Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2019 Item 2, HavlikCALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY IV TO: City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission FROM: Neil Havlik, California Native Plant Society, San Luis Obispo Chapter (CNPS-SLO) SUBJECT: FROOM RANCH PROJECT PROPOSAL AGENDA ITEM, December 11, 2019 Dear Commissioners: At your meeting of December 11, 2019, you will be asked to provide input into the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project (the "Project"), located on Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin. While we at CNPS-SLO have not completed our review of the DEIR, we have reviewed enough to formulate some opinions about it and to respond to some of its findings and recommendations. Overall we believe that the DEIR has done a good job of evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project. We disagree with one section, and have questions about another (which will be discussed below), but we generally agree with the recommendations found within in the report. We are recommending that your commission make certain recommendations of its own to the City Council. Our support. We are gratified to see that the DEIR recognizes the significant resource value of the plateau or terrace area of the proposed project site, and calls for relocation of that portion of the development. This also shows the foresight of the "actionable alternative" required by the City Council for this project, the intent of which was to preserve the City's General Plan requirement that development in the Irish Hills stay below the 150 foot elevation. CNPS-SLO has consistently supported the 150 foot elevation limit in the City's General Plan, and has long been aware of the high resource value of the Irish Hills, but the DEIR's findings regarding that value at this site were even greater than we thought. Therefore we strongly support that restriction, we support the identification of Alternative 41 as the "environmentally superior" alternative, and applaud the project sponsors' publicly announced decision to "concentrate" their efforts on developing the Villaggio project below that elevation, thus preserving the plateau. With regard to the 150 foot elevation at the former quarry site (which we refer to as the storage area), we also support the findings and recommendations of the DEIR. These recommendations call for making this area into an historic park and trailhead park to provide information about the history of the Froom Dairy and to provide direct access into the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The DEIR argues that this site would allow the historic buildings to be preserved in a more rural setting than called for by the project sponsors, more appropriate to the past history of this facility. The project sponsors do not support this, and insist on developing the site with residences. As a backup concept we support having the storage area as a trailhead and neighborhood park only, supporting the concept of a public amenity being above 150 feet. The 150 foot elevation limit has been established City policy for more than a quarter century, and has led to the creation and growth of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. This is the City's Protectinq Cafi fornia's native fora since 1cy65 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816-5113 • Tel: (916) 447-2677 • www.cnps.org largest and most diverse open space area, with numerous rare and threatened plant and animal species, beautiful vistas, and miles of trails enjoyed by our citizens every day. We now stand on the cusp of an opportunity to add immeasurably to this marvelous community resource, add to its richness and beauty, and even add another dimension to its historical character. Another very significant finding of the DEIR has been the recognition that the small enclave (which we call the "cove") at the southwest corner of the property and below 150 feet was a significant resource as a wildlife corridor, a small wetland complex at the confluence of three small streams, and series of woodlands not found elsewhere on the property. While CNPS-SLO was aware of the resource values of this area, we were again pleasantly surprised to learn that this value was again higher than we thought. In a proposed mitigation (MM 13I0-13), the DEIR calls for a significant setback from the three small creeks that flow into the cove before joining and flowing into Froom Creek itself. We support this mitigation, and propose that this outlier of the main project be simply eliminated from the project or relocated within the main project site. Our question areas. We are sorry to say that we have not been reassured by the lengthy technical reporting in the DEIR and appendices about the hydrologic impacts of this project on the Calle Joaquin wetlands, or on the flooding potential for the area. The project proposes to realign Froom Creek to go around the project site, returning to the current exit point from the property, thus extending its length and reducing its gradient significantly. We are not convinced that this is beneficial. Our concerns are as follows: 1. We recognize that Froom Creek has been relocated from its historic alignment, which flowed into San Luis Obispo Creek very close to the current LOVR freeway overpass. That relocation has been accompanied by levee construction, which has caused the surface flows of Froom Creek to bypass the Calle Joaquin wetland and flow past them, past the adjacent Marriott Inn and Motel 6 sites, and under Calle Joaquin and Highway 101 into San Luis Obispo Creek. This has been the case since at least 1995, based upon easily accessible aerial photography. Thus the statement that flooding in the Calle Joaquin-LOVR area is what it has always been is not correct. In realigning Froom Creek to flow around the project site, and especially by including a designed break in the outboard levee, there is a significant potential for an increase in flooding potential in the Calle Joaquin-LOVR area that is compounded by the planned and nearly flat longitudinal channel profile in this reach. The study contains no analysis of the capacity of the wetland to handle or discharge this flow, particularly as the recently raised freeway on -ramp blocks outflow that can be seen in the attached photo of the 1973 flood. In addition, there is much more development in that downstream area today than there was in 1973, and therefore much more development is at risk. The DEIR states that there is a possibility that Froom Creek may experience an avulsion (i.e., a sudden course change) in a major storm and flow toward the Calle Joaquin/LOVR intersection, which is its original course. This would be Mother Nature seeking her own. This potential could be disastrous and therefore needs further evaluation. 2. The DEIR states that a major phenomenon or function of Froom Creek is its underground water flow, which supplies the Calle Joaquin wetland. This is distinct from the surface flow, which as noted above has been significantly diverted. We are concerned that the amplitude of wet and dry alterations of the Calle Joaquin wetland will be affected by the realignment of Froom Creek, to the detriment of the wetland. In effect, we are concerned that the wetland will become wetter in the wintertime, including large storm events, and dry out in the summertime as a result of the realignment. The Froom Creek realignment near the wetland is nearly perpendicular to the presumed direction of underground flow of Froom Creek, and may intercept some or all of that flow and divert it as part of the surface flow of the realigned creek, thus lowering the water table and drying up the wetland. Also as noted above storm flows may be trapped along Calle Joaquin and may end up drowning much of the wetland. Therefore the analysis of the realignment must address the potential for these wider swings in amplitude of the hydrologic regime. 3. The City of San Luis Obispo's Creek Setback Ordinance was establish to conserve the City's waterways and lead to consistent management of them. The ordinance does allow for "exceptions" to the ordinance, but those exceptions must meet certain findings. Among those findings is one that says a "the exception must not constitute a grant of special privilege". This proposal in our opinion is a major grant of special privilege: moving Froom Creek by hundreds of yards to get it out of the way of the development, then saying that the project will respect the setback requirements of the ordinance on the realigned creek is disingenuous at best. What does the community gain from this? It seems to us that in fact what the community gains is greater risk of flooding and greater risk of damage to the protected Calle Joaquin wetland. This must also be addressed. 4. The DEIR does not discuss the relocation of the existing stormwater detention facility at the project site in much detail. This feature, created perhaps ten years or so ago, has become a viable wetland in and of itself, that holds water well into the springtime and perhaps even later, providing an important habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. We are concerned that the proposed detention facility on the adjacent Mountainbrook Church property may no longer fulfill this function, due to its connection with Froom Creek and the subsequent need for rapid draining of the basin to accommodate the next storm flow. This may simply be a design issue, but we request that a more detailed description of the new basin be provided that explains how it will retain at least some flows into the springtime and provide for emergent vegetation to recreate the habitat being lost at the existing site. Furthermore removal of the detention facilities means that the storm outflows from Irish Hills Plaza will now flow directly into Froom Creek without detention and add to Froom Creek's storm flow burden at this sensitive site. Placing the new detention basin on the Mountainbrook property places it below a site of considerable flood risk, which will be increased rather than reduced by the proposed actions. The issues with the realignment of Froom Creek, downstream relocation of the detention facilities, possible impacts on groundwater flow, and what we perceive as increased potential for flooding, all call for further investigation into this feature of the project. Therefore we recommend that the reach of Froom Creek and the LOVR drainage channel from a point within Froom Creek Canyon within Irish Hills Natural Reserve to its confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek be examined in a comprehensive manner, to ascertain that the proposed realignment and related activities are truly beneficial to the local environment. Our disagreement. The DEIR evidently sees no issue with the matter of amendment of the existing Agricultural Conservation Easement, which burdens 7.1 acres of the site, stating that no mitigation for that amendment is necessary. Perhaps the DEIR authors did not see this as an environmental issue, but rather a legal or technical one. Unfortunately, on this matter we disagree strongly. Conservation easements are intended to be permanent. Although California state law allows for changes or even termination of conservation easements, under that law there must be compelling reasons for such actions. We are not concerned with the lands being added to the easement to keep the total area unchanged, but with the area that is being removed and the purpose for that removal. In this case it appears that the reason for the removal is that project sponsors just want it, nothing more. The easement is in the way of desired urban development. No other reason for it is given, and all that is done is to move the easement boundaries around so that lands already protected by other means will be given this additional layer of protection, which by this very action is being shown to be questionable value. In our judgment this action could set a dangerous precedent that places at risk the more than 3,000 acres of land on which the City of San Luis Obispo holds such easements. It sends a signal that these easements are NOT permanent, and that they can be adjusted or modified at the property owner's request. After taking this action, what agency of the State or Federal government —not to mention land trusts such as the Nature Conservancy which has transferred conservation easements to the City in the past —would continue to trust the City of San Luis Obispo to hold such an easement? What is the community getting for this concession, which is clearly to tremendous value to the project sponsors? It seems to us that the answer is: not much. The Agricultural Conservation Easement itself states that it is subject to Sections 10270-10277 of the Public Resources Code of California. Two of those sections (S. 10273 and 10274) set standards for consideration of changes when an easement is modified, including but not limited to, that (1) the uneconomic character of existing agricultural use cannot by itself justify the removal, and (2) that value of the property being lost to the easement must be evaluated and the property owner in effect must buy back that portion of the easement. There is no map in the DEIR showing what is being lost from the easement and how it relates to the development, but a cursory examination reveals that it is being proposed in order to allow development of a portion of the Villaggio site. This would seem to create huge value to the property owner. So there should at the very least be compensation to the City of San Luis Obispo, for its cooperation in this arrangement. This matter must be addressed —and redressed —in the Final EIR. At least put in a map showing the relationship between the easement and the proposed development, indicating what would be lost to the easement and for what purpose, as well as the proposed land additions to keep the total at 7.1 acres. Our recommendations. Despite all of the above concerns, CNPS-SLO does not oppose the Froom Ranch Specific Plan project. The life plan community can add an entirely new capability to the City's residential opportunities, and proposed residential development on the Madonna portion of the project is also considered desirable. We are greatly concerned, however, by the heavy environmental impacts imposed upon the community at large and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve in particular by the project. To mitigate for, and even avoid many of these impacts, we recommend that the Planning Commission advise the City Council to do the following: 1. Prohibit all urban/residential development above the 150 foot elevation line. This has been City policy for more than a quarter -century and has led to the creation and growth of Irish Hills Natural Reserve, the City's largest open space, with great ecological richness and enjoyed by our citizens every day on its miles of trails. This is recommended in the DEIR. 2. Accept the recommendation of the DEIR (MM BI0-13) to place a 300 foot buffer on the small streams (1, 2, and 3) and actually recommend a simpler action: eliminating this development enclave ("the cove") at the southwestern corner of the property. This would have the additional beneficial impact, also discussed in the DEIR, of reducing the perimeter of the project with regard to wildfire exposure and subsequent manipulations of the sensitive areas surrounding the development in that area. 3. Accept the recommendation of the DEIR (page 5-67) to relocate the historic/trailhead park to the "storage area" at the northwest corner of the property. The DEIR states that this location would be more appropriate to the rural character of the restored buildings than sitting among a bunch of apartments and commercial sites, with a busy road on one side and the back end of Home Depot on the other. It would also have the trailhead at the junction of four trails. With regard to the concern expressed by the project sponsors that the storage area location has less utility for the buildings than the proposed location, perhaps a compromise that has occurred to us might work. That is, keep the house near the proposed roundabout to continue to serve as an office or restaurant location, and move the other buildings to the trailhead/park site. Those buildings do not have the same potential for significant non -farm reuse as the house (in fact, one is proposed to be repurposed as a restroom) and at that location they can still allow for a promising educational opportunity for our citizens about the past, especially as regards the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and the part that the Froom Ranch has played in it. We would add that having this area be a park would allow for potential restoration of Froom Creek at this location, including restoring the old sycamore tree there to its former creekside location. Thus, if relocation into this area of the historic structures is not chosen, the area should still be made into a trailhead park with community amenities. 4. Insist upon reasonable compensation for the proposed changes to the agricultural conservation easement. This does not mean cash. We suggest that, in addition to the changes proposed by the project sponsors to the current agricultural conservation easement, dedication of the cove area and the lands at the plateau above the 150 foot elevation line to City ownership, with a conservation easement limiting those lands to open space uses in perpetuity held by a third parry such as the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County or the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District would make this a unique and equitable adjustment. 5. Perhaps a finding that the opportunity presented by the life plan community rises to the level of an overriding consideration that justifies the exception to the City's creek setback ordinance is appropriate. That, however, does not mean that the City should take the lead on this realignment or run interference for the project sponsors on behalf of that aspect of the project. Therefore we recommend that approval of the project as outlined above, should still be made contingent upon the approval of the Froom Creek realignment by superior agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and let the project sponsors justify it on their own. The project sponsors will still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt (expressed herein) that the realignment of Froom Creek (1) will not damage the adjacent Calle Joaquin wetland, either by intercepting groundwater flow and drying them up, or drowning them with the planned flooding called for in the project, (2) will not exacerbate the flooding potential that already exists in that area, especially now with several new hotels there. In fact, we believe that a comprehensive study of the behavior of Froom Creek under foreseeable conditions from the lower portions of Froom Creek Canyon to the confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek ought to be required: there appear to be many obstacles to free flow of the creek below the project site and we are not convinced of the capacity of outlets for water flow at Calle Joaquin or at the so-called "cut off' wetland on the south side of Calle Joaquin, into which the storm flows from Froom Creek are apparently expected to overflow. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project with so much significance for the City of San Luis Obispo. Thank you. Neil Havlik, PhD, City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Manager (retired) California Native Plant Society, San Luis Obispo Chapter (CNPS-SLO) December 11, 2019 Attachments: Photo of flood of 1973 at LOVR and Highway 101 intersection Photos or the Irish Hills Plaza detention basins from June 2016, and December 2019 �� /\��� .~/���� \�. 4t .� 7 \ � � It