Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the March 25th hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. Please join us as we begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, Mr. Villalobos, will you please make the TV coverage announcement?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to the commission, everyone. Planning Commission hearings are televised live on County Santa Barbara Television, CSB TV, Channel 20 at 9 a.m. in the South Coast, Lompoc, San Ynez Valley, San Maria, and Orchid areas. Rebroadcast of Planning Commission hearings are on Fridays at 5 p.m. on CSB TV, Channel 20. Today's hearing will also be streamed live on the County's website as well as the County's YouTube channel and will be available for download in a day or two. Should I move on to roll call? Please. Commissioner Cooney? Here. Commissioner Ford?

Here.

Commissioner Park? Here. And Chair Reid? Here. And Commissioner Martinez will be joining us in just a couple of minutes.

Okay. Could we please have the projection report, Mr. Wilson?

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. I'll begin with the agenda status report, if that's okay, Mr. Chair. And then we'll move into the projection report. On our standard agenda today, we have two items. The first item is the land use permit and conditions permit for the Chick-fil-A in the Eastern Goleta Valley community area. And then we have the Rose comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map update or zoning map amendment. That's number two on the agenda and staff and the applicants are ready on both those items today for the standard agenda. I'll move the projection report, Mr. Chair. Our next scheduled meeting was going to be April 1st, but we canceled that at a prior meeting, so we will not be meeting next week. Our next hearing after that will be on April 8th, and that will be in Santa Maria. The item projected for that agenda date is the phase one of the oil and gas prohibition ordinance amendments. Again, that'll be in Santa Maria on April 8th. Following the April 8th hearing, we will return to Santa Barbara on April 29th for two items. A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE SUNLAND AREA AND THEN THE LOS ALAMOS INVESTMENTS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. AND THAT'S ON APRIL 29TH. AND THAT WILL BE HERE IN SANTA BARBARA. AND THEN MAY 6TH WE'LL BE HERE IN SANTA BARBARA AGAIN FOR THE CONTINUED ITEM OF THE UTILITY SCALE SOLAR AMENDMENT PROJECT. ON MAY 13TH THERE ARE NO ITEMS PROJECTED AT THIS TIME. AND THEN MOVING FURTHER DOWN THE PROJECTION REPORT INTO MAY, May 27th, we have two items projected, and that will be here in Santa Barbara. There's a tentative map, and then the Stanford Farms Trust Appeal of the general parcel map. And there is no items projected in June at this time. So that concludes the projection report, Mr. Chair.

Okay, well, thank you. And with respect to the May 13th hearing, I'm going to have to be out of the area and will not be available. So I would like us to consider canceling that hearing. Do we... Any comments from commissioners? So could we have a motion to cancel? So moved. Second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Now... Public comment. This brings us to general public comment. This is for public comment to allow testimony or comment on any items not on today's agenda. So at this time, do we have any persons wishing to make public comment either in person or online?

Seeing no one rise.

I see no hands raised from our zoom attendees Okay, so that will conclude general public comment for this hearing next planning commissioners informational reports any reports from individual commissioners on interest items of interest such as planning issues seminars meetings or literature and COMMISSIONER PARK, I KNEW WE COULD COUNT ON YOU.

I LIKE TO BE RELIABLE. WE REPORT ON courses and things we've taken, and nowadays that's not just going to a seminar somewhere, a boondoggle type thing. It's what we might watch on our television sets as part of our video education. So I've been taking mandatory continuing legal education courses on planning to keep my bar license active. Took two last week that I thought, I'll never need these, but I've just got to kill two hours to finish it off, and one was on Section 15-183, and one was on VMTs, and I guess they are more relevant than I thought. But the VMT ones, in a general sense, had a fascinating idea. A speaker from the Western Riverside Council of Governments, they have noticed, like all of us, that VMTs are confusing. to figure out that many projects get them just because they have traffic and it's hard to figure out how to mitigate VMTs. This is under CEQA within a project. So this new program they have down there, WRCOG is that if you are generating VMTs, you come to them, they act like a broker or a banker, and they have projects that reduce VMTs. So you help fund those projects, and that's how you mitigate your VMTs. That is kind of interesting. You might think, well, okay, if I have got VMTs to deal with and I help fund a bicycle path, that is one way of reducing VMTs. But one of their programs for reducing VMTs is affordable housing. because they find that some affordable housing projects, because they concentrate housing and because they put them in urban areas and because it allows people that would otherwise commute hours and hours to get to work, that it does reduce VMTs. And it struck me that here in Santa Barbara County, and I always complain about this, is that we don't have any funding for moderate income housing. We do for low income housing, but not for moderate. And it's a danger to all of us because at some point, policemen, firemen, teachers, nurses, et cetera, will not be able to live in Santa Barbara County. And what will it be like to live here without them? And we generate a lot of EMTs as they come from all directions. AND THIS IS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR MODERN INCOME HOUSING COMING OUT OF VMT MITIGATION. long non-Brown Act horseback rides with Commissioner, I mean Supervisor Hartman yesterday, we talked about this. She's quite excited. And I'm looking at you, Director Plowman, because she wants you and I to put together a little talk on this. And so let's chat a little bit after this. So I think that's exciting. I hope it made sense to at least one or two people in the room.

Okay, thank you. Now we go to the minutes. We're going to consider approval for the minutes of March 11th with staff submitted changes to item one. Have you all reviewed these corrections to item one? Yes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cooney, I mean Commissioner Cooney. I will move approval of the minutes as corrected. We have a second?

Yes, second.

Commissioner Ford, seconded. All in favor of approving the minutes of the March 11th hearing? Aye. Aye. Aye. Which brings us to the director's report. So Ms. Plowman, proceed please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the commission.

Good to see you back.

Nice to see all of you. I will work with Commissioner Park on this idea. I think it's a very interesting idea. It's true that we have virtually no source of funds for supporting moderate income housing. And we're always looking for ways to try and stimulate it. In fact, we have programs in our housing element that DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROMOTE AND SUPPORT MODERATE HOUSING. SO, YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO MEET TO DISCUSS THAT. AND I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO MY STAFF ABOUT RESEARCHING IT, THE RIVERSIDE PROGRAM. I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO REPORT ON BOARD ITEMS BECAUSE THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY BOARD ACTIONS SINCE WE LAST MET, BUT WHAT I CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT IS WHAT'S COMING UP AT THE BOARD. We have our three-year work program for the Long Range Planning Division at the Board on the 7th of April. As part of the budget constraints that the county is facing, all departments were asked to make some adjustments to their budgets and tighten the belt a bit. And one of the things that we have proposed to reduce our general fund reliance is to keep two vacant positions in the Long Range Planning Division. We are also asking, through the budget process, for the restoration of one of those positions. But in our work program, we explain to the board what type of work can be accomplished with the two lost positions and one lost position so they get to see the difference if they restore one of our positions currently we have 15 full-time employees in that division we're hoping to have 14 and we may end up with 13 and what that does is simply slows the work that we have to accomplish and we have a number of state mandates that were required to complete and then also board-directed items, which are really important to them. So, that's on the 7th. We won't know about the restoration of the position until the budget is completed, but we will initiate that discussion with them on the 13th of April when we have budget workshops. So the board's budget workshops run the week of the 13th, and the Planning and Development Department is up on Monday the 13th. And so if you're interested in monitoring that, that it would be probably late morning that the department would be presenting in the workshops. I also wanted to let you know that as part of the budget workshops, the CEO has asked Chris Chirgwin, who's the head of our IT department, to present along with myself and Chris Sneddon on the progress with Acela, which is our online permitting system. both of our departments have fully incorporated Acela into our systems in terms of online services. We also have the fire department that has Acela, and environmental health has Acela, and of course the CEO's office has it for cannabis. So if you're interested in that, that's going to be on the 15th of April. We'll be participating in that presentation. We have A LOCAL PREFERENCE PROGRAM GOING TO THE BOARD ON THE 21ST OF APRIL. AND WE'RE GOING ALONG WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, THEIR HOUSING DIVISION BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING TO THE BOARD A CONCEPT OF CREATING LOCAL PREFERENCE GUIDELINES FOR capital A affordable housing that would be included in the rules and regulations that our county HCD implements with these affordable projects that would basically set it up so that people who were living and or working in Santa Barbara, like the south coast, but living in the north coast would sort of have the highest priority. So we could try and get people to live and work in the same vicinity. And that is a long-term objective for a lot of reasons, but one of them is VMT, as Mr. Park suggested earlier today. And then for market rate, it's trickier. We all would very much like to make sure that all the new housing that gets built as part of our housing element on the South Coast goes to people that are working here, right? So that we can house our community. There are laws in place that prevent any kind of potential discrimination, and so we have to be very careful how we navigate this. But the concept that we have developed is, and it doesn't have a lot of teeth, but we think it's the best we can do, and that is it's a REQUIREMENT FOR A MARKETING PLAN THAT SHOWS HOW THESE DEVELOPERS ARE GOING TO BE TARGETING THE LOCALS EARLY IN THE PROCESS, AND ALL OF THE PUBLICATIONS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE LISTING THEIR DEVELOPMENTS IN, THE BUSINESSES THEY CONTACT, THE WORK THEY DO WITH THE CHAMBER, AND SO THAT IS HOW WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT IT, AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE GOING TO THE BOARD ON THE 21ST. AND WE HOPE THAT IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. MOST OF THE DEVELOPERS WILL TELL that they prefer having locals because they're more stable, people who are working in the community. And so we're suggesting to them also in our program that when all else is created equal, you know, in terms of two candidates, please prioritize the local person so that we can.

If I might, I know that you're kind of emphasizing south coast in terms of the market rate, a tremendous need. in the North County, Santa Maria, Orchid Hills areas because we're looking at one big new development now. We've had others in the past and if there could be some local preference, that would be great since most of them seem to be in a large proportion purchased by people selling highly appreciated homes. in Southern California and moving up, leaving many locals out of the loop. So anything that could be done for the North County would be deeply appreciated.

I appreciate those comments, and I think that'll be an issue that the board will discuss, whether they want to expand it beyond the South Coast. I know I'm not agendized for this, so the council's looking over at me. Commissioner Park, do you have a question?

One of the things that I remember from the housing element I thought was really a nice piece were the various programs. Is it 25 programs or something like that in the housing element? And one of them was employee housing for all employers on site, you know, not just ag dwellings. And I think that that is an important workaround on this local preference because if we require a large employer as a condition of something they want to do to provide employee housing, AND THEY BASICALLY BUY A PIECE OF IT THAT SOME DEVELOPER IS BUILDING AS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES, I THINK THAT GETS AROUND THE LOCAL PREFERENCE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND IS ALSO A GOOD WAY TO FUND.

COMMISSIONER PARK, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT. WE DO HAVE ONE PROJECT ON THE SOUTH COAST WHERE A LOCAL COMPANY IS GOING TO BE BUYING I think it's around 150 units, and then selling them at a subsidized price to their employees. It's the way they can attract and retain critical staff.

And I do agree with Commissioner Reed that it's very much a North County issue, because I deal with folks when I'm volunteering on seniors. Discuss those housing issues and it's exactly as he's described it and also when we talk to employers up there About expansion and in providing more jobs in the North County other than then some AG jobs They all say the same thing. I can't really get the workforce. I need because there isn't a housing.

Yeah Yeah, the problem is spreading And then The other thing I... Commissioner? Sorry, Commissioner Ford, please.

Thanks. This is of deep importance to me, but I'm wondering in your definition of locals, does it just include... human beings over 18 years old who have a job here, or do young people who go to schools here and have programs that they can only get, for example, in a certain area, Santa Barbara, for example, do they qualify as a local?

Well, it's an interesting question. I would have to look at it. It's tiered, right? So there's the higher priority people that are like actually have a job and a profession and they're working in the community. And then, you know, you go down from there. You might be the next category, I think, is somebody who has a job offer here and they're going to be moving to the area, that kind of thing. So we haven't really focused on students. Students have been an issue, kind of a problem, actually, from UCSB. taking up a lot of the housing in the Goleta area. So our primary focus is really more on our local employees. OK. Yeah. Thanks. And then so the on the 7th of May, we are going to be going to the board with a briefing. And this is going to be an item that will come to the PC eventually, but it is making sure that we are identifying the right areas where we want to create new ministerial permits. And this has been a long-term goal of the Board of Supervisors to simplify our permitting process. Right now, we are an anomaly. Most jurisdictions allow a lot of different types of development with truly ministerial permits, like for a single-family home, so that you don't do noticing and appeals and all of those things. So We are going to be moving in that direction, per the board direction, and that is a package that will come before the Planning Commission vote. Mr. Tuttle and his team are going to bring forward the concepts that we're looking at on May 7th, so we make sure that we're going in the right direction before we develop the complete package. So if you're interested in that, I would pay attention to that hearing.

What date is that?

The 7th of May. And that's all I have.

That'll be very interesting to watch. Hopefully that will happen and not create a feeding frenzy for appellant lawyers. One last thing since we're here. We have a workshop tonight in Santa Maria regarding a new development. Do we want to make an announcement on that? Sure.

There is a scoping hearing for the Solomon Hills project. It's a scoping hearing for the environmental impact report, and it's going to be in the hearing room at Arabia Government Center.

That is correct.

Yeah. What time?

5.30.

5.30.

An item there's been a great deal of interest on, so I know it's been published, but if anybody's watching this who hadn't known thus far, might be a good way to spend a bit of time this evening.

Thank you for reminding me of that. APPRECIATE IT.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

DO WE HAVE BROWN ACT ISSUES IF WE ATTEND?

IF TWO OF YOU ATTEND, YOU WON'T HAVE BROWN ACT ISSUES.

I'M ATTENDING. WE DON'T ASK QUESTIONS OF THIS EITHER, DO WE?

VINCENT, ARE YOU GOING? EXCUSE ME? IS IT TONIGHT? YEAH.

TONIGHT. JUST ONE QUESTION. AT THIS SCOPING HEARING, ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS? ARE WE ONLY THERE TO OBSERVE?

chair and commissioners my recommendation would be to observe only because this item um at some point is projected to come before this body so i'd recommend not engaging or asking any questions observe only if you decide to attend okay thank you back it up a quick question is this something that is available by youtube zoom or anything of the sort yes on the county planning site or

YES. BUT LET ME DOUBLE CHECK. BUT LET ME DOUBLE CHECK. I DON'T THINK THERE'S THE TV, I DON'T THINK THERE'S THE TV, BUT I THINK IT'S RECORDED AND I BUT I THINK IT'S RECORDED AND I THINK PEOPLE CAN ATTEND. THINK PEOPLE CAN ATTEND.

BUT IT WON'T BE LIVE, IN BUT IT WON'T BE LIVE, IN OTHER WORDS. OTHER WORDS. DON'T TRY TO SEE IT TONIGHT. DON'T TRY TO SEE IT TONIGHT. IT WOULD COME AFTERWARDS. IT WOULD COME AFTERWARDS.

IT WON'T BE ON CSB TV, BUT IT WON'T BE ON CSB TV, BUT PEOPLE CAN PARTICIPATE BY ZOOM. PEOPLE CAN PARTICIPATE BY ZOOM. OKAY. OKAY. IF THEY WANT TO PROVIDE IF THEY WANT TO PROVIDE

OK, thank you, because I mean, that's why I'm figuring I'll be working and I'll be looking from Zoom. OK, thanks.

OK, so are you finished? I'm done. Wrapped up. OK, so Mr. Villalobos, could you please read the first item into the record?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. The following item is on the The following is a hearing on the request of Turnpike Logistics property owner to consider following case numbers 22 CUP 7 as well as 26 LUP 53 and to determine that no additional environmental review is required for the project pursuant to section 15183 of the state guidelines the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

So staff are we ready to proceed? Please do.

Excuse me.

Ex parte, sorry.

Yeah, exactly.

Commissioner Cooney.

Shall I proceed with ex parte? Yes. I had four meetings I'd like to report. One was on March 16th, a Zoom meeting, and there were two people. from the Brownstein firm, Sarah Bronstad and Beth Collins. I had a separate Zoom meeting on the 23rd with Mary O'Gorman. And finally on the 6th of March, I had a conversation with a, neighbor of the project, who is Kathy O'Leary.

Well, I'll go right now. I had last Thursday a site visit with Brian Robinson, Beth Collins, and Sarah Bronstadt. Commissioner Ford?

Thank you. I also have met with Beth Collins, Brian Robinson, Sarah Bronstadt, and two community members, Mary O'Gorman and Lisa Kenyon.

Commissioner Park?

I met with Commissioner Ford and Sarah Bronstadt and Beth Collins and Brian Robinson at the site a couple of weeks ago, I think it was. met at Starbucks with Mario Gorman this week, had a conversation at a sort of a social gathering with John Price and his son Jason Price. John basically owns the project next door, and Jason's office is above Starbucks. And if I've left anybody out, I apologize.

Okay, so now... Please proceed, yeah.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Willow Brown. I will be presenting the Chick-fil-A at Calle Real project. The property, outlined in blue on this map, is located at 4765 Calle Real in the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan Area, 2nd Supervisorial District. The property is a 1.42 acre lot zoned retail commercial. Access is provided off of Calle Real. Surrounding uses consist of Highway 101 to the south, Calle Real and commercial development, including the Ramada Hotel to the north, residential development and vacant land to the east, and commercial development, including the existing Starbucks drive-thru to the west. The project is a request for a land use permit to allow for the demolition of the existing restaurant on site and construction of a new 2647 square foot quick service restaurant. The project also includes a conditional use permit to allow for a dual lane drive through with two covered canopy areas. The project is a commercial use on a commercially zoned lot, which has been developed with the restaurant use for over 50 years. Restaurants are a permitted use in the retail commercial zone, and the conditional use permit is solely required for the drive-through use. This is a photo simulation of the project as viewed from Calle Real. This is the proposed site plan. The project site will be accessed from one driveway off Calle Real in the northeast corner of the project site. The project also includes access improvements including restriping the eastbound approach along Calle Real to provide an exclusive eastbound right turn lane both for the project site and for the existing Starbucks drive through to the west. Site access was reviewed and approved by the fire department and county public works transportation. This slide shows elevations of the proposed restaurant. The proposed restaurant will have a maximum height of 22 feet, four and three quarters inches, which is significantly under the 35 foot zone district height limit and is similar in height to the existing restaurant on site to be demolished. As previously stated, the project is for a restaurant which is a permitted use in the retail commercial zone on a site that has been developed with a restaurant use for over 50 years. The drive-through is an allowed use in the zone with approval of a conditional use permit. As outlined in the staff report, staff analyzed consistency with impacts to areas such as visual resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, hazardous materials, and noise, and found that the project is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. The project also complies with all LUDC standards as it is consistent with the purpose of the Retail Commercial District, meets setbacks, exceeds parking requirements, and complies with all standards related to drive-through facilities. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15183. CEQA guidelines section 15183 is applicable to the project because the project is for a commercial use on a commercially zoned site, which was anticipated by the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan EIR. All impacts anticipated from the project can be mitigated by Eastern Goleta Valley community plan policies and standard conditions. Although the project is exempt from further environmental review, the 15183 exemption still allows for analysis of issue areas to determine if there is a possibility for a more significant impact than anticipated by the EIR. The 15183 analysis discussed several issue areas including impacts to traffic and air quality. The current metric the county uses to evaluate a project's transportation impacts under CEQA is vehicle miles traveled or VMT. The county presumes that projects meeting the VMT screening criteria in the county's environmental thresholds and guidelines manual would have less than significant impacts to transportation and would not require further VMT analysis. The project is considered a locally serving retail project and is below the threshold of 50,000 square feet as shown in this table and is therefore screened out of VMT analysis. However, the traffic study submitted for the project also analyzed traffic and circulation impacts based on level of service and queuing, which I will now summarize. The traffic study was peer reviewed and reviewed by Public Works Transportation and found to meet county requirements. The Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan contains policies regarding maintaining a minimum level of service for roadways and intersections in the community plan area and considers a level of service standard C acceptable. Impacts from the project to level of service were analyzed for the intersections and roadways in the vicinity of the project site. The analysis confirmed that the intersections and roadways will still operate at a minimum level of service standard C with implementation of the project and the project will not have a significant impact to level of service. The project will not result in queuing onto the roadway and will not interfere with circulation on site. The project anticipates a maximum queue in the drive-through of 31 vehicles. The queue can be accommodated entirely within the drive-through lanes, which have a maximum capacity of 32 vehicles, as shown on this site plan. With regards to air quality, short-term and long-term impacts from the project were reviewed. The main proponent of long-term air quality impacts is mobile emissions. An air quality technical memorandum was submitted for the project analyzing air quality impacts, and impacts from mobile emissions were estimated based on the anticipated vehicle trips as outlined in the traffic study. UNDER THE MOST CONSERVATIVE APPROACH WHICH DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT SOME TRIPS ARE PASSED BY TRIPS AND DID NOT REDUCE TRIPS FROM THE PREVIOUS RESTAURANT USE ON SITE, THE EMISSIONS WERE DETERMINED NOT TO EXCEED COUNTY THRESHOLDS OR RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPACT. THE AIR QUALITY MEMORANDUM WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. In addition to the air quality impacts reviewed under CEQA, the LUDC requires that projects proposing drive-through facilities show that the project will not have a greater air quality impact than the same use without the drive-through. The air quality memo shows that the cars idling in the drive-through would give off less emissions than cars parking and restarting for walk-in service. This table shows the anticipated emissions for the drive-through compared to the same number of walk-in customers at the maximum anticipated queue of 31 vehicles. The project is consistent with the LUDC requirement as the drive-through facility will have a lesser air quality impact than if the restaurant only provided walk-in service. In summary, the project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan. The project is consistent with all standards in the LUDC, including standards related to drive-through facilities, and the project will not result in a significant environmental impact. Staff recommends that your commission make required findings for approval of the project, determine the project is exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15183, and approve the project subject to the conditions of approval. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. We also have Will Robertson from Public Works Transportation Online to answer any questions related to transportation review.

All right, questions from commissioners? Commissioner Ford.

Thanks. I greatly appreciate all the reports from both sides. Super comprehensive. Just wondering about the traffic report. Who actually enforces the jams that we have all seen or experienced, talked about or heard about? The ones right in the middle of the

INTERSECTION. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER FORD, THE TRAFFIC JAMS LIKE CARS LINED UP IN THE STREET, WILL ROBERTSON, ARE YOU ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR US?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Ford, Will Robertson, county transportation staff. So just for clarity, when you're asking who enforces the, did you say backups or congestion? Are you meaning from the existing land uses or?

Just in general. I mean, I don't know about other existing land uses that have documented congestion. traffic jams like this particular one. So who enforces it?

So the reason I ask is because there's going to be a lot of discussion about the Starbucks to the west and the queuing that occurs with that Starbucks. Technically, the enforcement arm would be the highway patrol. And then it would be dependent on whether or not the vehicles are actually violating the vehicle code. So it is just because vehicles back out onto a roadway is not necessarily a violation of the vehicle codes. So as a lot of people are aware, enforcement of something like that in the city of Santa Barbara with the Chick-fil-A there was quite nerve wracking because nobody quite knew what to do. So I'm gonna go back to my statement, the official enforcement arm would be the Highway Patrol. But depending on conditions of approval of the project, you know, it could be planning and development or transportation staff.

Thanks.

Is that all? Okay, Commissioner Martinez.

Yes, good morning. My question is in regards to your slide number eight. In regards to these calculations, does the traffic study or whoever does these things, do they just use an accepted general standard? In other words, we got a small project, so therefore we plug in the number for 110 trips or fewer trips a day. Is that the way it's worked or is there a look at the reality? And the reason I'm asking this question is because, I mean, we know, I mean, we just can't ignore the reality of when you drive by Chick-fil-A, I mean, it's going to have way more cars than I hate to say it, like Carl's Jr. or even McDonald's sometimes, but I think their best comparison is to In-N-Out. So that's why I'm asking this question. Is this just an accepted standard that says, okay, you're so many square feet, the lot's this much, this is the number that gets plugged in. Is that what happens, or do we consider other factors?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Martinez, the VMT screening criteria is from our thresholds and guidelines manual. This is considered locally serving retail, so the threshold for VMT specifically is 50,000 square feet, but the project was also analyzed based on level of service impacts for the surrounding roadways and intersections, as well as a queuing analysis done to ensure that cars would not be backing into the roadway.

Okay, that went right over my head. So this 110, is this what we're saying is 110 trips or fewer per day for the site?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Martinez, sorry, the small projects row is not applicable to this project. That was just also in the table, but this is only related to the locally serving retail category. And yes, specifically for CEQA, like vehicle miles traveled, that type of transportation review, we do screen it out based on the square footage.

So in this instance, um, can you tell me how many doing the traffic analysis, how many trips were anticipated or is forecasted for the site, which obviously is going to be Monday through Saturday since they're not open Sundays. Do we arrive at a forecasted number for that?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Martinez, I believe the vehicle trips estimated was 971 trips per day, and that reduced some trips based on pass-by trips, so just people passing by and stopping out of convenience, but did not reduce based on the existing IHOP.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Martinez, if I could just add something to staff's comments. I think IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A CEQA THRESHOLD THAT TRIGGERS A CERTAIN LEVEL OF MITIGATION REQUIRED, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT A PROJECT IS UNDER THAT THRESHOLD AND WE DON'T STUDY IT, LIKE THIS HAD ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS EVEN THOUGH IT CAME IN UNDER THIS THRESHOLD.

OKAY. AND BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING IN REGARDS TO, LET ME GET TO THIS SLIDE HERE. An odor abatement plan on number 11 proposed in compliance with, what is an odor abatement plan for a car?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Martinez, there's an Eastern Goleta Valley community plan policy requiring odor abatement plans for any project that could produce odor, including fast food restaurants. And so the applicant submitted, I believe it was attachment F to the staff report, but I would have to double check that, an odor abatement plan. So they have a contact for odor complaints and processes to look at the existing equipment that they're proposing for like it's like hoods when they're cooking the chicken and yeah it's just to comply with the policy and that was reviewed by the air pollution control district and found to be adequate.

Okay, so, and the reason I asked is because I imagine some people just from the general public may say, well, an odor abatement plant has to do with the cars. It doesn't have to do with the cars. It has to do with the product being processed or cooked there on site. That's correct. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Park.

Oh, thank you. I WANT TO ECHO COMMISSIONER FORD'S COMMENTS THAT IT IS A GOOD STAFF REPORT. IT IS A VERY COMPLICATED MATTER TO PUT IN WRITING AND DISCUSS. I WANT TO ALSO REFER TO YOUR SECTION 15183 ANALYSIS AND I HOPE EVERYBODY READ THAT. bottom of the page when you're looking online and that's twenty pages or something like that and it's even more complicated and sophisticated to get to. So kudos to you for that and also I want to thank you for the time you spent with me over the telephone going through these issues because it's very helpful for me and I think it's good for everybody. I point out to everyone we WE NOTICED, MS. BROWN AND I, AS WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS, THAT, OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO BE REFERRING TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AND TO THEIR AIR POLLUTION STUDY, BUT THEY WEREN'T EVEN PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. I HAD NO ACCESS TO THEM, NEITHER ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC, AND SO AFTER WE GOT OFF THE PHONE, MS. BROWN PUT THEM IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, AND THEY'RE ALL THERE, SO EVERYBODY'S HAD THEM, YOU KNOW, FROM LAST WEEK TO LOOK AT. I have a few questions that relate to traffic and things like that. The first thing is, let me ask you to explain to everyone the changes to the right-hand turn lane that will serve both Starbucks and Chick-fil-A, because that seems important to me.

Is it possible to put slide 10 up on the screen? Yes, Will Robertson may have additional information on this as well, but currently there is not, if you notice the right hand turn lane that turns into the Starbucks site and then further down onto the entrance for Chick-fil-A. that doesn't currently exist. They're proposing to implement that so that cars turning right and not wanting to go to Starbucks or Chick-fil-A can just keep going straight and turn directly into that other lane. And there's now that bike lane in between the right-hand turn lane and the through lane so that cars turning into Starbucks or Chick-fil-A would not have to turn in front of the bike riders. But if Will Robertson is wanting to expand on that.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Park, so the Chick-fil-A team actually was really nice and listen to public works in the county as far as the operational issues that occasionally occur with the the starbucks project that to the to the west and what we came up with was since there is only one travel lane that goes through the intersection from the in and outside we decided that we would just drop the number two lane, the lane closest to Starbucks, and make that just a right into the project, the Starbucks project. What that does is it allows us to push the bike lane out away from the curb, which gives better visibility for the cyclists. It also allows us to eliminate the merge that currently happens right after the Starbucks driveway heading east. And the merge was problematic because it's just another decision point for drivers to make, as well as navigating the queue that may occur at the Starbucks. As well as conflicting with the original proposed driveway, second driveway that Starbucks was, I'm sorry, Chick-fil-A was going to have access on their western edge of their property. So this allows us now to have one seamless lane. It allows us to create a right turn pocket dedicated exclusively for the Starbucks project. It allows a dedicated right turn pocket dedicated solely to the Chick-fil-A building. And it should help, again, with the visibility of the cyclists in the area providing a safer path of travel. So all in all, transportation staff is really happy with the proposed changes, and the striping changes are fully supported.

Thank you, Mr. Robertson. I think that helps a lot. I'd now like to turn to our zoning standards, and one that's particularly important. And I'd like to ask you to go to page 21 of your staff report, Ms. Brown. Preliminarily, Commissioner Ford and I had a really good site visit. We walked the site, looked at plans, and Ms. Collins was very candid with us in pointing out that we would essentially need to make a finding that's embodied there in Section 3542.130 of the LUDC that's in your staff report. to the effect that the drive-through facility shall have no greater adverse impact upon air quality than the same use without the drive-through facility. And that's why we thought that the air pollution report was so important, because it deals with it and it needed to be in the record. But when I look at the findings, I don't see any finding that refers to this. The most I see that might refer to it is that the project meets the standards of review required for zoning, but there's nothing more specific. I would think we should have a specific finding in there, should we not? And even if you think we shouldn't, can we at least address whether it would hurt anything? Is there anything wrong with it?

That is fine. I think it's Commissioner Park. We're happy to add language specific that is written out. This is a development standard, which doesn't necessarily equate to a direct finding, but a CUP is so broad that we can easily work in this language in terms of compatibility or one of those findings. I think it is appropriate to roll that in there. Yeah.

I think it is because it goes to the very core of this case. The fact that it's a development standard, that means it survives as a standard all throughout the life of the project, right?

Correct.

So if 12 years from now somebody comes and says, hey, you don't you don't meet this development standard because for some reason we can demonstrate that there's more pollution than would otherwise occur. That could cause a reexamination of the CUP. Yeah, that could be an issue, Commissioner. Yeah, that's kind of a brutal section there. Okay. Okay. Now, I think it's something we're going to have to talk about is do we have... evidence that's convincing that this does not cause more pollution, but I think that's what the applicant will get into. Let me turn to the VMTs. VMT analysis, sequel analysis, that relates to this same issue of possible pollution, but it's a whole different subject, right?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Park, yes, the air quality does take into account mobile emissions, but that is separate from vehicle miles traveled, yes.

So even if we don't have to do environmental analysis here, and we'll get to that in a moment, we still have to meet this development standard that there be no additional pollution over what would happen if you didn't have a drive-thru.

That's correct.

Right. So if we determine, as you did, that this doesn't meet the screening threshold and we don't need environmental analysis, doesn't mean we ignore this issue. We ignore it because it's posed here. Well, let's go to your slide. I think it was number eight. I think that's the one that had the screening thresholds. Yeah. Oops. Was it eight? Yeah, there it is. The one that says locally serving retail. And we know that locally serving retail under the OPR guidelines and this law in general, that's just generally presumed to have local impacts and no need to analyze. But if it's regional, and it's presumably regional if it's larger than 50,000 square feet, that's when you analyze it. You and I discussed at length, what does a 50,000 square feet measure? Does it measure the whole project, all the driveways and things that are needed here, or is it just the building? And I think you were gonna go back and talk with the rest of the department and find out what the position is. So what is the department's position here? Does 50,000 square feet include the whole site, which is 61,000 feet, or is it just the building?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Park, it is just the building square footage.

Okay. And Mr. Roberts, are you still on the line? Maybe not. Yes?

Yes. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Park, yes, I am.

Yeah. Can you weigh in? Is that your understanding as well? about the 50,000 square feet includes just the building and not the whole project? Or I don't know if that's a subject that you deal with.

So it's going to be up to P&D. It's their policies. But if we were talking about transportation impacts, we only look at the gross leasable area of the project, not the overall site. Okay.

I'm going to add in something here. I spent quite a few hours researching this to find a definition, and I looked everywhere, and I couldn't find one. I mean, I looked at our own screening guidelines, which basically follow the OPR ones. I would note that if you go to the OPR technical guide, and in a way that we have access to that, I looked this up, on August 12, 2020, That's when we had our hearing to adopt the new VMT guidelines to replace the level of service guidelines. And there's a lot of discussion of these thresholds and what they mean and why they're there. And then the OPR guidelines, OPR is the Office of Public Research. It's the governor's office. There's no clear answer. But in the OPR guidelines, it refers to an example for this particular screening standard, and it refers to a 50,000 foot store. And so that makes you think, well, they're referring to a building. And we know that there's probably not a 50,000 square foot BUILDING THAT'S PART OF A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT IN THE WORLD. BUT THERE ARE 50,000 SQUARE FOOT STORES LIKE A COSTCO OR A HOME DEPOT AND SO FORTH. SO IF THIS IS THE POLICY OF THE OR THIS IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF PND AND HOW IT'S BEEN PRACTICED IN THE PAST, SO BE IT.

COMMISSIONERS, YES, WE AGREE WITH THAT. AND I THINK ONE OTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE I'D LIKE TO THROW IN I verified with Will Robinson yesterday that the ITE manual for trip generation that they use to count trips also is square footage, not the size of the site. So it's square footage of the building.

I frankly think with the lack of clarity here that the law has, it leaves sort of a hole in our understanding, because it would mean that you'll never analyze a drive-through for VMTs. It seems anomalous. but we'll talk about that later. I have some suggestions, but here I think it's an important takeaway is even if we don't have VMT analysis here because it doesn't meet the screening threshold, we still have that development standard to address in the LUDC. By the way, I know we've had other projects We've heard about the In-N-Out. We know that there was the initial approval of the Starbucks project, and then didn't we do something to modify the Starbucks one a few years ago? I can't seem to find it, but I thought there was an expansion or a change in the drive-through that we addressed. It was part of approval of a new building use, like an office use instead of the little restaurant that used to be in that building, and it came before us a few years ago.

That is ringing a bell. There was an amendment to the DVP to change one of the suites from an office to a cafe or something like that.

So in this... this development standard in the LUDC, did we have to make a determination under that for that Starbuck amendment a few years ago?

Are you talking about the drive-through? Yeah. When the original Starbucks went in, I would assume that hopefully the drive-through standard was part of that analysis. Do you know?

I can't find anything about it. And I'm curious because we were basically asked to make that finding. We even go back to 2016. There was some controversy over when an Orchid was a Starbucks. Is that anything that anyone can give us information on when they address the same question? Or maybe it's never in the staff report. Nobody thinks about it. They never talk about it. I don't know. Okay, I'm done. Thanks.

Well, I have a few now. First, I appreciate Commissioner Park's question about the findings, because I had a similar comment during the business that would be expected to find that it reduced emissions or VMTs, I could likewise not find it in the findings, so I appreciate the clarification. First question, I want to look at your slide, the traffic and circulation slide. It must be 10. Okay, if we look at that slide, if we look at where the driveway is placed, the entry and exit driveway is placed for this. When you look at the right-hand turn lane, turns right, goes over to be near the curb where that 90-degree arrow is, the first one. You have two 90-degree arrows at the beginning of that the right hand, and then the second one is at the beginning of the driveway. What's the approximate distance between those two? Do you have an idea, a measurement?

Chair Reed, sorry, you're saying from the end of the right turn lane to... Yeah, you have those two 90-degree arrows that go to the right in the right-hand lane.

And the second one is just where the driveway is for the proposed Chick-fil-A. I just wonder how many cars would fit there? How long that is? Is that 100 feet?

Chair Reed, I believe it is approximately 150 feet, but the applicant will verify.

Okay, and then also I'm interested in the distance between that driveway and the beginning of the queue. Because that would also, to me, be a place where cars could back up in addition to the queue so they'd be waiting on site rather than in the road. So we go from 32 to maybe in the 50s. So I, my reason for that is just to consider its impact on reducing the surge in traffic and the prospect that it would back up out into the street. Okay. Has any analysis been made as to what the peak traffic timing is? What's the business peak for Starbucks? When does the peak traffic occur at Starbucks? Just in the morning hours, all day long, or three times a day? I would expect just in the morning. Is that?

Chair Reid, I haven't looked at that specifically, but I would expect that it would be in the morning.

Okay. And what are the peak traffic times? I know they've introduced breakfast sandwiches, but what are the peak traffic times for Chick-fil-A?

Chair Reid, it's the lunch hour, I believe 11 to 1.

So it would be probably temporarily separated from the peak time at Starbucks? Yes. Yes. Okay. Maybe we'll have evidence. to support that. All right. Now, with respect to the cars in the queue, you know, we had this study and the estimates in terms of emissions and things. Did that study take into the account that this being Santa Barbara County, probably a significant number of those vehicles in that line are either going to be electric or plug-in hybrids running off their batteries? Was that taken into the estimate of air quality?

Chair Reid, I don't believe so.

So the anticipated impact on air quality would likely be less even than what's shown in those estimates.

I'll have the applicant expand on that, but theoretically.

Just another thought. One other question, right at this point. This traffic mitigation fee they're potentially getting charged for, $863,000. They look at 41 peak hour trips at $21,000. newly generated peak hour trips, newly generated compared to when IHOP was there or compared to the vacant lot it is now.

Chair Reid, the overall traffic did not take into account a reduction for IHOP, but for the fees, the existing IHOP, when it was operational, was taken into account, and that was reduced when the trips were calculated.

Okay, so does the applicant receive any benefit or consideration from donating a million dollars to the county, almost? They call it a mitigation fee, so normally when you mitigate, that's an allowance for the impact they're expected to create.

Yeah, the fees were just calculated in compliance with our adopted fee schedule.

Okay, I'm just trying to determine, is that actually a benefit to applicant, or is it like a shakedown?

It's meant to be a benefit to roads in the area based on implementation of new projects.

All right, those are, I think, the bulk of my questions for now. Thank you. So applicant, are you prepared? I'll give you 15 minutes. Does that seem adequate?

OK.

Yes, 15 minutes is perfect. Thank you, Chair Reid. Chair Reid, commissioners, I'm Beth Collins from Brownstein. Really glad to be here today representing the applicant Chick-fil-A. We have here, thank you, David. We have here the applicant team led by Carlos Arias here in the front row from Chick-fil-A. And then we also have architect, landscape architect, planners, traffic and civil engineers, arborists, all here for your excellent questions. I've already gotten some previews of them. So next, the project site. This is the project site, right next to the 101 off-ramp at Turnpike and Calle Real. Here's a historic picture, which I thought was quite interesting. This is when they were putting in the 101 off-ramps. You can see a lot of grading done in the area. There were three gas stations put in in 69. In 72, That's when the hotel went in with the restaurant across the street. It was a Howard Johnson's. They had great fried clams, I hear. And that restaurant at the bottom is now our project site. The site history, IHOP was there for 30 years until they moved to a better, smaller location over by Costco in Goleta, leaving the site empty. So that left the landlords looking for new tenants. You received a letter from Tom Patton, who is the local owner-manager. He's part of an ownership group that owns the hotel as well as this site. And he was detailing the saga, really, of looking for an appropriate tenant for this site. And what you learned from that letter, and I've learned from conversations with him, is there were some challenges getting new tenants. Why? Well, any restaurants going into this space wanted about half the space. This is a really large, very antiquated, restaurant needed a lot of upgrades and It was going to be a heavy lift. There were definitely no high-end dining restaurants coming knocking at their doors Plus they have this massive parking lot with no real landscaping so what where they were finding is that car washes and were very interested in utilizing this site, which makes sense. It's a bunch of paving. But they did not, their local owners and operators, they really had a feeling that it should be a restaurant, and they wanted to improve this corridor since they are locals. And so then came along Chick-fil-A. And Chick-fil-A, this is a really perfect site for this use. It's got a flat parking lot, lots of parking, no escha or environmentally sensitive habitat, no native trees at all. There are four huge onsite trees that will remain for screening. There are also a bunch of mature vegetation from the 101 off ramp. So I'll just show you a picture here. This is a view from the 101. You can see barely peeking through the trees, that orange, that's the IHOP. On the right is the hotel. So great screening from the 101. You will not be able to see this new building. Other location advantages. This is really close to the 101. It is an area that is adjacent to a bunch of transit-oriented businesses. We have hotels, we have restaurants, we have gas stations. We also have existing bus stops right on Calle Real. This is a great part about this location for Chick-fil-A and for the other businesses in the area. Other advantages for this site. As Commissioner Park kind of presciently stated during the housing element process, we have a lot of new housing going into this area and no new commercial. So we have right across the street, the MTD project is proposed with hundreds of units. We have San Marcos, we have Tatum, we have San Marcos High School right below the site on the other side of the 101. So there is a need for restaurant and commercial in this corridor. So traffic, obviously a huge issue. These are just some of the traffic experts that have weighed in on this project. We have two from the applicant here, Scott Shell from ATE, as well as LLG. We have county experts. We have Caltrans who weighed in. And that resulted in some significant offsite improvements. There are already questions in some discussion of this, but I'll just unpack it. So this is the offsite striping improvements that are really going to improve this corridor. I managed to get to the very end of the slideshow, and I'm not sure how I did that. Operator error. Okay, let me... Sorry, guys. Okay. Wait for it, oh my god, sorry. Okay, traffic experts. Now, improvements, yes. Okay, so this is the existing corridor on Calle Real, and you have the existing bike path really slammed up against the sidewalk. I actually ride on this bike path quite a lot. And so you just heard staff talk about that, the fact that the arrows for merge are all the way down the block. There's only one through lane that exists right now on Calle Real. So there's a zoom in right in front of the Starbucks site. Remember, it's Starbucks and other businesses that are there. When someone comes along and wants to turn right, they are, and they may stop to allow someone to walk across on the sidewalk, they block the bike lane. That is not good for bicyclists. We have to veer out into traffic. So also, there's a bus stop there. Same thing. The bus stops right in front of the existing bike path. Our improvements, we are sheltering the bikes, putting them right next to the through lane so when someone turns right into Starbucks, they're no longer running into the bicycles and the bus gets to go in that slashed area so that people can get on the bus without the bicyclists being interfered with and through traffic can proceed. And then you look down here, this is existing conditions. And this is what's going to be. As someone slows down to go into the Chick-fil-A site, they can look and make sure they don't hit a bicyclist. The bicyclists get to proceed through, and then they can turn right onto the site, again, waiting for someone on the sidewalk or whatever, and not interfere with a cyclist or the through traffic on Chi-Rail. So there are some examples of this in our area on Turnpike and Hollister. We also have North Patterson and Cathedral Oaks, where you have this protected bike lane from the right turn. So big improvements. You heard that from Will Robertson. But we also have other advantages of this site. These are the on-site improvements. It's going to really improve the site circulation and the visual corridor. So one, the long, weird... shape of this site gives a chance for a ton of landscaping right along the corridor. So we are going to have that plus, as Will mentioned, we're closing one of the existing curb cuts. So that's more landscaping for Calle Real to enjoy more parking. on the Chick-fil-A site. So that's going to be a big benefit. We're having a bunch, 56 new native trees, 24 to 48 inch boxed trees. And then let's talk about flow and parking. As someone slows down and goes onto the site, they're deciding, are we parking or are we going in the drive-through? If they're parking, we are over parked. We have 25 spaces required, but we're providing 52. Additionally, we're putting the drive-through will be dual lane. None of the other drive-throughs in this area are dual lane. And it's nestled, pushed up against the 101 off ramp, off of Calle Real, behind the building. So it's a perfect shape and design really to, Create great flow on this site now to the queue Commissioner Martinez you asked are there any site specific analysis or chick-fil-a specific analyses and the answer is yes in the traffic report nine different Similar chick-fil-a's were studied to determine. What is the max queue that we're going to see on this site Armageddon? Max queue it was 31 And our queue holds 32. You see the little empty space underneath the employee spaces? So this is max condition. And we have promised, there was a question about enforcement, we have promised in our project description, if it hits that and it starts getting into the parking lot, we will have team members direct people to park. Remember, we're over-parked, and we will be telling people to park. So we do not expect the queue to interfere with the parking lot. And you notice that we put the employee spaces at the place where it would be less likely to, so customers wouldn't interfere with the queue, right? The employees are over on the top left because they don't change as much, of course, as customers. So we have a 32-car queue. We're not going to back up into the parking lot. But the max condition, which is this, is not the normal condition. The normal condition is this. Actually, this is 85% of the time is going to be to the green cars. And 50% of the time, it's going to be just the blue cars pushed up against the 101 off ramp. Another way that you can tell with kind of your own experience that this will work is we have two lane drive through 632 feet from that pink line all the way to the window. where you pick up your food. To kind of give context, drive-throughs in the area, the two other restaurants, one is 205 feet and one is 251 feet. So we are more than twice, and that's just even before you get to the parking lot. And as Commissioner Reid was ahead of me, we have 382 feet on the parking lot. But again, we're going to be directing people to park In addition, there is another, it's actually more than 150, sorry, I confirmed, it's 192 on Calle Real, but we are not relying at all on Calle Real. We are not going to need it. We have more than a sufficient room on this site because of its shape because of this design. So VMT, a lot of discussion of VMT. We need to prove that air quality is better. Well, I'm going to be able to prove that air quality is actually better with this drive-through. And why? It's really unusual, but because we have existing customers and huge brand loyalty at Chick-fil-A. The average Chick-fil-A customer at State Street, which is only 2.6 miles from our proposed, is 13 point miles. 13.9 miles. The big data analysis, it's the end of our traffic report, it shows most people are, or the average trip length is 13.9 miles. Because this is a fungible product, they will drive to the closest location. So it will reduce trip length. And this was inadvertently confirmed, actually. Last month we put up Customer support cards in the existing State Street restaurant. We asked people to fill out We didn't give them anything for filling it out. We actually had 420 over 425 people put in cards and this was not on purpose But we discovered 78% of those people actually are customers at the State Street store that live in Isla Vista in Goleta so they are going to be driving less so air quality will actually be improved and by this restaurant. Finally, visual. We have the current condition where the IHOP is pushed up against the restaurant. You can see all the old newspaper boxes on the street blocking the sidewalk. It's actually a big fence right now. This is what we're gonna have. huge amount of landscaping, BAR was very complimentary about all of the landscaping that's gonna be provided, 56 new native trees. Also, which is kind of interesting, the slope of the site helps, so the sign Because, so looking at this, the 101 off ramp's on the right, it's higher. Calle Real's on the bottom. Because height is measured from Calle Real, our sign's actually gonna go down eight feet from the existing IHOP sign. It's gonna be nestled down much lower. And you can see because of the existing vegetation, there's huge amount of screening of the proposed building. and frankly the sign. This minimizes impacts from both view impacts potential from the 101 and Calle Real because it's the opposite. You're looking up. If that person's driving down Calle Real, they look to the right, they're mostly gonna see the landscaping. You can see their eye there. That landscaping blocks that car that's in the parking lot. So it's really gonna improve the visual character of this corridor. Here's some other. This is with the front trees grayed out so you can see the building. Here's with the trees. Here's another view. Another view. Here are some customer, I'll just end with this. One was right across in Fort Ranch. He put in a comment, can't wait, or she can't wait, Christina can't wait. We have one in Goleta, very excited to have the new restaurant. One really excited about the fact that elderly, disabled, and young mothers can use this drive-through. And then another excited about having Chick-fil-A close to public transport. So thank you. We're here for questions. We also have traffic experts here who can talk. We did actually survey Starbucks peak times to answer your questions. So our traffic expert is here and can kind of talk to that. We have an air quality expert here. We can unpack the 50,000 VMT screening. We can also unpack, if you want more information about why I think this actually The evidence demonstrates that this improves air quality, so you can certainly make all your findings. So with that, thank you so much.

Thank you. Any questions from commissioners?

I do.

Commissioner Park?

I fled.

There you go.

I ran away. Sorry. I'm back.

I shouldn't take that personally, right?

No, no, no. It's not you.

Good, good.

I'M HERE, SORRY.

YOU WERE HIDING. FIRST YOU FLED, NOW YOU'RE HIDING. I'M GOING TO THROW YOU A SOFTBALL. YOU MENTIONED THE INCREASED DEMAND THAT WOULD OCCUR FROM from build out of that MTD property. And that's aside from all the homes that are behind Via Real and really all the people that would love to have food on the north side of the freeway instead of crossing over to the south side. Do you also anticipate demand from all those employees that are working hard at the county campus with all its buildings near?

Yes, we expect that the local, and San Marcos, but you're right, the county, I failed to mention all the county employees that are right there. You're right, I'm sure they would enjoy a restaurant nearby.

And there are some of us who think that some of that land will be converted to housing at some point, is that right?

I hope so.

Okay. When you spoke about the study of the maximum queuing, and it would probably be, I think it was 31 was the number? Correct. Do we have... actual evidence with the experience at In-N-Out, do they exceed that 31? I mean, I know it's not chicken, it's burgers, but it's probably similar.

That's a great question. I didn't study the In-N-Out queue beyond measuring the distance of it. Yeah. And I can tell you we have more than twice the distance, but instead, kind of to Commissioner Martinez's point, we studied Chick-fil-A restaurants, which were similar, and we studied nine of them. And we learned that none of those nine had ever a max queue over 31. So that's why we designed our queues actually 31 with space for 32.

Well, you know, whether the queue is on the in the project or out on the street or up a tree, I don't know, it's still there. So if you had, I'm just gonna make up a number, 50 queuing at In-N-Out, that might be relevant to what we could sometimes expect at Chick-fil-A, is that correct?

Sure. I can tell you that we can handle the 50 on our site with our parking and we are probably going to make the in and out queue better because instead of standing in that big old line, they're going to probably come over to our site too. you know, minimize the weight.

And that brings me further to the potential for cueing on Kaya Real. And I know you don't want that. You've got a design that you believe will accommodate it so it won't ever be necessary. But if it was, one, you've got all that cueing in the right-hand turn lane. to get into the restaurant that doesn't really serve any other use other than turning into the restaurant. So that's a potential increase. What about that slashed area? If cars are backing all the way up to Turnpike, can they use the slashed area as well? I mean, it's not just for parking buses, is it?

I would recommend against that. I don't know if they're going to put any pylons or anything there to avoid that. I guess if there aren't pylons there, then in theory to avoid, of course, blocking chiral. But again, our max Q is 31. That's more than twice the space of any of the existing Drive-thrus plus we have the 382 plus there's 192 just on Chi rail plus we have a condition of approval you will put on us that we have to direct people once they hit just the 32 to park so people just have to park and walk in and get their food so We do not foresee any inner action with Chi rail, and I think you heard the same from Will Robertson I

That leads to my next question and it goes to that crucial finding that by having a drive-through here, we're not increasing the air pollution over what would exist if we didn't have the drive-through. And in support of that, you argue that there are people in Goleta who now drive all the way to Santa Barbara and, you know, an extra, what was it, 2.6 miles coming back. So I guess we double that, right? Anyway, and that they wouldn't drive as far. They'd go to the Goleta restaurant Do you have any information on whether those people that drive from Goleta to Santa Barbara to use the drive-through there would still come to the Goleta house or Goleta restaurant if it wasn't a drive-through? I know that Chick-fil-A has some restaurants in Southern California that aren't drive-throughs.

That's a brilliant point. I think it's actually the fact that it is fungible, drive-through to drive-through, helps demonstrate. If they're going to Santa Barbara to drive-through, they're going to go to Goleta to drive-through also, correct?

Yeah, and so what I'm wondering is if we didn't allow a drive-through and just said have a Chick-fil-A, is that going to make a big difference? Are there going to be a lot of Goleta people who say, no, I'm not going to come there unless I can do a drive-through. I won't go and park. People see me in my jammies, and I can't do it. So I'm going to drive in, whatever they think.

Maybe. I will say, and you asked in my experience, my son went to San Marcos. That bell rang at lunch. He and all his buddies would jump into a car, and they would 11-minute drive to the State Street Chick-fil-A. I do not, I'm sorry, I was going to say I don't know why they're so obsessed. I apologize. But they were obsessed with Chick-fil-A, and they'd jam down there 11 minutes, have their food, jam back to campus. I know those guys wouldn't have, they would just go there to the Chick-fil-A here and pile out of the car, right, probably?

But do we have any evidence from the Chick-fil-A side as to how many people are coming to Chick-fil-A restaurants that have drive-thrus that wouldn't go there if they didn't have a drive-thru? Do we have any information anywhere on this?

Wouldn't go to the State Street store if it had a drive-thru. I don't think we have that evidence, no.

Okay. Well, thanks. I have no other questions.

Okay.

Commissioner Ford?

Thanks. I'd like to follow up on just what you were talking about with regard to the site size. Is that what determined the decision to go to a drive-through because I, too, have seen that there are lots of Chick-fil-A's that are just restaurants and walk-in. So can you give me any historical information about why the decision for a drive-through, almost with the understanding it's going to be controversial?

Well, oh, Carlos is ready. Let's have Carlos answer that. Great. Thanks.

Good morning, Commissioners. And first off, so for the record, my name is Carlos here representing Chick-fil-A. I do want to start off by saying a very big thank you for allowing us to be here today. And also a big thank you for all of the staff that we've been working with diligently for however many years, and members of the SBAR, Board of Architectural Review Board. We're excited to be here. I think to answer your question specifically, this might be tackling two of those questions. Every site is different based on all kinds of factors, geographically, demographics, density. The best and maybe most straightforward answer is it varies on site. But our experience has been, while we don't have the data, to predict very accurately what the ratios will be between drive-through and dining customers. What we do know is that what works best on a self-maintained site like this is when we have a balanced site. When we have a balanced site that incorporates both dining customers and a drive-through component, it allows for the most optimal, safest circulation, both on-site and off-site. We acknowledge that there are customers that want one of them, right? We're going to get drive-through customers and we're also going to get non-drive-through customers. And so we don't, it is not conducive for us to have an isolated site with just a drive, without a drive-through. The drive-through is a critical component to the business. There are projects that don't have them, but those also usually have a sea of parking in between them. Think a shopping center. But this is not that. And so we want to make sure that we have the ability to service our customers, serve our customers well, so that their experience is great, but also We want that site circulating in a manner that is safe for everybody. It's in our interest to make sure the site is circulating safely on site, not only for our customers, but for our neighbors, for the overall community. We understand and have been very well aware of all the traffic concerns and There's been a lot of questions on that, and so Beth did a great job explaining some of those nuances and some of the benefits, not only on-site, but on the public right-of-way. We're excited about this size of the parcel. It's a great size. It offers a lot of parking, and the overall shape of it is really conducive for the drive-through lane because it provides... an abnormally long runway, if you will, in front of the drive-through so that we are mitigating as much as possible against potentially reaching the public driveway. So hypothetically, we do believe that we've accommodated for that both on-site and off-site. I hope that is.

Thanks. Maybe you can answer my other question, which is about a little bit related to Beth's anecdote about her son. How old is he, Beth?

Now 20.

Yep. You know, what we've noticed across this whole city is the impact that electric bikes have had on parking and on traffic and on driving just in general. And I am thinking a lot about that time when the bell rings and hundreds of kids leave San Marcos High School to go to lunch. And now, many hundreds have electric bikes. You just drive by the school and you see. It's actually amazing to me because when I was a principal, there was no one riding bikes. So what was the reason for just having 10 spaces on the property when you know that electric bikes are all The rage. And these kids will be coming.

So we do have the flexibility to add more if we need to and if that becomes a problem. We have plenty of space for that on site. I think really a benefit that we've been focusing on is in the public right-of-way. Again, Beth did a great job outlining A few of the benefits that will happen when we go and restripe along El Camino, or sorry, Calle Real, one of those is reducing the safety potential by properly or maybe better delineating that biking movement. So that's a benefit we're excited about. It allows them to get onto our property safely. But if needed, we can certainly accommodate more racks.

It would be really helpful to me if you would just show them a map as to how a biker would enter and park.

Can we bring up the site plan? I also note that Travis Collins is the operator of the State Street store. And I've had this very discussion with him about accommodating bikes on his State Street store site. And so if you can see here, a bike would come along on the green. Well, this is maybe not the best. Maybe. I'll go back to here. Okay. So the bike lane is there. You can see it, right? You can turn onto the site either before the cars turn on, right, where the pedestrians are in the middle, right? They can walk through there. Or they go like a car, right? And then there's the bike parking on the right-hand side on the bottom. That's where the bike parking areas are. But you can see that there is other space around there for electronic bike parking. But the truth is they could designate some other spaces on site, as Carlos was suggesting, if they do have, because I agree with you. I've even noticed, well, my son graduated three years ago, It's changed even in these three years. But that kind of highlights an issue, which is called, it's just an operator is flexible. Like they will need some flexibility when things change with your business. And a lot of people, you know, do change things. When COVID came, people changed the way pickups were, right, at different stores. You had the touchless pickup. A lot of operators need that flexibility. And certainly Chick-fil-A, among all, wants to avoid impacts. I represented them during the State Street store situation with the City of Santa Barbara. They were actually trying to get revised revisions done to their site because they saw the popularity. It was just slow in the planning process and that's what led the city was getting so much pressure we ended up in that enforcement nuisance stance. But that was corrected and part of that settlement was processing some changes, tweaks to the site plan to kind of highlight your point.

Understood. I lived in the area, too, and it's really clear that Chick-fil-A, among all other businesses in the area, is tremendously responsive, so I appreciate you bringing that up.

I have a question. I'll ask Carlos. You're the guy that ultimately deals with problem issues, and early on in the process, it was indicated that there could be a situation or we would react to a situation where there are too many cars in the queue and that those customers would be asked to park, use one of the parking spaces to relieve the entire parking lot. And there was mention that these would be your employees, your staff members who otherwise were working inside helping customers have their food. So I'm curious about that. How did that work in the State Street operation so that customers didn't leave angrily as opposed to parking or otherwise leave their job?

Sure. So, Commissioner, the 10 stalls that I believe were shown on the screen for team member parking stalls, we generally try to have our team members driving to our site that work at the projects and the stores park in the areas where there's high, does not have high turnover, right? In other words, we just, we're trying to isolate and to keep that potential for high turnover separate from the drive-through or the busyness of the site. So that's really the idea. best showed some of the normalized rates where it's really not the busiest time does not go all the way back it's not like that for a whole hour for the whole lunch hour it's really only about half that during non peak hours right and so our team members would be able to easily pull in and out of those stalls that are up near the drive-through entrance works really great it's pretty common for us to do that at other restaurants So, again, we're just trying to isolate the potential conflict for busyness during our peak hours.

Well, I understand that, and it's kind of a fail-safe measure if things do turn out to be too crowded, but part of you, I'm sure, would like it to be crowded.

Yeah, so, sorry, go ahead. No, I think the other thing that may be worth noting is just a lot of the efficiencies Chick-fil-A does have a high focus on innovation in general. I can talk about maybe a couple of things that maybe point to a couple of things that have been TRUE INNOVATION CHANGERS FOR US THAT BENEFITS HOW WE DO THINGS OPERATIONALLY, ENSURE THERE'S A LOT OF INITIATIVES THAT WE DO TO MAKE THINGS CIRCULATE WELL AND EFFICIENTLY THROUGH THE SITE. ONE OF THOSE BIG ONES RECENTLY IS THE SECOND LANE, SO TWO LANES THAT GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE FROM ENTERING THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE TO EXITING AFTER YOU PICK UP YOUR FOOD. IT ALLOWS FOR CARS TO BYPASS IF NEEDED. So cars aren't waiting for if you order a big meal as car number one and you order 60 sandwiches, and we hope they do, car number two and three and four, our team members can start delivering to cars two, three, and four, and then they can go around. And so we have... apps that actually also drastically help us plan accordingly, which helps us be a lot more efficient. And so what that means is we know they're coming. We know that we can start the process a little bit early and then we can make the food right when you get on site instead of having to wait for someone to take the order place an order and then make the payment so it just skips a couple of the steps whether you're in the drive-through lane or whether you're choosing to come inside to the store or whether you're parking we can deliver the food out to you so we just have a lot of great options to be able to fit the need based on the customer behavior if we believe that we're going to have a big influx if you will of high schoolers, if you will, or people that are highly integrated with our app, it only bodes better for us because we can also allocate one of the lanes specifically for that use. So again, it just makes that outside lane go a lot faster. You're not having to wait to place your order. You're not having to make the payment. You're just scanning, you're showing up, and then you're just taking the order through the drive-through lane. So plenty of options. When we look at these diagrams, we're operating on hypotheticals. And we want to be sensitive to the fact that we have a lot of traffic questions out there. And so we're not going to, again, I point to the benefit of the shape of the site. We've accommodated a potential hypothetical And another hypothetical, one for if we were to overflow, which we're not hoping or anticipating, we can accommodate that whether we take orders further upstream, whether we park them or have them circulate. And then we have the additional hypothetical runway, if you will, if we need that. And then on top of that, we have the improvements in the public right-of-way. So lots of benefits as part of the project that we're committed to doing.

I'm going to interrupt only because I'm reminded that attorneys learn early on that you never ask a question you don't know the answer to, and so you went farther, deeper than I expected, and I appreciate the time, but I think we're ready to move on with the project.

I apologize. We get very excited about it. Thank you.

Any more questions? No, I do.

I have one or two.

Yeah, and I did for Mr. Arias. You go first?

I'm going to go first. Mine are probably quicker than yours. OK, it has to do with traffic. The peak times analysis, did my, what are your, you know, I said before, I suppose my estimate is that the peak times are quite different to your traffic analysis. Support that. Your peak times versus Starbuck times are there our morning. your noon and end of day? Correct. That's supported by the data. Now, you know, people keep comparing this to in and out. Now my gut feeling is with in and out, people get in that line, the dwell time in the line in and out is much longer than the dwell time at Chick-fil-A. Is that, is there any data having to do with that?

Yes, there's actually a lot of data on that, and one of it relates to the app issue. You can't order by apps on In-N-Out. I don't know if any of you do Starbucks. Part of the reason the Starbucks queue isn't backing up as much as it had done historically, but with Chick-fil-A, they have an innovative app where you can order. They'll be able to order from San Marcos. So they won't have to pay, they won't have to do any of those other steps, they just have a QR code, and even one of the lanes could be dedicated to just pick up, scan the QR code, give them the food, they're gone.

E-bikes with the app. E-bikes, same thing.

There's what you need. The e-bike park, walk in, grab your food, gone. And they're really on the site for a minute.

Okay. One last question. I thought your VMT data, particularly the spheres of all the fans you have in Isla Vista was pretty compelling. But my other question about when the GHG estimate was made for cars in line, were EVs actually considered or not considered?

No, it's a conservative estimate. It does not give credit for EVs, electric vehicles, correct.

Okay. Well, thank you.

COMMISSIONER PARK. QUESTION FOR YOU ON DESIGN. ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF BEING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS. Ms. Ford, I learned about children's issues. And one thing we've discussed is families navigating the site. And I think of elderly people like me with mobility problems like I've had navigating. And if we could go back to the site plan that was up there before. It appears anybody that parks in those 50 spaces except for the employees and customers, they will then have to cross where the traffic goes into the queuing and possibly they'll be going through queuing if it's very long. Would it be possible to relocate the parking essentially where your queuing road is now and put your road where the parking is since swapping it? so people wouldn't have to cross the access road to get into the restaurant. Yeah, just take the THE ROADWAY THAT'S INTERNAL AND PUTTING IT WHERE YOUR PARKING SPACE IS AND HAVING YOUR PARKING SPACES BE INTERNAL. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MOST DRIVE THROUGHS I'VE BEEN TO, I GENERALLY DON'T DRIVE THROUGH. I'LL STOP AND GO IN.

I'M OLD AND I LIKE TO VISIT.

B.S. WITH THE BARISTAS, YOU KNOW. AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE TO CROSS A ROADWAY. I JUST WALK IN.

Understood. And we're happy to have you as a guest in the drive-thru lane or as a park and dine-in. Could we show the site plan one more time? I'm sorry. I just want to point to a couple things. Really, again, we want a well-balanced site. And a couple things I would point to is we do have options for parking at the southwest corner with some sidewalk access basically with right between there's a trash enclosure and our building. And then there's additional stalls to the left of that that is essentially removed from the drive aisle, if you will. Our goal is to maximize the parking. Parking is important for us to maintain a well-balanced site. And I think the other potential challenge with relocating any of the parking stalls or modifying any of the parking stalls along Calle Real is there's a significant landscaping setback, if I'm not mistaken. And so I think we basically maximized the land the distance between the sidewalk that you can see on the screen now it's almost like a hashed out area the gray that's all landscaping and it's for that reason um we actually would love more parking and the potential for more ability to stack but we have to comply with the design standards

You know, maybe my question wasn't clear, because I was referring to the existing space you've set aside for automobiles, not the landscaping, and simply swapping the roadway part for the spaces, for the parking spaces. So I imagine it would be the same distance you already have. It'd just be in different locations.

So LLG just reminded me, cars have limits on turn radiuses. And so if you were to make that, that would be a very sharp turn there. And that throat, which is pretty narrow, to be able to then turn into, in essence, drive through all those spaces, it's too tight of a turn.

The one on the east?

Correct.

Thanks.

Okay, I've got a request that we take a break prior to public comment, so I'd like to take a 10 minute break. i turned it off welcome back to the march 25th hearing of the santa barbara county planning commission now we will begin with public comment we have three speakers in the room uh you can have three minutes a piece we will begin with lisa kenyon Ms. Kenyon, please, speakers, please state your name and residence.

Sure. My name is Lisa Kenyon. I live in the unincorporated area of Santa Barbara, two blocks behind In-N-Out Burger. Everybody knows where that is. On the type, thank you for having us today. On the top of my whiteboard that's attached to my refrigerator, which I look at every morning, are the following words. Do the good, excuse me, do the good you have the power to do today. I hope I do good for my neighbors today in talking with you. As I mentioned, I just live a couple blocks behind In-N-Out Burger. Carlos, just as a point of reference, the QR code survey you guys have, it's not Goleta. We're in the unincorporated part of the county. I ask that you add an extra set of lenses to your glasses or to your eyeballs. And I hope you have taken the opportunity to read all the letters that are in the current comment. folder, including the ones from Paul, the two Marys, Tom and mine. There were also 23 additional letters along the same lines with the concern about traffic and the impact on the neighborhood. in the SBAR folders that were not, for the right reasons, not brought over here. But I just want to make sure you understand there were a lot of people that have been concerned about the neighborhood going way back into 2022. A very beloved man used to sing a wonderful song. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. I'm not going to sing the song. I'll break your eardrums. But instead, I'm simply going to ask, won't you be our neighbor? My fellow neighbors and I have been engaged in the process, like I said, since the first SBAR. And they're all along the same lines. I have to admit, we were quite disappointed. In fact, at the third SBAR meeting, a voice came over the loudspeaker telling me that I was not allowed to talk about any traffic issues. I basically got a smackdown. Not cool for public comment time. But today we're here. While each of the current letters and the past letters are unique with the people on top was mentioning each one contains the primary concerns about the existing three drive throughs and the proposed fourth one. I'll did all the letter writers who eloquently described how in their minds the traffic report and the air quality report results warrant further review. By the way, there has been no change to the Starbucks drive-thru. As I went by there this morning, there were six cars on the street. And to answer your question, Commissioner Park, the only change that was made after that appeal hearing from my perspective is they put a sign up. It's yellow with red lettering that says it's illegal to park here in the queue line for the drive-thru. Hasn't made a difference. Has not made a difference. All of us expressed the importance of not looking at this project in a silo or in a vacuum. It's not just about the old IHOP property. The neighborhood has been dealing with vehicle queuing at not one, not two, but the three drive-thrus for years. It is difficult for me to comprehend how the planning department has concluded that this project will not be detrimental to the comfort, convenience, general welfare, health and safety of the neighborhood. A picture is worth a thousand words, so I ask you to take a look at some of these pictures. I went a little cray-cray after the meeting where the manager of the Ramada said, there is no problem with queuing at Starbucks back in 21. I have over 100 photos. This is just a selection.

Thank you. Your time is up by about 30 seconds. If you've got one sentence or two to wrap it up.

Um, how about if we just show the, the Starbucks video, if we could, David, my bottom line is don't please don't compound the problem by adding another drive-through or at least get an independent evaluation. This is a in and out. This is, that was El Sueno, which is not included in here. I know it's outside the one mile, but from all of our residents, we're concerned about people trying to make that turn, especially if they're from out of town.

Thank you. Did you shoot that video yourself? That one I did, yes. Looks like you're holding the camera and driving at the same time. I am. I had to do that. You know that's a moving violation?

You know what?

While you're trying to demonstrate a safety thing, you're committing a moving violation. Wow. You know what?

You kind of surprised me that you're bringing that up. It's interesting. Because you guys are not looking at the whole thing, and you have not believed us when it comes to what the problem is.

Well, we've never addressed it before, so that comment I don't think is valid.

Well, let's bring up SBAR.

Next, we will have Kristen Miller. Audience, you're supposed to be respectful. If you have any comments about other speakers, reserve them. Proceed, Ms. Miller.

Good morning, Chair Reid and Commissioners. I'm Kristen Miller, President and CEO of the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce, representing businesses from Goleta to Carpinteria and 75,000 jobs in the region. I'm here today to support of the proposed Chick-fil-A project at Cayo Real and Turnpike. From the Chamber's perspective, this project reflects several things we consistently look for in a healthy local economy. It activates a long vacant commercial site. It brings private investment into an established corridor. It creates jobs. It expands access to goods and services for local residents, workers, and families. And it has the potential to generate meaningful ongoing economic activity and taxable sales. Just as importantly, this kind of project that helps reinforce the vitality of an existing commercial area. A successful business like Chick-fil-A on this currently underutilized site will support the surrounding district and contribute to a stronger overall business environment. There's very real demand for drive-through locations on the south coast, and the environmental emissions studies support this use. A COUNTY LOCATION HERE WOULD BETTER SERVE THE COUNTY'S ECONOMIC VITALITY GOALS WHILE KEEPING COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CLOSE TO WHERE PEOPLE ALREADY LIVE AND TRAVEL. LASTLY, A TIMELY APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT IS KEY TO IMPROVING THE REPUTATION OF THE COUNTY'S BUSINESS CLIMATE AND STORY. FROM AN ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY STANDPOINT, THIS IS THE TYPE OF INVESTMENT WE SHOULD WELCOME. FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR APPROVAL.

All right, thank you. Next and final speaker, Drew Wakefield.

Final in-person speaker.

In-person, correct.

COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME AND SPEAK. MY NAME IS DREW WAKEFIELD. I AM THIRD GENERATION PEABODY LOCKLINA, SETTLEBURBER HIGH SCHOOL. ONCE AT DAWN, ALWAYS AT DAWN. I CURRENTLY LIVE OVER BY HOLISTER SCHOOL. I'M IN THE AREA ALL THE TIME, AND THIS IS 100% WHAT OUR COMMUNITY WANTS AND DESIRES. I also have Wakefield 805 Radio AM 1290 FM 96.9 streaming live around the world at wakefield805.com. You can smile because this is about community, right? This is about opening up an opportunity for a great, wonderful, incredible business that's going to serve delicious, affordable food for our community. San Marcos High School students, La Colina students will probably come over. And so many people are going to be able, they're going to walk to Chick-fil-A in the neighborhood. A lot of seniors, there's bus coming to and from. It's going to be easy. Cars, the electric bikes out of here. Who knows? Maybe even people will go back in the days and they might ride horses over to Chick-fil-A. The bottom line is simply this. This is a successful, very successful, extremely successful business that our community desires. If we do not want success, let's go down State Street. Let's look at what State Street has given us. No success, which means what? Less tax dollars. Chick-fil-A, Santa Barbara that I know very well because they are in the community. They sponsor. They give. They donate to the schools, to the universities. They hire young people, high school students. They hire City College, University, Westmont students, go Warriors. They hire young mothers. They hire people not just to hire them just to deliver you food. They bring your food, they deliver it to you, and then what do they say when you say thank you? It's my pleasure. Why? Because it's their pleasure to work for Chick-fil-A, where they're gonna be taught, they're gonna be mentored, they're gonna have opportunities to expand their growth, to go just from an actual worker, maybe into a supervisor role, maybe into a manager role, and then hopefully someday, like the owner of Chick-fil-A, Santa Barbara, Travis Collins, a Biola University grad, that's going to be able to move into being an actual owner. What a great, wonderful, incredible company it is to have in our community that most of everybody in our community really wants. Now, it always gets down to time, energy, resources, which does what for our business? It means money. For the county to have more money, here's what I would recommend. A couple quick things. I am looking at the time. We should just go ahead and pass this immediately today, put shovels in the ground, clean up that area, and as soon as possible, we should all go join each other and eat more chicken. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and no charge for the commercial for your radio show. Now, Mr. Villalobos, could we go to the online?

Again, for those of you online, raise your hand if you'd like to speak. Right now I see one hand raised. Mary O'Gorman.

Okay. The proverbial, can you hear me? Yes.

Yes.

Hello? Okay, good. Wow. So you have a letter from me, several pages. My intent today was just to raise a couple issues that I either hadn't focused on enough, but I have to say I'm a little shaken up because once again, I feel like I'm at a hearing for, I don't know what, like a fast food freeway or, I mean, we're talking about a neighborhood. You guys are here for a conditional use permit to find that the project won't be detrimental to the comfort, convenience, welfare, and safety of the neighborhood. Not whether Isla Vista kids can come over here at night. They're already clogging when they go to In-N-Out. Anyways, it's just this sort of is a microcosm of what our neighbors feel these days. Yeah. The project is not, shouldn't be exempt from VMT. The lot is about 60 to 65,000 square feet. The lot, as we heard ad infinitum today, is directly related to the drive-through. There's drive-through lanes. We're creating a new lane on a public street just for them. So vehicle miles traveled would seem to be something you would want to know more about. And then, you know, I think the biggest thing is really the inadequacy of the environmental review. Previous to drive-throughs there, I look back at 1995 last night in the archives, In-N-Out Burger had an MND done. Starbucks had an MND done. And to quote from the Starbucks, report that as a result of this project, significant but medicable effects on the environment are anticipated in certain categories, air quality, hazardous materials. And so understandably, more extensive environmental review was done. Planner cites part of the exemption based on Eastern Goleta Valley community plan. And as someone who was integrally involved in that plan, I can tell you that having drive-throughs and especially four of them was not what was contemplated. And so for all intents and purposes, that plan sadly is in large part moot. 2015 Eastern Goleta Valley plan anticipated, I think it was several hundred housing units, not four to 5,000 as we have now. There was one policy in that plan that I think is pertinent. And that is that it was changed from highway commercial to C2 precisely because of a desire to move away from freeway serving uses and to allow for quote, community oriented commercial development and services. That's all we'd like to see. And we'd also like to not be gaslit as much as we have been for five years, whether it's by county staff or decisions. Please, is there somebody that can help us? The cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara prohibit new drive-thrus. That's why everyone in Goleta wants one here. Do we need to annex to Goleta to get any kind of just responsiveness to our concerns? We're not making this up. We don't like coming here. and having to address issues that we've been talking about for years. I'm on an HOA board here. People who are very intelligent have asked me, what do you mean they're going to put another drive-thru in? How can they do that? You know, so we don't have staff. We haven't had five years of conversations with county transportation planners that it sounds like the applicant has had. That's great. One visit out here, you know, to talk with neighbors would have been nice. And, again, I do not see how you can make a finding that this – is not detrimental to the comfort, convenience, welfare, health and safety of the neighborhood, okay? So thank you very much and whatever, thanks.

Now for applicant, any rebuttal? Five minutes.

MR. CHAIR, I DID HAVE ANOTHER HAND UP.

OH, THERE'S ANOTHER HAND UP? OKAY. SORRY. OKAY. FINAL SPEAKER. THIS IS THE FINAL?

SUZANNE STURZ, AND I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE WITH THEIR HAND UP.

HI, THERE. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. I'M A RESIDENT OF NORTH SAN I just would ask that you consider also the new development that's going in on the other side of the freeway. There's a bunch of additional units that are going to be built in the near future. And so just the impact that all of that development will have on the existing infrastructure and to be adding an additional drive-through in the community is just going to have... Increased impact to our daily life. There's already safety concerns with driving through that area. I don't have anything against Chick-fil-A. I think it's provides a good service. I just think in this situation, I don't think it would be the best for the residents of the area. And I feel like. You know, there's some condos in the area and it feels like it's just the easiest place to put it and maybe disproportionately affecting lower income residents. And so I ask that you consider the impact that this development will have on the residents of the area and just that there might be a better use of that space for the community. Thank you very much.

All right, thank you. And I apologize, I wasn't intending to try to cut you or anyone else off. So with that, if we can go to applicant for rebuttal, you have five minutes.

Chair Reed, commissioners, Okay, a couple of things. VMT screening. So the standard is that if you're 50,000 square feet of local serving uses, like a local retail Costco, you get screened out. So your parking lot is not counted. It's just the square footage of your building. We are a 2,600 square, 2,600 square foot building. So far below that threshold. But even if you included that little area of the driveway, we're still below 50,000. square feet but that's not the standard as you heard from staff and everyone else the standard we fall well below cumulative impacts of all of the other residential projects were considered in the traffic report so the traffic report considers all those housing element projects and the other projects in the queue I really took to heart the comments of the neighbors. It's clear that they're really upset. And I do believe after having studied this with the traffic reports and talking with not one but two traffic experts about this and really considering this for years, this project will improve the Cahiers-Royal corridor, the safety, the circulation, and the visual character of it. The striping's gonna improve the bicycle safety and will clarify the traffic flow of the cars. Additionally, for the neighbors, during the break, our traffic expert went and measured the queue for In-N-Out. Just for your information, it is a total of 34 cars. 32 cars is the length of our queue to that pink line, right? So 34 cars is what you saw in that photo, plus the ones in the street, all right? So we, for all the reasons that I explained, we have more than sufficient room on our site, plus, frankly, we have better operation. And we will not have impacts to the street. We're also going to really improve the visual character with all of the landscaping. And the drive-through is critical. Like, I don't want to get confused. I heard some of the comments. I want to make sure everyone understands. This site works because the drive-thru helps make it work. What you heard from Carlos is you would need a sea of parking for like a shopping center for this to work with it if it was just a standalone restaurant. The drive-thru helps us manage the flow and avoid any impacts to Chick-fil-A or to Caille Real from this project. And it doesn't work without it. SO I'M GOING TO LET CARLOS END HERE WITH THE LAST LITTLE BIT, BUT IT IS MY VERY, I AM very sympathetic to the neighbors. I do think that there may be some issues at other sites. I think that this project improves things on the Strip. We've done what we can, both for the Starbucks, but then also for this other site. And I do think it will reduce the queue when people see a completely operational site in one place, right? They're not going to be in a standing line on the other side of the street. So with that, I'll leave to Carlos to close us out.

Thank you, Beth. Just a couple notes to close out and maybe address the concern from the neighbors. I don't see her here anymore, but Lisa Canyon and Mary O'Gorman, acknowledge fully that you are a neighbor and you are a nearby resident. We consider ourselves to be a neighbor as well, and we want to be a good neighbor. We have a unique operator model that one that allows our operator basically expects our operators to be highly involved in the community so they're involved in the community they're a neighbor as well and nobody wants this site this project to work well and to work safely more than us we have a vested interest in making sure that it works well obviously from a business standpoint but also from the community we don't want neighbors complaining we don't want the county getting emails and complaints from the neighbors. That's the last thing we want. It's the last thing we want to put on our operators to run the store. We want them focusing on providing a great service to the community, providing good food, great hospitality, and a safe site. We're going to work the hardest at making sure that this plan works and I guess I just want to end with the fact that we believe that we are going above and beyond in being a good neighbor by helping improve the actual conditions that are in the road now. We're not just coming in here saying, we'll see what happens. We put a lot of thought into it. We understand some of the concerns and have been working diligently with the county. And so we truly believe in this project. We believe that we're going above and beyond by making physical improvements. in the public right of way.

All right. Thank you. So at this time, we will close the public hearing. It's time for commissioners' comments, questions, deliberations.

Can we start with questions of staff? Excuse me? Can we start with questions of staff before we go into deliberations?

Okay. Go ahead.

Yeah. I'm just curious because I'm trying to set our ordinance in context, and I know that Carpinteria, Montecito, Goleta, well, I don't know about Goleta. Santa Barbara don't allow drive-throughs. Does the City of Goleta allow drive-throughs?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Park, I'm not sure. I would have to look into that.

Can I ask Ms. Collins to answer that question?

We just don't know off the top of our head. We can certainly try and look into it.

I happen to know this.

Chair, can we have leave to open it so she can speak to this? Go ahead and answer.

Yes, you are allowed in the city of Goleta to have a drive-through with a conditional use permit like the county.

Thank you.

Okay, that was my question for staff. All right. We're ready for any deliberations.

I'll go.

Commissioner Martinez.

First, I heard the nervousness of the neighbors and want to compliment them on even taking the chance of even standing up here and saying what your thoughts are. And that's what this process is about. And I hope you never feel excluded from it. That's why I'm on here. to hear from those people and from everybody, but we have the applicants and everybody has their turn and we have the timing up here, but I just want to say that aloud first. And I agree with Chairman Reid that the outburst from the gallery doesn't reflect upon our impressions upon what you're saying to us. And looking at this, I thought the, the neighbor who came up with a picture of the way Starbucks is looking and that there does seem to be, at least in the picture itself that was presented, that despite their queue, which I'm interpreting as the way that the cars come in and go through and get their drive-through drinks and so forth, that there is going to be some kind of a situation there in regards to the traffic itself. And this is what comes to mind. If I'm getting off and I'm getting off the freeway and I go on the turnpike, And there's already a backup on Starbucks. How am I going to know that I can go around? The only way I can know that is from experience. And there's nothing that tells me that otherwise. And I'm saying that because I still go through that problem when I'm trying to figure out which exit is in and out on when I come to these meetings or if I'm trying to figure it out. And I count myself as one of those people that's going up and down the corridor of 101 looking at my app to say, OK, well, where is the next Chick-fil-A? So I do think that there's going to be a concern there about this traffic. But that concern is kind of lightened by the fact that as I'm looking at the satellite view of where this location is, it's not hitting necessarily, at least from what I'm seeing, and I can be corrected, I may be corrected right here and now, that it doesn't hit the neighborhoods directly. It hits a lot of the community, like the county portions and so forth. And I will say this to Chick-fil-A that I think to me, and I am an attorney, so you can hold that against me too. I do believe in local council because she can stand up here and say, I'm part of this community. My kid went to school there. It matters to me. It does matter. Somebody from Los Angeles comes up and says, well, this is where it's from. It doesn't matter to me. I mean, well, it does matter to me, but in the negative, um, And you've given your word up here saying you're going to try and work with it. I appreciate the fact that you can't think of every single hypothetical. I was thinking when everybody was talking about, well, the kids are going to drive up in their e-bikes and use the app to get their food. Well, I can only imagine that you're going to have the Uber drivers coming in, picking up stuff. I mean, there's just so many variances that are coming in. And whoever thought of that 10 years ago? And it's always going to be changing. But I see the effort here, and I see the design. I was actually impressed by the design of how it looked and ran through this. And I could envision how it would actually, the traffic would come in, even if you got backed up in the queue. I don't think that somebody's going to really listen to some 16-year-old or 17-year-old and say, sir, you're going to have to park right there with your family who's starving and go inside and get your food. I reflect back to Disneyland when I worked there and telling people, you can't get into this restaurant. Now you can go to the next one. No, it wasn't going to work. I was a deer in a headlight. So my end impression is this, is that Chick-fil-A, well, your reputation precedes you. You are part of the community. You try and be part of the community. AND YOU HAVE GIVEN YOUR WORD HERE WITH LOCAL COUNCIL ABOUT TRYING TO ADDRESS THESE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND NOT IGNORING THEM. THAT IS WHAT IS TO ME. BUT OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, I COME FROM DRIVE THROUGH HEAVEN IN SANTA MARIA WHERE WE HAVE CHICKEN ROW AND I SEE WHAT HAPPENS. AND I SEE HOW POPULAR CHICK-FIL-A IS AND THE CAUSE OF SITUATIONS. BUT I DO THINK THE ONE VARIANCE is not going to be able to be addressed on hand is if you get off on Turnpike and there's already a backup at Starbucks, how do you know? And that's the challenge I think that really needs to be thought of and addressed through this process because I know that it goes to the county from here. And I would, I'm just saying that I would vote for it to proceed on to the Board of Supervisors and hopefully you can address that concern when it comes to the Board of Supervisors. Thank you.

Commissioner Park.

You know, there's a lot I like about this project. It is, to me, kind of an ideal match of parcel to user. I mean, I can't imagine a better parcel for you to use, but I also can't imagine another use of that parcel. I can't even imagine a car wash there. I don't know. And that's important. There's certainly a demand for this. We've heard all that. So I like the design. I'm not as concerned about the compatibility issue and it's, of course, a finding we have to make with CUPs because I think a lot of the traffic issues have been addressed through the design. But the important point to me is really not what do I like? Do I like the color? Do I like chicken? Do I like this? WHAT IS OUR JOB AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION? IT IS TO FOLLOW THE LAW. THE LAW IS NOT ALWAYS VERY CLEAR. WE CAN SEE ON VMTs IT IS NOT REALLY CLEAR AT ALL. I FRANKLY REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ON THE SCREENING THRESHOLDS, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE IT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY BETTER EVIDENCE THAN YOU DO. THE BOARD CAN DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE. The law we have to look at here that's important is the development standards, 35, 42, 130. And that applies whether we do VMT analysis or not. They're separate issues. And we have to find that the development standard is met. The drive-through facility shall have no greater adverse impact upon air quality than the same use without the drive-through facility. And when I read this packet, there was not one scintilla of evidence. that that was true. That's because the public record didn't even have your traffic study in it or the air pollution report. And I don't know whose concern that is or not. Everybody should have been concerned and everybody should have gotten in there. And I forced it in there and there you are. You'll thank me for that, but you won't thank me for what I say next, which is I still don't think you've met the standard of evidence I have to CONVINCE ME THAT THIS WILL HAVE NO GREATER IMPACT BEING A DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY UPON AIR QUALITY THAN THE SAME USE WITHOUT THE DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY. WE JUST DON'T HAVE MUCH IN FRONT OF US. WE HAVE SOME SPECULATION. that's in an argument. We do have maybe two sentences that address this in the air pollution report, and they refer to a trade magazine which has a study which has not been presented to us. It's not in the record, so I don't know what anybody has by way of science, even if it does exist. And you know, we can all come up with anecdotes about why it might do this, why it might not, you know. And some of it's confusing. We bought my wife a Honda two years ago, and the gosh darn thing turns off every time I take my foot off the brake and come to a stop. And then it comes back on again. So, you know, if it's in line, do we say, oh, that's a good thing? Because, you know, these manufacturers and the federal government have determined that that should happen with cars so they wouldn't pollute as much. But, you know, if it's in line, cue the horn. Chick-fil-A? Is that a good thing that it turns off and doesn't create emissions, or is it a bad thing? Your own report says it is a bad thing for cars to park and have their engines turn on and off. We just don't know. I can't make that finding. Good people here at staff, great people on the applicant team, What I wanna do is continue this and give you some time to give us some real evidence that I can make this finding. And if other commissioners would agree with me, I would move to continue this matter for the time that they could do that. Because I think eventually I'm gonna vote for this project. I'm not gonna vote for it today.

Commissioner Ford.

Said that with a tone. No, I'm just thinking. Let's see, I'm very conflicted here, as I think probably all of us are, because it's clear that Chick-fil-A has done an amazing job of working hard to try to eliminate the street spillback. The site layout seems very creative and responsive, the queue design, et cetera. I do remain concerned about the air quality also, and I would support additional environmental review. I also feel just conflicted because Chick-fil-A is extremely reputable, popular, and as I said, responsive. And so it would seem to me that they would be willing to be responsive to ensuring that this is a win-win and leaving no stone untouched or unturned over. give us greater confidence that this will not be an issue regarding environmental quality. Additionally, my own preference is that this restaurant would be a walk-in, park-in only. But that's my opinion. I just don't want to feel that we left any stone unturned. That's it.

Commissioner Cooney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has gone a direction I didn't anticipate, but it's been my practice consistently over the time I've sat on the commission to pay attention to the commissioner's choices from the people they represent and my fellow commissioner Park does not make motions to further consider things if he feels otherwise. I've seen him do that many times. So while I feel this project has a lot of potential, It would be to our benefit to do as much as we can as a commission here to review that and make sure there isn't an obvious correction that we overlooked. So rather than saying I vote for or against, I would say I would agree with commissioners who propose that we continue this for further study.

I look at this project, I look at the site, I think the site's ideal for this project. I'm very impressed with what Chick-fil-A has done with the site to make maximum use of its advantages due to its layout, its configuration. I've been similarly impressed with their efforts to mitigate the traffic problems in the area. And foundational to that is that Starbucks on the corner. I don't see how anyone can look at that map of that Starbucks location and not have foreseen that it would be a considerable problem. I'm reassured, though, that the entrance for this site is relatively far removed from Starbucks. So I don't think it would contribute to that. I am similarly impressed with the efforts I have seen on behalf of Chick-fil-A in accommodating community needs, particularly with their efforts to improve traffic flow and situation. at their State Street store and I'm confident in the event they needed to make modifications to the plan at this location, they would continue to operate to that standard. So my feeling is the only thing I would really be willing to support would be to approve this application today. I would not support continuing it. I think if we seek continuance again and again based on something we find we will find that no project is perfect and we will be continuing them ad infinitum so again my feeling is i'm prepared to support approving this today i would not be in support of continuing so Any further comment, or is someone prepared to offer a motion?

Yes, I will, because I want to give the applicant a chance to get approval, and I can't vote for it today because I don't think you met the standard. And so I want to give you time to be able to do it. I can pick a number out of the hat in 90 days, 60 days. I don't know what the applicant wants.

And just to help staff and myself, when you're asking for more environmental review, are you wanting additional studies?

No, I got immense words here. When I think of environmental review, I think a formal environmental review under CEQA. And I think it is staff's position and the applicant's position, and I'm not gonna argue it, okay, that our thresholds, our screening thresholds, cause us to reach the termination that there need not be additional, that there need not be environmental review in the way of a CEQA review like an MND or an environmental impact statement, okay? I am referring, to the LUDC in the section that has a development standard that a drive-through facility shall have no greater adverse impact upon air quality than the same use without the drive-through facility. And Ms. Collins remarked to me that this is a finding. We can say, well, it's a finding that we've met that development standard. I guess that's a more technical way of saying it. But I'm not prepared to do that. But I'm prepared to give them time so that they can develop the evidence and anybody else who wants to develop contrary evidence can, and then that we shall receive that evidence at a hearing and make that determination, because that gives them a chance to get a 5-0. Right now, it's not gonna be a 5-0. So I would make a motion to continue this to a date that is, do we have,

The applicant is asking for about 60 days, so we can look at the May 27th hearing, if that works.

So can I use that in my motion? May 27th. 27? Yep. Okay, the motion is to continue this matter to May 27 so that we can receive additional evidence from the applicant and others regarding whether this drive-through facility will have no greater adverse impact upon air quality than the same use without the drive-through facility.

Do we have a second?

Second with Gratitude for the clarification from all parties. And also, just to underscore the responsiveness of Chick-fil-A, I really want this restaurant to go through, but I want this to be a win-win. Second.

Let's do a roll call. I mean, just do a roll call. Commissioner Cooney.

I agree with that, aye.

Commissioner Ford?

Aye.

Commissioner Park? Aye. Commissioner Martinez? Nay. And Chair Reed?

No.

Motion passes three to two.

So Chair Reed and commissioners, on the next item, I know it's getting close to lunch hour. I know there's desire to break for lunch. I'm hearing from staff that that item should be relatively straightforward and simple. If the commission wanted to I shouldn't say that. I've now jinxed it, so we'll be here all day. If we wanted to just go through that and then end and then go to lunch afterwards, staff is willing to do that. Otherwise, we can take a lunch break and come back.

Commissioner Cooney? That would be my preference as well to finish.

I WOULD RATHER FINISH NOW.

YEAH, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

DOES STAFF NEED A FEW MINUTES TO PREPARE, OR ARE THEY READY?

WE'RE READY.

OKAY. SO, MR. VILLALOBOS, WOULD YOU READ THE ITEM INTO THE RECORD?

CERTAINLY. HEARING ON THE REQUEST TO CONSIDER CASE NUMBER 23, GPA 6, AS WELL AS 23, RZN 6, AND TO Adopt the mitigated negative declaration, case number 25, NGD 6, pursuant to state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt the mitigation monitoring program.

Good morning, Commissioners. I will now be presenting the Rose Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. The property outlined in blue on this map is located at 1251 Orchid Drive in the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan Area, 2nd Supervisorial District. The property is a 2.33-acre lot zoned to Agriculture 1 with a minimum parcel size of 10 acres. The property is currently developed with an orchid nursery. Access is provided off of Orchid Drive, a private residential cul-de-sac. The property is surrounded by lots zoned single family residential and developed with residences to the north, east, and south, and a lot zone for agriculture to the west. The project is a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment to change the land use designation and zoning of the subject parcel from agriculture one to single family residential. No development is proposed at this time. The project site has not always been zoned for agriculture. When the first permits were issued for the site in 1962, the site was zoned single family residential. The ordinance at the time allowed for nurseries and greenhouses for propagation and cultivation of plants in the single family residential zone. The site was then developed with an orchid nursery. In 1993, when the Goleta community plan was adopted, the site was rezoned to agriculture one when the orchid operation was existing on site. Amending the zoning and land use designation for the site from agriculture one to single-family residential is compatible with the neighborhood this slide depicts the surrounding zones with residential zones shown in blue agricultural zones shown in green and the subject lot shown in red as Previously stated the subject property is surrounded by residential uses on three sides The agricultural lots to the west are all significantly larger than the subject lot and are accessed directly off shoreline drive a heavier trafficked public road A more intense agricultural operation on the subject lot would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The request to rezone to residential uses is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan and Article Two. There is no development proposed and future development will be subject to all applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Article Two. The request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Single Family Residential Zone District and the lot will comply with the minimum lot size for the zone. There are several policies in the comprehensive plan regarding the protection of agricultural land. However, the subject parcel is not considered viable for agriculture. The existing ORCID operation is no longer profitable, and a larger agriculture operation would not be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The property is surrounded by residences on three sides and accessed off a residential cul-de-sac. The proposed residential zoning will complete a logical residential neighborhood and allow for a clear urban rural boundary line. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project to study its anticipated environmental effects. No significant and unavoidable impacts were found to occur. Significant but mitigable impacts were found in the areas of greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources, hazardous materials, and public facilities. Mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels are included in the mitigation monitoring program as attachment D. Insignificant impacts were found for the remaining resource areas. Staff recommends that your commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors make the required findings for approval of the project, recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the final MND and mitigation monitoring program for the project, and adopt resolutions recommending that the Board of Supervisors amend the land use designation and zoning for the lot from agriculture one to single family residential. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff and the applicant are available for questions.

I have a question myself. Were we supposed to do ex parte on this type of application? Yes. Okay. Let's do it at this time. Ex parte site visits.

No. I'm sorry. I didn't meet with anyone. Just drove by yesterday.

I actually drove by last Thursday. I'm familiar with the site. Having gone by that area for many years, my grandmother was an orchid person, so we always visited the area. So, no questions?

I do. Commissioner Park. I don't quite get why there's two cases and two types of zoning, but they all come to 20,000 square foot lots. Anyway, could you explain that for me?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Park, the general plan amendment case is for changing the land use designation, which is in the comprehensive plan, and the zoning map amendment, the RZN case, is to change the zone, which is established by the ordinance, so Article 2 in this case.

So even though they have different designations, the 20R1 and the Res. 18, they're the same?

Yes, it would be the same minimum lot size.

Well, it always makes sense in planning. Thanks. No further questions.

With no other questions, we can go to applicant.

Is that on?

Thank you, Chair Reid. Steve Fort with Seps Land Use Consulting. And with me today is owner and applicant, Loris Rose. I'll start out by thanking Ms. Brown for helping us get to this point today. And I want to thank David for helping me prepare for the hearing today. Had a little mix up with my presentation. And thanks to you folks for pushing through today during the hearing and getting us in before your lunch break. I have the clicker, okay. Key considerations. The property is only 2.33 acres. Future ag is limited by the viability of what's going on there right now, which is disappearing. the size of the parcel, access to the parcel, and HOA restrictions. The current, the lot size is non-conforming to the current AG 110 designation, where 2.3 acres, that requires a 10 acre minimum. The current ORCID operation is no longer, or is diminishing in viability, and it is really no longer competitive with bigger operations that are going on around the world, It's not viable for long-term ag use. It does have prime soils, as does that whole Orchid Drive neighborhood, but it's actually mapped on the county's GIS and by the state as urban and built-up lands and not prime farmland. The best use of the property really is residential going forward, and it results in a logical and viable neighborhood and a stable limit to urban development in that area. The request is consistent with county policies and the Coastal Act, as we'll talk about a little bit more. And I do want to acknowledge, in the coastal zone, requesting a rezone out of ag, we realize that that's going to get scrutinized and looked at very closely. But in this case, it's a 2.3 acre parcel that's really its ag life has been reached at this point and that's why we're we're asking for this request and and going back to the point about we realize it's a it can be a sensitive topic we have been in touch with coastal commission staff in ventura i know ms brown's been in touch with them shared information with them we had a zoom call with them to help bring them along so just fyi we have been in touch with the coastal staff in ventura I'm going to kind of skip over the maps. I think Ms. Brown addressed those. I did just want to point out again, this is mapped as urban and built-up lands by the county in using the state as a source for that data. Just a little bit on the history. The operation was developed sometime between 57 and 65. It's really been... never really been a neighborhood where intensive agriculture, in-ground agriculture in this block of the neighborhood was ever really foreseen. The neighborhood really grew up around it, if you study the aerial photographs through the years. This one here is from 1976, I believe. I have some information about when the lots were created. Miss Brown talked about the initial permitting and zoning. I think the point here is it's always been limited to a small above ground operation and the residential development just continued to grow around it since it was developed between 1957 and 1965. Just to go over some of the constraints on future AG here again orchid business changes impacted by larger growing operations and there There's less viability for small-scale operations and private collections It's really become cost prohibitive at the site, and it's not financially sustainable anymore the only access point is driving down that that stub of orchid drive through the residents through the residential area and SO ANY DELIVERY TRUCKS, EMPLOYEES, SHOPPERS ARE GOING THROUGH THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA TO GET TO THE EXISTING BUSINESS. YOU PROBABLY SAW THE PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. I REALIZE THE COUNTY DOESN'T USUALLY PUT TOO MUCH CREDENCE INTO WHAT'S GOING ON BETWEEN PRIVATE AGREEMENTS AND CC&Rs BUT THEY DO EXIST AND THE PROPERTY IS LIMITED BY THE CC&Rs OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. they can only do above ground horticultural activities. And my experience talking with Ms. Rose, it kind of sounds like she's been a good neighbor, the neighborhood has grown up around them, they've kind of tolerated her, they've been friendly, they have a good relationship. But the CC&Rs do limit that it's gotta be above, it basically has to be the operation they're running right now to continue there and be consistent with the CC&Rs. They wouldn't allow any in-ground cultivating. I'm gonna keep going here. Not too much on ag policy consistency. I think Ms. Brown hit that. But we are consistent with the ag conversion thresholds and the point scoring system that the county uses to determine sort of an initial screening of whether there might be an impact to ag resources. We're consistent with the zone we're trying to get into, the 20R1 zone, in terms of size and being an appropriate use for the property going forward. Again, it's not considered prime farmland. It really isn't appropriate for long-term ag use. A couple of other things. There's no environmental or coastal resources affected. AND IT DOES CREATE THAT LOGICAL AND IT DOES CREATE THAT LOGICAL BOUNDARY. BOUNDARY. IT'S ADJACENT TO EXISTING IT'S ADJACENT TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES. RESIDENTIAL USES. COASTAL ACT CONSISTENCY, WHICH COASTAL ACT CONSISTENCY, WHICH IS SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE IS SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH COASTAL STAFF, IT HAD WITH COASTAL STAFF, IT DOES CREATE, YOU KNOW, THEY DOES CREATE, YOU KNOW, THEY LIMIT CONVERSIONS OUT OF AG TO LIMIT CONVERSIONS OUT OF AG TO SITUATIONS WHERE A STABLE SITUATIONS WHERE A STABLE BOUNDARY WOULD BE CREATED, BOUNDARY WOULD BE CREAT And the viability of the existing ag use is severely limited, won't be growing. And again, we're creating that stable boundary, sound neighborhood and somewhat of a limit to urban development there. And again, the new residential development, which is kind of the flip side of how the Coastal Commission looks at this, it'll be located within and contiguous to existing residentially developed areas. And the key thing, too, is it's not growth inducing. There is water and sewer in the neighborhood right now. AGAIN, I'M PROBABLY STARTING TO REPEAT MYSELF, BUT ONE KEY THING, TOO, IS WE'RE NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT HERE, I DON'T BELIEVE, AND I THINK YOU'LL AGREE, AND I THINK STAFF AGREES, IS THAT IT'S A 2.3-ACRE PARCEL THAT'S OUTLIVED ITS AG LIFE. IT'S SURROUNDED BY THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WE'RE CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE FEEL STRONGLY THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THIS MOVING FORWARD IS A RESIDENTIAL TYPE OF USE. We feel like we're consistent with the findings in Article 2, that we're in the general interest, the interest of general community welfare, consistent with the Comp Plan, the Coastal Plan, and the Coastal Act, and we're consistent with good zoning and planning practices. And with that, I would just say thanks, and I hope you follow the recommendations of staff to recommend us to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Thanks. And we're here available for questions as necessary.

Any questions? Commissioner Park. Yes.

When we get to deliberations, I want to make a few comments that support your point that this does not create precedent. And I'll explain why. Because I had some involvement with the orchid industry. And I'm just curious. Ms. Rose was involved in the industry? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

She is the owner of the Cal Orchid that is on site now, formed with her husband who passed away, unfortunately, while we were processing this.

And your involvement started when? I mean, if you pick a year, can you remember that?

So my name is Laura Rose. I've lived here since I was five. I lived brought up in Hope Ranch and rode my horse all over Moore Mesa. Always had a respect for nature. And although I pursued English literature as my major, this love for plants overrode it. And I got a job at a small place up in the Riviera. picking cymbidium flowers for King Cheryl when I was just like 20, 22. And loved that aroma of the cymbidium flowers and my father, anyway, I love plants, loved orchids most. And so I found an ad in the newspaper for the Orchid Estate and I went to work for them. And my mother had been shopping there. I enjoy the atmosphere and kind of controlled rural containment for these beautiful orchids. I met my husband there and in 1987 we purchased the nursery across the street. ORCHIDS BY ROW. BOB ROW, WHO OWNED THAT PARCEL, ACTUALLY OWNED THAT WHOLE STREET. SO WHEN YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WERE SHOPPING THERE, MR. REED, YOU MAY HAVE GONE DOWN THAT LITTLE ROAD TO ORCHIDS BY ROW. Mr. Rowe, because he owned that whole street and all the parcels, just kept selling those parcels, and the houses kept building until they got to the end. He wanted to preserve that spot, which is our nursery, Cal Orchid, for his son to be able to grow cymbidiums and maintain a modest income for himself. So that's why that was there and it has that ubiquitous name of Orchid Drive Extension. It's a narrow street. The neighbors love us. I've been the president of that homeowners association before and served on the architectural committee and I throw the parties every year for the summer social. We get along very well. It's a tight-knit community. Did you have any specific questions to ask me? Well, I welcome you to make appointments anytime. And if you want to have a site selection, a site review, I'm there six and a half days a week. So happy to show you around all the nooks and crannies of the ORCID world.

Commissioner Park, are you? Okay, I was, I'm glad to have Bob. Okay, well, we'll get there in a minute. I'm not quite ready yet. No, I was very glad. I thought they had an excellent bio of you in News Hawk a week or two ago. I hope the Rose Show turned, I mean, the Orchid Show turned out well. Yeah, my connection with the area, when I was very young, my grandmother was very into some mediums and we used to go at Dos Pueblos when they closed. When they closed, we switched to Santa Barbara. Orchid Estate, and actually one of the employees there, a little Japanese guy, when I was probably seven, eight years old, taught me a lot about separating and propagating cymbidiums. I still have a staghorn fern. I've been dividing and growing since I was a little kid over these many decades. But nonetheless, so we do have some commonality there. I appreciate the story. And I also appreciate your predicament in trying to practice any sort of ag when you're kind of surrounded by... what is a really beautiful neighborhood up there. So that's my piece. Now, if we are all ready, we could, do we have public comment?

For those of you joining online, raise your hand if you'd like to speak. No hands raised.

No public comment. So we will at this point close the public hearing. Are there, and we're ready to move to Any more questions of staff? No? Are we ready to proceed to deliberations?

Sure.

If we are, I will take, you know, the hardest part about being chair is I have to wait until everybody else is done to say something. But I'm going to depart from that tradition and I would like to recommend that we adopt staff's recommended actions on the screen. I'm not going to make you listen to me read them.

So we're not going to have deliberations first?

We will have deliberations, but I'm prepared to make a motion. I got it. I'll just give you a heads up on that. Any deliberation? Oh, Commissioner Park, I should have. Commissioner Park, please proceed.

As I read the staff report, I had a warm and fuzzy feeling that I knew more about this than I remembered. Bob and John Rowe were great friends of mine. The young attorney that handled that transaction, young then, was me. I know the site very well. I hope it came out for you. The fact that you hung with it all this time must mean that it worked out to be a good purchase. I hope so, because I was tough on you, I know that. The reason I wanted to speak here is there is a lot of precedent for this. I know that five years ago, if you talked about converting ag to residential

go up in arms.

And now, of course, now that we need more housing, it has changed a little bit. But, you know, from representing the Rose and I also represented the whole Santa Barbara International Orchid Show, I did the legal work to create it. And so I got to know all these growers. A very big piece of the orchid industry then were people like the Rows who were essentially hobbyists themselves. Bob Rowe loved to create new varieties and things. They enjoyed it because they were hobbyists. A big part of their market were other hobbyists. And then they would also sell to the flower industry, which really wasn't cut flowers, but nowadays it is, and it's big time outfits from South America and other places. And the kind of growers that were like you and Bob Rowe and John Rowe kind of disappeared. And the reason I say it's not a precedent is because there were properties kind of this size with greenhouses that dotted Cogoleta and dotted Carpinteria. They're all over. And they've all gone out of business and they've all converted to housing or something's happened. So there's nothing alarming here. I just think it's amazing you held out this long. And so I just hope everybody realizes this. And I totally support your application. And I do wanna come by and visit. I'll even bring lunch.

All right. Commissioner Ford.

Thanks very much. I don't have much to say. I can't say that when I reviewed this, I had a warm and fuzzy feeling, but I actually felt, had bittersweet feelings because we've all seen what has happened to agriculture and to flower growing and particularly orchid growing. In California over the past number of years. I think slide number five tells the story This is a smart change And so I support it too and we'll be happy to second a motion should it come Any other Commissioner Cooney I Could talk longer so I

I'm interested by the history and the endurance and the presentation. So I'll support a motion to approve this change.

Okay. Well, getting back, I will make that motion.

Sorry, second. I just wanted to see if Mr. Martinez wanted to speak. But he doesn't. So second the motion.

Okay, Mr. Cooney, could we, I mean, Mr. Villalobos, sorry, could we please take a roll call?

Commissioner Cooney? Aye. Commissioner Ford? Aye. Commissioner Park? Aye. Commissioner Martinez?

Aye.

Chair Reid? Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you.

With that, we will be adjourned until April 8th.