATIVE IMPACT THAT IS 2 EVERYONE WHO USES THE LIFT STATION’S RESPONSIBILITY, BUT ALSO 3 WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT FINDINGS FOR ALL THESE 4 RESOURCES WERE VERY SIMILAR TO THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT WOULD 5 CONTRIBUTE IN A SIMILAR WAY TO THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AS IT DOES 6 FROM THE PROJECT SPECIFIC STANDPOINT. 7 AND THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS CONSIDERED THE 8 LATENT GENERAL PLAN GROWTH THAT WE KNOW HAS STILL YET TO HAPPEN, 9 BUT ALSO SPECIFIC PROJECTS, SPECIFIC BIGGER PROJECTS THAT ARE ON THE 10 SAME SCALE AS THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING THE AVILA – AVILA RANCH 11 PROJECT ACROSS THE FREEWAY, THE SAN LUIS RANCH PROJECT JUST TO THE 12 NORTH, AND OTHER LARGER PROJECTS, INCLUDING THE CAL POLY MASTER 13 PLAN, WHICH IS UNDER WAY. 14 SO THOSE -- THOSE ARE THAT’S THE CONTEXT FOR THE 15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT. AND REALLY THE TWO ISSUES WHERE THE 16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS REALLY MANIFESTED WAS IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC AND 17 WASTEWATER. 18 SO STEPPING BACK, I WANT TO RETURN TO ALTERNATIVES. 19 WE’VE, YOU KNOW, IN GOING THROUGH THIS DESCRIBED HOW THE PROJECT 20 RELATES TO ALTERNATIVE ONE AND HOW ALTERNATIVE ONE RELATES TO 21 THE PROJECT. I MENTIONED THAT WE LOOKED AT FOUR ALTERNATIVES. 22 WE LOOKED AT NO PROJECT. SO JUST NOT DOING -- NOT DOING 23 THIS PROJECT, NOT HAVING A SPECIFIC PLAN, LETTING THE EXISTING 24 GENERAL PLAN FRAMEWORK FOR THE SITE SIT, LETTING IT STAY IN THE 25 09274 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 41 COUNTY AND -- AND -- AND WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN FOR IMPACTS. 1 THERE’S A COUPLE INTERESTING NUMBER ONE IT -- IT WOULDN’T MEET THE 2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES. THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES INVOLVE BUILDING A LIFE 3 PLAN COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, FULFILLING THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE 4 GENERAL PLAN -- FOR THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN, ET CETERA, AND SO 5 THERE’S THAT. 6 AND ALSO ONE THING JUST TO NOTE THAT IS -- IS AN 7 INTERESTING FINDING FOR NO PROJECT IS THAT IT WOULD ALSO NOT 8 INVOLVE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE FROOM RANCH COMPLEX. THE FROOM 9 RANCH DAIRY COMPLEX IS IN -- IS IN A TENTATIVE STATE AND -- FOR MANY 10 OF THE STRUCTURES. AND SO WE WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IF YOU 11 DON’T DO THE PROJECT, THERE’S NO MECHANISM TO PRESERVE OR 12 RELOCATE, ADAPTIVELY REUSE ANY OF THE STRUCTURES UNLESS THAT’S A 13 SEPARATE PROJECT. SO THAT’S JUST ONE TRADEOFF THAT WE WANTED TO 14 IDENTIFY. 15 WE’VE GONE THROUGH ALTERNATIVE ONE. THAT PROJECT 16 MEETS THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES ALMOST ACROSS THE BOARD. 17 ALTERNATIVE TWO IS SIMILAR. IT INVOLVES FROOM RANCH 18 CREEK REALIGNMENT, BUT INSTEAD OF DOING COMMERCIAL USES, IT 19 WOULD JUST BE A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. WE LOOKED AT WHAT IT WOULD 20 LOOK LIKE IF -- IF -- IF THE CITY’S GOALS FOR RESIDENTIAL -- MEETING 21 RESIDENTIAL AND HOUSING NEEDS WERE REALIZED MORE FULLY ON THE 22 SITE, AND THAT THE COMMERCIAL USES WOULD GO AWAY. AND SO THAT 23 ANALYSIS LOOKS AT THAT. 24 IT PARTIALLY MEETS PROJECT OBJECTIVES. THE OBJECTIVE TO 25 09275 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 42 PROVIDE SENIOR HOUSING WOULD NOT BE MET OF COURSE, AND SOME 1 OTHERS WERE ANALYZED TO, YOU KNOW -- TO BE A LITTLE OFF COMPARED 2 TO THE PROJECT. 3 AND SIMILARLY FOR ALTERNATIVE THREE, IT’S AN 4 ALTERNATIVE THAT LOOKS AT WHAT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM PROJECT 5 THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BUILD TO COMPLY WITH THE LAND USE 6 ELEMENT REGULATIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON SITE? SO UNDER THE 7 GENERAL PLAN IF YOU JUST LETTER OF THE LAW JUST BUILT A PROJECT 8 THAT PERFECTLY MATCHED EXACTLY ALL OF THE NUMBERS AND THE 9 LETTERS THAT ARE IN THE -- IN THE REGULATION FOR THIS SITE, WHAT 10 WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? 11 AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE’S -- THERE’S SOME 12 REDUCTIONS IN IMPACTS WHEN YOU REDUCE THE PROJECT THAT MUCH. BUT 13 IT ALSO ONLY PARTIALLY MEETS THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES, BECAUSE NOT 14 ONLY WOULD YOU NOT BUILD SENIOR HOUSING, BUT IT ALSO WOULD BE A 15 SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY OF THE SITE. AND 16 MAY NOT MEET NOT JUST PROJECT OBJECTIVES BUT CITY HOUSING GOALS. 17 SO IN THE END, FACTORING NOT JUST THE ENVIRONMENTAL 18 ANALYSIS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRADEOFFS OF THESE ALTERNATIVES, 19 BUT ALSO FACTORING IN TO WHAT DEGREE THE -- THE PROJECT MEETS THE 20 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND CITY OBJECTIVES, THE ACTIONABLE 21 ALTERNATIVE, ALTERNATIVE ONE, WAS DETERMINED TO BE THE 22 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE. THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF 23 CEQA WHERE WE STEP BACK AND SAY WELL WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST 24 THING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT? WHAT PROJECT WOULD GET US THERE IN 25 09276 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 43 CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE TRADEOFFS? 1 AND THIS FINDING WAS MADE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE 2 AVOIDANCE OF UPPER TERRACE RESOURCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF 3 THE CONSTRAINTS OF THOSE UPPER TERRACE AREAS. AND THEN ALSO THE 4 AVOIDANCE OF DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL USES AND HABITABLE SPACE 5 ABOVE 150 FEET. THAT’S CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND TAKES 6 THOSE COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT OUT OF, NOT ONLY HARM’S WAY, BUT 7 ALSO WOULD AVOID DIRECT IMPACTS TO SEVERAL RESOURCES AS WE’VE 8 DISCUSSED. 9 AND THAT IS THE OVERVIEW. SO THANK YOU FOR STICKING 10 WITH ME AS WE WALKED THROUGH THAT. I HOPE THAT WAS VALUABLE TO 11 KIND OF SEE WHAT WE’VE SEEN AND, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE TAKEAWAYS IN 12 YOUR MIND THAT ARE IN MY MIND. 13 JUST A REMINDER, AND THIS IS FOR THE COMMISSION, BUT ALSO 14 FOR THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS ON 15 DECEMBER 23RD, WHICH IS IN ABOUT A WEEK, A WEEK AND A HALF, AND 16 THAT THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE IN PAPER COPY. WE HAVE A 17 COUPLE HERE TONIGHT, BUT ALSO IT’S AVAILABLE ONLINE, AND IT’S FULLY 18 NAVIGABLE SO IF YOU TURN -- IF YOU OPEN UP THE -- THE TABLE OF 19 CONTENTS, YOU CAN SKIP AROUND REAL EASILY. THAT’S AVAILABLE 20 ONLINE. 21 AND ALSO THE -- THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IS A REALLY 22 HELPFUL TOOL OF THE EIR. IT’S THE VERY FIRST CHAPTER. IT’S A BIG 23 SUMMARY SHEET. IT’S KIND OF WHAT WE WENT THROUGH TONIGHT IN A – IN 24 A MATRIX, SO YOU CAN SEE IMPACT, THE MITIGATIONS THAT WOULD APPLY 25 09277 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 44 AND THE FINDING AFTERWARDS, AND KIND OF GET THAT SNAPSHOT OF THIS 1 BIG DOCUMENT. IT’S VERY HELPFUL. 2 AND OF COURSE, I CAN TURN IT BACK TO CITY STAFF, BUT MORE 3 INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT AND ITS COMPONENTS, WHERE IT’S BEEN 4 AND WHERE IT’S GOING IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBPAGE. AND I’LL 5 POINT TO SHAWNA’S CONTACT INFO FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PROJECT, 6 OF COURSE. 7 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND -- AND ALSO 8 PATIENCE WHILE WE WALK THROUGH THAT. APPRECIATE IT. 9 CHAIR WULKAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT VERY 10 THOROUGH PRESENTATION. AT THIS TIME, I’D JUST LIKE TO SEE IF THERE 11 ARE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS, NOT COMMENTS, JUST 12 QUESTIONS, EXPLANATIONS OF ITEMS THAT WERE COVERED IN THE 13 PRESENTATION OR IN THE EIR? COMMISSIONER MCKENZIE? 14 COMMISSIONER MCKENZIE: THANK YOU. YEAH, I GUESS, MY 15 COMMENTS ARE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, AND I’M THINKING IT WOULD 16 BE BETTER TO WAIT AND -- AND THEN JUST MAYBE SHARE THOSE WITHOUT 17 EXPECTATIONS OF ANSWERS, JUST TO PROVIDE IT TO STAFF AND THE EIR 18 CONSULTANT. 19 CHAIR WULKAN: OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. ANYONE ELSE? I JUST HAVE 20 ONE OR TWO, AND I WAS WONDERING IF STAFF COULD POINT OUT ON -- ON 21 AN EXHIBIT, MAYBE THERE WAS AN EXHIBIT IN THE EIR, A FIGURE, IT WAS 22 FIGURE 2-4 ON PAGE 2-15. THE QUESTION IS IF STAFF COULD POINT OUT THAT 23 300-FOOT BUFFER THAT’S DESCRIBED IN MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-13. IT’S 24 THE MITIGATION TO -- FOR A SETBACK IN THE AREA OF THE CONFLUENCE OF 25 09278 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 45 THE THREE DRAINAGES. 1 AND I WAS INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT SETBACK IN RELATION 2 TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS OF THE SITE JUST SO WE CAN SEE 3 HOW IT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 4 MS. LEACHMAN: OKAY. CHAIR WULKAN AND COMMISSIONERS, 5 THANK YOU SO MUCH. 6 I’LL GET THE MOUSE OUT SO WE CAN POINT TO PORTIONS OF THE 7 MAP. AND THE AREA COMMISSIONER WULKAN IS REFERRING TO IS THIS 8 CONFLUENCE, SO DRAINAGES ONE COMES DOWN HERE, TWO CROSSES THE 9 UPPER TERRACE, AND THREE IS ACTUALLY A FORK DRAINAGE THAT -- THAT 10 HAS A CONFLUENCE HERE AND THEN JOINS THE REST OF THE DRAINAGE 11 HERE. AND THEN THAT CONFLUENCE CONTINUES DOWN THE HILL AND 12 THERE IS A CONNECTION POINT BETWEEN THAT CONFLUENCE WITH FROOM 13 CREEK HERE. 14 THE -- THIS -- THE WATER THAT FLOWS FROM THIS WATERSHED 15 AND THE FROOM CREEK WATERSHED, WHICH EXTENDS WAY UP INTO THE -- 16 THE HILLSIDE HERE ALL FLOWS INTO THE STORMWATER BASIN AREA, WHICH 17 IS THIS BLUE AREA HERE -- THIS IS WHERE THE STORM BASIN WOULD BE 18 PROPOSED -- AND FOLLOWS THE EXISTING CREEK CHANNEL DOWN TO 19 HIGHWAY 101, AND THERE IS A BOX CULVERT HERE THAT THE WATER THEN 20 GOES UNDER TO JOIN SAN LUIS CREEK. 21 SO THE CONFLUENCE RIGHT HERE WAS IDENTIFIED AS A 22 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IN AND OF ITSELF. AND THE REASON FOR 23 THAT IS NOT ONLY DOES THE CONFLUENCE OF THE – OF THE WATER 24 SOURCES PROVIDE FOR WILDLIFE MIGRATION, WATER – LITERALLY WATER 25 09279 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 46 SOURCES FOR WILDLIFE, SOME LARGER MAMMALS AND BIRDS AND OTHERS 1 THAT COME DOWN FROM THE HILLS TO -- TO HAVE A WATER SOURCE WHERE 2 THAT THAT SPRING KIND OF EMERGES IN A COUPLE DIFFERENT PLACES 3 ALONG THE CONFLUENCE. SO THAT IT SUPPORTS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN 4 A PHYSICAL WAY. 5 AND THEN IN ADDITION, IT’S A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE UNDER 6 CITY POLICY. I MENTIONED ECOTONES EARLIER AND THE CITY POLICY WAS – 7 IS REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THIS TYPE OF RESOURCE WHERE YOU HAVE A 8 PHYSICAL CONDITION THAT SUPPORTS MORE OF THE ECOSYSTEM OF AN 9 AREA, WHERE THE UPPER GRASSLAND AREAS HERE IN THE SITE AND ALONG 10 WITH UP HERE IN THE IRISH HILLS, ARE CONNECTED WITH A WETLAND AND 11 WATER SOURCE DOWN BELOW. 12 SO THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT CONFLUENCE IS MORE THAN JUST 13 THE CREEK CHANNELS AND MORE THAN JUST THE PLANTS AND ANIMALS 14 THAT WOULD BE FOUND RIGHT THERE. IT ACTUALLY SUPPORTS A FUNCTION 15 OF -- OF A VARIETY OF COMMUNITIES THAT ARE CONNECTED TO ONE 16 ANOTHER. 17 SO IN LOOKING AT THAT AND IN REVIEWING THAT IN CONSCIOUS 18 OF CITY POLICY, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRACTICE, PRESERVATION OF THAT 19 CONFLUENCE SO THAT IT CONTINUES TO FUNCTIONS IN THAT WAY IS 20 ACTUALLY QUITE IMPORTANT. AND THE WAY THAT THE MITIGATION IS 21 WRITTEN TO PROTECT IT IS TO SET THINGS BACK FROM IT, TO GET 22 DEVELOPMENT AWAY FROM THAT SO IT STILL FUNCTIONS AND HAS ENOUGH 23 SPACE TO ALLOW FOR ANIMAL PASSAGE AND -- AND CONTINUATION OF ITS 24 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE VALUE. 25 09280 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 47 SO 300 FEET -- AND I APOLOGIZE. I WISH I HAVE HAD THE MAP TO 1 MEASURE IT ‘CAUSE WE DID MEASURE THAT BEFORE THE BUFFER WAS 2 RECOMMENDED. BUT IT, BASICALLY, TAKES THIS LITTLE CUL-DE-SAC HERE 3 AND WOULD MOVE IT DOWN THE HILL. AND THERE WOULD BE OTHER 4 THINGS TO FACTOR IN THE REDESIGN OF THAT CUL-DE-SAC. RIGHT HERE 5 THERE’S ABOUT -- BASED ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN -- ABOUT FOUR 6 STRUCTURES THAT ARE CLUSTERED TOGETHER IN THAT CUL-DE-SAC. 7 AND IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, WE LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, 8 WHERE THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY GO, A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE 9 HILL TO -- TO OPEN UP A BUFFER AROUND THE CREEK, AND THERE’S SPACE. 10 AND ALSO WE LOOKED AT OTHER CONSTRAINTS. WE DIDN’T 11 WANT TO SAY, “MOVE – MOVE THIS. REDESIGN THIS AREA AND MOVE IT 12 DOWN,” BUT THEN MOVE IT INTO SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT IS ALSO OR 13 EQUALLY MORE SENSITIVE. 14 SO THAT’S -- THAT’S THE MAIN EFFECT IS THAT THIS LITTLE 15 PORTION RIGHT HERE WOULD REQUIRE SOME REDESIGN TO MAINTAIN A 16 BUFFER THAT EXTENDS OUT TO ABOUT THERE FROM THE CONFLUENCE. 17 THE CONFLUENCE TECHNICALLY WOULD EXTEND THIS WAY AS 18 WELL, BUT THAT GOES OFFSITE AND THERE’S NO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 19 ON THAT SIDE, SO THAT’S THE MAIN EFFECT IS JUST THIS LITTLE PORTION 20 RIGHT THERE. 21 CHAIR WULKAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION, 22 SLASH, COMMENT. I’LL HOLD ON THAT UNTIL WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. 23 SO AT THIS TIME, I’D LIKE TO OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC. AND FIRST 24 WE’LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. I’D LIKE THE APPLICANT OR THE 25 09281 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 48 APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK FOR A MAXIMUM OF SIX MINUTES. 1 AND THEN -- THEN WE’LL GO TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR 2 COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. 3 AND I JUST LIKE TO REITERATE THAT TONIGHT WE’RE DEALING 4 ONLY WITH THE FROOM RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, SO WE’RE 5 – AND WE’RE ALSO JUST TAKING COMMENTS TONIGHT. WE’RE NOT GOING TO 6 TAKE ANY ACTION. WE’RE NOT MAKING ANY DECISIONS TONIGHT, JUST 7 TAKING COMMENTS. 8 SO I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE COMMENTS JUST ON THE 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ITSELF RATHER THAN THE PROJECT, SO 10 PLEASE TRY TO AVOID MAKING COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT ITSELF, 11 VILLAGGIO OR THE MADONNA-FROOM RANCH COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT 12 AND PLEASE TRY TO AVOID SAYING THAT YOU’RE WHY YOU’RE FOR IT OR 13 AGAINST IT. AND JUST LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE, TO WHAT’S – WHAT 14 WE HEARD TONIGHT IN THE PRESENTATION AND THE TOPICS COVERED IN 15 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. 16 AND SO AT THIS TIME, I’LL TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT’S 17 REPRESENTATIVE. 18 MR. MONTGOMERY: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS VICTOR 19 MONTGOMERY FROM RRM DESIGN GROUP. AND WITH ME THIS EVENING ARE 20 PAM RICHIE AND TIM WALTERS. TIM IS THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE 21 PROJECT. JOHN MADONNA’S IN THE AUDIENCE. DENNIS FERNANDEZ, MARK 22 DE LOTTO, BOB RICHEN, JULIE HOWARD, AND ALLIE PADUA FROM VILLAGGIO 23 ARE ALSO HERE TONIGHT. AND KEVIN MERCK THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST IS -- I 24 THINK HE’S HERE HE’S HERE TONIGHT. I SEE HIM BACK THERE. 25 09282 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 49 AND WE ARE ALL AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU 1 HAVE THEM, ANY OF US ABOUT ANY TOPIC WE THINK WE CAN ANSWER. 2 I THOUGHT MY APPROACH TO THIS -- I LOOKED BACK AT WHEN 3 YOU’VE HEARD THIS LAST TIME, ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, AND THOUGHT I 4 MIGHT GO THROUGH YOUR COMMENTS FROM THE LAST TIME AROUND 5 RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT AND THE EIR. 6 FIRST, I WANT TO SAY, WE’RE STILL LOOKING AT THE 7 DOCUMENT. THAT’S MY COPY OF IT SITTING OVER THERE WITH LOTS OF 8 LITTLE TABS ON IT. AND I’M NOT DONE. 9 SECOND OF ALL, I WANT TO REINFORCE HAVING SEEN THE 10 DOCUMENT AND LOOKED AT ITS CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKED AT THE 11 TIMELINE FOR THE PROJECT, THE APPLICANT TEAM HAS DECIDED TO FOCUS 12 ENTIRELY ON ALTERNATIVE NUMBER ONE AS, FOR LACK OF A TERM, OUR 13 PROJECT AT THIS POINT. 14 THERE’S ANOTHER THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE ABOUT THE EIR 15 AND IT’S KIND OF THE NATURE OF EIRS, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE SAY 16 THIS. AND THAT’S, IT’S CONSERVATIVE IN ITS CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS. 17 AND I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. AND 18 PARTIALLY THESE ARE DONE DEFENSIVELY. YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON’T 19 COVER SOMETHING IN AN EIR, YOU RUN A HUGE RISK. OR IF YOU HAVE TO 20 GO BACK AND CHANGE SOMETHING IN YOUR PROJECT, AS RECENTLY 21 HAPPENED WITH SAN LUIS RANCH, YOU CAN GO BACK THROUGH ANOTHER 22 YEAR OF PROCESS AMENDING THE EIR. SO YOU’RE TRYING TO BE 23 CONSERVATIVE AND COVER EVERYTHING YOU CAN AND YOU MAY ERR ON 24 THE SIDE OF BEING TOO CONSERVATIVE. 25 09283 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 50 SO JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS 1 PROJECT IS CRAMMED INTO FIVE YEARS. OUR GUESS IS IT’S GOING TO TAKE 2 CLOSE TO THAT TO GET VILLAGGIO DONE, WITHOUT THE MADONNA PORTION 3 OF THE PROJECT. BUT AGAIN, THAT GIVES YOU THE WORST CASE FOR AIR 4 POLLUTION AND ALL OF THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. YOU’RE LOOKING AT 5 WORST CASE. 6 ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT SORT OF MIGRATED THROUGH THINGS 7 WAS THE ESTIMATION OF THE POPULATION ON THE SITE. AND IT’S 8 PARTICULARLY GERMAINE -- PARTICULARLY GERMAINE TO VILLAGGIO. THE 9 EIR ASSUMES THAT EVERY ONE OF THE INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, ALL 366 10 OF THEM, IS OCCUPIED BY TWO PEOPLE, ALL THE TIME. 11 WE KNOW FROM TALKING TO THE OPERATORS OF THIS PROJECT, 12 LIFE PLAN SERVICES, THAT’S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. THE AVERAGE 13 OCCUPANCY FOR THESE KINDS OF FACILITIES IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1.4 14 AND 1.2 PEOPLE PER UNIT. MUCH LIKE A HOTEL, THEY’RE NEVER A HUNDRED 15 PERCENT OCCUPIED A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME. 16 SO I WANTED YOU TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AND THE DIFFERENCE 17 IS SIGNIFICANT. THIS EIR SAYS THE POPULATION OF VILLAGGIO WOULD BE 18 SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 825 PEOPLE. THE REALISTIC 19 NUMBER FOR LOOKING AT THAT IS SOMETHING LIKE 550. A SUBSTANTIAL 20 DIFFERENCE. AND THAT WORKS ITS WAY INTO THE PARK CALCULATIONS 21 AND THE AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS AND ALL THAT STUFF. 22 SO NOW I’M GONNA GO REALLY QUICK ‘CAUSE I WANT TO TELL 23 YOU WHAT WE’VE DONE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS YOU GAVE US TWO 24 YEARS AGO. DEVELOPMENT ABOVE 150 AND THE UPPER TERRACE, WE’VE 25 09284 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 51 DROPPED IT. WE STILL WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE QUARRY AREA AND WHAT 1 HAPPENS THERE AND WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS. 2 THE SIZE OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE WAS BROUGHT UP. 3 IT’S 1.8 ACRES, WOULD SUPPORTS SOMEWHERE NORTH OF 40 UNITS. WE’VE 4 MET WITH HASLO TO TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOW TO DO 5 IT FOR THIS PROJECT ON THAT SITE. 6 CREEK REALIGNMENT. WE HAVE WORKED ON IT FOR THE PAST 7 TWO YEARS CONTINUOUSLY WITH ALL THE AGENCIES THAT EMILY POINTED 8 OUT. THEY’VE ALL PARTICIPATED IN TRYING TO DESIGN THIS. 9 UNIT FLOOR PLANS WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS. YOU WANTED 10 OT SEE UNIT PLANS. UNFORTUNATELY, WE’RE NOT PREPARED TO SHOW UNIT 11 PLANS. WE DON’T HAVE A PROJECT YET. THEY WILL EVENTUALLY MAKE 12 THEIR WAY TO YOU, BUT WE’RE NOT GONNA HAVE THEM TONIGHT. 13 BIKE LANES WERE MENTIONED. THE BIKE LANES DO CONNECT 14 INTO THE PROJECT, NOT JUST ALONG LOVR AND GO RIGHT BY US. THEY 15 COME -- TURN AND COME INTO THE PROJECT. 16 THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE COLLECTOR A MEDIAN. 17 COLLECTOR A HAS BEEN DESIGNED. IT’S IN THE PROCESS OF BEING 18 REDESIGNED AS A RESULT OF THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, SO WE’RE GOING 19 THROUGH THAT. 20 FIRE ACCESS WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED TWO YEARS 21 AGO. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION FROM 22 THE EIR. IT SAYS WE’RE GOING TO EXACERBATE THE ABILITY TO ACCESS 23 THE PROPERTY FOR FIREFIGHTING PURPOSES, PARTICULARLY THE HILLSIDE. 24 WE DON’T THINK THAT’S CORRECT. 25 09285 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 52 IF YOU GO THERE TODAY, THE BIGGEST BARRIER TO GETTING UP 1 ON THAT HILLSIDE AND FIGHTING A FIRE IS FROOM CREEK. THERE’S NO 2 CROSSING OF IT. THERE IS ONE ARIZONA CROSSING. SO THE PROJECT 3 PROVIDES THE ACCESS TO GET THERE BY PROVIDING A BRIDGE ACROSS 4 FROOM CREEK, SO YOU CAN GET FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT UP INTO THOSE 5 HILLS. 6 SO IF THAT IS MY SIX MINUTES. 7 CHAIR WULKAN: DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER POINT YOU WANTED TO 8 MAKE AND THEN – THEN -- 9 MR. MONTGOMERY: I DID. 10 CHAIR WULKAN: YOU’LL HAVE SOME TIME TO RESPOND 11 AFTERWARDS. 12 MR. MONTGOMERY: OKAY. LAST – WELL, A POINT WE WANT TO 13 MAKE IS ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES. THERE IS A THING CALLED 14 DISAGREEMENT AMONG EXPERTS. WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE. ROBERT 15 CHATTEL, OUR EXPERT, OUR ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN AND ARCHITECT, 16 DOES NOT AGREE THAT THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THREE OF THOSE 17 BUILDINGS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES THE CHANCE OF THE FORMATION OF A 18 HISTORIC DISTRICT. 19 AND SO I’LL RESPOND LATER IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC 20 COMMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER 21 COMMENTS OF THAT NATURE. 22 CHAIR WULKAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. OUR FIRST – BEFORE YOU 23 LEAVE THE PODIUM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT’S 24 REPRESENTATIVE? OKAY. NO, SO THANK YOU. YOU’LL HAVE SOME TIME TO 25 09286 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 53 RESPOND AFTER GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. 1 SO AT THIS TIME, I’D LIKE TO GO TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND 2 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE 3 GREEN SPEAKER SLIPS AND HAND IT TO THE CLERK. AND PLEASE WHEN YOU 4 COME UP PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. AND PLEASE LIMIT 5 YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. 6 SO THE FIRST SPEAKER SLIP I HAVE IS FOR JONATHON 7 LINDENTHALER. 8 MR. LINDENTHALER: GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS 9 JONATHON LINDENTHALER. MY WIFE HOLLY AND I HAVE CURRENTLY LIVED 10 IN SAN LUIS OBISPO AT 1012 VISTA DEL COLLADOS, AND WE HAVE LIVED 11 HERE FOR THE LAST 51 YEARS, SO WE’VE SEEN A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT GO 12 ON IN THIS COMMUNITY. 13 WE CAME UP HERE SO I COULD GO TO CAL POLY. IN FACT, I 14 WORKED DOWN THE HALL HERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, PART-TIME, FOR 15 DAVE ROMERO WHILE I WAS GOING TO CAL POLY. 16 I WENT TO CAL POLY TO BECOME AN ARCHITECT AND AS AN 17 ARCHITECT, I HAVE ALSO PARTICIPATED IN MANY PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF 18 SAN LUIS OBISPO. 19 ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FIND NOW THAT I AM MOST PUSHING 20 TOWARDS WITH RESPECT TO THE PASSAGE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL 21 IMPACT REPORT IS THAT THE IMPORTANCE -- REAFFIRMING THE 22 IMPORTANCE OF HAVING SENIOR HOUSING IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. 23 THIS CITY DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE ANY SENIOR HOUSING WHICH 24 PROVIDES ALL FOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE TO SENIORS ON ONE CAMPUS. THIS 25 09287 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 54 PROJECT IS PROPOSING TO DO EXACTLY THAT. 1 WE ARE HOPING THAT -- THAT YOU WILL TAKE THAT INTO 2 SERIOUS CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU REVIEW THIS PROPOSAL FOR THIS 3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, BECAUSE IT IS AN IMPORTANT 4 PART OF THE -- SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR OUR 5 COMMUNITY OF SENIORS. 6 I JUST HOPE THAT THE -- THAT WE, YOU KNOW -- AS WE’VE BEEN 7 PLANNING FOR OUR FUTURE AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL PLAN FOR THE 8 FUTURE OF OTHER SENIORS IN THE SAN LUIS OBISPO AND SUPPORT THIS 9 PROJECT IT PROCEEDS THROUGH THIS APPROVAL PROCESS AND THE 10 APPROVAL PROCESSES OF WHICH YOU’LL BE LOOKING AT SA THE TIME GOES 11 BY. THANK YOU. 12 CHAIR WULKAN: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS -- 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT 14 CHAIR WULKAN: YES. 15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: IF YOU WOULD REMIND THE AUDIENCE NOT 16 TO ADDRESS THE PROJECT PER SE? 17 CHAIR WULKAN: SURE. YEAH, PLEASE TRY TO LIMIT YOUR 18 COMMENTS TO WHAT’S COVERED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 19 AND WHAT’S BEEN COVERED IN THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT, WE’D 20 APPRECIATE THAT. 21 NEXT SPEAKER IS JULIE HOWARD. 22 MS. HOWARD: GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JULIE 23 HOWARD, AND I’M A RESIDENCY COUNSELOR FOR VILLAGGIO SAN LUIS 24 OBISPO. 25 09288 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 55 I CAME TO THIS POSITION NOT ONLY WITH A PASSION FOR SENIORS, 1 BUT I’VE ALSO WORKED IN LONG TERM CARE MY WHOLE WORKING LIFE. 2 I’VE HELD LEADERSHIP POSITIONS AT SIDNEY CREEK AND OTHER LOCAL 3 SENIOR COMMUNITIES HERE. I ALSO HAVE OVERSEEN CUESTA COLLEGE’S 4 EMERITUS PROGRAM, WHICH IS SENIOR COURSES FOR OUR LOCAL SENIORS, 5 EDUCATIONAL COURSES. 6 I’M HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE I WAS HERE TWO YEARS AGO AND 7 THE COMMISSION ADDRESSED AN ISSUE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY BEING A 8 GATED SECURED COMMUNITY, AND SO I WANTED TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT 9 ABOUT THAT AND WHY WE THINK THAT’S SO IMPORTANT. 10 IT’S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR A SENIOR COMMUNITY FOR 11 THEIR SAFETY. HAVING A GATE, FIRST OF ALL, ENABLES VILLAGGIO 12 RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY TO MEET STATE REGULATIONS. THESE 13 REGULATIONS REQUIRE US TO KNOW WHO IS ON THE PROPERTY AT ALL 14 TIMES IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY OR AN EVACUATION. 15 THIS IS CRITICAL FOR SAFETY. THESE REGULATIONS ARE 16 REFERENCED IN HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 1569.695 AND IN TITLE 22, 17 SECTION 87212. 18 WE SAW AN EXAMPLE OF THIS LAST YEAR IN NORTHERN 19 CALIFORNIA WHERE SANTA ROSA HAD FIRES, WILDFIRES, AND THERE WAS A 20 SENIOR COMMUNITY THAT NEEDED TO BE EVACUATED. AND YOU CAN ONLY 21 IMAGINE HOW CRITICAL IT IS TO KNOW IS ON THE CAMPUS IN ORDER TO 22 KNOW IF YOU FULLY EVACUATED THE COMMUNITY. 23 SECONDLY, THE REASON FOR THE GATED SECURITY – GATED 24 COMMUNITY IS THAT SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS WILL HAVE MEMORY 25 09289 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 56 PROBLEMS, AND WHILE WE WILL HAVE A SPECIFIED AREA FOR MEMORY 1 CARE, THE GATE IS IMPERATIVE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEIR 2 PERSONAL SAFETY. 3 WE TRAGICALLY RECENTLY SAW A TERRIBLE RESULT OF THIS IN 4 OUR LOCAL SAN LUIS COMMUNITY WHERE THERE WAS A TRAGIC FATALITY 5 AS A RESULT OF A SENIOR COMMUNITY NOT BEING SECURED. IT WAS IN THE 6 MEDIA ALL OVER, SO IM SURE YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT. 7 SO OUR GATE IS REALLY INTENDED TO PREVENT THIS KIND OF 8 TRAGEDY AND TO KEEP ALL OF THE RESIDENTS SAFE AND SECURE. THANK 9 YOU. 10 CHAIR WULKAN: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS SHERRY EISENLEN. 11 MS. EISENLEN: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SHERRY EISENLEN. AND 12 I’M ON THE VILLAGGIO RESERVATION LIST AND EAGER TO SEE THE PROJECT 13 BECOME A REALITY. 14 LAST WEEK I ATTENDED THE PARKS AND RECREATION 15 COMMITTEE MEETING. I WAS KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT HOW THIS WHOLE 16 PROCESS WORKS. I’VE NEVER ATTENDED A MEETING LIKE THAT. AND ONE 17 THING I HEARD REALLY TROUBLED ME AND I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. 18 I’M REFERRING TO THE CALCULATION THAT WAS USED TO 19 DETERMINE THE PARK SPACE THAT VILLAGGIO NEEDS TO PROVIDE. THE EIR 20 ASSUMES THAT EVERY INDEPENDENT LIVING UNIT WILL BE OCCUPIED BY 21 TWO PEOPLE. I LIVE ALONE. AND I KNOW MANY OTHERS ON THAT LIST, LIKE 22 ME, HAVE BEEN WIDOWED OR ARE SINGLE BY CHOICE AND IT’S NOT 23 UNUSUAL AMONGST SENIORS. 24 MR. MONTGOMERY AND THE TEAM CAN TELL YOU ABOUT ALL 25 09290 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 57 THE INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND THE DATA THAT’S INVOLVED, BUT I’D JUST 1 WANT TO MAKE MY POINT THAT THAT PARK REQUIREMENT IS TOO HIGH AND 2 TOO COSTLY. IT’S NOT FAIR. IT’S AN EXAGGERATION THAT THREATENS THE 3 VIABILITY OF THE PROJECT, AND WE ARE ASKING FOR A MORE REALISTIC 4 REQUIREMENT THAT DOESN’T OVERSTATE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS. 5 THANK YOU. 6 CHAIR WULKAN: THANK YOU. NEXT IS GARY HAVIS. 7 MR. HAVIS: GARY HAVIS, SAN LUIS OBISPO. GREETINGS 8 COMMISSIONERS, STAFF, AND TO THE APPLICANT. I’VE LISTENED TO AND 9 REACTED TO THIS PRESENTATION AND THE DRAFT EIR IN THE PARKS AND 10 RECREATION COMMISSION AND THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. 11 I MADE SOME LAYMEN’S COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS AND HAVE THIS TO 12 ADD TONIGHT. 13 THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO HAS A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 14 AND A GOAL OF CARBON NEUTRALITY BY 2035, ONLY 15 YEARS FROM NOW. 15 WHAT I WOULD URGE THE COMMISSION AND THE APPLICANT TO DO IS TO 16 REACH EVEN HARDER, MORE STRIDENTLY THAN EVER, TO EXCEED THE 17 GOALS FOR THIS PROJECT, ITS DRAFT EIR MINIMUMS AND THE CITY’S GOALS 18 IN ORDER THAT WE ACHIEVE CARBON NEUTRALITY IN 2035. 19 CONSIDER ALSO THAT THIS DIR – DRAFT EIR MIGHT NOT GO FAR 20 ENOUGH TOWARD THIS IMPORTANT GOAL AMONG GOALS AND THAT OUR 21 CITY IS A PRECEDENT-SETTER IN OUR COUNTRY. SETS SOME GREAT 22 PRECEDENTS WITH THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 23 CHAIR WULKAN: THANK YOU. LISA SCHOTT. AND THEN THE NEXT 24 SPEAKER AFTER LISA SCHOTT WILL BE JUDIE REINER. 25 09291 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 58 MS. SCHOTT: HI. MY NAME’S LISA SCHOTT. MEMBERS OF THE 1 PLANNING COMMISSION, WE AT LOS VERDES PARK ONE, WHICH IS 91 HOMES 2 LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LOS -- LOVR AND HIGUERA, I REPRESENT 3 THEM. I’M THE BOARD PRESIDENT. 4 WE WANT TO REGISTER OUR CONCERNS REGARDING CEQA 5 REGULATIONS GIVEN OUR PAST EXPERIENCES WITH THE AVILA RANCH 6 DEVELOPMENT, IGNORING OUR CONCERNS FOR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, AIR 7 QUALITY, CREEK IMPACTS, NOISE, FLOODING ISSUES AND ROAD 8 IMPROVEMENTS TO NAME A FEW. 9 WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT ALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE 10 MITIGATED IN A WAY TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY AND SURROUNDING 11 NEIGHBORHOODS. 12 WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE 13 SENIOR CARE FOR ALL LEVELS OF INCOME, AND WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO 14 THIS PROJECT AT THIS TIME. 15 IT IS THE TRAFFIC IN OUR AREA THAT HAS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY 16 IN THE PAST THREE YEARS THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH. LOVR IS 17 ALREADY GREATLY IMPACTED AND RECENTLY A WOMAN WAS KILLED AT 18 THE INTERSECTION OF LOVR AND CALLE JOAQUIN. THE RIGHT TURN LANE 19 ONTO US HIGHWAY 101 IS INADEQUATE TO HANDLE THE AMOUNT OF 20 VEHICLES THAT IT USES EVERY DAY AND TRAFFIC OFTEN BACKS UP ALL THE 21 WAY TO HOME DEPOT AND COSTCO SHOPPING CENTERS. 22 THE INTERSECTION OF LOVR AND SOUTH HIGUERA IS ALREADY 23 VERY CONGESTED. IT’S TOO NARROW. IT’S TOO HEAVILY TRAVELED AND IT 24 NEEDS MITIGATION. MANY PEOPLE HEADING TO TRADER JOES, FOOD FOR 25 09292 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 59 LESS AND THE NEW SLO PUBLIC MARKET WILL BE TRAVELING THROUGH THIS 1 INTERSECTION, AND IT’S JUST TOO HEAVILY IMPACTED RIGHT NOW. 2 THE CITY IS CURRENTLY REELING FROM ALL THE 3 DEVELOPMENTS CURRENTLY ONGOING WITH IMMENSE AMOUNTS OF 4 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND AN ABUNDANCE OF TRUCKS, WHICH ARE 5 TEARING UP THE ROADS DAILY. 6 DUST AND DIRT ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY MITIGATED BY 7 DEVELOPERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT ON ORCUTT AND JOHNSON. AND THE 8 NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH DUST IN THEIR HOUSES FOR TWO 9 YEARS WITH LITTLE HELP FROM THE DEVELOPER OR THE CITY. 10 THE TREES AT THE SAN LUIS RANCH PROJECT WERE BUTCHERED 11 A YEAR AGO BECAUSE OF POSSIBLE BIRD -- BIRD MIGRATION AND THEY HAD 12 TO GET A – THEY HAD TO GET AHEAD OF. THE CITY IS PUSHING FORWARD A 13 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN THAT CALLS FOR REPLANTING OF TEN THOUSAND 14 NEW TREES. THE PROBLEM IS, IT WILL TAKE YEARS AND YEARS TO REPLACE 15 THE CARBON BENEFIT FROM THE TREES THEY CUT DOWN. 16 OUR CITY IS BEING TORN APART WITHOUT CAREFUL REGARD 17 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS LIKE TREE REMOVAL, CREEK CHANGES, 18 GENERAL PLAN CHANGES, TO MEET DEVELOPERS NEEDS, HEALTH AND 19 SAFETY OF RESIDENTS, NOISE, DUST AND DIRT AND DETERIORATION OF 20 ROADS. 21 I JUST HAVE A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS. 22 CHAIR WULKAN: OKAY. PLEASE JUST SUMMARIZE YOUR COMMENTS, 23 MISS. 24 MS. SCHOTT: OKAY. WE ASK THAT YOU, AT A MINIMUM, CONSIDER 25 09293 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 60 AND EXAMINE THE CEQA REGULATIONS AND THE CURRENT LOVR TRAFFIC 1 PROBLEMS AND HOLD DEVELOPERS ACCOUNTABLE AND DO NOT LET THEM 2 SHIRK FROM THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES. THANK YOU. 3 CHAIR WULKAN: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT 4 SPEAKER IS LISA SCHOTT, FOLLOWED BY – 5 MS. SCHOTT: THAT’S ME. 6 CHAIR WULKAN: I’M SORRY. NEXT SPEAKER IS JUDIE REINER, 7 FOLLOWED BY DAVID RICHARDS. 8 MS. REINER: GOOD EVENING. AND THANK YOU FOR PRONOUNCING 9 MY NAME CORRECTLY. I AM JUDIE REINER AND I’VE LIVED IN SAN LUIS 10 OBISPO FOR OVER 55 YEARS, SO EVEN BEAT JONATHON LINDENTHALER. MY 11 HUSBAND KEN AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON DEVELOPING A LIFE PLAN 12 COMMUNITY FOR OVER 17 YEARS. THAT’S ONE SEVEN. IT’S A LONG TIME. 13 MY PARENTS MOVED TO SAN LUIS OBISPO IN ORDER TO BE 14 CLOSER TO US, KNOWING THEY WOULD SOON NEED CARE. THEIR 15 EXPERIENCES -- MY FATHER DEVELOPED DEMENTIA AND MY MOTHER FAILED 16 PHYSICALLY -- DEMONSTRATED TO US THAT SAN LUIS OBISPO WAS 17 SERIOUSLY LACKING IN SENIOR LIVING OPTIONS SUCH AS A LIFE PLAN 18 COMMUNITY. 19 WE LOOKED AT OVER TEN DIFFERENT POTENTIAL LIFE PLAN 20 COMMUNITY SITES IN AND AROUND SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR OVER 13 YEARS. 21 OUR LIST INCLUDES ALL THE ALTERNATE SITES MENTIONED IN THE DEIR 22 AND MANY MORE. I HAVE A LIST OF THEM HERE IF ANYONE’S INTERESTED IN 23 LOOKING AT THEM. AND THE REASONS WHY THEY DIDN’T WORK. 24 AND ACTUALLY, AS MY HUSBAND AND I WERE SEATED IN THE 25 09294 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 61 AUDIENCE WE CAME UP WITH YET ANOTHER ONE. SO THE LIST GOES ON. 1 AND IN MOST CASES, THE PARCEL WAS EITHER TOO SMALL TO 2 ACCOMMODATE A LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY. IN OTHER CASES, THE 3 DEVELOPER WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH LIFE PLAN COMMUNITIES AND NOT 4 INTERESTED IN WHAT THEY PERCEIVED AS A COMPLEX RISKY PROJECT. 5 THANK GOODNESS JOHN MADONNA WAS THE FIRST OWNER-6 DEVELOPER TO EMBRACE THE CONCEPT AND WORK WITH VILLAGGIO TO 7 MAKE THIS HAPPEN. THE NEED FOR SENIOR HOUSING IS CLEARLY 8 DOCUMENTED IN THE CITY HOUSING ELEMENT. AND IS A FAR BETTER USE OF 9 THIS SITE THAN ADDING MORE BRICK AND MORTAR OR BIG BOX STORES, IN 10 AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE ONLINE SHOPPING IS BECOMING DOMINANT. 11 MANY OF OUR FUTURE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN LONGTIME 12 INFLUENTIAL MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY HAVE FOUND IT NECESSARY TO 13 MOVE TO LIFE PLAN COMMUNITIES IN OTHER CITIES. THEY SIMPLY HAVE 14 RUN OUT OF TIME. THEY NEED THE SECURITY AND THE GUARANTEE OF 15 FUTURE CARE PROVIDED ONLY BY A LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY SOONER 16 RATHER THAN LATER. 17 THIS IS THE PLACE. NOW IS THE TIME. AND WE ARE IMPLORING 18 YOU TO HELP US MAKE THIS HAPPEN. 19 MAY I OFFER TO YOU COPIES OF THIS FORM? 20 CHAIR WULKAN: YEAH. 21 MS. REINER: GREAT. 22 CHAIR WULKAN: AND PLEASE, GIVE IT TO THE CLERK 23 MS. SCOTT: I WILL GIVE SOME – AND LET THEM BE DISTRIBUTED. 24 THANK YOU. 25 09295 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 62 CHAIR WULKAN: THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID 1 RICHARDS FOLLOWED BY BILL WAYCOTT. 2 MR. RICHARDS: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME’S DAVID RICHARDS. I’M A 3 RETIRED ARCHITECT. AND MY PARENTS BUILT A LIFE CARE COMMUNITY 4 AND THEY’RE STILL LIVING THERE. I’D LIKE TO FOLLOW IN THEIR 5 FOOTSTEPS. 6 I JUST WANTED TO RAISE ANOTHER CONCERN ABOUT THE PARK 7 MITIGATION QUESTION, BECAUSE IN ADDITION TO THE CALCULATION THAT’S 8 BEEN USED AND THAT’S BROUGHT INTO QUESTION, I THINK IT WOULD BE 9 PERHAPS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE 10 PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE USING OTHER PARKS OFFSITE ALREADY LIVE HERE, 11 SO IT’S NOT GONNA INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY THE USAGE OF PARKS. AND I 12 THINK IT MIGHT JUST PRESENT AN UNFAIR BURDEN ON THE PROJECT AND 13 THE PROJECT COST. THAT’S MY POINT. THANK YOU. 14 CHAIR WULKAN: THANK YOU BILL WAYCOTT, FOLLOWED BY DAVID 15 CHIPPING. 16 MR. WAYCOTT: GOOD EVENING. BILL WAYCOTT. I LIVE HERE IN SAN 17 LUIS OBISPO. I’M REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLAN SOCIETY. 18 I’M THE CURRENT PRESIDENT. 19 AND I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, A 20 LITTLE BIT OF A SORT OF LONG TERM PLAN IN TERMS OF TRYING TO PROTECT 21 THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF OUR CITY. 22 SAN LUIS OBISPO JUST HAPPENS OT BE IN A VERY UNIQUE 23 LOCATION AND I DON’T SAY THIS BECAUSE I’M A TREE HUGGER, BUT IF YOU 24 DO THE WORK AND LOOK AT WHAT’S OUT THERE, WE ARE SURROUNDED BY 25 09296 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 63 A SERIES OF SERPENTINE HILLS, WHICH HAVE PLANTS AND ANIMALS THAT 1 ARE FOUND NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. IN FACT, IN THIS CITY, WE HAVE 2 – IN THE CITY LIMITS, WE HAVE OVER 45 LISTED PLANT SPECIES, WHICH 3 OCCUR NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD WITHIN A RADIUS OF SAY 20 MILES. 4 ON THE HILL, THE BIG THUMB HERE, BETWEEN THE TWO 5 LOCATIONS OF THIS PROJECT, THERE ARE SEVEN SPECIES THAT ARE VERY 6 RARE. AND SO I’D JUST LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE LONG TERM 7 IMPLICATIONS. 8 THIS LOWER AREA BELOW THESE HILLS IS SERPENTINE BASED 9 SOILS. THIS IS THE LAST AREA IN FRONT OF THE IRISH HILLS THAT IS NOT 10 DEVELOPED AND IS OPEN. SO THIS IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IF YOU WANT 11 TO HOLD ON TO THIS FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE DOWN THE LINE, THIS IS 12 YOUR LAST CHANCE BECAUSE THAT’S -- THAT’S IT WITHIN THIS CURRENT 13 CITY LIMITS. 14 ALSO WATER FLOW IS ALSO A BIG ISSUE NOW IN CALIFORNIA. 15 WETLANDS, CREEKS, STEELHEAD FISH, THESE KINDS OF THINGS ARE VERY 16 IMPORTANT. ARE WE MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICES HERE TO GIVE OUR KIDS 17 AND GRANDKIDS AND DOWN THE LINE SOMETHING THAT THEY WILL BE 18 ABLE TO ENJOY OR ARE WE JUST PAVING OVER THE LAST AREA AND 19 LEAVING IT TO THE STORM DRAINS AND – AND FLOOD CONTROL? 20 SO I REALLY REQUEST YOU TO HAVE A LONG TERM VIEW IN 21 YOUR DECISION-MAKING. 22 AND AS A ORGANIZATION WE SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ONE 23 ABSOLUTELY AND WOULD LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE LONG TERM 24 RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE CAN PROTECT THESE AREAS IF THAT’S AT ALL 25 09297 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 64 POSSIBLE GOING FORWARD.. THANK YOU. 1 CHAIR WULKAN: THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER’S DAVID CHIPPING 2 FOLLOWED BY NEIL HAVLIK. 3 MR. CHIPPING: GOOD EVENING. I WILL BACK UP WHAT HE SAID, 4 WHICH IS EASY, BUT I WANT TO GET DOWN IN THE WEEDS IF I MAY IN 5 REGARD TO THE HYDROLOGY. I AM A GEOLOGIST, EX EMERITUS PROFESSOR 6 OF GEOLOGY AT CAL POLY. 7 AND I HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH APPENDIX H, WHICH IS THE 8 TECHNICAL DEFENSE DOCUMENT THAT BACKS HYD1 AND HYD2, WHICH 9 BASICALLY SAY THE HYDROLOGY WILL BE MITIGATED SATISFACTORILY. 10 THE FIRST INACCURACY IS THE STATEMENT OF WHERE THE 11 CREEK IS GOING. I’M GLAD THIS UP HERE. THE HISTORIC FLOW OF THE 12 CREEK DID COME DOWN TO BASICALLY THE FREEWAY OVERPASS. AND IT 13 JOINED PERFUMO BEFORE THAT. IT NEVER TURNED UNTIL ITS PRESENT 14 COURSE, UNTIL IT WAS DIVERTED IN THE 1940S. THAT CURRENT FLOW IS 15 RUNNING ONE FOOT DESCENT AS IT CROSSES SOUTHWARD PER THOUSAND -- 16 HUNDRED FEET, SO IT HAS A REASONABLE FLOW. 17 WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO -- AND I’M GLAD YOU GOT 18 THIS UP HERE -- IS CARRY THE CREEK PLUS THE COMBINED DITCH PLUS THE 19 WATER COMING OUT OF HOME DEPOT DOWN INTO THAT CORNER NEAR 20 CALLE JOAQUIN WHERE THERE IS A JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND, WHICH I DID 21 NOT HEAR MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE’VE GOT HERE. AND 22 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS HAVE TO BE PROTECTED. 23 THE -- SO AN AWFUL LOT OF WATER IS GOING TO GO THERE AND 24 THEY’RE REMOVING THE BASINS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE THAT 25 09298 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 65 CAPTURE SOME OF THE HOME DEPOT WATER, AND MOVING IT TO THE VERY 1 END OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS BAD FOR FLASH FLOW COMING DOWN 2 SIMULTANEOUSLY THROUGH FROOM CREEK AND THE DISCHARGE FROM THE 3 -- FROM THE DEVELOPMENT ALREADY UPSTREAM. 4 THAT THEN GOES TO A LOW SPOT NEAR THE JURISDICTIONAL 5 WETLAND, WHERE THEY’RE ALLOWING FLOW AT OVER THE TWO-YEAR 6 FLOOD TO GO – THE TWO-YEAR STORM TO ALMOST NOTHING TO GO INTO 7 THAT WETLAND. 8 THE TABLE ON PAGE 156 OF APPENDIX H SHOWS THAT THE -- AT 9 THE TWO-YEAR STORM WILL INCREASE OVERFLOW THERE FROM 253 CFS TO 10 518 CFS. 11 THE 100-YEAR STORM GOES FROM 980 TO 1240. THAT ALL SPILLS 12 INTO THAT CORNER AND THAT DRAINS INTO THE WETLAND ON THE OTHER 13 SIDE OF CALLE JOAQUIN FOR WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO ANALYSIS 14 WHATSOEVER OF EXIT DRAINAGE. WHERE DOES THAT WATER GO ONCE IT 15 HITS THAT AREA? 16 IF YOU SEE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE 1973 FLOOD, WHICH WE’LL 17 PROVIDE IN A TECHNICAL DOCUMENT TO THE COMMISSION, YOU WILL SEE 18 THAT WATER IS FLOWING OUT OF THE AREA -- WHAT WAS THEN HOWARD 19 JOHNSON’S, AND NOT TACO TEMPLE, OUT TOWARDS THE ROAD THERE. THAT 20 IS NOW BLOCKED AS YOU’VE SEEN BY THE NEW WALL BUILT ON THE 21 ONRAMP OF THE FREEWAY. SO THERE’S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WATER, 22 WHICH HIS GONNA GET DUMPED, AT ANYTHING LARGER THAN THE TWO-23 YEAR FLOOD, INTO THAT WETLAND WITH APPARENTLY NO -- NO 24 DESCRIPTION IN THE EIR ABOUT HOW TO MOVE IT OUT OF THERE. 25 09299 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 66 SO I -- I’M OUT OF TIME, I’M AFRAID. THERE ARE OTHER 1 TECHNICAL ISSUES. AND IT IS DOWN IN – DOWN IN THE DETAILS HERE, BUT 2 WE WILL PROVIDE THE COMMISSION WITH A -- THINGS THAT NEED TO BE 3 TALKED ABOUT ANYWHERE IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS OF THE HYDROLOGY 4 PART OF THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 5 CHAIR WULKAN: THANKYOU, MR. CHIPPING. IF I MAY ASK YOU JUST 6 TO REPEAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU -- YOU STATED ABOUT THE 7 INCREASE IN FLOWS AT THE 100-YEAR STORM. I DIDN’T CATCH THE FIGURES, 8 IF MAYBE YOU COULD JUST REPEAT THOSE AGAIN FOR ME? 9 MR. CHIPPING: IT’S – IT’S THE – THE -- THE TABLE IS ON PAGE 156 OF 10 APPENDIX H, SO THAT’S WHERE YOU’LL FIND IT, BUT 253 CFS, CUBIC FEET PER 11 SECOND, IS THE CURRENT EXPECTED DISCHARGE OVER THE LEVEES AND 12 INTO THAT WETLAND FOR THE TWO-YEAR STORM. AND GOING UP TO 518, SO 13 THAT’S ALMOST – YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY IT DOUBLES WHAT WILL BE 14 SPILLING IN THERE. 15 SO THERE’S GOING TO BE VERY SIGNIFICANT WATER IMPACTS 16 FROM THAT VERY – THAT SMALL CORNER. AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT 17 JEOPARDY THE TACO TEMPLE AND THAT FRONTAGE ROAD IS UNDER -- 18 UNDER THIS INCREASED FLOW. 19 BUT THE STUDY ALSO SHOWS THAT THE INCREASED PAVING, ET 20 CETERA, ON EVEN ANY SCALE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ADDS MORE WATER 21 TOO, SO IT’S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO BE LOOKED AT. THANK YOU. 22 CHAIR WULKAN: THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS NEIL HAVLIK, 23 FOLLOWED BY THE LAST SPEAKER BRIAN ACKERMAN. AND IF ANYONE ELSE 24 WANTS TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER -- A GREEN SPEAKER SLIP. 25 09300 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 67 MR. HAVLIK: THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE 1 COMMISSION. MY NAME’S NEIL HAVLIK. I -- I’M ALSO HERE AS A 2 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY. 3 WE DID SUBMIT A RATHER LENGTHY LETTER TO YOU WHICH I 4 HOPE YOU HAVE RECEIVED AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT 5 EXPLAINS OUR CONCERNS IN MORE DETAIL. AND I’LL JUST TOUCH BASE ON 6 SOME OF THE MAJOR – THE MAJOR ONES. 7 I FIRST WANT TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT OPPOSE THIS PROJECT, 8 PER SE. BUT WE THINK THAT AS IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IT IMPOSES 9 UNACCEPTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY. AND SOME 10 OF THESE, IN OUR JUDGMENT, LEAD TO SOME BAD PRECEDENTS THAT WE 11 THINK MIGHT BEST BE AVOIDED AND WE LOOK TO YOUR COMMISSION TO 12 CARRY THAT -- TO LEAD THAT AVOIDANCE. 13 AMONG THESE ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE 150-FOOT 14 LIMIT, WHICH HAS BEEN CITY POLICY FOR A QUARTER OF A CENTURY, AND 15 HAS LED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AND GROWTH OF IRISH HILLS NATURAL 16 RESERVE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE CITY’S MOST WONDERFUL RESOURCES. 17 WE ACKNOWLEDGE AND APPLAUD THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT 18 SPONSORS HAVE INDICATED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PULL BACK FROM THAT 19 AREA IN THE UPPER TERRACE, BUT THAT IS NOT APPARENTLY THE CASE IN 20 THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND WE THINK IT SHOULD BE. 21 ANOTHER ASPECT OR IMPACT OF THIS IS THE MOVING OF FROOM 22 CREEK. THE CITY HAS A CREEK SETBACK ORDINANCE AND THIS IS A REALLY 23 QUITE A DEPARTURE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CREEK SETBACK 24 ORDINANCE AND WE THINK THAT THERE NEED TO BE SOME STATEMENTS 25 09301 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 68 MADE AND I’LL GET TO THAT IN JUST A SECOND THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THAT 1 KIND OF -- THE EXCEPTION THAT’S BEING REQUESTED. 2 FINALLY, IT HASN’T BEEN MENTIONED HERE AND APPARENTLY 3 IT WAS NOT PERCEIVED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE, BUT PERHAPS A 4 LEGAL ONE, AND THAT IS THE READJUSTMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES OF AN 5 EXISTING AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT BURDENS A 6 PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY. AND THE PROJECT SPONSORS HAVE 7 REQUESTED THAT A PART OF THAT BE REMOVED AND MADE UP FOR IN SOME 8 OTHER PLACE. 9 AND WE THINK THAT SETS A VERY BAD PRECEDENT THAT MAY 10 LEAD TO OTHER HOLDERS OF CONSERVATION OR OTHER PROPERTIES 11 BURDENED BY CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, OF WHICH THE CITY HOLD A 12 NUMBER OF THEM, TO PERHAPS CONSIDER MAKING ADJUSTMENTS OF THEIR 13 OWN. SO WE THINK THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT OF VERY 14 CAREFULLY. 15 AND THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE CITY 16 ELSEWHERE. A MAJOR FINDINGS THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT -- 17 CHAIR WULKAN: IF YOU COULD PLEASE SUMMARIZE. 18 MR. HAVLIK: I’LL STOP THERE. I’LL STOP THERE. I THINK THIS IS ALL 19 IN THE CORRESPONDENCE. 20 CHAIR WULKAN: AND WE RECEIVED YOUR LETTER AND I READ 21 EVERY WORD OF YOUR LETTER. 22 MR. HAVLIK: OH OKAY. THANK YOU. 23 CHAIR WULKAN: NEXT SPEAKER, FINAL SPEAKER, BRIAN ACKERMAN. 24 MR. ACKERMAN: HI THERE. BRIAN ACKERMAN. I LIVE HERE IN SAN 25 09302 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 69 LUIS OBISPO. I NEITHER TAKE POSITION FOR NOR AGAINST THIS. I HAVEN’T 1 EVEN LOOKED AT THE EIR. 2 I’VE DONE CLOSE TO TWO BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF SENIOR 3 LIVING DEVELOPING THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES ACROSS THE GLOBE. 4 I’VE LOOKED AT MORE EIRS THAN I CARE TO LOOK AT, BUT I THINK THE 5 IMPORTANT THING TO CONVEY HERE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, 6 BECAUSE I’VE WORKED WITH MANY COMMISSIONS THROUGHOUT 7 CALIFORNIA, THE LARGEST DEVELOPMENT IN SANTA BARBARA, LOS GATOS. 8 I CAN GO DOWN THE LIST. 9 I’VE COME ACROSS ALL THESE TYPES OF ISSUES AND THERE’S A 10 VERY FINE BALANCE. ONE IS BETWEEN WHAT THE GROUP WANTS TO PUT UP 11 HERE IN THE FRONT AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS. 12 I’M A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. I LOVE THIS PLACE, BUT I WILL 13 NOT DIE HERE. RIGHT NOW THERE’S 65 MILLION OLD PEOPLE THAT ARE 14 GOING TO BE 85 MILLION SENIORS ACTUALLY, SORRY ABOUT THAT. AND WE 15 ONLY HAVE THREE PERCENT OF THE ROOFS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. 16 SO WHEN YOU DECIDE TO ASSERT YOUR POSITIONS FROM THE 17 EIR, NEIL HAVLIK’S POSITION, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH, BUT IT’S SUCH A 18 NARROW PART OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE NO SERVICES TO AND 19 WHAT THIS COMMISSION DOES NOT UNDERSTAND IS HOW THE DYNAMIC 20 CHANGES TAKE PLACE IN A CCRC OVER A HUNDRED-YEAR PERIOD. IT’S NOT 21 GONNA STAY LIKE THIS. IT’S VERY DYNAMIC. IT BRINGS IN MORE 22 AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT TRANSFORMS. PROVIDERS CHANGE. NOT THE 23 SAME. 24 SO YOU NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT YOU’RE BALANCING BECAUSE 25 09303 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 70 IT’S NOT STATIC, IT’S VERY DYNAMIC. SO THE REQUESTS THAT ARE BEING 1 MADE, YES, THEY CAN BE ADJUSTED. BUT THERE WILL BE A COST. THE 2 ENVIRONMENT WILL PAY. AS WELL AS THE CLIENT WILL PAY TO 3 CAPACITATE THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT THAT’S A VERY FINE BALANCE. 4 SO MY ONLY REQUEST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS -- IS 5 THAT WHEN YOU REVIEW THE EIR, AND WHAT YOU’RE GOING TO TAKE OUT 6 AND WHAT YOU’RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW, THAT IS LITERALLY TELLING A 7 SENIOR THAT YOU’RE GOING TO BE DYING IN YOUR HOUSE ON THE WAY TO 8 THE HOSPITAL AND NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. 9 YES, WHEN THIS OPENS IT MAY NOT SERVE ALL THE 10 COMMUNITY, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU IN TEN YEARS THAT THIS FACILITY 11 WILL LOOK NOTHING LIKE IT DOES, BECAUSE I’VE PROBABLY REMODELED 12 AT LEAST 200 OF THEM THAT TRANSFORMED VERY QUICKLY. THEY ARE 13 VERY DYNAMIC TO THE COMMUNITY NEEDS. 14 IT SHOULD BE A VERY SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP WHERE YOU 15 TRY TO WORK A LOT CLOSER. I’VE WATCHED IT IN THE NEWS. I DON’T 16 REALLY KNOW ALL THE DETAILS OF THIS PROJECT, SO I KNOW THAT’S VERY 17 BIASED THE FEED THAT I GET. AND I KNOW YOU ARE WORKING WITH THEM 18 BECAUSE THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH. 19 BUT THE IMPORTANT THING AND THE TAKEAWAY IS THOSE 20 DECISIONS WILL DEPEND ON WHAT LIVES ARE SERVED AND WHAT ONES ARE 21 NOT OUT OF THIS COMMUNITY. THAT’S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. 22 CHAIR WULKAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE 23 THAT WANTS TO SPEAK? WE HAVE NO MORE SPEAKER SLIPS. SO AT THIS 24 TIME, I’LL -- I’LL ALLOW THE – THE APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE A FEW 25 09304 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 71 MINUTES JUST TO RESPOND TO ANY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT CAME UP. 1 MR. MONTGOMERY: MR. CHAIRMAN, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE 2 OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO GET ON WITH IT, SO 3 I’LL -- 4 CHAIR WULKAN: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I’D LIKE TO 5 ACKNOWLEDGE THE TWO LETTERS THAT WE RECEIVED, ONE FROM KATHY 6 BORLAND AND THEN THE OTHER FROM NEIL HAVLIK. 7 AND FOR THOSE THAT MADE COMMENTS THAT WERE SPECIFIC 8 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ACTUALLY ALL OF YOUR 9 COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED. FOR THOSE THAT MADE COMMENTS ON 10 THE EIR, THOSE WILL BE RESPONDED TO IN THE FINAL EIR, WHICH WILL 11 COME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION AT A FUTURE DATE TOGETHER WITH THE 12 PROJECT ITSELF. AND THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROJECT 13 AND THE FINAL EIR IN THE FUTURE. 14 SO AT THIS TIME, I’M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 15 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. 16 AND IF IT’S OKAY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, I THOUGHT THAT 17 MAYBE IT WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT IF WE STATED OUR COMMENTS BY 18 TOPIC IN THE EIR IN THE ORDER COVERED IN THE EIR, STARTING WITH 19 AESTHETICS AND GOING DOWN TO MINERAL RESOURCES AND THEN 20 CONCLUDING WITH ALTERNATIVES OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WASN’T -- 21 THAT WE MISSED. SO IF THAT’S OKAY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, MAYBE 22 WE CAN DO IT BY TOPIC? 23 COMMISSIONER MCKENZIE: KIND OF A ROUND ROBIN BY TOPIC, 24 EACH OF US -- 25 09305 McDaniel Court Reporters (805) 544-3363 72 CHAIR WULKAN: YEAH, I THINK -- 1 COMMISSIONER MCKENZIE: YOU CALL OUT THE TOPIC -- 2 CHAIR WULKAN: IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO FOLLOW IF WE JUST WENT 3 BY TOPIC. PROBABLY EASIER FOR STAFF TO FOLLOW AND MAYBE FOR THE 4 PUBLIC IF WE JUST -- 5 COMMISSIONER STEVENSON: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT JUST AS A 6 COURTESY TO ALL THOSE UP HERE AND AUDIENCE, CAN WE TAKE A FIVE 7 MINUTE BREAK OR YOU KNOW SO WE COULD STAND UP AND MAY USE THE 8 FACILITIES? JUST TAKE A BREAK. USUALLY – WE USUALLY BREAK AT 8:00, 9 SO -- 10 CHAIR WULKAN: YEAH. OKAY. WE’LL TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. 11 BE BACK AT JUST BEFORE 8:00 O’CLOCK. TWO MINUTES BEFORE 8:00. 12 (END OF RECORDED MATERIAL.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09306 09307