Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-05-2016 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, April 5, 2016 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Page 1 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Christianson PRESENTATIONS 1. PROCLAMATION - MONTH OF THE CHILD (MARX – 5 MINUTES) Presentation of a Proclamation to Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO) Family Services, proclaiming April 2016, as “Month of the Child” and “Child Abuse Prevention Month” in the City of San Luis Obispo. 2. PROCLAMATION - SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH (MARX – 5 MINUTES) Presentation of a Proclamation to Respect Inspire Support Empower (RISE), proclaiming April 2016 as “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” and April 30th as “Walk a Mile In Her Shoes Day” in the City of San Luis Obispo. 3. PRESENTATION BY PETER WILLIAMSON REPRESENTING SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SLOCOG), REGARDING RIDESHARE'S BIKE MONTH (MARX/WILLIAMSON – 5 MINUTES) San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 5, 2016 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15 minutes total) The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items. CONSENT AGENDA A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three minute time limit. 4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Recommendation Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 5. TERRACE HILL AND WASH WATER TANKS MAINTENANCE; SPECIFICATION NO. 91425 (GRIGSBY/GUZMAN) Recommendation 1. Approve a transfer of $57,000 from the Water Storage Reservoirs Maintenance and Tank Master Account to the design phase of the Terrace Hill and Wash Water Tanks Maintenance project account; and 2. Approve a transfer of $26,484 from the Water Completed Projects Account to the design phase of the Terrace Hill and Wash Water Tanks Maintenance project account. San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 5, 2016 Page 3 6. REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR A POTENTIAL PARKING STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SANTA ROSA INFILL PROJECT (D.JOHNSON/L.JOHNSON) Recommendation 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Reimbursement Agreement with 1144 Higuera Investments, LLC in a final form subject to the approval of the City Attorney, reimbursing the City for consultant work related to the study of City participation in the potential parking structure associated with the Santa Rosa Infill Project; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the consultant contracts associated with the reimbursement agreement. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. APPEAL OF A CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION TO DENY PROPERTY OWNER’S APPEAL OF AN AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION (ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PERMIT AND OTHER VIOLATIONS) AT 1269 FREDERICKS (CODRON/SCHNEIDER – 120 MINUTES) Recommendation Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California denying an appeal of the Construction Board of Appeals’ decision to deny an appeal filed by the property owner of an amended Notice of Violation for construction without a permit and other violations.” 8. REVIEW OF REQUEST TO INITIATE PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSED MADONNA ON LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (LOVR) SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, SENIOR HOUSING, PARK, AND OPEN SPACE USES (12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD) (CODRON/CARLONI – 90 MINUTES) Recommendation As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing initiation of an application for the Proposed Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road Specific Plan and General Plan amendments, including related actions in support of the application.” San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 5, 2016 Page 4 COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. Time limit—3 minutes each. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Not to exceed 15 minutes) At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2) ADJOURNMENT Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, April 19. 2016 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, respectively, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100. Meeting Date: 4/5/2016 FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: Manny Guzman, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: TERRACE HILL AND WASH WATER TANKS MAINTENANCE; SPECIFICATION NO. 91425 RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve a transfer of $57,000 from the Water Storage Reservoirs Maintenance and Tank Master Account to the design phase of the Terrace Hill and Wash Water Tanks Maintenance project account. 2. Approve a transfer of $26,484 from the Water Completed Projects Account to the design phase of the Terrace Hill and Wash Water Tanks Maintenance project account. DISCUSSION Background The City has over 180 miles of pipeline providing potable water to its citizens and businesses. These pipelines are connected to water storage tanks around the City. Water storage is provided in eleven tanks and two reservoirs located throughout the City. The eleven tanks range in size from 40,000 to 7.5 million gallons. The two reservoirs are a combination of above grade steel tanks and underground concrete reservoirs with a total combined storage capacity of approximately 26 million gallons. Regular maintenance of water storage tanks is important for economic, environmental, and health reasons. The effects of corrosion on steel tanks can lead to structural failure, leak s, and water contamination, which can affect public health. The City hired Advantage Technical Services (ATS) in 2009, to inspect the interior and exterior of several of the City’s water storage tanks. Advantage Technical Services prepared a written assessment report that included observations, recommendations, and preliminary repair cost estimates. Staff worked with ATS to assign a priority ranking to each of the maintenance recommendations. The Water Treatment Facilities Wash Water and Terrace Hill tanks were determined to be high priorities because of coating deficiencies and localized foundation settlement. Staff utilized the On-Call Civil Engineering Services list to request proposals from two firms. Use of the on-call services list enables staff to quickly secure proposals for design services, since the firms are prequalified through a rigorous prequalification process. Staff requested proposals from Michael K Nunley & Associates (MKN) and Water Systems Consulting (WSC), both of which submitted proposals with a similar work scope. However, after evaluating and comparing 5 Packet Pg. 5 proposals, it is recommended to award this work to MKN because of the lower cost proposal (26% less). Both firms submitted proposals that are higher than the City staff estimated design costs. The increased design cost is related to additional work scope that was added to address water quality issues experienced in the southeastern part of the City. Staff has determined that these water quality issues can be addressed by piping changes at the Terrace Hill Tank. The piping changes at the Terrace Hill Tank will force water through the tank and eliminate the water quality problem. FISCAL IMPACT This project was approved as part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan pages 3-50 to 3-53. A total of $57,500 was budgeted for the Terrace Hill and Wash Water Tanks design work. However, after identification of the additional work scope, there is insufficient funding to complete the project design as originally budgeted. The table below indicates a design funding shortfall of $26,484. Staff is proposing to cover this shortfall by using available funding from the Water Fund’s Completed Projects Account. The Account has an available balance of $46,969. If approved, a budget amendment request will be processed to make the appropriate transfers and a purchase order will be executed. ALTERNATIVE Deny the additional funding. This is not recommended because completion of the additional project scope will address water quality issues in the southeastern area of the City. Attachments: a - Project Location Map Current Budget For Project Design $57,500 Cost of Proposed Design Work $83,984 Budget Short Fall ($26,484) Water Fund Completed Projects Account Current Balance:$46,969 Water Fund Completed Projects Account Balance After Transfer:$20,485 Terrace Hill and Wash Water Tanks Maintenance (91426) 5 Packet Pg. 6 5.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: a - Project Location Map (1292 : Terrace Hill and Wash Water Tanks Maintenance Spec. No. 91425) Page intentionally left blank. Meeting Date: 4/5/2016 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Lee Johnson, Economic Development Manager SUBJECT: REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR A POTENTIAL PARKING STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SANTA ROSA INFILL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Reimbursement Agreement with 1144 Higuera Investments, LLC in a final form subject to the approval of the City Attorney, reimbursing the City for consultant work related to the study of City participati on in the potential parking structure associated with the Santa Rosa Infill Project; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the consultant contracts associated with the reimbursement agreement. DISCUSSION The City Council conceptually reviewed a proposed mixed use project at 1101 Monterey and 1144 and 1166 Higuera Street on February 16, 2016 that included retail, hotel and residential uses, a parking structure, and transit facility. Staff identified a variety of special studies that would be needed to inform the City Council and the public regarding the proposed business aspects of the project along with potential zoning issues such as off site, shared, or in-lieu parking arrangements. As part of this project the 1144 Higuera Investments, LLC (“Applicant”) is proposing a public private partnership to develop the parking structure component of the project, located on adjoining property at the corner of Higuera and Toro Streets. In order to evaluate potential City participation the City will require the support of various outside experts to provide advice as well as associated analysis and studies as required by the City to make informed recommendations to the City Council. The consultant services include but are not limited to: 1) Outside Legal Counsel a. Provide legal support and services related to any reimbursement or other agreements necessary to carry out the project. 2) Parking Consultants a. Assess existing and projected parking supply and demand and develop recommendations for the project and surrounding area. 6 Packet Pg. 8 b. Review and make recommendations for potential funding strategies (including in- lieu payments) to construct and maintain the structure as well as other parking needs in the area. 3) Financial Consultants a. Analyze estimated costs and projected revenues associated with the parking structure and determine and quantify risk associated with assuming a City interest in a portion or all of the parking structure. The City has preliminarily reviewed the scope of work required of the consultants and has estimated the total consultant costs and fees to potentially be $130,000 which includes the estimated consultant cost of $100,000 plus a 30% administrative fee of $30,000. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City at this time. The Applicant is responsible for consultant costs plus a 30% administrative fee for the associated staff resources. Attachments: a - Reimbursement Agreement - Parking Structure 6 Packet Pg. 9 DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT This Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on this ________ day of ______________, 2016 by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and Charter City (“City”) and the 1144 Higuera Investments, LLC a California limited liability company (“Developer”). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Developer is proposing a project located within the City of San Luis Obispo, California, commonly known as 1101 Monterey Street and 1144 and 1166 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, APNs: __________________(collectively referred to herein as the “Property”). WHEREAS, the Developer proposes to entitle and develop the Property to accommodate two new, 75 foot tall, mixed use structures with approximately 20,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, 45,000 square feet of hotel space, 48,000 square feet of residential space, 16,000 square feet of office space and a 45 foot tall parking garage and transit center (the “Project”). WHEREAS, the parking structure and transit center components of the project would be open to and serve the general public and, if constructed, would be considered a regional community amenity; WHEREAS, based on the results of the City’s due diligence of the Project, the City may or may not participate financially in the parking structure and associated transit center now or in the future. WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Developer has agreed to reimburse the City for its costs and expenses related to the City’s due diligence, including the costs and expenses of outside legal counsel, professional financial consultants, professional parking consultants and all other reasonable costs related to the analysis of the Project. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual promises and agreements, City and Developer agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. City to Retain Consultant. As part of the City’s analysis of the Project, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion, retain, by means of a contract (“Consultant Contract”), the services of contract staff, a consultant, or consultants (hereinafter “Consultant”) in order to assist with the City’s analysis of the Project. The scope of work for each Consultant will be reviewed with the Developer prior to contract execution. 3. The Developer to Cooperate. The Developer agrees that it will instruct its agents, employees, consultants, contractors and attorneys to reasonably cooperate with C ity and to provide all necessary documents or information reasonably requested of them by the City; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not require the disclosure of any 6.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: a - Reimbursement Agreement - Parking Structure (1293 : Santa Rosa Parking Structure Reimbursement Agreement) Froom Ranch Reimbursement Agreement - 2 - documents or information of the Developer, which the Developer specifically identifies or by law is privileged, proprietary, or confidential. 4. City’s Selection of Consultant. The Developer agrees that the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion; select the appropriate consultant without consulting with the Developer or obtaining the Developer’s prior approval. Developer further acknowledges and agrees that the City may need to retain additional consultants that are not known at this time in order to analyze the Project. In such event, the City shall notify the Developer of the need for any additional consultants. If the Developer disagrees with the City’s need to retain additional consultants, then the Developer’s sole and exclusive remedy will be to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 10. The Developer understands that such termination will relieve the City of further obligation to process the Project. 5. The Developer Reimbursement of Consultant Costs, Expenses and Administrative Fees. The Developer shall advance the City for costs and expenses regarding to the Consultant Contract (“Consultant Costs”) and any related administrative fees and expenses incurred by the City. The City has preliminarily reviewed the scope of work required of the Consultants and has estimated the aggregate Consultant Costs and fees to potentially be $130,000 which includes Consultant Estimated cost of $100,000 plus a 30% administrative fee of $30,000. 6. Deposits to be made by the Developer . a. Initial Deposit. The Developer shall provide the City with an initial deposit in the amount of 50% of the estimated Consultant Costs and fees as provided in Section 5 above. The Initial Deposit, as well as any subsequent Replenishment Deposits(s) described in Section 6(b) below (collectively the “Deposit”), may be commingled with other funds of the City. b. Replenishment Deposit(s). Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Developer hereby agrees that whenever the amount of the Deposit declines to $5,000 or less, the City may request an additional deposit in an amount necessary to return the Deposit to an amount sufficient to cover all anticipated costs under the Consultant Contract as City may determine. The Developer shall deliver a Replenishment Deposit to City within fifteen (15) days following such written request. c. Suspension of Work. Any work on the Project shall be suspended if the Deposit is not timely replenished. d. Records. City shall at all times maintain records as to the expenditure of the Deposit. Not less than monthly, City shall provide Developer with a statement (“Monthly Statement”) for all work performed during the prior month which shall include consultant invoices (with any privileged or confidential information redacted), the City’s percentage and the amount of the Deposit remaining after the payment of the work included in that Monthly Statement. 6.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: a - Reimbursement Agreement - Parking Structure (1293 : Santa Rosa Parking Structure Reimbursement Agreement) Froom Ranch Reimbursement Agreement - 3 - e. Return of Deposit. Within fifteen (15) days following the termination of this Agreement, City shall return any then unexpended portion of the Deposit to the Developer, without interest, less any amount owed to the City by the Developer. 7. Agreement Not Debt or Liability of City. It is hereby acknowledged and agreed that this Agreement is not a debt or liability of City. City shall not in any event be liable hereunder other than to return the unexpended and uncommitted portions of the Deposits and to provide an accounting as provided in Section 6.e above. City shall not be obligated to advance any of its own funds with respect to the Consultant Costs. 8. Conflicts of Interest. a. Consultants Work for City. City has sole discretion to direct the work and evaluate the performance of the Consultant and its employees assigned to work on the Project, and City retains the absolute right to terminate or replace at any time any such person or entity. Any documents prepared hereunder or any approvals shall reflect the independent judgment of the City. Accordingly, even though the funds provided hereunder shall be utilized to retain Consultants and for administrative costs, such Consultants shall work solely for the City and shall not take direction or guidance from the Developer and the Developer shall have no right to access or review any privileged or confidential communications between the City and its attorneys and/or consultants. b. Selection and Payment by City. City has sole and absolute discretion to select which of its Consultants are assigned to work on the Project. City has the sole and absolute discretion to determine the amount of compensation paid to Consultants assigned to work on the Project. c. No Employment by the Developer. The Developer represents and warrants that for the 12 months preceding the submission of its Project application, it has not entered into any arrangement to pay financial consideration to, and has not made any payment to, the Consultant. d. City to Retain Absolute Discretion Regarding Project Approvals. The Developer acknowledges and agrees that notwithstanding the Developer reimbursement obligations under this Agreement, the City remains free to exercise its independent judgment in the analysis of the Project and further acknowledges and agrees that City is not obligated to approve any or all of the proposed uses, permits or other entitlements for the Property, to approve any environmental documents or general plan or municipal code amendments which may be required for an y of the uses contemplated for the Property. The Developer warrants and represents that no City official, officer, Consultant, agent or attorney has represented, expressly or impliedly, that the City will approve any proposed use of the Property or enter into any type of development agreement. The Developer understands that there may be numerous legislative and quasi-judicial decisions to be made by the City with regard to the development of the Property; that all such decisions of the City with regard to the Property and the contemplated uses of the Property will be made only after compliance with all the City’s statutory and other legal obligations and after 6.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: a - Reimbursement Agreement - Parking Structure (1293 : Santa Rosa Parking Structure Reimbursement Agreement) Froom Ranch Reimbursement Agreement - 4 - considering all appropriate information and evidence; and that such evidence may cause the City to disapprove any or all of the contemplated uses of the Property. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the City retains all authority and discretion granted to it by law to approve, disapprove or modify any of the proposed uses of the Property. 9. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on April 15, 2016 and, except as provided herein, shall terminate when all work by the Consultant Contract(s) has been completed to the City’s reasonable satisfaction and the Developer has satisfied all of its obligations under this Agreement including, without limitation, the obligation to pay the City for Consultant Costs and Excess Costs, if any. The Developer obligation to reimburse the City as provided in this Agreement shall survive the termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Section 9. 10. Early Termination. For good cause, the City may terminate this Agreement prior to the term set forth in Section 9 above, without cost or liability to the City, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Developer. The Developer , upon thirty (30) days’ prior written notice, may, in its sole and absolute discretion, terminate this Agreement prior to the end of the term set forth in Section 9 above, provided that the Developer has satisfied all of its obligations under this Agreement to date of such termination and that the Developer has given the City written notice withdrawing its applications(s) for the Project. Within two (2) business days following either the City’s decision to terminate this Agreement or the City’s receipt of written notice indicating the Developer decision to terminate this Agreement, the City shall notify the affected Consultants and instruct them to cease work under this Contract. 11. Remedies Upon Default. An event of default shall be deemed to exist upon the occurrence of all of the following: a. Either the City or the Developer has, without legal justification or excuse, breached any one or more of its obligations under this Agreement; and b. The non-defaulting party has sent written notice to the party claimed to be in default, specifying the default and what actions the non-defaulting party asserts should be taken to remedy the default; and c. The party claimed to be in default has not, within ten (10) days following receipt of the written notice described above, either corrected the default or taken actions, reasonably satisfactory to the non-defaulting party, to remedy the default within a reasonable period of time, but in no event longer than thirty (30) days after receipt of the written notice described in (b) above. Following an event of default, the non-defaulting party may exercise any and all remedies available to it pursuant to this Agreement, or at law or in equity, including, without limitation, instituting an action for damages, injunctive relief, or specific performance. 6.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: a - Reimbursement Agreement - Parking Structure (1293 : Santa Rosa Parking Structure Reimbursement Agreement) Froom Ranch Reimbursement Agreement - 5 - 12. Indemnification. To the fullest extent provided by law, the Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold City its agents, officials, officers, employees harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, damages, lawsuits or liability, which arise from or relate to City’s retention of Consultant and City’s performance under the Consultant Contract except that the Developer duty to indemnify and defend as provided herein shall not extend to any claims or liability arising from the proven gross negligence or willful misconduct of City. The Developer duty to indemnify and defend shall survive termination of this Agreement. 13. Non-Waiver of Rights or Remedies. The failure of a party to exercise any one or more of its rights or remedies under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party’s right to enforce that right or seek that remedy in the future. No course of conduct or act of forbearance on any one or more occasions by any party to this Agreement shall preclude that party from asserting any right to remedy available to it in the future. No course of conduct or act of forbearance on any one or more occasions shall be deemed to be an implied modification of the terms of this Agreement. 14. Assignability. This Agreement may be assigned by Developer without the consent of the City. Developer, prior to the effective date of any assignment, give the City written notice of the assignment including the name, address, email address, telephone number and contact information for the assignee. The City reserves the right, within its reasonable discretion, to request an increase in the deposit upon assignment. 15. No Oral Modifications. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of the City and the Developer and supersedes all other prior or contemporaneous written or oral agreements pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only by a writing signed by the authorized representatives of both the City and the Developer . 16. Binding Upon Successors. This Agreement and each of its terms shall be binding upon the City, the Developer and their respective officers, elected officials, Consultants, agents, contractors, and permitted successors and assigns. 17. Legal Challenges. Nothing herein shall be construed to require City to defend any third party claims and suits challenging any action taken by the City with regard to any procedure or substantive aspect of the City’s approval of development of the Property, the environmental process, proposed uses of the Property or development agreement, if any. The Developer may, however, in its sole and absolute discretion, appear as real party in interest in any such third party action or proceeding. If the City defends such action or proceeding, the Developer shall be responsible to reimburse the City for whatever legal fees and costs, in their entirety that may be incurred by the City in defense of such action or proceeding. The City and the Developer shall seek to jointly approve legal counsel, but the City shall have the absolute right to retain such counsel as it deems necessary and appropriate if such joint agreement cannot be reached. The Developer shall reimburse City in the event of an award of court costs or attorney fees is made against City in favor of any third party challenging either the sufficiency of an environmental impact report or the validity of the City’s approval of the Application if any. 6.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: a - Reimbursement Agreement - Parking Structure (1293 : Santa Rosa Parking Structure Reimbursement Agreement) Froom Ranch Reimbursement Agreement - 6 - 18. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event that any action or proceeding, including arbitration, is commenced by either the City or the Developer against the other to establish the validity of this Agreement or to enforce any one or more of its terms, the prevailing party in any such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover from the other, in addition to all other legal and equitable remedies available to it, its actual attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation, including, without limitation, filing fees, service fees, deposition costs, arbitration of costs and expert witness fees, including actual costs and attorneys’ fees on appeal. 19. Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement is executed and is to be performed in the City of San Luis Obispo, and any action or proceeding brought relative to this Agreement shall be heard in the appropriate court in the County of San Luis Obispo, California. The City and the Developer hereby each consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court in any such action or proceeding. 20. Time is of the Essence. Except as otherwise expressly stated, time is of the essence in the performance of each and every action required pursuant to this Agreement. 21. Covenant of Further Assurances. The City and the Developer shall take all other actions and execute all other documents, which are reasonably necessary to effectuate this Agreement. 22. Interpretation. The City and the Developer agree that this Agreement is the product of mutual negotiations and is an arms-length transaction. Each party has negotiated this Agreement with the advice and assistance of legal counsel of its own choosing. It is further agreed that the terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of authorship and the rule that ambiguities in a document shall be construed against the drafter of the document shall have no application to this Agreement. In construing and interpreting this Agreement, the finder of fact shall give effect to the mutual intention of the City and the Developer, notwithstanding such ambiguity, and may refer to the facts and circumstances under which this Agreement is made and such other extraneous evidence as may assist the finder of fact in ascertaining the intent of the City and the Developer. 23. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the City and the Developer both agree that they would have executed this Agreement notwithstanding the invalidity of such term or provision. The invalid term or provision may be severed from the Agreement and the remainder of the Agreement may be enforced in its entirety. 24. Headings. The headings of each section of this Agreement are for the purposes of convenience only and shall not be construed to either expand or limit the express terms and language of each section. 6.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: a - Reimbursement Agreement - Parking Structure (1293 : Santa Rosa Parking Structure Reimbursement Agreement) Froom Ranch Reimbursement Agreement - 7 - 25. Representations of Authority. Each party signing this Agreement on behalf of a party which is not a natural person hereby represents and warrants to the other party that all necessary legal prerequisites to that party’s execution of this Agreement have been satisfied and that he or she has been authorized to sign this Agreement and bind the party on whose behalf he or she signs. 26. Notices. Notices required under this Agreement shall be sent to the following: If to the City: City of San Luis Obispo Attn: City Manager 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Facsimile No. (805) 781-7109 If to the Developer : Developer c/o: San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be deemed received as follows: (a) If sent by United States Mail – five (5) calendar days after deposit into the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid. (b) If by facsimile – upon transmission and actual receipt by the receiving party. (c) If by express courier service or hand deliver – on the date of receipt by the receiving party. The addresses to notices set forth in this Section 24 may be changed upon written notice of such change to either the City or the Developer , as appropriate. 27. Days. Unless otherwise specified to the contrary, “days” in this Agreement shall mean calendar, not business days. [Signatures on following page] 6.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: a - Reimbursement Agreement - Parking Structure (1293 : Santa Rosa Parking Structure Reimbursement Agreement) Froom Ranch Reimbursement Agreement - 8 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the first date set forth above. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO A Municipal Corporation By: Katie Lichtig City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Christine Dietrick City Attorney THE 1144 HIGUERA LLC By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Legal Counsel for Applicant 6.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: a - Reimbursement Agreement - Parking Structure (1293 : Santa Rosa Parking Structure Reimbursement Agreement) Meeting Date: 4/5/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Anne Schneider, PE, Chief Building Official SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION TO DENY PROPERTY OWNER’S APPEAL OF AN AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION (ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PERMIT AND OTHER VIOLATIONS) AT 1269 FREDERICKS RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of S an Luis Obispo, California denying an appeal of the Construction Board of Appeals’ decision to deny an appeal filed by the property owner of an amended Notice of Violation for construction without a permit and other violations”. SITE DATA REPORT-IN-BRIEF In October 2013, City staff received a complaint regarding substandard housing conditions at 1269 Fredericks St., San Luis Obispo. On May 14, 2014 an inspection of the property was conducted - pursuant to an inspection warrant issued by the court - by the Chief Building Official and Code Enforcement staff. Code violations were documented and the property owner received a Notice of Violation (NOV) for construction without permits, structural hazards, plumbing and electrical hazards and inadequate sanitation. The NOV was appealed by the Property owners of Appellant Steven and Kathie Walker, Residents Zoning R-2 Appeal Submittal Ferurary 8, 2016 General Plan Medium Density Residential Site Area ~7,500 Square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Section 15321(a)(2) adoption of an administrative decision. 7 Packet Pg. 18 the subject property to the Community Development Director who denied the appeal and upheld the NOV. The property owners then appealed the Director’s decision to the Construction Board of Appeals (CBOA) and after amending the NOV, the appeal was denied. Specifically in the CBOA’s ruling, the Board did find that the second unit on the property was a legal non - conforming use and the original NOV was modified to delete this reference.1 In addition, the Board determined that the property was not in violation of Uniform Housing Code section 1001.2.13, general dilapidation or improper maintenance, and the NOV was also modified to delete this reference. The CBOA’s decision is being appealed by the property owners to the City Council in conformance with the appeals provisions that were in effect at the time the NOV was issued. The City Council’s review of the NOV per this appeal is de novo, which means that all issues within the scope of the original NOV are subject to review and determination by the Council and the Council is not obligated to afford any presumption of correctness to the underlying decisions of either the Community Development Director or the CBOA. It should be noted that future appeals will be processed under the City’s recently amended procedures per Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code, under which an NOV would not be appealable unless and until final action was taken and an administrative citation was issued. The appeal submitted by the property owners acknowledges that construction work was done without permits. However, the appellants ask that the City take no action to require the appellants to correct any of the existing violations until a new owner takes possession of the property at some point in the future pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17959.4, discussed below. Also for reasons discussed below, Staff does not support this request. If the City Council denies the appeal as recommended, it is staff’s intention to work with the property owners to develop a mutually acceptable Abatement Agreement to address the code violations noted in the NOV. On many prior occasions, staff has attempted to negotiate an Abatement Agreement with the property owners, but attempts have not succeeded because of differences in opinion between the City and property owners regarding the scope and legality of the unpermitted work. Staff anticipates that if an Abatement Agreement can be reached, the compliance schedule could take well over a year to complete, with the immediate focus on violations that pose the most danger to the occupants and surrounding community - for example, the unpermitted electrical work in both the main house and second unit. DISCUSSION 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Site Information/Setting The subject property is located at 1269 Fredericks Street in San Luis Obispo. The immediate neighborhood consists of duplexes, apartments, and single family homes. According to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office, the two bedroom residence was originally constructed on the property in 1930. Site Size ~7,500 1 As discussed further in this report, the CBOA errored in this analysis. From a land use standpoint, t he use of the second unit as a residential unit is permitted and the use conforms with the allowed uses within this zone. The conversion of the second unit from non-habitable to habitable space without permits however, was unlawful. 7 Packet Pg. 19 Present Use & Development Single-family residence Access Fredericks Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-2 (Single-family residences) South: R-2 (Multi-family residences) East: R-2 (Single-family residences) West: R-2 (Single-family residences) 1.2 Code Case Timeline The City received a complaint regarding the subject property in October, 2013. Following inspection, the property owners received an NOV and they appealed the notice to the Community Development Director and the CBOA. A chronological summary of the actions prior to the CBOA hearing are included in the Council Reading File. On January 28, 2016, the CBOA heard the property owners’ appeal. The City provided a presentation of 30 minutes to the Board. The property owners provided a presentation that extended over one hour, which included both written materials and a detailed PowerPoint presentation. The Board deliberated for over an hour, including several questions to staff and comments from the property owners and their attorney before reaching their decision. The Board went through the NOV line by line and provided specific direction to staff for alterations to be made to the February 23, 2015 NOV. The Board provided specific language for the Resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the NOV as amended (Attachment B). On February 8, 2016, an appeal to the City Council was filed by the Property owners (Attachment C). 2.0 APPEAL 2.1 Original Construction and Subsequent Permit History The subject property contains two buildings and a shed. The first building is a single family home, built in about 1930. Original building permit records are not on record from that time period for this property because the property was not within the city limits at the time of construction. A second structure on the property was identified in 1995 by the County Assessor’s records as a “storage and a garage” area (Attachment D). At the time of the inspections in 2014, the entire storage and garage building had been converted (without permits) into a four room (bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living room) second dwelling unit. The only recorded construction permits obtained for the entire property include minor work in 1964 to add a small carport, laundry plumbing fixtures, and an electrical permit and a permit in 1982 for a solar water heater (Attachment E). No other permits have been obtained for any construction at the site. 2.2 Code Violations Single Family Residence: 1. Unpermitted Construction a. Plan and permits required for relocation of kitchen. (Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing)* 7 Packet Pg. 20 b. Plans and permits required for converting former kitchen into living room. (Building, Electrical and Plumbing)* c. Plans and Permits required for installation of new water heater. (Mechanical and Plumbing) d. Plans and permits required for demolition and reconstruction of master bathroom (Building, Plumbing, and Electrical)* e. Permits required for new plumbing in second bathroom.* f. Plans and permits required for upgraded electrical and plumbing in laundry room 2. Substandard Conditions a. Lack of kitchen sink* b. Lack of smoke and/or carbon monoxide detectors 3. Unsafe Conditions a. Improper/Lack of Drainage and Improper Conveyance of Stormwater Second Dwelling Unit: 4. Unpermitted Construction: a. Plan and permits required for conversion of storage and garage to habitable space. (Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical) 5. Unsafe Conditions a. Heater exhaust vent less than 5 feet from the side property b. Electrical wiring extended from the front house is unsafe. The wiring is in conduit that rests on the ground in some locations and is unsecured. c. Gas piping to operate the appliances in the rear unit lies on the ground unsecured and unprotected. d. Lack of smoke or carbon monoxide detectors. * The property owner has acknowledged doing this work without permits. As discussed in detail below, significant modifications and alterations have been made to the property without permits. Some of these modifications have been acknowledged by the property owners in their appeal to the Council and in testimony in their 2013 bankruptcy proceeding, wherein they admit that, due to rats, mold, a leaking roof and other issues with their property, they demolished and remodeled many areas of their home without permits. In addition, based on the Assessor’s records for this property, it appears that other significant modifications and alterations were done by prior property owners without permits. For example, at some point after 1969 but before 1995, the former carport area was framed in and converted into a kitchen (now converted by the current property owners into a living area). The fact that current property owners did not make some unpermitted modifications or may not have known about certain modifications does not relieve the property owners from the responsibility to ensure that their property is in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and is maintained in a safe and habitable condition. The violations noted above are described in detail in Section 2.2.1 – 2.2.11 below (see Attachment F for full size photos). 2.2.1 Overall Floor Plan Modifications The property owners provided two floor plans in their appeal to the CBOA (Attachment G). The first floor plan details the home as it existed when they purchased the home in 2009, and 7 Packet Pg. 21 the second plan reflects the most recent configuration, which existed when the City conducted inspections in 2014. The red highlights on the 2009 floor plan indicate the areas of alterations that were acknowledged by the property owners as work done by them. The floor plans clearly show that, in addition to the remodeling work, walls have been removed and/or modified, all of which requires a permit. The 2009 floor plan shows the main entry door from Fredericks St. into a bedroom. This portion of the home is a raised wood floor. Staff believes the raised wood floor portion of the home is the original construction. The property owners have converted the room into a partial kitchen, lacking a kitchen sink. 2.2.2 Drainage Outside of the single family residence, there is evidence of improper drainage with a sloping driveway forcing water up against the building at the front. It appears that the driveway leading to the former carport was broken up in an attempt to reduce the amount of water pooling against the building (Photo 1). The improper drainage also appears to be the cause of collapsed floor supports under the main portion of the home (Photo 2). Visual inspection in 2014 noted that there was evidence of significant water flow under the building due to improper conveyance of stormwater and the lack of drainage that exists. Both of these issues are evidence of general dilapidation and improper maintenance of the property. 2.2.3 Kitchen Modifications/Deficiencies The new kitchen includes new gas piping to a stove and new kitchen cabinetry blocking the existing windows. A permit is required to abandon, relocate or alter a gas pipe. There is no exhaust hood above the stove, which is required by code. The construction of a kitchen requires compliance with electrical code provisions for locations and protection of electrical outlets, which were not found. There Photo 3 Photo 1 Photo 2 7 Packet Pg. 22 is also no kitchen sink. (Photo 3) Alterations to the existing water and sewage systems also require a permit. Proper installation of gas piping to prevent gas leaks and an explosion hazard, electrical wiring to prevent possible electrocution, correct water piping to prevent cross contamination and tested and approved installation of sewer piping to prevent sewage spills or potable water contamination are all necessary to protect public health. 2.2.4 Substandard Conditions The lack of a kitchen sink violates Health and Safety Code 17920.3 for a dwelling unit to be considered habitable. H&S Section 17920.3 states: Any building …including any dwelling unit,... in which there exists any (emphasis added) of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or occupants…is declared to be a substandard building: (a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (3) Lack of, or improper kitchen sink. The only available sink in the home at the time of inspection in 2014 was in the bathroom adjacent to the second bedroom. No change in this condition has been documented in the two years since the City conducted its inspections. The dwelling unit did not have smoke or carbon monoxide detectors at the time of inspection, although the property owners have indicated that they have installed such devices since. City staff has not been permitted to confirm through subsequent inspection that smoke and carbon monoxide devices have been installed and, if so, installed per code. This issue is so critical to public safety that the legislature enacted separate regulations that require the retroactive installation of both smoke detectors (Health and Safety Section 13113.7) and carbon monoxide detectors (Health and Safety Section 17926). Battery operated smoke detectors are required to be installed in every bedroom, in the hall leading to a bedroom and on each floor level within a home. Battery operated carbon monoxide detectors are required to be installed in the hall leading to every bedroom and on each floor. 2.2.5 Interior Wall Construction and Demolition There is evidence of interior walls being removed, as shown on the Property owners’ floor plan and in photos in the area of the new kitchen (Photo 4). Demolition of a wall, whether a structural or non-structural wall, requires plan and a permit. 2.2.6 Water Heater Installations. In the hallway leading to the rear of the original home, there is a newer water heater. It appears the date of installation for the water heater as noted on the exterior of the water tank was 2006. Installation of new mechanical equipment requires a plumbing and mechanical permit to ensure that the equipment is located Photo 4 7 Packet Pg. 23 and installed safely. 2.2.7 New Living Room at Illegally Converted Carport To the left of the new kitchen in the other room facing Fredericks St. was the location of the kitchen when the property owners bought their home in 2009. The former kitchen area (new living room Photo 6) was identified by the Assessors’ office as a carport in 1965. This area was slab on grade construction and no permits are on file approving the conversion from a carport to habitable space. A new elevated floor was built in this living room, bringing it approximately level with the raised wood floor portion of the home. Photo 6 Photo 7 This change in finished floor height may have caused one of the untempered glass windows in the room (Photo 7) to be too close to the finished floor. While this may initially seem insignificant, the Building Code requires that windows less than 18 inches above the floor to be tempered glazing to protect against catastrophic injuries that can occur when a person falls against a window near the floor. Interior pictures show installation of new modern vinyl windows, removal of a door Photo 5 7 Packet Pg. 24 (converted to a window) and new gypsum board wall finishes, as well as the demolition of interior walls and the old kitchen, including utilities. All of the work depicted requires permits, which were not obtained. The unfinished gypsum board that has been installed is clearly evident in the pictures. It is unknown what changes were made to the electrical wiring, framing or other utilities concealed by the new wall finish, which should have been inspected for safety prior to covering the work. Exterior pictures show the former driveway to the carport that was demolished for drainage purposes and some of the abandoned plumbing piping on the exterior of the building. (Photo 7) The existence or condition of any abandoned gas piping serving the prior location of the kitchen stove is unknown. Verification of proper abandonment of gas lines is important for obvious safety reasons. Photo 8 The step down from the elevated living room into the adjacent bedroom/bathroom is unfinished, which presents a trip hazard, and constitutes work for which a permit is required and, again, was not obtained. (Photo 8) 2.2.8 Bedroom/Bathroom Addition From the elevated living room, there is a step down to the bedroom/bathroom addition. This addition appears to have been originally constructed originally in 1946, based on the Assessor’s records. The bedroom did not have any alterations at the time of inspection in 2014. Photo 9 Photo 10 7 Packet Pg. 25 Photo 11 P hoto 12 The property owners completely demolished the bathroom and installed new wall framing. (Photos 9 and 10). All of the work to demolish the old bathroom and return this bathroom to a functioning space requires permits for construction. Previously, the plumbing for this bathroom was partially enclosed in a dilapidated exterior enclosure. As shown in Photos 11 and 12, the exterior finish of the building as well as the framing for this enclosure is extremely dilapidated and shows a general lack of maintenance of the property. The enclosure was not weather tight and allowed water penetration into the space. In the enclosure, exposed to water intrusion, there is also modern Romex wiring (a type of wiring consisting of 2 or more insulated electrical wires grouped in a plastic sleeve for ease of installation). Romex wiring is not approved for exposure to weather and must be protected from water intrusion. This represents a hazard to the occupants and to emergency responders, and is a significant fire hazard. All electrical connections must be made in approved electric boxes. Spliced wires and “wire nuts” are not permitted except in an approved box. The condition of the space as shown has numerous violations, which present serious safety concerns. (Photo 11) Repairs to properly construct a weather tight enclosure to protect the electrical wiring requires a permit. The Property owners have stated that they have altered this area since 2014, but they have not obtained permits for any subsequent work and they have not documented the work or requested inspections by the City, despite the ongoing code enforcement proceedings. 2.2.9 Second Bedroom/Bath The last affected rooms in the main house are the second bedroom with an adjacent bath. The wall finish in this bedroom (Photo 13) was removed in large areas. The wall finish in the bathroom was also removed in a small area (Photo 14). It should be noted that one of the functions that wall finish provides is the protection of electrical wiring. With the advent of Romex wiring- electrical nonmetallic cable (NM-B), the use of metallic conduit to protect the individual electrical wires is no longer required. Previously, most electrical wiring was placed in rigid metallic conduit (pipe) to protect from accidental damage and electrocution. Romex cable allows for a flexible installation but requires an alternate means of protection - usually installation of gypsum board drywall. The lack of wall finish in the bedroom is an electrical hazard. Photo 1 7 Packet Pg. 26 Photo 13 Photo 14 The trap in the plumbing piping under the sink is new construction and does not properly vent to the exterior which is a violation of the Plumbing Code. (Photo 15) This allows toxic sewer gases to back up into the bathroom. A doorway into the previous front bedroom (new kitchen) was also closed in partially (Photo 16), which needs to be completed to protect the wiring as noted above. Photo 15 Photo 16 2.2.10 Laundry Room Adjacent to the second bedroom and accessed from the outside is the laundry room (Photo 17), which was constructed pursuant to the 1964 permits. The electrical wiring inside the laundry room has been changed since the original construction and currently is not properly protected from damage because the walls are not finished with drywall (Photo 18). Again, the sewer pipe ventilation in this area does not extend to the exterior as required by code and toxic sewer gases are vented into the laundry room (Photo 19). Permits are required to ensure proper installation. 7 Packet Pg. 27 Photo 19 2.2.11 Secondary Unit (Former Storage/Carport) No records exist of a permit issued by the City to convert the second building on the property into a second home. The contention by the property owners that the building has been a residence, continuously rented, since the 1930’s is based solely on the declaration of a neighbor, who has not been personally present for any proceeding and whose statement is not supported by independent evidence. No separate address has ever been issued for the unit, nor has a business license ever been obtained for the use of the unit as a permitted rental. Moreover, the statement that the unit has been a fully finished residence since the 1930's is directly contradicted by the official governmental records that are recorded related to the structure. More detailed discussion regarding the legality of the second unit is set forth in Section 5.0 below. Photo 17 Photo 18 7 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment H, Kitchen The 2009 floor plan (time of purchase) provided by the Property owners for the structure at the back of the property shows a four room single family home. The exterior finish materials of the building are modern cement board lap siding. (Photos of the Second Unit are included in Attachment H). Within the new unpermitted dwelling unit there are several modern appliances installed. In general, all building materials used in the unit, appliances installed, and finishes used are modern, clearly not from the 1930’s and are more typical of 1980’s and 1990’s construction. Regardless of the legal status of the secondary unit, there are other code violations that present significant safety concerns. The heating system installed in the unit has a vent through the side wall of the building. The exhaust vent is less than 5 feet from the side property. Exhaust from a heater may not discharge within 10 feet of a property line because of potential impacts to legal construction across the property line such as venting carbon monoxide into the neighbor’s building. Thus, the installation is improper and must be corrected in order to ensure the safety of the subject property and the adjacent neighbor’s property. The property owners suggest in their appeal that this improper installation can be legalized by ignoring the installation since the neighbors existing construction is several feet away from the property line. However, a property owner may not “legalize” the improper installation of a heater too close to the property line by restricting the use of their neighbors’ property. The vent termination must be completely within their property and at least ten feet from the property line to protect against discharging carbon monoxide into the neighbors building. Additionally, the water heater compartment is stuffed full of combustible paper and cardboard and is a fire hazard. The gas piping to operate the appliances in the rear unit has been run from the main house and lies on the ground, unsecured and unprotected which makes it subject to physical damage and corrosion. Similar to the gas lines to the secondary unit, the electrical wiring for the secondary unit has been extended from the front house and is unsafe. The wiring is in conduit that rests on the ground in some locations and is unsecured and subject to physical damage and corrosion. Electrical wiring may be secured above grade to a building or may be installed a minimum of 18 inches below grade in a trench. All of these improvements require permits and would not have been allowed in their current unsafe condition if the property owners had obtained permits and requested proper inspections. Finally, the second unit does not have any smoke detectors or a carbon monoxide detector. 7 Packet Pg. 29 Photo 20 Again, the Property owners’ state that they have installed such devices, however, the City has not been permitted to confirm that such devices are installed and, if so, installed per code. 2.2.12 Small Storage Shed There is a small storage shed on the property. It is partiall y constructed on the neighbor’s property. The building code does not require a construction permit for a structure under 120 square feet; however all zoning regulations apply even if a permit is not required. The storage shed must be relocated approximately 7 feet onto the Property owner’s property to comply with the zoning regulations. The adjacent property has an existing garage that is also close to the property line in the same location. There is a hazard created by the two buildings being less than 2 feet apart and a fire starting in one building would likely lead to both buildings being involved. The new shed needs to be relocated to minimize the risk it poses to the neighbor’s property. 2.2.13 Current Condition of Property The City requested permission to view the property prior to the Council hearing and to date, no consent has been given, nor have the property owners obtained any permits or provided the City with any documentation verifying resolution of any of the issues identified in the NOV. Staff did not pursue an inspection warrant to access the site prior to this hearing and has no information updating the condition of the property since the last consensual site visit in 2014. The Property owners have not provided any documentation of the current condition of the property but have instead used the 2014 pictures obtained by the city to show the condition of the home. No new information has been obtained by the City or provided by the Property owner. 2.3 Other Background, Assessor’s Records In reviewing the construction history for structures built before construction permits were required in the city (Pre-1932) or for structures built when the property was in the county, it is often necessary to rely on the County Assessor’s records to document the evolution of the property over time. It must be clear that the Assessor’s inspections of a property are for the purpose of documenting what they find and determining the value to be taxed. The records they develop do not document what was legally constructed or what work was performed with permits. They only record what was physically in existence at the time of the property inspection. For the subject property on Fredericks St, these records do include a significant amount of instructive information. The site was not annexed into the city until 1948, after the original home was constructed. The Assessor’s record begins in 1930 and so the main home existed before building permits were required by the City. So, the lack of permit records for construction of the original home is to be expected. Since that time, there have periodic 7 Packet Pg. 30 updates of the property record by the Assessor and those are dated and documented. In 1995, the Assessor created a new record sheet for the property. This is frequently done when the data blocks are all filled on the form and additional information must be recorded. The Assessor does not normally leave out of their records structures for which they collect taxes. A summary of the information provided on the Assessor’s record is provided below: a. 1930 – Main residence of 480 sq. ft., a porch of 20 sq. ft., a garage. b. 1946 – Garage converted to create a room 216 sq. ft. and a bedroom of 160 sq. ft. for a total of 876 sq. ft. This matches the approximate description of the property at the time of an appraisal of the home in 2013 of a two bedroom, one and one half bath, 975 sq. ft. home. c. 1965 – Carport and Porch 288 sq. ft. added d. 1995 – A significant change in the property is noted by the Assessor. Up until this point, only one building had been recorded by the Assessor. A garage/shop building at the rear of the property was added, specifically noting a sand floor in a portion of the building, unfinished in other areas, and a lattice carport near the rear alley. e. At a later date (post 1995), the record of the Assessor was altered by strikethrough- a normal practice to preserve the prior records- to show the garage/shop structure as a studio apartment with old lattice carport. Attachment I provides a line by line detail of what is on the Assessor’s record. 2.4 Bankruptcy Filing- Meeting of the Creditors In 2013, the appellants filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the Central District Court, Northern Division, Case Name: In re Steven Walker and Kathie Walker, Case No. 9:13-bk-10604. As part of those proceedings, the bankruptcy trustee and any creditors have an opportunity to review the assets and ask questions of the debtors. The hearings are open to the public and the audiotape is available for download from the court’s website at the following link: http://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/transcripts. Included in this report is a declaration from Andrew Mansfield (Attachment J). , attorney for one of appellants’ creditors, authenticating the audio file that is available in the Council Reading file In this case, specific questions were asked regarding the subject Property which are relevant to this appeal. Specifically, on (date?), appellants stated the following under penalty of perjury (emphasis added in bold font): Bankruptcy Trustee: “How did you determine the value of your home for purposes of your bankruptcy filing?” Kathie Walker: “Mr. Taos determined the value of our home.” 7 Packet Pg. 31 Bankruptcy Trustee: “How did Mr. Taos determine the value of your home?” Kathie Walker: “I think you have to ask him, I’m sorry. Um, our home is…We bought our home and um, when Steve was employed, and short…and we went about demolishing our home because it was a student rental for thirty or forty years. So we gutted the interior and then Steve, he is an airplane pilot and he was injured in an airplane accident with some spinal cord injuries and herniated discs and he was unemployed for two years going through physical therapy up at Stanford and various things. And so we lived in a home, we’re still live in a home, we have no kitchen, our only running water is in the bathroom. There are no doors between any of the bedrooms, it’s not insulated, it doesn’t have a floor and so you couldn’t get a loan on it currently.” Bankruptcy Trustee: “So basically you leveled and gutted it…” Steve Walker: “And then I had an accident and I was out of work…” Kathie Walker: “And he just started working again.” Bankruptcy Trustee: “And did you obtain a loan to do the remodel…?” Kathie Walker: “No, we have done it before to homes.” Bankruptcy Trustee: “And right now in the last few months no progress has been made to the home?” Steve Walker: “That’s correct.” Kathie Walker: “It’s actually…I don’t know what is going to happen…yeah we have mold issues and I was sick with a black mold infection in my lung because the roof was leaking and there is ivy growing into the home from the exterior.” (Audio: 5:50 – 7:20) *** Bankruptcy Trustee: “And are you currently renting out part of the Fredericks Street property?” Kathie Walker: “Yes.” Bankruptcy Trustee: “The part that is livable?” Kathie Walker: Yes there is a back…it’s like a little cottage, it’s not legal. But, there is someone living there. It’s a student yeah, she helps with our children.” 7 Packet Pg. 32 (Audio: 9:18 – 9:40) As the record reflects, for purposes of their bankruptcy filings, appellants asserted that the property was unfit to live in, that they “gutted the interior”, that they have “done it before to homes” and that they were aware the second unit was illegal and that they had someone living there. 3 EVALUATIONS OF APPEAL The relief sought in the property owner’s appeal is a waiver or deferral of compliance to the amended NOV as adopted by Resolution of the CBOA. Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3: In the appeal, the Property owners cite Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3. That section states, in part: 17920.3. Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building: [list of conditions] The Property owners argue that “[m]ost of the violations listed in the NOV do not endanger the health and safety of themselves or others. Therefore, the Property owners request that the NOV be dismissed except for those specific items that truly relate to the health and safety of the occupants.” (Appeal pg. 10, 14-16) The bulk of the violations listed in the NOV relate to improvements or alterations made to the property which were done without a permit, which is a violation in and of itself, regardless of the extent that the improvement endangers the health and safety of the occupants. What Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 addresses are conditions which are substandard regardless of whether the improvements were permitted – i.e. a fully permitted residence, which is in so poor a condition that it endangers the health, safety and welfare of the occupants. The property owners’ logic would render compliance with the California Building Code (“CBC”) superfluous because, under their argument, a property owner need only comply with the CBC to the extent that non-compliance endangers the health and safety of the occupants. In other words, under the Property owners’ reasoning, an individual who disregards or only partially complies with the CBC would face no consequence, provided such improvements do not actually endanger the health and safety of the occupants. With some minor exceptions, any “…owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.” CBC Section 105.1. A property owner who intends to make alterations to a structure is required to obtain a permit from the City and is required to construct such improvements in accordance with the Building Code, as confirmed by final 7 Packet Pg. 33 inspections. As discussed above, and as admitted by the Appellants, significant improvements were made to the residence without a permit and the assertion that these improvements do not endanger the health and safety of the property owners does not absolve them of the requirement to comply with the CBC as adopted by the City. Health and Safety Code Section 17959.4: In the appeal, the Property owners cite to Health & Safety Section 17959.4 and request that the Council apply this provision and defer compliance with orders of abatement so that they can remain in their home and not lose their property. This section of the state code provides: 17959.4. The housing appeals board may, in cases of extreme hardship to owner- occupants or tenants of dwellings, provide for deferral of the effective date of orders of abatement. Any deferral of the effective date of an order of abatement under this section shall terminate upon any sale or transfer of the dwelling by the owner-occupant but shall not terminate upon the sale or transfer of the dwelling if the dwelling is occupied by a tenant other than the owner-occupant. As noted in the appeal, the CBOA questioned the application of this provision and staff stated that this provision was inapplicable because no order of abatement has been issued. The appeal contends that the NOV constitutes an order of abatement and cites Collins Dictionary for the definition of an order to abate – “to do away with a problem, such as a public or private nuisance or some structure built contrary to public policy.” This interpretation is incorrect. The NOV is not an order of abatement within the meaning of Health & Safety Section 17959.4; it is a requisite notice that is issued prior to additional enforcement action, such as the issuance of an administrative citation, administrative abatement proceedings or a civil court filing. The February 23, 2014 NOV underscores this fact with the following language: “Failure to correct these violations will result in additional enforcement action being taken which may include the issuance of Administrative Citations and fines of up to $500 per day, an order to vacate the building, administrati ve abatement proceedings or other remedies provided by law …” Article 6 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which is part of the State Housing Law Regulations, sets forth the regulations regarding an enforcement agency’s authority to institute an abatement action and issue “orders of abatement.” 25 CCR section 60 sets forth the “Notice to Abate Nuisance” provision which states as follows: If the enforcement agency determines to proceed with the abatement of the nuisance through proceedings instituted before its governing board, it shall give a second notice in the same manner as set forth in Section 58 directing the owner of the building to appear before the governing board of the enforcement agency at a stated time and place and show cause why the building should not be condemned as a nuisance, and the nuisance be abated as provided in this article. A copy of this notice shall be mailed to each mortgagee or beneficiary under any deed of 7 Packet Pg. 34 trust, of record, in the manner prescribed in Section 58. The notice shall be headed “Notice to Abate Nuisance” in letters of not less than three-fourths of an inch in height and shall be substantially in the following form: NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE The owner of the building situated at __________ is hereby notified to appear before ________ (insert name of governing board) of the __________ (insert name of enforcement agency) at its meeting to be held ________, 20__, at __________ (place of meeting) at the hour of ________ o'clock __m., or as soon thereafter as the owner may be heard, and show cause, if any, why the building should not be condemned as a public nuisance and the nuisance be abated by reconstructing or properly repairing the building or by razing or removing it. Dated ____________________ ___________________________ (Name of enforcement agency) By_________________________ (Name of officer) (b) The officer or employee of the enforcement agency giving such notice shall file an affidavit of posting and mailing in the manner required by Section 62 hereof, but the failure to any owner or other required by such notice shall not affect in any manner the validity of any proceeding taken hereunder. At this time, the City has only issued a “Notice of Violation” and the current proceedings will determine if such violations exist. Similarly, the Resolution adopted by the CBOA is not an order of abatement although staff concedes that the language utilized in the Resolution is imprecise in this respect and raises legitimate concerns regarding the interpret ation of such language and staff has revised its template to avoid any potential misunderstandings. To be clear, no orders of abatement within the meaning of 25 CCR 60 have been issued. If violations alleged in the NOV are determined by the Council to exis t, the City will move forward with additional enforcement action – the first step of which will be to work with the property owner to develop a mutually agreeable and reasonable schedule for compliance. 4 DUE PROCESS The property owners’ appeal argues that their due process rights were violated during the CBOA hearing. The property owners break down their argument into the following components: (1) Notice; (2) Opportunity to be Heard; (3) Chance to Controvert Evidence; (4) Fair Tribunal; and (5) Fair Decision. Notice: The Property owners argue that their procedural due process rights were violated because the original notice given to the Property owners indicated that the hearing would start at 3:30 p.m., not at 3:00 p.m. as stated in the CBOA’s agenda. The notice was originally issued did indicate that the hearing would start at 3:30 p.m. yet as soon as the discrepancy was identified the Property owners and their attorney were notified of the start time on the CBOA agenda. Under general principles of due process, notice must be of a type reasonably calculated to give the person with the property interest knowledge of the proceedings. 2 7 Packet Pg. 35 Witkin, California Procedure, Jurisdiction Section 263 (5th ed. 2008). The Property owners were clearly on notice of the CBOA hearing and a thirty minute discrepancy between the original notice of hearing and the final hearing time does not violate one’s due process rights, especially given the fact that staff notified the Property owners’ attorney of the correct time as soon as the error was discovered. Moreover, both the Property owners and their legal counsel clearly had actual notice of the time of the hearing, met with staff in advance of the hearing, appeared at the hearing, fully participated in the hearing, and were in no way adversely impacted in their ability to present their appeal by the quickly remedied error. The hearing began at 3:00 p.m. and the Property owners and their attorney were present from the start of the hearing. Opportunity to be Heard: The Property owners assert that they were deprived of their right to be heard by the Chair of the CBOA when the Property owners were asked to move on in their presentation after being given more than one hour to make their presentation. A person facing possible deprivation of a recognized interest has a right to defend him/herself and present his/her side of the dispute to the body or hearing officer that will be making the decision. (The “fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.” People v. Swink, supra, 150 Cal.App.3d at 1080.). Due process under the federal and state constitutions does not entitle the party who is the subject of the administrative abatement proceeding to have a full judicial-type hearing; it is sufficient that the party receives adequate notice of the nature of the alleged violations or nuisance and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges. Mohilef v Janovici (1996) 51 CA4th 267, 276 (no right to sworn testimony, cross-examination of witnesses, discovery, or subpoenas in nuisance abatement hearing. Here, the City is not even at the administrative abatement stage and the hearing at issue does not involve any deprivation of property or liberty; the current proceeding is preliminary to any such action and is simply to determine whether the violations alleged do, in fact, exist. Thus, the level of process due in this context is minimal and has been satisfied here. In this case, the Property owners were provided well in advance of the hearing with clear, complete and comprehensive notice of the alleged violations on their property, including a substantial staff report, they were permitted to give a more than one hour long presentation addressing the alleged violations before the CBOA, represented by legal counsel, and they had a full and fair opportunity to respond to both the written NOV and staff’s presentation before the CBOA. This presentation was in addition to the significant written material the Property owners submitted to the CBOA in advance of the hearing. The Board reviewed and considered all oral and written materials submitted, actively deliberated for over one hour after hearing presentations for an hour and a half, asking questions of staff and questions of the appellants during the process. The fact that the CBOA Chair requested the Property owners to move their presentation along to avoid redundancy and that other Board members thought their presentation was very thorough and helpful only confirms that (1) the Chair was using his prerogative to reasonably manage the hearing;2 and (2) that the Property owners 2 It should be noted that an appellant does not have the right to unlimited time to present his or her position. Council Policies and Procedures Section 1.3.7.4.2 for example states: “Applicants or applicant representatives or appellants 7 Packet Pg. 36 were able to meaningfully participate in the proceedings. The underlying facts of this proceeding clearly indicate that the Property owners had a substantial amount of time to plead their case and were afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard even at this preliminary stage. Chance to Controvert Evidence The Property owners claim that their due process rights were violated because of “…the repeated offering of new information and claims by the City that the Property owners were not permitted to address.” (Appeal; Brief on Due Process Violations pg. 3, 18 -20) First, the Property owners do not provide any examples of what new information or evidence that was submitted that they were not able to address. The CBOA did not add any new violations to the NOV which was issued to the Property owners in February of 2015; instead, the CBOA addressed each item in the NOV item by item based on the evidence presented and made determinations based on that evidence. The result was the denial of the Property owners’ appeal with the removal of certain items of the NOV. Fair Tribunal The Property owners argue that their due process rights were violated because they were deprived of a fair tribunal. The allegations asserted in support of this argument is that (1) Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere provided prior training to the Board and had a “significant and lasting relationship of trust;” and (2) that Interim Assistant Anne Russell, who was and is the Board’s independent legal advisor, “interjected herself into the Board’s discussion on multiple occasions in a way that advocated for the City’s position.” First, it should be noted that the City provided the CBOA with its own independent counsel, far in excess of due process protections required in this context and at this stage, where no deprivation of a protected right is yet at issue.. The City’s dedication to this separation of roles is underscored by the Property owners’ own appeal on page 6, 23-28 and on page 7, 1- 14, wherein they reference a legal question from the Board which was properly re -directed to their advisor, Ms. Anne Russell. Even assuming the deprivation of a protected interest is at issue at this point, having a “fair tribunal” means within the due process context means “…one in which the judge or other decision maker is free of bias for or against a party.” Morongo Band of Mission Indian v. California State Water Resources Control Bd. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 731, 737. When they have no financial interest in the outcome of the hearing, adjudicators (the CBOA) are presumed to be impartial. Id at 737. In Morongo, the Supreme Court laid out the test for rebutting the presumption of impartiality: “In the absence of financial or other personal interest, and when rules mandating an agency’s internal separation of functions and prohibiting ex parte communications are observed, the presumption of impartiality can be overcome only by specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias.” (emphasis added) Id at 740. This evidence can desiring to speak shall: Shall be permitted to speak first during the public comment portion of the public hearing for not more than ten (10) minutes.” Again, the Property owners’ presentation was permitted for over one hour to ensure a full opportunity to be heard. 7 Packet Pg. 37 consist of a combination of circumstances “‘in which experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.’” Id. See Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v Los Angeles County Office of Educ. (2013) 57 C4th 197 (board's reliance on staff to investigate matter, and on counsel to explain board's duties, did not disqualify board from ruling impartially on matter investigated). The fact that staff’s attorney previously provided the CBOA with training or that this attorney might have significant and lasting relationship of trust falls woefully short of constituting specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias. Moreover, legal advice provided by the CBOA’s independent advisor during the course of a hearing similarly does not constitute bias. As the record clearly reflects, the CBOA was an impartial decision making body free of any bias whatsoever and, in fact, demonstrated itself to be both independent in its decision making and capable of deviating from the recommendations advanced by staff to the extent it deemed appropriate. Fair Decision: The Property owners attempt to attack the CBOA’s final decision on due process grounds based on similar reasoning as discussed above. As the record clearly shows, the CBOA carefully considered the evidence before it and made specific findings, supported by reasoned analysis of the applicable standards and facts in the record, in support of their decision. 5.0 SECONDARY UNIT The CBOA determined that the second unit on the subject property constituted a legal nonconforming use based on the testimony provided by the appellants. That testimony generally consisted of a short declaration from a neighbor who remembered someone living in a second unit since about 1931 and U.S. Census records from around this same time (see Property owner’s Appeal of Director’s Decision pgs. 1-3). As indicated in the footnote above, the use of the second unit is permitted in this zone and therefore, the use is a conforming use. The physical conversion of the structure from non-habitable to habitable space without permits however, is unlawful and the structure cannot attain legal non-conforming status because the structure, did not “lawfully exist” as contemplated in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.14. Specifically, the 1946 – 1969 Assessor records do not show a fully detached second unit at all.3 The 1995 Assessor records 3 The 1946 – 1969 Assessor records do show a room and bathroom attached to the old carport, which could have been the space the neighbor remembers someone living in. It appears that over time, the carport was enclosed connecting the original building to this room which is now the living room and attached bedroom and bathroom, both of which have been substantially remodeled by the current property owner without permits. 7 Packet Pg. 38 show a rear unit as 600 square feet which is the same as the current unit. A picture of this portion of the Assessor records is included to the right. However, these records show that only 160 square feet of the 600 square foot structure has a finished concrete floor. 200 square feet is “old lattice cp [carport]”, 240 square feet of “Fin Br [Boards] on Sand Floor”, and 200 square feet of “Unfin[ished]” space. In addition, this depiction does not show a bathroom, water, heater, sink or any other features which commonly make a space habitable. In order to find that the entirety of the current second unit constitutes a legal non-conforming structure, the City Council would need to determine that (1) the structure that the neighbor remembers someone living in in 1931 (approx. 85 years ago) is the same structure that is depicted in t he 1995 Assessor records; and (2) that the Assessor’s description of the interior of structure is incorrect and that the improvements were constructed before building permits were required. Again, the City has no building permit records permitting the conversion of this building from non-habitable space to habitable space, and based on the facts and evidence described above, it is staff’s position that the second unit is not a legal non-conforming structure. Moreover, as discussed above, the construction methods and materials of the improvements within the second unit are modern which is inconsistent with the property owners’ claim that this structure is legal non-conforming. Staff has prepared a Resolution upholding the NOV issued by staff for adoption by the Council (Attachment K). As discussed in the Alternatives below, if other findings or a full or partial granting of the appeal is contemplated, Staff can prepare a Resolution for adoption based on direction provided at the hearing and return to Council at a subsequent meeting for adoption . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Categorically Exempt under Section 15321(a)(2) adoption of an administrative decision FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the determination of this review, as there would be no outcome in this individual case that reasonably would be expected to have a material impact on the adopted Community Development Department budget for Code Enforcement, development review and/or permitting revenues. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the appeal based on different or modified findings, including any revisions to the NOV. Should Council deny the appeal but request revisions, it is recommended that staff return with a revised resolution and related findings. 2. Grant the appeal based on different or modified findings. This is not recommended as the violations clearly exist and are a health and safety threat to the public and the occupants. The effect of interpreting the violations as the appellant has argued would strip the intent of the Building code to require timely remedy of unsafe conditions. Should Council grant the appeal, it is recommended that staff return with a revised resolution and related findings. 7 Packet Pg. 39 3. Continue the action and request that staff and/or the appellant provide more information. Attachments: a - CBOA-2016-0001 Resolution 1269 Fredericks- Appeal Denied as amended b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St d - Assessors 1995 Update-detail e - City Bldg Permits f - Photos g - Floor Plans with alterations noted h - Second Unit photos i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative j - Declaration of Mansfield- Audio & Appraisal k - Resolution denying appeal of NOV 2-23-15 l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 m - COUNCIL READING FILE - BACKGROUND n - COUNCIL READING FILE - H&S 13100-13135 Smoke Detectors o - COUNCIL READING FILE - H&S 17920-17928 Carbon Monoxide Detector 7 Packet Pg. 40 7.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: a - CBOA-2016-0001 Resolution 1269 Fredericks- Appeal Denied as amended (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: a - CBOA-2016-0001 Resolution 1269 Fredericks- Appeal Denied as amended (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Community Development Department, Building & Safety Division 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Ph. (805)781-7180, Fax (805) 781-7109 Website: http://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/ NOTICE OF VIOLATION February 23, 2015 Steven Walker, ETUX 1269 Fredericks Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBJECT ADDRESS: 1269 FREDERICKS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 APN: 052-202-011 Dear Mr. Walker: On May 14, 2014, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff inspected property that you own at the above subject address and observed the following violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and related State Building and Housing Regulations: A. The following violations relate to the single-family dwelling at 1269 Fredericks. Violations followed by an asterisk require a permit to correct: 1. Inadequate Sanitation A. The kitchen lacks a sink. Each dwelling unit is required to have a kitchen with a sink for food preparation and proper sanitation. (SLOMC 15.02.010, Uniform Housing Code (UHC) 1001.2.3) (ref: Photo 1)* B. General dilapidation or improper maintenance – Wall coverings missing or damaged in bedroom and bathroom. (SLOMC 15.02.010, Uniform Housing Code (UHC) 1001.2.13) (ref: Photo 16-17)* 2. Structural Hazards A. Defective or deteriorated floor framing and supports in the kitchen area. The kitchen floor slopes up to 4%. Dislodged girder posts and pier foundations are observable from the crawlspace access opening. Repair floor joists where damaged and replace missing posts and piers at floor girders. (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.3.2) (ref: Photo 2 and 3)* B. Portion of roof sheathing replaced with noncompliant plastic panels. Replace roof sheathing and roofing in these areas. (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.3.7) (ref: Photo 17)* 3. Lack of Required Smoke Detectors – A smoke detector must be installed on the ceiling or wall in each bedroom, in hallways or rooms providing access to bedrooms, and in each story within a 7.b Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 2 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation dwelling unit. (SLOMC 15.02.010, CA Residential Code (CRC) R314.6.2 , and CA Health & Safety Code 13113.7) 4. Lack of Required Carbon Monoxide Alarm – A carbon monoxide alarm is required to be installed in existing dwellings which have a fuel-burning appliance, a fireplace or an attached garage. Alarms shall be listed as complying with UL2034 and be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. (SLOMC 15.02.010, CA Residential Code (CRC) R315.2.3 , and CA Health & Safety Code and 17926) 5. Faulty Weather Protection (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.8) A. Portion of roof sheathing and roofing replaced with noncompliant plastic panels. Replace roof sheathing and roofing in these areas (ref: Photo 17)* B. Damaged exterior siding. Replace where damaged or missing.(ref: Photo 9 and 9.1)* 6. Hazardous Electrical Wiring (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.5) A. Unprotected NM sheathed cable (romex) wiring in various locations. Such wiring requires protection from physical damage such as concealment in walls or ceilings, conduit, etc. (CEC 334.10(3)) (ref: Photos 4-7)* B. Electrical faceplates missing or damaged. (CA Electrical Code (CEC 406.6)) (ref: Photo 19-20) 7. Hazardous Plumbing (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.5) A. Improper vent terminations. Drainage vents may not terminate under a window or within framing. Vents must extend through and terminate at least 6 inches above the roof and be protected from physical damage. (CA Plumbing Code (CPC) 906.1)(ref: Photo 9 and 10)* B. The lavatory in the bathroom is not properly vented to prevent siphonage of the trap seal. (CPC 901.1)(ref: Photo 8)* 8. Construction Without Required Permits or Inspections (SLOMC 15.02.010, CRC 105.1) A. The carport attached to the east side of the dwelling has been enclosed and converted to a living room (ref: Photo 18)* B. The detached bedroom and additions thereto have been converted to a second dwelling unit accessed from the alley in the rear of the lot. (ref: Photo22)* C. Electrical wiring has been installed or replaced in various locations throughout the dwelling.(ref: Photos 4, 4.1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, and 17)* D. Plumbing installed at exterior wall of house in the rear and at the front. (ref: Photos 9 and 11)* E. Framing, electrical and plumbing in bath and area between bedroom and living room. (ref: Photos 12-14)* F. Unpermitted gas piping and electrical supply installed from the dwelling to the unpermitted second. (ref: Photo 19)* G. Water Heater installed in hallway alcove of main house and in the rear unit. (ref: Photo 23)* Plans will have to be submitted for review and approval and permits obtained for all unpermitted construction. Unpermitted construction that is concealed must be exposed for inspection. Unpermitted construction and installations do not comply with code requirements in many respects. Unpermitted construction must be made to comply with all applicable state and local building, zoning, and development codes or be removed as appropriate. 7.b Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 3 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation 9. Structure in Required Yard Set Back – The shed and unpermitted second dwelling unit in the rear of the property encroach into the required five foot side yard setbacks. (SLOMC 15.02.010, SLOMC 17.16.020C) (ref: Photos 21-22) 10. Inadequate Drainage around Structure: Stormwaters do not drain away from the structure as required. Water drains under the dwelling and has undermined floor supports. The areas around the structure need to be regarded to provide drainage away from the structure (SLOMC 15.02.010, IPMC 302.2, UHC 1001.8.3) (ref: Photos 3, 7, and 11) B. The following violations relate to the unpermitted second dwelling unit in the rear yard accessed from the alley: 1. Land use approval and compliance with SLOMC Chapter 17.21 – Secondary Dwelling Unit Standards is required. 2. Lack of required Fire Protection a). The exterior wall located less than 5 feet from the property line is required to be 1-hour fire resistant construction. (CRC302.1) b) The direct vent wall heater improperly discharges through the wall less than 5 feet from the property line. (CA Mechanical Code Sec. 802.8.6) (ref: Photo 24)* 3. Lack of Required Smoke Detectors – A smoke detector must be installed on the ceiling or wall in each bedroom, in hallways or rooms providing access to bedrooms, and in each story within a dwelling unit. (SLOMC 15.02.010, CA Residential Code (CRC) R314.6.2 , and CA Health & Safety Code 13113.7) 4. Lack of Required Carbon Monoxide Alarm – A carbon monoxide alarm is required to be installed in existing dwellings which have a fuel-burning appliance, a fireplace or an attached garage. Alarms shall be listed as complying with UL2034 and be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. (SLOMC 15.02.010, CA Residential Code (CRC) R315.2.3 , and CA Health & Safety Code and 17926) 5. Hazardous Plumbing (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.5) – Improper installation of gas piping. Black iron gas piping must be installed at least 6 inches above grade and protected from corrosion. (ref: Photo 19)* 6. Water Heater – Water heater installed in storage closet without obtaining required permit. (SLOMC 15.02.010, CRC 105.1)* 7. Fire Hazard – Separation of Combustibles from Sources of Ignition – The closet houses the water heater and is also being used as a storage. The combustible materials stored around the mechanical equipment create a fire hazard and must be removed (CA H&S Code Sec. 17920.3 (15) (h) and CFC Sec. 315.2) (Ref: Photo 24) 7.b Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 4 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation These violations constitute substandard and unsafe housing conditions as defined by law, are a public nuisance and must be corrected by March 6, 2015 to prevent further legal action. Please obtain the necessary Code Correction permit at the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development Center at 919 Palm Street, phone (805) 781-7180, to either remove the unauthorized work or to modify it in a manner that complies with applicable codes. Failure to correct these violations will result in additional enforcement action being taken which may include the issuance of Administrative Citations and fines of up to $500 per day, an order to vacate the building, administrative abatement proceedings, or other remedies provided by law as indicated below: 1) The City of San Luis Obispo may seek an injunction or court order which will require the property owners to comply with City laws, be liable for civil penalties of $250.00 per day and pay all costs accrued by the City in its enforcement effort, including attorney fees. Failure to pay associated costs and fines may result in a lien being filed against your property. 2) File a criminal complaint: Each violation constitutes a misdemeanor and carries a maximum penalty of six (6) months in jail and a $1,000.00 fine for each day the violation exists. If you disagree with the findings contained herein you may submit a written appeal within ten (10) days of the date of this Notice. A written Letter of Appeal should be submitted to the Community Development Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. The written appeal should clearly state the specific finding or action you wish to appeal, the grounds therefore, and include any substantiating documentation. Your appeal will be scheduled for the next available hearing and you will be notified of the date, time and location of the hearing. If you have questions, or would like to make an appointment to meet with me, please call me at (805) 781-7588. We look forward to working with you in resolving this matter. Sincerely, Cassia Cocina Code Enforcement Officer cc: File, Front Counter Code Enforcement Binder Enclosures: Photos 7.b Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 5 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 1: Lack of required sink in kitchen Photo 2: Floor slopes in kitchen at 3.7 percent Photo 3: Dislodged girder posts/piers at kitchen floor due to improper drainage around dwelling 7.b Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 6 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 4: Unpermitted wiring and plumbing Photo 4.1: Unpermitted wiring and framing Photo 5: Unprotected NM Cable Photo 6: Unprotected NM Cable 7.b Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 7 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 7: Unprotected NM Cable and drainage Photo 8: Unvented trap at lavatory under house Photo 9: Vent terminated below window and Photo 9.1: missing siding/rat proofing lack of weather protection 7.b Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 8 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation . Photo 11: Unpermitted/unprotected plumbing at front wall of dwelling Photo 10: Vent terminated in framing in laundry room Photo 13 – Unpermitted construction/alterations Photo 12: Unpermitted construction/alterations 7.b Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 9 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 14: Unpermitted construction/alterations Photo 15: Floor sheathing replaced Photo 16: Damaged wall covering in bath. Photo 17: Missing/damaged wall coverings New framing and shower unit. in bedrooms exposing romex wiring. Portion of roof replaced with plastic. 7.b Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 10 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 18: Converted carport to living room Photo 19: Corroded gas pipe on grade (new drywall, wall framing and wood floor overlaid on concrete slab.) Photo 19: Electrical faceplate missing Photo 20: Electrical faceplate missing 7.b Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 11 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 21: Shed encroaches into setback. Photo 22: unpermitted second dwelling unit encroaches into required sideyard. Photo 24: Water heater installed in second dwelling unit without permit. Combustibles stored next to water heater. Photo 23: Water heater installed in main dwelling without obtaining required permit. 7.b Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 12 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 24: Direct vent wall heater termination adjacent to property line 7.b Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Filing Fee Tree Appeal: $112.00 All Other Appeals: $279.00 Received by: APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Name bate Received FEB 0 8 2016 2b09 1S e.7 1 Mailing Address and Zip i..Aid Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL Fax 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: 101 -- Name of Officer, Committee or decision being appealed) o V L L-sq=motJ 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: I 4 4 I 3. The application or project was entitled: a1L.T. 0 11) L Ai7n -2420 I 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: N,%k)V-_ art1 >tC F., on_--__ 3taff Members Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and 8ft you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 7.c Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Reason for Appeal continued SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $279 , which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal i$ scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. Si afure otWpelfant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $112. 2) The above-named appellant has already paid the City $279 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for cc: City Attorney City Manager Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) 07/15 update Page 2 of 3 7.c Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUED 2/23/2015 Steve and Kathie Walker file this appeal of the Notice of Violation ("NOV") issued February 23, 2015, for their property at 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo. The Walkers purchased the property in 2009 and live there with their two sons, ages 9 and 14. The Walkers have not altered the property with the exception of two areas: Kitchen (Presently the Livia Room): After moving into the property the Walkers discovered it was infested with rats, especially in the kitchen area. They located a rats' nest and rat carcasses inside the walls and ceiling. The insulation throughout the walls and ceiling was filled with tunnels rat urine and waste, therefore the Walkers removed the contaminated wallboard, insulation and cabinets. Half --bathroom: Kathie Walker had a persistent lung infection in 2014 that was traced to Damp areas of the house were investigated and mold was found in the half bathroom. The drywall was removed which exposed the framing on the exterior wall. It was only supported by a single vertical bowed stud therefore additional reinforcement was added to the wall with studs at 16" intervals and horizontal blocking. The original framing was not disturbed. The original plumbing was not disturbed. HISTORY The Walkers purchased the property in 2009. Both dwellings on the property had been rentals for decades. As a requirement for purchasing the property, the Walkers had two separate inspections performed: one by a licensed real estate inspector and the other by a licensed FHA inspector for the purposes of ensuring the property complies with the stricter standards to allow funding by the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA Inspection Report states there are no issue: that affect the livability or integrity of the property. The Seller's paid for repairs such as termite damage and the Walkers were able to qualify for the mortgage based on the rental income received from a 1 -bedroom rental cottage at the rear of the property. Ms. Walker is disabled and receives $324 per month which almost covers her monthly medication and doctor visits, and Mr. Walker earns approximately $4,200 per month as a medevac helicopter pilot. Soon after moving into the main house in 2009, the Walkers found a rat infestation especially in the kitchen area. They removed the contaminated cabinets, a rat's nest located behind the wood paneling and contaminated insulation. In March 2010, Steve was injured in an aviation accident the commercial aircraft he was piloting hit unexpected clear -air turbulence. The force catapulted him 7.c Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 into the ceiling of the cockpit and he sustained head and spinal injuries. He was unemployed for two years. During this time, the house remained in limbo as the Walkers concentrated on Steve's health. He was referred to a team of doctors at Stanford and was eventually able to regain mobility and overcome most of the issues related to nerve damage. The Walkers spent their savings to pay for their basic living and medical expenses throughout that time. Steve returned to work in 2012 but a few months later the airline furloughed all 200 pilots went out of business. In 2013, after three years of unemployment, he was hired as an EMS helicopter pilot. He was based in El Paso, Texas while he waited for an opening at the company's Ft. Hunter Liggett base. Meanwhile, with limited financial resources, the Walkers home remained as it was in 2010 when the kitchen was removed because of the rat infestation. That room now serves as the Walker's living room and remains the hub of their home. At the end of 2014, Steve transferred to Ft. Hunter Liggett as a first responder to the troops who conduct training there. He also assists in their training missions and responds to traumatic injuries of residents in San Luis Obispo County and Monterey County. He still has pain from his accident and underwent back surgery last June 2015, so is limited in his ability to perform construction. Inspection of the Property by Code Enforcement, 5/14/2014 On May 14, 2014, Mr. Lease, Chief Building Official, and Code Enforcement Officer Cassia Cossina conducted a thorough inspection of the Walkers property based on a complaint filed by Kathie Walker's estranged step -mother, Kathy LaFollette, in August 2013. Ms. LaFollette does not live in San Luis Obispo and has never been to the Walkers property. The complaint was filed with vindictive motivations, to hurt the Walkers. During this time she also filed a lawsuit against the Walkers which was dismissed by the judge, with prejudice against Ms. LaFollette. And she filed a false report alleging child abuse with Child Welfare Services which was determined to be false by the social worker who interviewed the Walker's children and the family. The Walkers told Mr. Lease tha they were certain Ms. LaFollette made the complaint and explained her harassment of their family. Mr. Lease was aware the complaint was filed by Ms. LaFollette because she continually contacted code enforcement between August 2013 and May 2014. She met personally with Mr. Lease in April 2014 to insist that the Walker's home was inspected for code violations which resulted in the inspection on May 14, 2014. Mr. Lease told the Walkers he would work with them to resolve any issues. He noted the City's permit record for the property is sparse and said that any upgrades to the W 7.c Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I property that do not have a permit from the original development of the property is considered a code violation. First Notice of Violation On July 20, 2014, the Walkers received a Notice of Violation ("NOV") which listed violations dating back to the original construction of their property in the 1920's. They went to look at the City's permit file and the file was almost empty. The first record was for some additions made in 1964 including a laundry room at the rear of the west bedroom. City Planner, Kyle Bell, said that many of the City's permit files were lost or destroyed for various reasons including a fire decades ago. Next, the Walkers went to the Assessor's office. The Assessor's staff explained that their records are used for the purpose of determining property taxes and do not always represent accurate records of improvements, with or without permits. They provide records to code enforcement with the disclaimer that the records "should be used for informational use only and does not constitute a legal document for the description of the property." The original Assessor's records for the property were crossed out and a new record was created in 1995. The Assessor's staff said that the Assessor purged their property records in 1995 so many of the permits and original records were thrown away when the new files were created for each property. In the Walker's case, a new record was created in January 1995. Although the old records were crossed out, they were fortunately left in the file and not thrown away (as is the case for some properties.) The original records offer a more complete historical record of the property, including permits for additions, which contradict claims made in the NOV. The Walkers presented the Assessor's record to Mr. Lease and he said the Assessor's office did not provide those records to the Community Development Department therefore he had not seen them before. The Walkers were advised to ignore the NOV and Mr. Lease scheduled a meeting to meet with them on July 30, 2014. Meeting with Joseph Lease, 7/.30/2014 On July 30, 2014, the Walkers went to their scheduled meeting with Mr. Lease. He was headed out of the office for vacation and needed to catch a flight at LAX so asked that the meeting rescheduled. Another meeting was later scheduled for September 16, 2014. 3 7.c Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Meeting with Joseph Lease and Second Inspection of the Property 9/16/2014 On September 16, 2014 the Walkers met with Mr. Lease and Cassia Cocina. Mr. Lease could not make sense of the Assessor's Records so asked to return to the Walker's property. That afternoon Mr. Lease and Code Enforcement Officer Cassia Cocina performed another inspection of the Walker's property. Mr. Lease agreed that several things should be eliminated from the NOV and indicated he would revise the NOV. Revised Notice of Violation 2/23/2015 and the Walker's Appeal Over five months later, on February 26, 215, the Walkers received the "revised" NOV which does not contain the revisions discussed with Mr. Lease. The Walkers were told that Mr. Lease terminated his employment with the City in December 2014. The NOV still includes the items that were to be eliminated according to Mr. Lease such as illegal construction of the bedroom and half bathroom constructed in 1946, the rear dwelling, and other permitted improvements. Based on the SLO Municipal Code, the Walkers had 10 days from the date the Notice was *sent* to file an appeal. They prepared evidence that supports their claims, paid $279 and filed an appeal on March 3, 2015. Notice of Director's Decision to the 'Walkcr's Appeal, 5/6/2015 In response to the Walker's appeal, the Community Development Director, Derek Johnson, had three options available: to grant the appeal and DISMISS the Notice of Violation; to grant portions of the appeal and MODIFY Notice of Violation; or to DENY the appeal in whole. On May 9, 2014, the Walkers received a Notice of Directors Decision which DENIED the Walkers appeal entirely. It appears Mr. Johnson did not thoroughly review the evidence provided in support of the appeal. Further, Mr. Johnson did not itemize the violations nor address each violation as outlined in the NOV and responded to by the Walkers in their appeal. He generically lumped violations together in a boilerplate fashion at the end of brief paragraphs, stating all of the violations are upheld. He also mistakenly listed and upheld electrical violations for the rear dwelling when the NOV does not even list any electrical violations for the rear dwelling. The following are a few of Mr. Johnson's findings which are inconsistent with the evidence presented: 1. Mr. Johnson states the appeal is denied because San Luis Obispo adopted the Building Code which requires permits beginning in 1931 and there are no permits on file for the property. 4 7.c Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 He ignores the fact that the property was not annexed into the City until September 1948 therefore City permits were not required until that date. A large poster of the Map hangs in the lobby, just outside of Mr. Johnson's office. It shows the dates of annexation of various neighborhoods including the Walker's. Mr. Johnson also ignores the Assessor's Records we provided that show the house constructed before 1930 when permits weren't required anywhere in San Luis Obispo County 2. Mr. Johnson states that the bedroom and half bath addition were not constructed with permits 3. therefore they constitute illegal construction and illegal plumbing. He states the City requires__ new permits and construction according to today's code. He ignores the Assessor's Records which indicates a price was paid for a permit in 1946 which includes the addition of a bedroom and half bath. It was legally built with a permit. i It without hermits and needs to be Also, a "use permit" must be obtained with approved plans before permits are obtained .For construction of new dwelling and it must be rebuilt accordingtoo today's code. He ignores the evidence that the second dwelling was built at the same time as the main residence in the 1920's, supported by a sworn declaration from a living witness who lived next door from 1928-1973, Census Records from 1930, a SLO Directory from 1932, at other historical documentation. The evidence proves that the second dwelling was constructs at the same time as the house prior to 1928 and was inhabited by tenants since 1931-1932. It is a legal dwelling. It is obvious that Mr. Johnson did not thoroughly review or consider the evidence provided by the Walkers. On May 14, 2015, the Walker's appealed Mr. Johnson's decision to the Construction Board of Appeals. Appeal to the Construction Board of Appeals, 1/28/2016 Notice to the Walkers was Incorrect. On January 18, 2016, eight months after the Walker's filed their appeal to the Construction Board of Appeals, the City posted a Notice of Hearing on the Walker's front door which stated the hearing was scheduled for January 28, 2016 at 3:30 pm. The hearing was actually at 3:00 pm — not 3:30 as the legal notice stated. The Notice was prepared by the code enforcement department who is prosecuting the case. Fortunately, the Walkers noticed the 5 7.c Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 discrepancy on the agenda posted online which listed the hearing time as 3:00 pm — otherwise they would have missed the hearing. The Walker's Appeal was Altered. Code enforcement uploaded the agenda packet, including the Walker's appeal, and provided a copy to the Construction Board of Appeals. The Walkers prepared their appeal in color, with highlights to help the Board follow the complexity of the information more easily. They also included color photographs. However, the City converted the Walker's appeal to black and white before uploading it, while the City presented their own documents in full color. It may seem the alteration of the Walker's appeal — from color to black and white — was an honest mistake except for the fact that whoever converted it to black and white miss the last exhibit which was written with blue ink. That one exhibit is still in color. The Walkers sent an email to Chief Building Official, Anne Schneider, and Code Enforcement Officer, Cassia Cocina, requesting that they upload the appeal, in color, as it was filed. They did not respond to the Walkers or correct the issue. Due Process Violations The hearing before the Construction Board of Appeals on January 28. 2016, did not follow correct procedure. The Board members were recently trained by Assistant City Attorney, Jon Ansolabehere, regarding their new roles and responsibilities related to hearing code violation appeals as a quasi judiciary body in adversarial proceedings. However, they were unable to contain Chief Building Official, Anne Schneider, or Assistant City Attorney, Anne Russell from committing due process violations throughout the hearing. This unfairly influenced the ruling and prejudiced the Walkers. When Board Member Matt Quaglino asked for a legal interpretation of the Uniform Housing Code 1001.1 (also CA Health and Safety Code, Section 17920.3) Ms. Russell skirted the question and did not give Mr. Quaglino a direct answer to his question regarding the code. Instead she falsely implied that the code does not apply to this case. The code does very much apply to this case. In fact, the specific code that Mr. Quaglino asked about was the same code used by the City to describe the violations issued to the Walkers and support their claim of code violations. Matt Quaglino: So I have a question, Jon, what's your opinion of this? (Holding up CA Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 and 17959.4 provided to Board members and Staff by attorney Matt Boutte) Jon Ansolabehere: I'll give you Staff's opinion. 6 7.c Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) i 2 3 L 7 10 11 1.2 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 23 Matt Quaglino: What's your legal opinion? Jon Ansolabehere: I advise Staff - - Anne Russell: I'm supposed to advise you. Matt Quaglino: So what's your opinion? Anne Russell: Which one are you - -? Matt Quaglino: Both of them. Anne Russell: Well, the housing code doesn't go with everything. The building code has the permit requirement. So that's one issue. Uh. The extreme hardship with regard to the effective date of order of abatement. There is no order of abatement right now, so this isn't (unintelligible) But if they came in and said, We have to have all this done in six months or something and they wanted to appeal that, you might be able to give them a different timeline. But you're not at that point yet. And to the extent that we find there are any immediate safety issues those should be addressed immediately. " By stating, simply, "(The housing code) doesn't go with everything." implies that the very code used by the City in prosecution of this case is irrelevant to this case. Ms. Russell's advice caused the Board Members to discount the provisions of the Health and Safety Code. Later in the hearing, while Board members deliberated the merits of the Walkers case related to the second house on the property, Ms. Russell advocated the City's position and discounted the Walker's evidence which includes a sworn declaration from a living witness who lived at the neighboring property for many years beginning in 1928. Ms. Russell stated that the second house may not have been continually occupied over the years which would invalidate its legal nonconforming status. Throughout the hearing she continued to argue the City's position regarding the second The Board came to consensus that the second house was established as legal, nonconforming based the sworn declaration of a witness and other historical documents, however Ms. Russell stated she 7 7.c Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 not feel they should make a determination about the legality of the second house because it has some pretty big ramifications." A Board member moved to recognize the second dwelling as legal nonconforming and Ms. Russell stopped the Board member in a last ditch effort to prevent the motion, and stated, "I just wonder if this body (Board) is the right body to make a decision regarding Planning." It was subsequently pointed out to her that it is listed on the Notice of Violation. Ms. Russell also weighed in on other issues as an advocate for the City's prosecution against the Walkers. At one point she said that the HVAC may not be safe. The HVAC is not an issue in the Notice of Violation. It was inspected twice by Joseph Lease and not listed in the NOV. Ms. Russell's conduct is supposed to be consistent with that of a neutral legal advisor to the city itself, not as an advocate for any particular position or result. Ms. Russell crossed the line and become involved in the prosecution of the Walker's case, offering partisan advice or advocacy. Such advice or advocacy is deemed prosecutorial and is strictly prohibited by law. Ms. Russell's actions constitute a violation of due process. At the outset of the hearing, Chair Neil Dilworth explained the procedure which included party presenting their case followed by questions from the Board and deliberation among the Board. After each case presented their side and public comment concluded, Mr. Dilworth stated it would be a structured meeting to allow the Board to discuss the matter. He stated that the parties are not allowed to interrupt or interject during the deliberation. However, as the Board deliberated and seemed to be leaning in the Walker's direction, Anne Schneider interrupted the Board's discussion without being addressed. She argued that their reasoning was incorrect based on her authoritative opinion. Her contentions were subjective and in some cases, flatly untrue. For example, during the Board's deliberation, Board Member Rebecca Jansen stated that the lack of a kitchen sink does not constitute unsanitary conditions in the Walker's case. Ms. Schneider interjects, without being addressed, and argues the false contention that the Walkers "prepare food next to their toilet" which constitutes an unsafe condition." The kitchen area is far removed from the bathroom. One must wa down a hall, through a bedroom, in order to access the full bathroom. This is one example of histrionic contentions and reasoning presented by Ms. Schneider throughout the hearing. 8 7.c Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ms. Schneider's interjections caused the Board's one-way deliberation to ultimately become a two-sided conversation between the Board members and Ms. Schneider. She was ultimately able to sway the Board members to adopt her position based on her unsolicited interjections. When the Walker's attorney attempted to object, he was told to be quiet. He tried to insist but was cut off again before he could complete the sentence. The Board's Ruling. The Board adopted a motion which determined the living room / dining room is identified as it is currently used, not as "carport" as alleged by the City. They resolved it is not subject to scrutiny regarding alleged code violations and that the permit requirement for this area is limited to obtaining a permit for the recent work performed — demolition and replacement electrical in 2009 - to ensure the electrical is safe. The Board determined that the Walkers established the second house is legal nonconforming. The Board determined that the Walkers established the addition, including the half bathroom, were permitted additions per the Assessor's records. The Board determined that the outstanding violations related to the house are to be determined under the lens of tree health and safety issues. The stated they trusted Anne Schneider to ensure these limitations are imposed because they did not want to take the time to draft an entire document related to each violation. CALIFORNIA STATE HOUSING LAW Health and Safe Code Section 17920.3 The California State Housing Law is outlined in Health & Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5, Sections 17910 through Section 17998.3. The violations outlined by the City are contained in CA Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3. Section 17920.3 states: Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, c welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building: (List of Conditions). The Legislature enacted the code with the specific provision that a substandard building exists if the listed conditions if those conditions endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare Vol 7.c Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the public or occupants. The Legislature included the distinction related to safety which must be considered when issuing a Notice of Violation. Otherwise, indiscriminate "violations" can be cited under Section 17920.3 to the extent that they do not affect the health and safety of the occupants. For instance, the NOV issued to the Walkers lists a small patch of drywall (8" x 16") they removed from a wall above the shower to investigate for water/mold as "Inadequate Sanitation" under Section 17920.3 which states, (a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 13) General dilapidation or improper maintenance." There is no moisture or mold in the drywall and it was subsequently patched. However, this example illustrates how a simple item that does not realistically pose any risk to the health and safety of the occupants is construed by the City as a violation under "General dilapidation or improper maintenance." Additionally, many of the violations listed are not per se violations, such as "general dilapidation." Therefore they are open to the City's interpretation of what a code enforcement officer believes constitutes "general dilapidation." The provision enacted by the Legislature, to the extent it endangers life, limb, safety, welfare... provides context for each alleged violation in order to prevent the code from being unduly burdensome for property owners. Most of the violations listed in the NOV do not endanger the health and safety of the Walkers or others. Therefore, the Walkers request that the NOV be dismissed except for those specific items that truly relate to the health and sa&ly ofthe occuTants. Health and Safety Code 17959.4 The Legislature provides an additional allowance for owner -occupants of property subject to a Notice of Violation when the compliance requested by the City creates an extreme hardship to the owner -occupants. Section 17959.4 states, in relevant part, "The housing appeals board may, in cases of extreme hardship to owner -occupants provide for deferral of the effective date of orders of abatement. Any deferral of the effective date of an order of abatement under this section shall terminate upon any sale or transfer of the dwelling by the owner -occupant." The Walkers asked that the Board apply this code section in their case because of their financial situation and Ms. Walker's disability. They are unable to afford to make the modifications required by the City, defined in the Notice of Violation. Simply paying for one permit fee is a hardship for the Walkers. The Walker's income barely covers their basic needs and makes it impossible for them to hire a professional to complete building plans, pay for permits, inspections 10 7.c Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and other administrative fees, or complete the renovations requested by the City. The Walkers will lose their house if the Notice of Violation and Resolution is adopted by the City. Secondary sources of law that refer to this code section support exercising discretion in cases of limited income, elderly or senior citizens and those with disabilities. The cases express a strong policy in favor of keeping people in their homes, not forcing people to leave their homes or lose their homes even if there are violations that exist in the home. The Walkers fit into the category where discretion should be used. During the Construction Board of Appeals hearing, Assistant City Attorney, Jon Ansolabehere stated that the Board does not have the power to defer abatement of the violations because there is no abatement order in place. The Walkers were not given the opportunity to refute this contention. Later, Ms. Russell advised a Board Member who inquired about the code section, tha there is no abatement order therefore it does not apply. The Notice of Violation is, in fact, an order of abatement. The Notice of Violation demands that the Walkers "correct these violations" or face additional penalties, including citations, fines, an order to vacate the property, etc. The legal definition of abate is "to do away with a problem, such as a public or private nuisance or some structure built contrary to public policy"' This is precisely what the Notice of Violation directs the Walkers to do. The terms abatement, correction and compliance can be used interchangeably. The NOV uses the term "correct" in the context of "abate." The NOV states: Failure to correct these violations will result in additional enforcement action being taken which may include the issuance of Administrative Citations and fines of up to $500 per day, an order to vacate the building, administrative abatement proceedings, or other remedies provided by law" including "1) The City of San Luis Obispo may seek an injunction or courl order which will require the property owners to comply with City laws, be liable for civil penalties of $250 per days and pay all costs accrued by the City in its enforcement effort, including attorney fees. Failure to pay associated costs and fines may result in a lien being filed against your property; 2) File a criminal complaint: Each violation constitutes a misdemeanor and carries a maximum pem lty of six (6) months in jail and a $1,000 fine for each day the violation exists." The Resolution adopted by the Construction Board of Appeals also states, "Determination anc Order for Abatement of Violations." It directs the Walkers to hire a licensed design professional to prepare plans, obtain building permits, planning approvals, make all necessary repairs... and to obtain all required inspections and final inspection approval from the Department." The items listed, to be corrected, include the "carport" and a litany of other items that do not endanger the health or safety of the occupants. 1 Collins Dictionary of Law. (2006) 11 7.c Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Walkers are unable to pay for these items. Ms. Schneider indicated that the City will pursue administrative citations and fines will accrue if the Walkers do not perform these items. She said that the City will abate the items to force compliance and charge the Walkers for the cost to do so, including attorney fees. The Walkers, as owner -occupants of the property, respectfully request that the City Council apply the provision enacted by the Legislature under the Health and Safety Code 17959.4 so that they may remain in their home and not lose their property. The Walkers have corrected the items related to the health and safety of the property. They have installed new batteries in the smoke detectors and installed carbon monoxide detectors, reinstalled the piers under the joists so the front room is supported, replaced both missing electrical faceplates, reinstalled the siding on the exterior, patched the missing wallboard in the boys' bedroom and bathroom. The property is safe. The Walkers will obtain certification from a licensed building professional which verifies that the property is safe. Therefore, the Walkers respectfully request that City Council apply the provisions of the Health and Safety code 17920.3, as it was written by Legislature to the extent that violations endanger true health and safety issues, and uphold their appeal. Steve Walker 12 Kathig Walker 7.c Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) rIP6. a ,rksr #A oft1110110 IEPoo ` rMJrgv r JOWLy ` • Ills y • 61a .. J.it, I R 47. Ism wr r' r r As A, a 7.c Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) a W 4 0aCD oxM1 x+ rr 9 A U44 a X3 m I zao - D. OL 7.c Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) ED O nClED0Tnz0LOW zitop cilv. os J V1} 0- i 7 QUp Q 0 OriCWP94M I tinjC0 JJ W W G7 ff m i1 CD m C7 ni C.", J r, W Icu pE i! w CEJ L? Ej CO p2 a J O47 Ofl 0U7 00OLn 0O uj c`'1 c CJ c•'7 ci O} o co p} CJ E C6 r v r, z UJ r W v+ ve a . ar eT to m e w W O oLuCLhlCJm ito f3 c [( lj I G 1 1..J T Q m a Q 0 Z sl a.+odEo sYi J C ni W a C'J Cl LCP 77 iry ca O OQcDp0pS''} 7 N U- Vi 3 Q T r. a W 1- r: r c: J or•J Y+ J isJ S OC w e co d0 jsi A e LL, CL c c rJ t6 co CO a Ed G W E a J 17, 9 n d Q ui f4 C'J C U' r' tT aEC t t ns d7 3m C] I iSS C7J C] 0 O L a GO 4' LO p. V r" Ln Irl n, r.7 ¢ E `r asr E Luw W v, O L„ LC r F, z wJ m Y W D m r D o E 5 n LI1 C 1 W0 U} tp 7 n YGa.y0a S a vJ o -h S Y Cz V7 crya+ 9 a 1 X33 9 v'r a p r w LL ti U- aaa tla L i 0 70i9 C' 13 nr LLS n c J E p CD ptD ptrJ J 1:4 c Y cn i,a Y, C1 OC OC O O J S C7 0 7.c Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Q N W a 0- 0 0 D V) Y ) W V) V) / rL LL. No CN r r -- rIIrrII1I1I I 1 1111 I 1 — II11Yr 1 45 1I11Fl,Ie M1 IIi I I0 r II I I III YI tI 7.c Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 01OO W U 7C) vv Ii O Q N O t/'1 D J N N cn V) v U i H Q 1 No N r -- 5o MOO JNVNI T d315 0I JNINIO punoj sled i 3DO31 ONINIO Ar / I I I NNOAN r AWW ovnN y a NOW wooa03e o-,9 S tn i 7.c Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) R Abandoned PlumbingiJ* DWHVACiKITCHENra \ / DINING LEDGERatsFound DINING BEDROOM ST -FP 7.c Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Abandoned PlumbingJ* iLLDWJ'11C ` KITCHENrrr rDININGLEDGEif — — — Rats Found " BEDROOM TFP 7.c Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) N os - 0 N O N E F- 0 Q O c0 Z) J O V) L V) Ln U W LLW L No N w7-50zQzLLI0J 0w 0 a 0 w z D joop 4uoil uo palsod 8011ON910Z'VT A.ienuerjeaddpal! eaddy paluaa UOSuyo j laaa(lleaddypa113uollelolAJOa:)lIoNA410aylsanealaseal •relwollle0ofsjajsuejlanalSaseai •rAq uoipadsul puZ Inp sanoW lueual uollelolA 10 a:)lIoN aseai •r Aq uolpadsul luawa:)Jolu3 apo0 Wm Peluo0 P sexal'juawAoldwa spur anais 49nolin3 auipiV jaoM of swnjaa anajS luaplD:)y s,an91S Aliadad pasepind 7.c Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) lONC- 0 U N Q 7.c Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) N_ a h CO n N a M ray- Uy X y U N O c Q yJ N a GY ro oy Esa. U bo r m vi ti w© x c u e 9axyEOanar+ U u %+ '•"' oe can U o Q o E 12 E C4 3c 3x DcrFaqo = c a s p vuCEOAoroc`? E = 4oro F-. ' dp to a a U c y> ro aGp e Y m'o' aU d m o c O q C M W 0V9O'' Cto y y 2 V. U c a ooV E ro g ar c E E p W an 5, O1 m 3 i' W T' e o b to=a Q _ c 7 3o Ine t E pM, Vl a M u q C G F n, CL E Tj 8 F oUu`r n G 9 I b p[a CDA U G d O. y F2 7' at a C a x.00 3. v a e u NF o u0v cry u uwa C o ar ; w .-. FL auk C m 'N1117toaFF v1 in H rl a h F oO d 7.c Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) t- ffm A SY I OiOHd 91 OiOHd Ll 01OHd 7.c Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) r K L i s O L mjr m N L Qi E0 Q to 3 0 m U m W QN L Y Q C -a O 4A O 0 m O H M Y L U Y M C V1 4J Ln M ++ t 3 Y c Q O ri Q Q fC WuO4AccW T O1OHd 7.c Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) ai v C m C 0J c E N CL O L. E L O C = C C. H a L ami = U mQC) m0 ri ri = a a k' in r is -s• I r / i v a L v m CL O 0 o C A o WOO. W w m 9Z 01OHd x LZ OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Z 01OHd E MOM YV in LT 01OHd 7.c Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Z OlOHd ChCt a) I• ti y 1 k c cr LU 7.c Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) c m O L 0 O CL a tb C m a O C O E ro LnN L. 0O U L Q UlC O N aon L 4% an LM U 0 L L C M O O C 7 4J t' v N N a) OlOHd C N Q c } 0 t U C; y v V v t N 3 00 N 4) C) t J s Q c 0 0 0) 7.c Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Q 0 u c 0 t a V f0 CL a UD c L r of p E o O N 0 = 0 a 7i c 0 a a V N oo +• N N Q a f 14-r 15•-2' 1T4' ti f 14i .e f11.Y.. I ff 9 LT OlOHd CL y m L e o ZNwO yC6 D C C O 0 L Z T N C E 6 C O O m U) C w E._ 41 m NO O N ygttll N w G. m O U e N 00 o 6o .' i. mm3 $ cF. O Y N O ml0 2w o t CL 3 gL V pp Y '" Lr S S'' w 0 mC LVO cis S C O Ooa.- F C ` U "- 0 oU o C •v EZHO v oU c v a Q N E N r C U C U O C O N j 0 uGGO N O Z 7.c Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 2 LA L cla Q u ui s H sQ T4' LZ OlOHd 6 OlOHd Z'6 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) c m Q E O u C O c r 3 au m CL U C °i0 o o cu Oa o O 0 0 3 o N a a= C m 3 C - LL m + N N Q Q Q k An i` V br2G0 :ti 61 LT OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) IS -r 6 OlOHd Z'6 OlOHd I Yao 5.1- S•, - 6 OlOHd Z'6 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) ui O 2 of O O X GJ O E 41 m O U f0 C fC Z Q- u n 3 o .L 9 01OHd P 3 at c v a D w C Q m taa s W— r Ira• t ko ti OlOHd I r 1i L 01OHd S OlOHd I 61 OlOHd OZ 01OHd IF -2' M r Ira• t ko ti OlOHd I r 1i L 01OHd S OlOHd I 61 OlOHd OZ 01OHd 7.c Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) I TX 0 m a U b C L bb 3 f° X m W -0 O y -CuGC • E _ o 0 L O OD 3 4 o L Z a ani 'O W 67 3 N c 0 0 L to _ ENi m 3 m Q t u QQ1n o 1s'B' 5'11• 5'-1• W-11• 3-0• L V OlOHd I N v s o c U -d N X ou 0 ~ 'n 0,00 W C O t :_ u 3 c _o 0 Q o n o r- 00 N O U C 0 0 L N W K O 0-0 7.c Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) a Lr 0 H 0 2 a 00 L 3 w E c°c a mu t L m 3 L fA v L ZvMd ui N 0 0 L E Q. m _ N m x Q a a 9 010Hd S 010Hd E 0 LF N EL 0 0 U E 0 t 0 0 a Z 0 0 c 0 ' Do- O C v 0 C v 0 L A, 0 0v30H i H C 0 0 0 O 7.c Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1+'-r 15'-B" 17'4' L OlOHd I i 7.c Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) a N 6 r -I N 0 H 2 d. GJ bA m E m L O to BVI i N 3IA u o a v w N Uf0 W M 3 V O 'L mN NJM m l0 ,6 d d 14'-7- a 4-r OZ OlOHd 61 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) r4• 9 AF 6 OlOHd 71 01 OlOHd 8 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 5•.6- F oo 6 OlOHd ob(u t 5•.6- F oo 6 OlOHd ob(u E ra- I cu o c m a 3 u L o o V) ru o to Fu cu UL C Q - OA EL C OL 0 E LnVfN 4- O p p aCLCv a a> LWLn 4J m dDE o I Q Q oo L 5•.6- F oo 6 OlOHd ra- I5•.6- F oo 6 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) t 0 0 0 2 a c 0 m c aA E c E c 0 > a CL H Q 0 0 a- L CL 24 E a Q Q 17'4' iIto OT OlOHd yCj gra 7.c Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) u. r C i A L CL oo 0 O a O c a N E mOvii O QL to ' t o v to L M a O 0 H Q tM > a Q Q o w -z 1.. L ira• A 8 OlOHd C. O 0) t N CL t 0 C_ N 4) 4) t C C E O .Q C C v N i t t 7.c Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) r ra- i , Isl • tiIfr 1 T F nNyj OcoLniOrCLM ONOQ0 2 a EO0 O 000h Va a O E CL o r c oo um o c c° c ` L bo LO E 41 ` c c o U o 3 MMU CU c c v O cv O w c O co UCU o o 3 4 a i > o v c o E N m w a Q. O O p UbD L' f0 O c a O O U _U i 3 y t c o o W W4- c L fC p Q M U U V) M 1 i mi N U 6D c) t-' c U 1 Oa hAm 3 co bD c N— bD U+ N E s i U41EE GJ Q i M LU QaduoWLL i o6 o6 o6 od od od od a d d d d a d r ra- i , Isl • tiIfr 1 T FF 7.c Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 81 OlOHd O W O N H O M 4F 4- 0 c E m v c 0 E 3 owaWE 3 0 0 E O ._ u o 0 N o E= f0 W w L L N C} W o O s c=}EVut c o s W~ U 0mcul O us u}s W 3 0 W v W mMW-0a' U 0 E vac Ea tm a O t W 3t3.u;o.0 Hs 0 O} O p. O Nc°- 4J o} o y N N} E LO 1 N-0 MI-- 0 a 'D P o f° c o M Q. va0 a U E T o w0 L- aa) L N u c° o n v L a 0 O0 0 co w 0 m vL 1 c E o a.. L W y O CUa 0 0 0 E o Q U 0 U 7 V m L O E is O i a, N as E MOr 00 Q 00 a U v a 4 o C 0-v 81 OlOHd O W O N H O a E O c v0C•QE a E 3 owaWE 3 0 E ,o v O ._ s v o 0 N o E= E WE 3 ua3o O C} W o O 0 p c=}EVut o s W~ U ua O us u}s W 3 0 W v W cQ cvp U 0 E vac Ea tm a O t W 3t3.u;o.0 Hs O} O p. O W W CL W} 0 in o} o y N N} O Q 0 0 W N-0 MI-- 0 a 'D P o 7.c Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) oA N N o LU o O 0 _ 0 CL H O L O C y 0 O 41 U L- mmLJ a °J v t 5 - co 0 s t i cr O c0 v L O + en 3 g vm O (, L C C w 4- 0 N cc V) m °A Lnv a 181-8- - - - - --.. W4r1e.•'o- 1 I ICn Cil ZZ OlOHdl I . ZZ OlOHd i # 7.c Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) o 00 N o Ow N OL f V cvi y u X W Id u vcA i v 2 toC O C3 md w A C v U d c0 o N 0 IUL 7WuO0 0 N J A 1 h 3 cd m a H mN 4 w mCcc oN m wn 3 m m 13 7.c Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) L U 0 N 0 1) ry D V) W U 0 0• A- i i i Is iR, 1 2 4,:3 at jN. ay !17r.m s.4 4—ii , Q vIL it all A it I JAI ss F i Is, od I ole FI, a& hL y 1. Al. i i Is 7.c Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) i • t R -L 9 x k R 6 It 4 A% \ 1 i tin = - - - - - - _ r tiia 1• - - . { ^ - } -._ . -. t Y 'aLU !- - - Jr I a \ J 1 '•J - y J l C w \ IM AA r t } 3 1 a I..L i ' a ', - o a 1 t a a I ' til 1. `Y ' I • W Callpp CD SRL --1 s' a a! .. e s . 1 i s a r 7 I e N J l i nil IT W. IF I I iJ, I 4. 8. _ _ _ _ S i4• c rR. 4' al R 64 !I R >! as R! al : ;R A R a 4Z1,41 4 s '27 Z tt Q 1 7.c Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 0 L_ n Q O N D J 04 C'7 O ci r Oct p Aa O N C g a '°v C7c e a e~,'"o nwtia U ='Aeo 6i Oi.$`•,y wQ W r m acgSpA,y xN c°O p q 7a"•+m6 5' ug o"i7NE" 9A k m m,o me .°W L] "'"«Q maH a H C..52°yj•• A"`` dR1W F 4 n .'°, ym .~.meq g` ° <D _ . uV Wu w b8 u4.'.r m0.'A0.•gbx w V atlayyyrryy""a m L79i w _ Omr A qa V LL_y n 'OM a°+Q.:Y~N U WQI .k b«O p. 3'.072i'"E 7 •«'a °° °'-"p"q oholg cp OjO" 79M,,P74 i A p" aigti'V m a m L' z.•^, FiW Qm Wv'm CSU m..-Ao,we{a f-0o^ L Ww'x—. F 5•gz W G a aZ _q mxo"°v owmEmammG,rgx. '"eoLCw y.a d ... 'o.., apVp-oy6 ,q" baa m FV Me^°e;'iw A O O..We;d Fye Rv ChF L7UctlF m,yV a EW .7 e dp.,baO a, •ayo tea,>>"O pa P+Eb n p 's Ee. y 40¢ n. F C, . f. V tA' -..-• P4 m „ a i C7 , , Naafi' y U p ° S a 2 u•, ,, aJ a+C7 h.o Oh.n_p W'X3V W W'y R1 "%°d'h'j tjm'cm aopcE' 1Vtii-lP ti ? L:7 `.+ a mGia p ii G C q pc p UJ F " P ` b m(AA . .M ?b7 O O C^O aw uu uua ma..._9 abca+ anac aaao aAo uaa a arc 4 4 ao aaaaaaa^acaaaA fit I i ' 56 . . z r a1 . i _ 7.c Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) m O N H •` rl O > 0 Lrav L Q O a, H L Ln E O p a a m O N a L_ • bb a' cu =_ u 41 O s stto 3 c 3 t O UA Uu .L O L U c w C U U o6 o U Q Q O IT OlOHd V OlOHd G O O CL 7.c Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) n r-1 r -I M V) NO O > n cu LA 0 n L N ISO a O N a L cb v O Cu m *' J L 0 0 3 to u v O L 0 v O W U U 06 o U Q Q O 1, 9 OlOHd S OlOHd C Nt i Q 7.c Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) n M O r4 r L o u c V) 0 gyri LQ CL E O o a O rr N a 41 4J O aj L r GA 4' L O 0 3 O U O L L H U +J 4J V1 C W C O UU 06 06 U Q Q I T-4* L OlOHd YU O L.: VfO +- C XO C N } O N V a O 3 0 0 ,O N Q v L Q } Q N O L O N X W _O E;v W L O N O C CL C N X O Nv '> 7.c Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) FIOI16k£ f9I1 IR±f i STORAGE MriNr -I Ir4l T ©14Hd VI OlOHd ZZ OlOHd N W G 0 z_ Y O J W 7.c Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) rl M V) -- V1 O N r- L- 0O a - CLv r u O Q NAa O a O d N d L_ bb v 3 vO s 3_ 4- c '3 t O cw v U O L. 4- L 4+ U 4J v v1 O 0 0 U U +J W o6 U Q Q O 15-0' 15'-2' 1r4' LT OlOHd I 7.c Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 4 h t Y-2' tT4' 6 OlOHd tt OlOHd O t N c c C3 a) C3 O rn C N E O t a C } O O s 0) L E •O 0 E N H a t t'-tT 6 OlOHd tt OlOHd O t N c c C3 a) C3 O rn C N E O t a C } O O s 0) L E •O 0 E N H a 7.c Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) C m L H m O L a v o 0 of L L a 3 LJ O XGJN r -I L N Fa O3N o o W_ L 0 U p o6 o6 +' Q Q 15 2' 6 OlOHd h 1 6 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) v v 3 41o a f0 4J CL N C = L m O t M a = o cr 0) cl: a m L u O i O 3U ODN o v ,> on — H mC L G O U- O U uj O o6 o6 v ad -0 wr m ire" Nr -IOHO lb r 1-0` 1. e• // ST, T OlOHd bT OlOHd O ZT OlOHd C N N N 3o-°aveE=av o3 E o Q H N_oya u aXi 03o}ys3O y ° 0 01 O o 3 0"M 0C0t•=-0 O uaCL i°s Q y' 0? •0 t 3 3: Tv o 0 0 > N W 0 O '0 Ou CT 0 Mn >'a '0 _ '0 lb r 1-0` 1. e• // ST, T OlOHd bT OlOHd O ZT OlOHd C N N N 3o-°aveE=av o3 E o Q H N_oya u aXi 03o}ys3O y ° 0 01 O o 3 0"M 0C0t•=-0 O uaCL i°s Q y' 0? •0 t 3 3: Tv o 0 0 > N W 0 O '0 Ou CT 0 Mn >'a '0 _ '0 7.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) v t E O 4 rC o U W V) Q. C Ln CL o a wl `^ O v O a u a v aJ o Cr v L) bA O a *' s N E 3 bo a c o U E s L 4 Lo H a c o u L.L: o6 o6 6Z OlOHd a u L T c 3 0 0 O 0 U u a h E Q 0 3 Q O N Q C 3M>, 00 00, Q u o 0u O U a1 d 3 p 3 s rn0 v 0 C CN u= Q 0 03 to 130 o0- 0 L 7.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Z OlOHd C L W fl. Q E aL N Q N i i fl. c 0 O Q N N O CL c 0 v c 00-6 a •c ' N N L A 0p0p C3C14a 7.c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) t a a z 3 u of W P ZZ OlOHd ZZ OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) N O O 2 CL rn rn Q Q ZZ OlOHd 0 7.c Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) rn rn Q Q I I1 ZZ OlOHd W i N u O d) c_ N L O c a L L N 0 N 3 O O O N W :E c u O' O a OM a C O W A, L Q m a1 O O u c a v N a) 3 ch C; N a u a c O 3 W c u E n a - O 7.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) IrMo4n, 1 TJ' E OlOHd L OlOHd 11 01OHd 7.c Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 1s•: 17,_4. OlOHd v CO do a o a vi L c 3 L L o m cr Q 1) a Q 3 a 0 W O t.+ o Q C O f0 L Q 0 CL ro 0 0o N a Eo L 0 v L C M ui Maj 3 r ` L i 4J C CA a 0 Qm L C O N O m nC m m- y 3 rj Q O a N Ln wM to ai p a i m CL to L 4- O c M Q C OoqN U O G c a U a m 0 a, O 02 ca 06 ti e'o o'^ u L ti O 4EU U M C o o O E C CO rl p m v m 3. OlOHd do a o c a vi L 010 2 3 o m r a 0 a 0 W O t.+ Q C O CL ro r 0 N a E o Ctm M m3 5 w m m a O Qm L C U w O L io m y 3 I O w OLn wM ai p ao CL 4- O c M Q C OoqN O G M U a U V r O 02 cac e'o o'^ u 7.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 17'4- c \ L O1OHd w ,O'/ Q) R r o t 7 2 CL 2 S o C 0 7 r2 00 0 2 E c c Q) 7 o c Mo a 4A EA 0 2 m Ek 0 c_ 0 rn @ 2 2 2 2 2 co 0S to I*- 0 C m m 7 m 2 w R 06 E 02 o m m 0 w 0£ p 2 o W 5 2 o 2 t 0 0 m Y. E cq rl - k Ln 5 0 m 2 z 2 k R L O1OHd w ,O'/ k r o t 2 CL 2 0 m C 7 r2 00a k ° c c Q) o c M a 4A a Em 0 2 m c_ 2 2 2 2 2 co 0S to I*- 0 m m 2 c g7 E ao0 u p 2 0C2 4 4a Q m Y. 4"0 cq rl - C) k Ln 5 rl / cn z 2 k R u a u i 7i Ln 7.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) X0 y w y . r % , r ,« > TTO1OHd 2 f a CL QJ 4 o 2 o 2. m o> CL Vo c Mr V) cCCMLkZ 2E a o 7 U 2 c CL 7 Ec2 f 4.0 m @ M 2 O N ORcc q 2 m 40U a kfU k 2 O 3 m m c o c 2# Q 0 @ o E 2 4 q m o o 2 § 3 V) M 0 M» k un -0 m m o y w y . r % , r ,« > TTO1OHd CL o 2 o> V t c Mr cCCMLkZ 41 1) 0 a o 2 ° 2 c CL t 4.0 a 2 2 2 m 40U a c k 0m 5 @ m 0 U 2 0 o 2 o o u 7 p 06 C6. L 2 0 c R u E 0 d q o em"U LJ 2 U 0 W 2 0. 0§ q 2 7.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 4- O OCNN4JON -C U fB 4A N =3 N i E U a -J i v 3 v o U N N CLO L O O N N O tw OD Q txo O . 0O4 -+ C O C O i tto L U L }u O U Q cv E d r4 c a 14O J w m u I, LDN m L a Q CL ru IL 1I d 6 W O u v v c o v o O C v mu 6 a0 J3 Qo O C10 A N C m w Lna tioN C m 0 aui > v o M a O c U N 7.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) ri a 7.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) i it r, Oil O sz LA 0 LA J I N N GJ N ri 5 R J Mu N O N D V) C Mu 7.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) ri 0 4 - OJ OtCNNNO4-1N U 3 aA a, N E v L O U N L N L O •— N O f0 Z, V O C aNA v M C: bn C — ca Q to O . O O C: O L1 C: t L U b L 4-1 O W U Q fII E 0 L Q O CL N M O- 7.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) cOU7LhCOUCf6NvL ca) O QO Q O E O L_ L Cr wL F N Ln c c i L a O ro a 3 V v tt E bo o o a) G1 L4' U-) tjp C fC L tL C 41 U O a G1 L cu o v a) i t O 3 7 O L U NO H H J Q m V N N n m m VZ OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) c L a) Q OL Q a) F Ca" C O O U L 4-1 4 Ln O O Ln U G7 C t L CU v U L O i -0 Y O O V 'L J X `1 N 7.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) a 3 a, L t dA O L N cubD L UN C • O 4J Q NO = O C= a E L L a Q LL M c OQ L aj C c o O a Y 4 - LnLn m N m N LOLD 0oo Lo- D Ln p L N p N 0) p Q00 •c O O N Qi - 0 — 0 C C V(1) Eo N Q N Op_ p C Qcn > uoo p° v o 0 0 ° p N N N N > Q Q U O c 0TSte a b09HDHN VZ OlOHd N O 0 a i 7.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) vvLbio0a c N v s v c N a, c a, N c LnN 0 E tw Q Q Nco on c 0L_ f0 0 - m 0 W c a Q c A' 0 m tm on V) o c o 0 E" o E i r0 0 in— 3 ao 0 d li Q. r 61 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) C O N 'LnO L N O U E E pp O C a Q "a Q 41 NU M v to 0O L O Q - L Y u fD O co 0 OJ bb " L Q 4J a Q O L m m 6L b-0 N C O t O • cr M L- 0C *' NN _ Y • a..i Q1 J Q 0 OQL is O Q +J m E a 61 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) L m W 7.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) d Cd O r 75 O Q I I ICCNIN7 & cv n hN8.. L. I 1Yi Yi SSCC 86 C"ii6 C ii ffiQ7",z «5yi i ji iii 33nnyyr tMocrr. O :YOjT «ili}..: @CB . ky.nal airr 9l. M€l•Q fFlt hyi u iY R` ELf w 10 N [i eYuoW iu« 3..' HAI1PppaOtCr .oI i p .Iwi. 7Mwl b.. ~YyLjv Y YYw.1i'aa3 dnGl:l il r els bj Mill Oji I I4 7.c Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) a s421 c O ^ ar W C • V IU o y ' C co V C 1 E y V ed N con red- C O" w M y 6 p 1.0 a O V C Y!= o C CL -r- bs GqC N cd O ed a.1 Occob 0-0 Z ca wOCOs fl r.a • G 0 O Vi "• C V Q% L o cn'c yUCo o H V. O C Q G y' Y 0 0 - c ° U c 1a 3 V O cid L7 D d w a c H O y Q 0 H 'b q H b•° O c 0.0 cm 4"o W ca ryO Q'> 3 t 7.c Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) NXa+ E Eti. w ees ouaM 3 C7,Jw- 0 aci c 2:% E CQ u 73 4. G. c0 E 'b G V GQ y Cd t O Ri o N OQ G 0 O s edoy y U G fA F Q a.i Qi CA r co14 rLDo' U G° a o b 0,E LtwCV1 d y U of ,9 G N 0 O ea 'b H VO Ci ow i. 0 y H 0 b o O W 2 Cc CC0QQ u Q o f u " Q, 7.c Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) I 141" a We-famr, WAMINION TWHEIIIIIIII I 0 7.c Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) O— W O 0 W 0V ,v 0oE, so- a g y o 0p0c Uas3°33'vu0-0a a`oi}°cEa. ;'ccE=v3.Cvv° 0 y o o E 0v°1Uo E3 E V15-} c v u N c4;AO— O U O 0=°OtO -° }H o.Co-vw">v c.0 vpCOO"vy - v tx Uv:ESE°w a, h vi O O H EvoO r= oov Oo.o3v o H v u E Wt id tOO° yD. QLL 04::E3'a,vo CL... ml v ` t O c> oa.. EvOe a 1S w 7.c Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) V J21 sr r C C R. en Q o 3E a 3 n o. E 3 coo 'sp0 C U m 430O cd0 N o a CO Jou MCI Q2 acs o = o, -- b rc C p E 3 N 4% oma} V + A• v ou u o o v v 0. t C C N v'v 0,0 t u H 0 c v y o uu as c E c > N u 0 E CL uyuv vvv' 7.c Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 8 0 3 Crn ti U CQ V C C cc O O U tip 7.c Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) e V o H o u u WM C c^ CW U c v u o0 Eauio vv 3E o dv1= W rN orH c. a^ p } D C p c .- 4 C W 3 y M A o . u o o c r- o Ga D a c O0Cccryc G O u aX03 a ° 3p c ooX u0-0 3' c ov u 0 o v o c H ' c C r •p c o o o u vo v z }} N ou3 oo ou 7.c Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 0 = c a u 0 v_ CL 0. vG0atj O W c 0 Am ° d) v CrCX 3 u 0 41 c heU, 41 aui v E c v a ta 0 v°tEN o_v 0 0. v ry>' u_ o° o. o. = U z} v H-va r 0 7.c Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Z ii a' 1CT E a cc a84 C 3 GIn13Z16 i S 0 0E r 9 1p2A T C13 W a ew it w. W 00 R V w4p 3 W 0 N a, N O N s N N v o a m 0 CL 0 L- CLa U m Q) m s M O AOcu4J O3 uNLYQiCUoL2. 0 C 40-- 4-1 N U CO viQ% a-+ v vaN0QN41ELUU NC. O L 04-1 NMNCUL N a4L v OL C 0 L r O W oLnL3U 4-1 U GJ G141 m N CA LAim N Z,C a a, 0 a? o 00-p v N a O C 0 L L OL N L L GJ L GJ V 4-fNs m L 3 a Ln L 4- 4-0 L w C C O W 4-0 4-0 0 L a a m co cv LAN G1 C 3 X N N L L m a1 t O L m ai s d N O 4- d O L cu w 0 cu 4 J a a, U 0 3 r4 U p GJ tLOrN3 0.3 cN oN J civ c E L C 0 O U fC C L WOt]D L O' V O C C GJ O J M C 4J C L Ni N L O N N C O L U L 4A v J 3Po. O F- u fl. o o m a J m• U v U s au m N U QJ uU fC Cn C U m H cn Q N a, N O N s N N v o a m 0 CL 0 L- CLa U m Q) m s M O 7.c Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) F Matthew E. Boutte, SBN 294722 Attorney & Counselor at Law 77 Del Oro San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805)704 -1199 1 meb @mattboutte.com Attorney for Appellants 6 Steven Walker and Kathie Walker SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL I t t7 1 In re 1269 Fredericks Street, 1 San Luis Obispo 4 FEB 0 9 2016 BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS w' E i6 Due Process Standards I S Both the United States Constitution and the California Constitution require due process P rior to the deprivation of life liberty, Y, or property. ( United States Constitution Amendment Fourteen. California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 7.) These constitutional requirements create a i sliding scale of what process is due in any particular circumstance. To answer the question of what process is due in a particular situation, the United States Constitution requires consideration of three factors: 4 (1) The private interest that will be affected by the official action; Ir 2) The risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the 6 probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and 27 ++ ii ( 3) The government's interest, including the additional burden from different procedures. 11 (Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 334.) BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 1 7.c Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) r, sa 10 11 12 13 14 15+ 16 1 The California Constitution requires consideration of three similar factors plus an additional one: 1) The private interest that will be affected by the official action; 2) The risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the probable value of additional safeguards; 3) The dignitary interest in informing individuals of the nature, grounds, and consequences of the action and in enabling them to present their side of the story before a responsible government official; and 4) The governmental interest, including the burdens of additional procedures. (People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 268 -69.) Here, there is no doubt that a property right of the Walkers' is implicated and therefore that the City must provide due process to the Walkers. Although an administrative hearing such as the one the Walkers had before the Construction Board of Appeals does not require the full panoply of procedural safeguards that are required in the judicial setting, such hearings affect significant property interests and are quasi-judicial and adversarial in nature and therefore require significant procedural safeguards under the Mathews and Ramirez analysis. At a minimum, this requires adequate notice to the parties, a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and a chance to controvert evidence presented. This is in addition to basic due process requirements of a fair tribunal and a fair decision. There were major issues with how the hearing before the Construction Board of Appeals 1. . was conducted that implicated each of these due process requirements. 21 1 Notice The notice the Walkers received stated that the hearing would occur at 3:30pm. However F the Construction Board of Appeals' agenda later indicated that the hearing would occur at 2 3:00pm, which it actually did. Fortunately, the Walkers noticed the discrepancy and were able to v I I gain clarification prior to the hearing. BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 2 7.c Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) l ii In addition to this, the Walkers never received the notice of the hearing in the mail. Opportunity to be Heard 3 11 During the hearing, the Chairman of the Board repeatedly rushed the Walkers' 4 5 6 7 it ire l 12 1 l t, r 19 7 f I l I presentation of their case. At one point he told them that they needed to finish their presentation or risk boring the Board. However, other members of the Board indicated that the Walkers' presentation was very thorough and helpful, going out of their way to thank the Walkers for the research they had done on the case and the insights that it provided. Thus, it is clear that the Chairman infringed the Walkers' right to be heard in a meaningful manner. (See Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation - San Diego Section (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1072.) This is even more problematic when examined in the light of how the Chairman handled the Board's discussion and decisionmaking processes, discussed below. Put together, it strongly 9 suggests that the Chairman was not interested in listening to the Walkers or discussing and p considering their arguments, but was simply trying to make the quickest decision possible. Chance to Controvert Evidence At the core of due process is the right to know what charges are made against an individual and the opportunity to respond to those charges. All the other procedural safeguards are designed to protect this right to respond to one's accuser. The most alarming conduct at the Construction Board of Appeals was the repeated offering of new information and claims by the City that the Walkers were not permitted to address. Not only were the Walkers not permitted to address these new charges, they were rudely shut down by the Board. Even more egregious than the offering of new charges by the City, the Board actively solicited new charges, information, and claims from the City and then would not permit the Walkers to respond to these new charges. This activity was directly contrary to the requirements of due process and clearly violated t, the requirement of Ramirez that the Walkers be able to present their side of the story. The a Board's conduct required the Walkers to sit by silently as new claims were brought against them N 11 BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 3 7.c Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) the very kind of conduct that due process is intended to protect against and an affront to their dignity. 4 Fair Tribunal The Board is not comprised of attorneys and therefore required training and legal representation. The Board was represented by Anne Russell at the hearing while City staff was represented by Jon Ansolabehere. However, Mr. Ansolabehere was the attorney who trained the Board and members of the Board asked for legal advice from Mr. Ansolabehere by name during the hearing. This poses a significant conflict of interest and clear violation of the due process I requirement of a fair tribunal. It is true that a City attorney may represent the Board in one matter while representing the i prosecuting City staff in an unrelated matter. (Morongo Band ofMission Indians v. State Water 6 Y Resources Control Bd. (2009) 45 CalAth 731.) However, this is an entirely different situation. In 14 ! this situation, Mr. Ansolabehere acted as the Board's attorney in general when he trained the IS Board. This is a much more significant and lasting relationship of trust than one that would be I o created if he merely represented the Board in a particular matter. This is evident by the confusion I that the Board had as to Mr. Ansolabehere's role at the hearing. This clearly compromised the I S j fairness of the tribunal and therefore violated the Walkers' due process rights. 1 ca In addition to this, Ms. Russell interjected herself into the Board's discussion on multiple occasions in a way that advocated for the City's position. This is an additional serious conflict of interest and violation of the Walkers' due process rights. With the Board's own attorney 7 advocating on behalf of the City, the Board cannot be considered a fair tribunal. 21 24 Fair Decision 25 During the Board's deliberations, members of the Board indicated a desire to discuss R f individual items on the Walkers' Notice of Violation. However, the Chairman of the Board 27 would not permit discussion of individual items and required the Board to vote on the various items en masse with absolutely no discussion whatsoever. He did this to save time, explicitly BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 4 7.c Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) r, 7 14I CI stating that he was doing so because he did not want the hearing to go on until midnight or their decision to be one hundred pages long. The items in the Notice of Violations are extensive and many are completely distinct from the others. Thus, the process engaged in by the Board could not possibly reach a fair decision. There is no way of knowing whether a majority of the Board considered any particular item in the Notice of Violation to actually be a violation. Conclusion The conduct of the hearing before the Construction Board of Appeals constituted clear and extensive violations of the Walkers' due process rights. Throughout the hearing, the Board repeatedly indicated that the issues in the Walkers' appeal were significantly more difficult than ones they had addressed in the past and expressed concern that they would have to regularly start y addressing these types of issues due to the City's rental inspection ordinance. Based on its 6 conduct and expressions of concern, the Board is not adequately prepared or trained for hearings of this magnitude. This lack of experience manifested itself in multiple due process violations. 16 These violations of constitutional rights should be of serious concern to the City — particularly in light of the many similar appeals that the Construction Board of Appeals will be hearing in f8 AJ 1 1 i S coming months without the benefit of review by the City Council. Dated this 8th day of February, 2016. y Matthew E. Boutte Attorney for Appellants BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 5 7.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.d Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: d - Assessors 1995 Update-detail (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.d Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: d - Assessors 1995 Update-detail (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.e Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: e - City Bldg Permits (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.e Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: e - City Bldg Permits (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.e Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: e - City Bldg Permits (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.e Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: e - City Bldg Permits (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 17.f Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 27.f Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) No window sill above counter top edge New gas stove- no exhaust hood Photo 37.f Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 47.f Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 5 7.f Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 67.f Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 77.f Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 87.f Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 9 7.f Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 10 7.f Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 11 7.f Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 127.f Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 137.f Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 147.f Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 157.f Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 16 7.f Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 177.f Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Unprotected wiring Photo 18 7.f Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 19 7.f Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Photo 20 7.f Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: f - Photos (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Doorway closed off Wall removed Wall shown in owners pictures- not on plans 2009 FLOOR PLAN 7.g Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: g - Floor Plans with alterations noted (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 2014 FLOOR PLAN 7.g Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: g - Floor Plans with alterations noted (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.h Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: h - 7.h Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: h - 7.h Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: h - 7.h Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: h - 7.h Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: h - 7.h Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: h - 7.h Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: h - 7.h Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: h - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PART 3 PART 2PART 1 7.i Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 7.i Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) PART 1 PART 2PART 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7.i Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 7.i Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) PAGE ONE Beginning in the upper left hand corner of the record and going through the first series of columns in part one we find documentation of: Part One Column One - Class & Shape D4B, Architecture one stories, Use Type single C; Column Two - Construction standard, Foundation Piers 6; Column Three - Structural frame 2X4- 16, subfloor 2X6- 24; Column Four - Exterior siding RE, Windows casement screens; Column Five - Roof gable, pitch m, gutters, tile trim, compo shingle; Column Six - Lighting Wiring K.T., Fixtures Avg., Plumbing 5 fixtures, water heater, automatic, gas, Column Seven - Air Condition heating (2) Column Eight – All floors T(ongue) &G(roove) grade A with op trim; Ent Hall floor BR- illegible notation at right; 1 living room, floor finish car(pet) Grade B, stuc(co) interior wall and ceiling finish; dining illegible count and floor finish, 1 dinet, floor finish lino(leum), wall and ceiling finish HP; 1 bed(room) wall and ceiling finish PB; 1 kitchen , floor finish lino(leum) grade A; drain Bd (board) material mica, length 8 ft, splash 12. Part Two Construction Record Line One - 1930B Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1946 Age 16 Remain’g life 30 Table R45 69% Rating A (all categories) Line Two - Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1955 Age 25 Remain’g life 22.5 Table R45 50% Line Three - Effec Year 30 Appr Year 57 Age 27 Remain’g life 21 Table R45 49% Line Four - Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1959 Age 16 Remain’g life 29 Table R55 59% Line Five – Permit ?50; c-port amount ^00, date 3-2-64, Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1965 Age 35 Remain’g life 23 Table R55 54% Line Six - Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1970 Age 40 Remain’g life 20 Table R55 56% Condition A Line Seven - Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1972 Age 42 Remain’g life 19 Table R55 48% Block 8 – Bath Detail, Line 1- No 1 lino(leum) floor, walls HP, 1 WC (water closet), 1 7.i Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) La(vatory), 1 tub, type ST, grade A, Shower 1 OT, finish FG: Line 2- No 1 illegible floors- walls -, 1 Wc (water closet) 1 la(vatory) Line below- initials. Part Three Appraiser & Date NDR 12-4-46 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 4.40 2112 F Porch ¼ 20 1.10 22 GAR RM 216 1.00 216 Bedroom 160 2.50 400 Total 2750 Normal % GOOD 69% R.C.L.N.D. 1898 MH 1955 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 F Porch ¼ 20 GAR RM 216 Bedroom 160 Total 2750 Normal % GOOD 50% R.C.L.N.D. 1375 DU 1957 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 6.70 3216 F Porch ¼ 20 1.70 340 GAR RM 216 2.50 540 7.i Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Bedroom 160 4.00 640 Heating 120 Total 4856 Normal % GOOD 49% R.C.L.N.D. 2379 DU 1960 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 7.10 3408 F Porch ¼ 20 1.78 36 GAR RM 216 2.70 583 Bedroom 160 4.50 720 Heating 120 Total 4867 Normal % GOOD 59% R.C.L.N.D. 2872 DU 1965 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 8.40 4032 F Porch ¼ 20 2.10 42 GAR RM 216 4.00 864 Bedroom 160 5.00 800 Heating 120 C-Port & PCH 288 1.50 432 Total 6290 Normal % GOOD 54% R.C.L.N.D. 3400 7.i Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) PS 1969 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 8.94 4091 F Porch ¼ 20 2.24 45 GAR RM 216 4.50 972 Bedroom 160 5.50 880 Heating 150 C-Port & PCH 288 1.70 490 Total 6828 Normal % GOOD 50% R.C.L.N.D. 3400 FACTORED Total 7511 Normal % GOOD 48% R.C.L.N.D. 3605 PAGE TWO (Poor Quality Sketch) Note near center of sketch the word “C-PORT”. Various dimensions are legible. Miscellaneous Structures GAR RM- Found(ation) C(oncrete), Cons(truction) FR(ame), Ext(erior) CHR, Roof C(ompostion) Shin(gles) Floor C(oncrete), Int(erior) (illegible) FIN(ished) Size 12 X 18 BEDROOM- Found(ation) C(oncrete) Pier, Cons(truction) FR(ame), Ext(erior) CHR, Roof Comp(ostion), Floor T(ongue) &G(roove) Int(erior) WB, Size 10 X 16 C-PORT- Found(ation) C(oncrete), Cons(truction) R+P, Ext(erior) open, Roof flat T&GR Floor C(oncrete) Int(erior) -, Size sketch COMPUTATIONS Res (idence) 16 X 21= 336 7.i Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 12 X 12= 144 480 F P(OR)CH ¼ 15 X 4 20 C(AR)-Port+PCH 20 X 12 240 4 X 12 48 288 Remarks Bedroom price includes 2 fixtures MC 1-25-95- no visible changes PAGE THREE The revised record from 1995 uses a similar form as the original record started 1946. New information of note is highlighted below Under DESIGN USE in Column one, notation “OLD” Under CONSTRUCTION in Column two, notation Sub-Standard, FOUNDATION noted as SAND and NONE Under HEATING in Column seven, noted as WALL (heater) and under FIREPLACE noted as FREE S + D In Column eight notations for 1 living room, 2 bedroom, 1 kitchen, mica drain board 12 feet and 4” splash. No information is completed for construction record. In Block eight- BATH DETAIL the record notes 1 vinyl floor, S(heet)/R(ock), 1 water closet, 1 lavatory and 1 tub, Finish FB (fiber) gl(ass) 1 bath vinyl floor, S(heet)/R(ock), 1 water closet, 1 lavatory. Under SPECIAL FEATURES oven, range, hood, (these three are grouped with an initial), fan, disposal, dishwasher, 2 pullman, X green house window. COMPUTATIONS Res (idence) 480 Add(ition) 495 Total 975 GAR/SHOP Studio APT 600 7.i Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) CCP 200 on studio (covered carport) W-UP 480 main res (walk up deck) PAGE FOUR Legible sketch of two structures. Note at the upper left corner the sketch of a second building that did not appear in the prior record. Notes include “old lattice cp (carport)” “Fin BR on sand floor” (Finished BR on sand floor) “Fin Conc Floor” (finished concrete floor) “Unfin” (unfinished) Remainder of notes at prior structure are “orig res”, “w-up” and “res adds” with meaning already discussed. COMPUTATIONS Res (idence) 16 X 21= 336 12 X 12= 144 480 Res Add(ition)s 14 X 4 56 18 X 2 36 16 X 7 112 18 X 1 18 12 X 18 216 12 X 3 36 7 X 3 21 T(otal) 495 ALL 975 7.i Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Detach GAR/SHOP STUDIO APT 30 x 20 600 W(ALK) UP (deck) 6 X 5 30 11 X 3 33 18 X 10 180 T(otal) 243 C(ar) P(ort) 10 X 20 T 200 Remarks- to preserve the content no abbreviations are expanded into full words for this section. MC 1-30-95 Viewed res. old many adds. kind of cute inside although floor bludge and sag. Part of the adds have no foundation, built in sand. The older raised part is termite infested. Per (three initials- not legible) said the have had roof repairs and found more dry rot and termites, rear portion and low spots have evidence of H20 damage with heavy rains. Also per (three initials- not legible) the gar/shop are built on sand has H20 seep up with heavy rains. (three initials- not legible) told me they were going to pay 150k. then inspection ca about and they neg. price down to 130k. he fee res will be replace in the future. feels he paid 7.i Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.j Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: j - Declaration of Mansfield- Audio & Appraisal (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.j Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: j - Declaration of Mansfield- Audio & Appraisal (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2016 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS’ DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL FILED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT AND OTHER VIOLATIONS WHEREAS, on July 18, 2014, a Notice of Violation was issued by City Code Enforcement Staff to the property owners of 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo (the “Property”) for violations of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) alleging, among other things, unpermitted construction, unpermitted dwelling unit, and improper occupancy; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2014, and September 16, 2014, the Chief Building Official, Code Enforcement staff and the property owners met to discuss the alleged violations and to conduct a second inspection of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2015, an Amended Notice of Violation was issued by the City Code Enforcement Staff to the property owners for violations of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) (and of various state building, housing and safety codes, as adopted by the SLOMC) for unpermitted construction, unpermitted dwelling unit, and improper occupancy; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2015, the Community Development Director received an appeal and a Request for Director’s Review from the property owners referencing the Amended Notice of Violation; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2015, the Community Development Director issued his decision denying the appeal; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2015, the property owners appealed the Director’s Decision to the Construction Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2016, the Construction Board of Appeals of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in City Council Conference Room, of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Director’s Decision; and WHEREAS, at its January 28, 2016 meeting, the Construction Board of Appeals of the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Resolution No. 2016-0001 entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AN APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1269 FREDERICKS APN: 002-334-007” denying the appeal and amending the Notice of Violation dated February 23, 2015; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2016, the property owners appealed the decision of the Construction Board of Appeals; and 7.k Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: k - Resolution denying appeal of NOV 2-23-15 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2 WHEREAS, on April 5, 2016, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Construction Board of Appeals’ action submitted by the property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Construction Board of Appeals’ hearing and actions, testimony of the property owners, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds as follows: A. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. B. Based on the evidence presented, modifications and improvements were made to the Property without a building permit as outlined in the February 23, 2015 Notice of Violation. C. The property owners admit to renovating the Property without a permit, including, but not limited to: relocating a kitchen and related electrical and plumbing work, removing interior walls, full renovation of a bathroom and related electrical and plumbing work, and installing a raised floor. D. The renovations set forth in paragraph C above, as well as other work completed on the Property, require permits prior to beginning work and subsequent inspections to ensure that work has been completed in compliance with applicable codes and/or safety standards. E. The second unit on the property was not permitted as a residence. Assessor’s records reflect a transition of the building over time from 1969, which showed no second unit, to 1995 which showed a detached structure of the exact same size as the current unit. The 1995 Assessor’s records described the interior of that structure as finished boards on sand floor, unfinished and finished concrete which is not habitable space. Moreover, the second unit contains substantial modern construction and improvements to both the interior and exterior of the building for which no permits were obtained. Thus, the second unit does not constitute a legal non-conforming structure as contemplated by Chapter 17.14 of the City’s Zoning Code because official records and visual observation establish that the structure, in its current form as a residential occupancy, did not “lawfully exist” as of Assessor’s inspection in 1995 and the structure appears to have transitioned from unfinished non-habitable space to significantly improved habitable space sometime after January 30, 1995 without a permit. 7.k Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: k - Resolution denying appeal of NOV 2-23-15 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 3 F. As a result of improvements being completed without permits or related inspections, it is not possible to make a reliable assessment of structural safety and soundness of the building without exposing portions of the improvements concealed by modern construction, such as the unpermitted electrical work and plumbing, the existence of compliant insulation, lateral support, anchoring and foundation. G. Neither the February 23, 2015 Notice of Violation, nor the Construction Board of Appeals’ Resolution No. 2016-0001 dated January 28, 2016 is an “order of abatement” within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 17959.4 and no order of abatement within the meaning of that Code shall be issued prior to compliance with notice and hearing requirements under that Code and regulations promulgated thereunder. H. The property owners were duly notified of the January 28, 2016 hearing of the Construction Board of Appeals, and notwithstanding any noticing errors, the property owners were in fact provided with a full and fair explanation of the alleged violations against them in advance of the hearing and were provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to controvert any evidence against them in front of an impartial body. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby determines that the violations cited in the Notice of Violation dated February 23, 2015, issued by the Code Enforcement staff, a copy of which is reflected in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, in fact existed on the date of the Notice of Violation and continue to exist, and as such constitute a public nuisance, and the property owners are responsible for such violations. The City Council hereby further determines that the second unit on the Property does not constitute a legal non-conforming structure, that the Construction Board of Appeals errored in making its determination of legal non-conforming status, but that statement of the violation shall be modified from the language set forth in the February 23, 2015 Notice of Violation regarding violations related to the status of the second unit as follows: A. The violation stated in Section A.8.B is hereby modified for purposes of Council’s final determination to read: The detached bedroom and additions thereto were constructed, or significantly expanded, improved, or modified, without permits and in a manner that requires destructive inspection to determine the structural safety and soundness of the building as habitable space. B. The requirement set forth in Section B.1 is hereby modified for purposes of Council’s final determination to read: The second dwelling unit must receive zoning clearance and obtain inspections and permits deemed necessary by the Chief Building Official to ensure safe residential occupancy. The property owners are hereby directed to work with the Chief Building Official within the next ninety (90) days to establish a time frame for compliance, with priority given to violations which most significantly affect the health, safety and welfare of the occupants and surrounding community as determined by the Chief Building Official. Failure to correct these violations will result in additional enforcement action being taken which may include Administrative Citations, administrative abatement proceedings, or other remedies as provided by law. 7.k Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: k - Resolution denying appeal of NOV 2-23-15 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 4 Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price Interim City Clerk 7.k Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: k - Resolution denying appeal of NOV 2-23-15 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) EXHIBIT A 7.l Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) 7.l Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 (1273 : Appeal of Code Violations at 1269 Fredericks) Page intentionally left blank. Meeting Date: 4/5/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Shawna Scott, Consulting Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF REQUEST TO INITIATE PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSED MADONNA ON LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (LOVR) SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, SENIOR HOUSING, PARK, AND OPEN SPACE USES (12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD) RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Authorizing Initiation of an Application for the Proposed Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments, Including Related Actions in Support of the Application” (Attachment A).) SITE DATA Applicant John Madonna, John Madonna Construction Company Bob Richmond, Villagio Senior Living Representative Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group Zoning Would require pre-zoning for Specific Plan General Plan SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area Site Area 111 acres Environmental Status A Program-Level Final EIR was adopted for the LUCE in 2014. Project Environmental Review to begin upon project submittal. REPORT-IN-BRIEF John Madonna, the applicant, has requested Council’s authorization and initiation of the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area (Area SP-3 per Land Use 8 Packet Pg. 213 Element Policy 8.1.5), which would ultimately lead to the development of the 111-acre property. In addition, the Specific Plan application package will include General Plan Amendments and related entitlements as discussed further in this report and referenced attachments. The applicant’s conceptual exhibit shows a mix of land uses including senior housing (Continuing Care Retirement Community [CCRC]), multi-family housing, single-family housing, commercial retail uses, open space, and a neighborhood park. The applicant’s proposal includes components that require additional review and direction from the City Council, due to inconsistencies with the Land Use Element (LUE). This initiation request focuses on the following two key issues included in the applicant’s request, which will ultimately drive the components of the Specific Plan application submittal, if authorized. 1) The conceptual mix of uses, which differ from the vision identified in the Land Use Element for the SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area because they include the CCRC and reduce the square footage of commercial retail uses; and, 2) The applicant’s request to develop above the 150-foot elevation, which is currently inconsistent with the Irish Hills Hillside Protection Policy identified in the LUE, and would require consideration of a General Plan Amendment to modify the current language presented in LUE Policy 6.4.7.H. DISCUSSION Site Description The project site consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 111 acres, located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road within County of San Luis Obispo jurisdiction, and adjacent to the City limits (APNs 067-241-030 and 067-241-031). The current land use and natural setting includes livestock grazing, unpaved agricultural roads, the Irish Hills and Home Depot stormwater basins, the historic Froom Ranch Complex, John Madonna Construction office (within the historic complex), staging and materials storage, quarry area, wetlands, grasslands, stands of mature trees, Froom Creek and associated tributaries, and vacant land. General Plan Guidance Regarding SP-3 and Hillside Protection The project site is described in the LUE as Madonna on Los Osos Valle y Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area (SP-3), and is subject to purpose and performance standards identified in the LUE for this area.1 The project site is also located within Hillside Planning Area H Irish Hills2 (Attachment C, LUE Chapter 6 Resource Protection and Chapter 8 Special Focus Areas). 1 LUE Section 8.1.5 Special Focus Areas, SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area 8 Packet Pg. 214 Figure 1. Land Use Concept Showing 150-foot Elevation Line Project Description The applicant’s proposal includes the following significant project features (Attachment G, Applicant’s Project Description Statement and Applicant’s Review and Discussion of Issues and Attachment H, Applicant’s Exhibit Plan Set): 1. A mix of land uses within the Specific Plan area, including: a. 200 multi-family apartments; b. 75 attached or detached single-family dwellings, c. 25,000-45,000 sf of commercial; d. Neighborhood park associated with the Froom Ranch Historic Complex (education, community use); and e. Open space. 2. Senior housing (Continuing Care Retirement Community [CCRC]) including: a. 276 independent living apartments; b. 66 independent living villas and assisted living units; c. 122-bed skilled nursing and memory care facility; d. Common area facilities, such as a dining area/restaurant, reading room, indoor events area, outdoor recreation and activities areas (swimming pool(s), pathways, and gardens), recreation room, non-denominational chapel, physical therapy and exercise areas; e. Service, maintenance, and delivery facilities and office for staff; and f. Controlled access entry and exit security kiosk/gate house. 3. Development of the CCRC and residential uses above the 150-foot contour (see discussion in “Amendment to 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy” below). 4. Realignment and restoration of Froom Creek within the property boundaries, new passive recreation areas and gardens, and new active recreation areas including bike and pedestrian pathways and hiking trails connecting to the existing Irish Hills Natural Reserve. 5. Internal circulation system intended to provide for autos, trucks, service vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, which would connect to existing transit and transportation systems and nearby commercial developments. 2 LUE Policy 6.4.7.H.: “The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation, in conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8, Special Focus Areas.)” 8 Packet Pg. 215 6. Stormwater/floodplain management and riparian restoration and enhancements proposed via re-alignment and improvements to Froom Creek and existing stormwater basins. According to the applicant, there is adequate developable land below the 150-foot elevation to implement SP-3 as envisioned in the LUE, and the primary reason the applicant is requesting consideration of development above the 150-foot elevation is to also accommodate the proposed CCRC (a new use not envisioned in the LUE for SP-3). The proposed CCRC can also be accommodated below the 150-foot elevation, but not along with all of the uses envisioned for SP-3. For these reasons, a General Plan Amendment would be necessary to accommodate the applicant’s request as conceptually proposed. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation On December 9, 2015 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project initiation request and the applicant’s pre-application package (refer to Attachment D, Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes, December 9, 2015). Based on this initial review, the Planning Commission continued the item and requested additional information (refer to Attachment E, Directional Items Request to Applicant). The applicant responded to the information request and provided supplemental materials including amended exhibits, impact and constraints quantifications, and revised visual simulations (refer to Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report, January 27, 2016 Section 2.1 Response to Planning Commission). On January 27, 2016 the Planning Commission considered the additional materials, staff report, and testimony. During deliberation, the Commissioners identified comments, concerns, and recommendations, which are summarized below (refer to discussion under “Evaluation, Mix of Land Uses and Amendment to 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy”). With these comments noted, the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council initiate the Specific Plan on a 4-3 vote. The recommendation includes approval of initiation of the Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendments as conceptually proposed by the applicant (including the CCRC and consideration of a General Plan Amendment to modify LUE 6.4.7.H regarding development above the 150-foot contour), and direction to the applicant regarding supplemental materials for further evaluation in a formal application (see Attachment F, Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-1001-16). EVALUATION Mix of Land Uses The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) identified a vision for this Specific Plan (SP-3) area3 which includes a compact mixed use development comprised of residential, commercial, parks, and open space/agriculture (refer to Attachment C, LUE Chapter 8 Special Focus Areas). 3 LUE Section 8.1.5 SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area: “The purpose of the specific plan [SP -3] is to provide design flexibility that will secure the appropriate development of the site while protecting sensiti ve 8 Packet Pg. 216 A comparison of LUE SP-3 standards to the applicant’s proposal is provided in the following discussion and Table 1, below. Table 1. Comparison Between LUE and Conceptual Project1 LUE SP-3 Development Standards Applicant’s Conceptual Land Use Mix Type/Designation Min-Max2 Approximate Area Conceptual Land Use Mix Approximate Area 1 Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 8 – 29 acres 275 residential units 18 acres 2 Commercial / NC, CR 50,000 to 350,000 sf 3- 24 acres 25,000-45,000 sf3 2-3 acres 3 Parks / PARK -- 6.5 acres Neighborhood park, active and passive recreation 6.5 acres 4 Circulation and Stormwater management -- 8 acres Internal circulation system and stormwater management 8 acres 5 CCRC Not envisioned by SP-3 Not envisioned by SP-3 CCRC4 20 acres 6 Total Development (approx.)1 -- 25.5 – 67.5 acres -- 54.4 - 55.5 acres 7 Open Space / OS 50% 55 acres Open space, wetlands, drainages, steep vegetated slopes 55 acres 1 Please note the acreages identified in Table 2 are conceptual and approximate, and are intended to give the Council and the public a general understanding of the approximate acreage needed to accommodate a Specific Plan development based on the LUE standards and the applicant’s conceptual land use mix 2 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints. 3 The applicant has also indicated 50,000 sf of commercial uses to meet the LUE minimum standards. 4 CCRC not identified as a use envisioned for SP-3. 1. Consistent with General Plan SP-3: a. Proposed mix of land uses (except CCRC as discussed below) is consistent with General Plan SP-3 standards (see Table 1: lines 1, 2, 3, & 4). b. Residential unit count and approximate area is within the range identified by SP -3 (see Table 1: Line 1) environmental resources on the site. Development on the site should be a compact, mixed use project that provides workforce housing options and neighborhood commercial uses that support pedestrian and bicycle access”. 8 Packet Pg. 217 c. Proposed Open Space consisting of 50% of the project site (see Table 1: Line 7) 2. Not Envisioned by General Plan SP-3: a. Senior Housing: CCRC (see Table 1: line 5) i. The CCRC is not specifically envisioned for SP-3 and the addition of the CCRC would require consideration of General Plan Amendments to allow this use in SP-3. ii. Portions of the CCRC and single-family residential areas are proposed to be located above the 150-foot elevation (refer to Attachment H, Exhibit B.1, Conceptual Land Uses) development limit line per LUE Policy 6.4.7.H4. See discussion in “Amendment to 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy” below. b. Proposed commercial square-footage is substantially less that SP-3 standards (see Table 1: line 2) Planning Commission Comments on Proposed Land Uses and Mix (Attachment F, Planning Commission Draft Minutes, January 27, 2016) 1. Inclusion of the CCRC into SP-3 Consideration of a new use (the CCRC) under SP -3 requires a General Plan Amendment. Some concerns were stated regarding the siting of a CCRC in this location, due to existing policy regarding hillside development. In addition the efforts expended during the City’s preparation and approval of the LUE did not include identification of a CCRC- type facility as part of SP-3. While the Commissioners agreed that the CCRC is a needed and important use within the City, some Commissioners expressed concern that the project site is not appropriate for this use, which may be more appropriately sited closer to downtown and other amenities, or even on the project site but below the 150-foot elevation limit. Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending inclusion of the CCRC in the formal Specific Plan application (refer to Attachment F, Planning Commission Draft Minutes, and Resolution No. PC-1001-16, January 27, 2016). 2. Land Use Mix Some Commissioners stated that while the project must be assessed as a whole, it appears to be two projects in one location, as the project includes: 1) the land use components envisioned for SP-3 and 2) the CCRC, which was not envisioned for SP-3. Some concerns were identified that the project was jamming two distinctive projects into one Specific Plan, which may not be appropriate for the project site. Some Commissioners noted that potential considerations moving forward may include increasing the single- 4 LUE Policy 6.4.7.H.: “The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation, in conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also [LUE] Section 8, Special Focus Areas.)” 8 Packet Pg. 218 family and multi-family housing units, reducing the park acreage, and reducing commercial areas based on the needs and connection to the residential and CCRC components of the project, if authorized. Additional details regarding the type and intent of proposed housing (i.e. workforce and affordable housing) was requested for further evaluation upon submittal of the formal application. No concerns were identified by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed reduction in commercial use square footage (refer to Attachment F, Planning Commission Draft Minutes, January 27, 2016). Amendment to 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy 1. Policy Background The language specifying the 150-foot elevation development limit was carried forward into the LUE from the City’s previously adopted Land Use Element (adopted August 23, 1994 and revised June 15, 2010). The 1994 Land Use Element included a Hillside Planning Policies and Standards section; the purpose of which was to “protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features, set boundaries for commercial and residential development in sensitive hillside areas by creating a permanent open space greenbelt at the edge of the community, and to protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards”.5 The Hillside Policies identified in the 2014 LUE focus on “where and how some hillsides may be developed” (refer to Attachment C, LUE Chapter 6 Resource Protection). According to General Plan LUE 6.4.2, development limits and special design standards for hillside areas are intended to “cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources (as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element)6), and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards”; these policies also help protect the city’s scenic setting including gateways into the city.7 Development is required to be located within the development limit line unless a location outside the line “is necessary to protect public health and safety”.8 Land outside of the development limit line is required to be protected as permanent open space.9 Additional information regarding the County of San Luis Obispo’s Sensitive Resources Area and Geologic Study Area designations for the project site is available in the December Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment D, Planning Commission Staff Report, December 9, 2015, Section 4.1.a. Initiation Request, Alteration of 150-foot maximum site development elevation, Staff Discussion). 5 Final Environmental Impact Report Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates, August 1994 6 Refer to COSE Chapter 3 (Cultural Heritage), Chapter 7 (Natural Communities), Chapter 8 (Open Space), and Chapter 9 (Views). 7 LUE Section 6.4.2 Development Limits 8 LUE Section 6.4.3 Development Standards 9 LUE Section 6.4.4 Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines 8 Packet Pg. 219 Additionally, the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) EIR provides an analysis of each proposed Specific Plan area, including the project site. Potential visual impacts identified in the LUCE EIR, specific to SP-3, include the following: a. Development of the site, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, could result in increased urbanization of the existing viewshed along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially block or obstruct existing public views. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. b. Development of the area, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, has the potential to result in increased urbanization of an undeveloped area which could degrade the existing visual character and its surroundings. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. c. Development of the area could result in increased in ambient nighttime lighting through the addition of residential and commercial uses and associated structural development in a primarily undeveloped area. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.10 As noted above, the 150-foot development limitation line was carried forward into the recently adopted LUE, and was contributing evidence supporting the City Council’s finding that implementation of the LUE would result in less than significant aesthetic impacts. As described below, there is adequate developable land below the 150-foot elevation to accommodate development envisioned for SP-3. Any modification to the existing hillside protection policy was identified as a serious issue by the Commissioners. The Commission emphasized that, if authorized by the City Council, comprehensive analysis of any changes to the existing 150-foot development limitation policy shall be conducted during staff evaluation and preparation of the project EIR (Attachment F, Planning Commission Draft Minutes, January 27, 2016). If supported, the proposed development above the 150-foot contour would need to be evaluated during preparation of the project’s EIR. 2. Conceptual Proposal, Development Constraints The topography of the project site ranges from approximately 110-120 feet near Los Osos Valley Road to 450 feet in the upper elevations. Approximately 50 acres of the project site is located above the 150-foot elevation, and 61 acres is located below the 150-foot elevation. The applicant’s conceptual land use exhibit shows the CCRC area extending to the 250-foot elevation and single-family residential uses extending to the 180-foot elevation. 10 Land Use and Circulation Element Update Final EIR, September 2014 8 Packet Pg. 220 On December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission requested additional information from the applicant regarding potential development constraints and other justifications warranting the applicant’s request. In response, the applicant provided additional quantification of land use and environmental constraints (refer to Attachment H, Exhibits A.1, Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map and D.1, Conceptual Creek Corridor Plan and Section, and Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report, January 27, 2016, Section 2.1 Response to Planning Commission). Based on this information, which was presented to the Planning Commission on January 27, 2016, land use and resource constraints below the 150-foot elevation, as identified by the applicant, include historic buildings, wetlands, stormwater basins, steep slopes, Froom Creek realignment and restoration, and creek setbacks (refer to Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report, January 27, 2016, Section 2.1.a Planning Commission Direction #1, and Section 2.1.b. Planning Commission Direction #2). The applicant indicates that the approximate area of constrained land below the 150-foot elevation is 28.9 acres. This would leave approximately 32.1 acres of developable area below the 150-foot elevation. This acreage is a key component of the applicant’s justification for requesting the City’s consideration of development above the 150-foot elevation. As shown in Table 1 above, the approximate development acreage to meet LUE standards for SP-3 ranges between 25.5 and 67.5 acres, due to the variations in minimum to maximum units and square footage for identified land uses. Therefore, there is adequate development area below the 150-foot elevation to accommodate the LUE vision for SP-3. In addition to the development area estimated to be necessary to comply with the LUE standards, the applicant estimates that the CCRC would require an additional 20 acres of developable land. As shown in Table 1, the applicant’s conceptual plan including the CCRC would require up to approximately 55.5 acres of total developed land, which would exceed the developable land acreage below the 150-foot elevation by approximately 23.4 acres. For comparison, if a Specific Plan were proposed to meet the minimum LUE development standards (25.5 acres) and accommodate the proposed CCRC (20 acres), this concept would exceed developable land area below the 150-foot elevation by approximately 13 acres. Therefore, the applicant is requesting and the Planning Commission is recommending approval of the request to initiate a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment process to allow submittal of an application package including development of the CCRC and residential land uses above the 150-foot elevation. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the submittal would include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of the development on natural/scenic resources. 3. Potential Impacts Resulting from Development Above 150-foot Elevation On December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission requested additional information regarding potential impacts to resources above the 150-foot elevation, noting that this information is preliminary. Potential impacts are outlined below; a complete summary of 8 Packet Pg. 221 Figure 2. Proposed Building Roof Height Limitations Above 150-foot Elevation potential impacts to visual, biological and cultural resources are presented in the attachments to this report (refer to Attachment D, Planning Commission Staff Report, December 9, 2015, Section 4.1.a. Alteration of 150-foot maximum site development elevation and Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report, January 27, 2016, Section 2.1.c. Planning Commission Direction #3). Visual Resources The project site is located within the Irish Hills Hillside Planning Area 11, which is identified as having high scenic value. The project site is located within a scenic vista as seen from U.S. Highway 101, and is also visible from Los Osos Valley Road and other areas within the City (i.e. public streets, parks, open space). Information considered by the Planning Commission included the applicant’s pre-application submittal package (refer to Attachment G, Project Description Statement and Applicant’s Review and Discussion of Issues) and visual simulations (refer to Attachment I, Applicant’s Visual Simulations). The applicant points to existing development in the area, and feels that the specific numerical elevation appears arbitrary, and does not reflect the land form conditions (topography) and visual considerations of the project site. The applicant intends to minimize visual impacts by siting and design, including identification of maximum roof height limits (refer to Figure 2 and Attachment H, Exhibit C.1, Conceptual Building Heights and Attachment D, Planning Commission Staff Report, December 9, 2015, Section 4.1.a. Alteration of 150-foot maximum site development elevation for more information). The topography may provide opportunities to screen future development from view; however, certain components including lighting and grading cut slopes may be difficult to fully “hide”, and overall, the project is anticipated to create some change in the visual environment, and may increase cumulative noticeability of the existing structures and the proposed development in the upper elevations of the Irish Hills. It is difficult to evaluate the full extent of the potential changes prior to review of a specific project. 11 Identified in LUE Figure 7 Hillside Planning Areas 8 Packet Pg. 222 Biological Resources In addition to potential visual impacts, the conceptual project could also affect sensitive biological resources present both above and below the 150-foot elevation. Based on the applicant’s submitted information (Attachment J, Biological Resources Inventory by Kevin Merk Associates), Attachment H, Exhibit A.1, Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map, and Attachment H, Exhibit A.3, Basis for Design Studies), sensitive resources present above the 150-foot elevation include: wetland habitat, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, serpentine rock outcrop, special-status plants and wildlife, and coast live oak woodland. Special-status plant species documented above the 150-foot elevation include: Chorro Creek bog thistle, San Luis Obispo owl’s clover, San Luis mariposa lily, Eastwood’s larkspur, mouse- grey dudleya, Blochman’s dudleya, Jones’s layia, chaparral ragwort, Cambria morning glory, club hair mariposa lily, and Palmer’s spineflower (Attachment J). Based on an approximation of potential impacts, development of the conceptual project above the 150-foot elevation may impact approximately: 1. 6.68 acres of serpentine bunchgrass 2. 1.24 acres of California Rare Plant Rank List 1B species, and 3. 7,500 square feet of wetland habitat (road and trail drainage crossings). If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, potential impacts to biological resources and associated avoidance and mitigation measures would be fully evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the General Plan, and Municipal Code, as well as through consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts that may require take permits for removal and translocation or out-planting of these species (refer to Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report, January 27, 2016, Section 2.1.a. Planning Commission Direction #3 and Attachment G, Applicant’s Review and Discussion of Issues for additional information and discussion). Cultural Resources As documented in the applicant’s submitted Section 106 Prehistoric and Historic Report by First Carbon Solutions in February 2015 (confidential report, not attached), the project site contains both historic and archaeological resources. The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located in the northwest portion of the project site, and with the exception of a historic dairy barn, the complex is located below the 150-foot elevation (refer to Attachment H, Exhibit A.1, Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map). The applicant’s conceptual proposal includes modifications to this complex, which may include repositioning structures onsite in association with the proposed park, and incorporation of interpretive and educational elements. The applicant’s conceptual exhibits show avoidance of archaeological sites, which are located above the 150-foot elevation (refer to Attachment H, Exhibit A.3, Basis for Design Studies). 4. Planning Commission Input for Consideration by the City Council 8 Packet Pg. 223 Hillside Protection In addition to the Commissioners comments noted above (refer to “Amendment to 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy, Policy Background”), guidance was provided to the applicant to minimize potential visual impacts through site design and development standards, including reduction of massing and lowered building heights. Biological Resources Impacts The Commission suggested the applicant minimize impacts to special-status plants and vegetation, including native bunchgrass, through site design. Further environmental analysis is required to fully assess these impacts, in addition to the applicant’s conceptual proposal to realign and restore Froom Creek. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The certified Final EIR for the LUCE Update states that the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan will be required to address several issues (as listed in the LUE), including environmental constraints, resource protection, hillside and open space protection, viewsheds, and views from off-site locations.12 In the event that Council approves the proposed Specific Plan initiation, full environmental analysis would be required. The Project-level EIR will need to address the impacts of future development of the site in the context of the required entitlements, including but not limited to the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments. The scope of the EIR has not been determined, but will be based on the certified Final EIR for the LUCE Update and an Initial Study to be prepared by staff, and will likely include but not be limited to key environmental issues including: 1. Aesthetic (Visual) Resources 2. Agricultural Resources 3. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4. Biological Resources 5. Cultural (Archaeological, Tribal, and Historic) Resources 6. Geology and Soils 7. Hydrology (drainage, floodplain, stormwater management and quality) 8. Noise 9. Population and Housing 10. Public Services and Utilities 11. Traffic and Circulation (automobile, truck, and multi-modal) NEXT STEPS If the City Council authorizes the initiation of the project appli cation based on staff’s recommendation, the next stops in the process are as follows: 12 “Future development to consider viewsheds, hillside and open space protection, height limits, wetland protection, access to other connections, historic farm buildings, mixed use to accommodate workforce housing, and neighborhood commercial type uses” (LUCE Final EIR 2014). 8 Packet Pg. 224 1. Submit Formal Application. A formal application will be submitted to the City that provides additional project details, and requesting the following reviews and entitlements: General Plan Amendments and Pre-Zoning; Specific Plan; Development Plan; Modification of the Urban Reserve Line; Architectural Review; Cultural Heritage Committee Review; and Airport Land Use Commission Review. 2. Initiate CEQA Process. City staff will prepare an Initial Study for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This document, along with a detailed project description provided by the applicant, will be part of a Request for Proposals (RFP) sent to consultants to prepare an EIR. The city will also conduct the required public scoping meeting. 3. Prepare Project-level EIR. The EIR process is likely to take several months, depending on the complexity of the issues, and the extent to which the project has adequately addressed the issues as part of its application. The timeframe might also be affected if there is a high level of public interest and involvement in the process. 4. Consideration of Project Approval. Once the Final EIR is prepared, which incorporates public input on the Draft EIR, the project (including General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan, and Development Plan) would be considered by both the Planning Commission and City Council for possible approval. The Final EIR would require certification. CEQA Findings and potentially a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required if the project is approved 5. Annexation. If the project is approved, the City would initiate the annexation process with the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Annexation will depend on the City’s ability to address key issues to LAFCo, including the ability to provide public services to the site (including water and wastewater). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with initiating the project application . The developer will reimburse the City for all staff and consultant fees associated with processing the application. As part of the application, the applicant will be required to prepare a fiscal impact study that would analyze the project’s effects on the City. Due to the size of the project, the applicant will be paying for actual costs for staff time rather than a flat fee to process all of the required permits and to coordinate the preparation of an EIR. CONCLUSION The scope of the initiation review only provides authorization for the applicant to proceed with the application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments. If the Council supports inclusion of the applicant’s request to propose alteration of the 150-foot maximum site development and modification to the mix of land uses envisioned in the Land Use Element for the Specific Plan area, the Planning Commission recommends the Council include the following direction (this language has been included in Attachment A, Draft Resolution): 1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on natural and scenic resources (particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge), including but not limited to: photosimulations, 8 Packet Pg. 225 cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details; assessment of potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highwa ys, and open space areas; a comprehensive project-specific and quantified impact analysis on special-status plants, animals, vegetative communities and trees, and creeks, drainages, and wetland habitat; proposed mitigation plan(s) for both on and off-site restoration (as applicable); and hydrological analysis accompanying proposed plans to modify and restore Froom Creek. ALTERNATIVES 1. Initiate application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments, but provide a land use mix that more closely correlates with LUE policies for Specific Plan Area 3. 2. Initiate application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, but the formal submittal should not include a General Plan Amendment to develop above the 150- foot contour line. 3. Initiate application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, but the formal submittal should be modified to conform to feedback given by the City Council regarding both land use mix and development above the 150-foot contour line. 4. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include details of additional information or analysis required. 5. Determine that no major amendments should be made to the General Plan and recommend the City Council deny the request for Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Initiation. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE 1. Froom / Il Villagio Specific Plan Exhibits (RRM Design Group), Full Size 2. Preliminary Technical Reports and Information a. Madonna Froom Authorization to Proceed Response to E-mail dated January 7, 2016 and attached Exhibits (RRM Design Group, January 11, 2016) b. Froom / Il Villagio Specific Plan, Planning Commission January 27, 2016 (Planning Commission PowerPoint and Narrative, RRM Design Group) c. Visual Simulations (RRM Design Group, January 11, 2016) d. Biological Resources Inventory (KMA, January 2016) e. Request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (KMA, August 4, 2015) f. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Letter (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 24, 2015) g. CONFIDENTIAL, approved persons only - Section 106 Prehistoric and Historic Report (First Carbon Solutions, February 20, 2015) h. Stormwater Memorandum (RRM Design Group, February 26, 2015) i. Drainage Master Plan (Alternative #1, February 2015) ii. Drainage Master Plan (Alternative #2, February 2015) 8 Packet Pg. 226 i. Preliminary Transportation Analysis (Central Coast Transportation Consulting, April 2015) Attachments: a - Resolution b - Vicinity Map c - General Plan Policies d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 e - PC Directional Items f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative h - Applicant Exhibits i - Applicant Visual Simulations j - Biological Resources Inventory 8 Packet Pg. 227 RESOLUTION NO. (2016 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED MADONNA ON LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING RELATED ACTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 27, 2016 to consider the pre-application package for the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan, the components of which are described in the Council Agenda Report for April 5, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 5, 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the applicant’s proposal and the Planning Commission’s recommendation; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The request to initiate the project application is consistent with City Regulations. 2. On January 27, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed the pre-application package and passed a resolution recommending to the City Council that the application should be initiated, based on input from Commissioners and the general public. 3. The requested initiation does not grant land use entitlements, but formally authorizes staff to accept an application for the proposed project, including related requests for entitlements, which will require evaluation before project approval could be considered. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed request for initiation involves initial feedback and direction on the proposed project and related entitlement requests, and does not include any final action or approval. Council action on the proposed initiation is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It can be said with certainty that there is no possibility that the subject pre- application may have a significant effect on the environment because it is only an initiation of future applications and no project approval is occurring at this time. If initiation of an application is authorized by the City Council, a formal project submittal for consideration of the proposed project and associated discretionary entitlements will be subject to environmental review. 8.a Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: a - Resolution (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 SECTION 3. Action. The City Council hereby authorizes initiation of the project application allowing formal submittal of requested entitlements for evaluation and further consideration by Council including a Specific Plan, annexation of the project site to the City, modification of the Urban Reserve Line, and General Plan Amendments addressing adjustment of the 150-foot contour development limit line and the land use mix as proposed by the applicant with the following direction: 1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on natural and scenic resources (particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge), including but not limited to: erection of story poles representative of potential development both above and below the 150 -foot topographic elevation, photosimulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details; assessment of potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highways, and open space areas; a comprehensive project-specific and quantified impact analysis on special-status plants, animals, vegetative communities and trees, and creeks, drainages, and wetland habitat; proposed mitigation plan(s) for both on and off-site restoration (as applicable); and hydrological analysis accompanying proposed plans to modify and restore Froom Creek. 2. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential aesthetic and visual effects of a General Plan Amendment modifying Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.H. (Hillside Planning Areas, Irish Hills area) including, but not limited to: identification of site specific maximum building elevations (as measured above average natural grade); site specific standards regarding building materials and colors; and exterior lighting standards consistent or more restrictive than City Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23 (Night Sky Preservation) to enable a comprehensive evaluation of potential adverse effects to hillside and scenic resources. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this ___ day of __________, 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price Interim City Clerk 8.a Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: a - Resolution (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price Interim City Clerk 8.a Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: a - Resolution (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Attachment B: Vicinity Map Project Site 8.b Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: b - Vicinity Map (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Figure 1. Hillside Planning Areas Project Site 8.c Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-68 6. RESOURCE PROTECTION 6.1. Overall Resource Protection Policies 6.1.1. Resource Planning The City shall protect its unique natural resources and systems by including their considerations and needs within its planning program, and giving those considerations and needs a planning priority co-equal with that accorded other community needs. Under this policy, the City will make provisions for the continued existence of its natural resources within the community. The term “community” thus includes not only the urbanized human community, dominated by urban land development and technological systems, but also a natural community rich in biological and geological diversity, as well as a pre-urban human community with a strong agricultural base. 6.2. Overall Resource Protection Programs 6.2.1. Resource Mapping The City shall prepare and maintain geographic information systems-based maps of the city, the urban reserve, and the planning area to guide in land use designations and decision-making. Maps for the city and urban reserve shall be in sufficient detail to highlight all significant natural resources and systems. Maps for the planning area may be at a lesser degree of detail. The maps shall show at least the following resources: native plant communities, wildlife habitats and corridors, aquatic ecosystems, productive or potentially productive soils (prime or other unique agricultural soil types), viewsheds, terrain, hillsides, greenbelt areas. The overlay maps shall also show development constraints such as flood hazard areas, geological hazard areas, soil hazard areas (subsidence, liquefaction), noise impact areas, airport hazard and noise areas, radiation hazard areas. The maps shall provide the basis of determining where urban development is most appropriate, and where other needs of the community outweigh the desire or need for urban development. As a result of the findings of these maps, the City shall re-evaluate its land use designations and future plans for undeveloped areas, and revise the LUE land use map accordingly. 6.2.2. Resource Protection The City shall seek to protect resource areas deemed worthy of permanent protection by fee acquisition, easement, or other means. 6.3. Open Space Policies (See also the Growth Management section) 6.3.1. Open Space and Greenbelt Designations The City shall designate the following types of land as open space: A. Upland and valley sensitive habitats or unique resources, as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element, including corridors which connect habitats. B. Undeveloped prime agricultural soils which are to remain in agricultural use as provided in Policy 1.9.2. 8.c Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element Page 1-69 C. Those areas which are best suited to non-urban uses due to: infeasibility of providing proper access or utilities; excessive slope or slope instability; wildland fire hazard; noise exposure; flood hazard; scenic value; wildlife habitat value, including sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element; agricultural value; and value for passive recreation. D. A greenbelt, outside the urban reserve, that surrounds the ultimate boundaries of the urban area, and which should connect with wildlife corridors that cross the urbanized area. E. Sufficient area of each habitat type to ensure the ecological integrity of that habitat type within the urban reserve and the greenbelt, including connections between habitats for wildlife movement and dispersal; these habitat types will be as identified in the natural resource inventory, as discussed in the "Background to this Land Use Element Update" and in Community Goal #8. Public lands suited for active recreation will be designated Park on the General Plan Land Use Element Map. The City may establish an agricultural designation. (See the Conservation and Open Space Element for refinements of these policies.) 6.3.2. Open Space Uses Lands designated Open Space should be used for purposes which do not need urban services, major structures, or extensive landform changes. Such uses include: watershed protection; wildlife and native plant habitat; grazing; cultivated crops; and passive recreation. The City shall require that buildings, lighting, paving, use of vehicles, and alterations to the landforms and native or cultural landscapes on open space lands are minimized, so rural character and resources are maintained. Buildings and paved surfaces, such as parking or roads, shall not exceed the following: where a parcel smaller than ten acres already exists, five percent of the site area; on a parcel of ten acres or more, three percent. (As explained in the Conservation and Open Space Element, the characteristics of an open space area may result in it being suitable for some open space uses, but not the full range.) Parcels within Open Space areas should not be further subdivided. 6.4. Hillside Policies As noted in the open space section of this element and in the Conservation and Open Space Element, San Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less steep hillside areas, however, are seen as suitable for development, particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space protection of the more sensitive areas. This section focuses on where and how some hillsides may be developed. 6.4.1. The City shall maintain comprehensive standards and policies for hillside development for the following reasons: A. To protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines, plant communities, rock outcroppings and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops for the community. B. To set the limits of commercial and residential development in hillside areas by establishing a permanent open space green belt at the edge of the community. C. To protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires, flooding and erosion. 8.c Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-70 6.4.2. Development Limits The City shall establish and maintain clear development limit lines for hillside planning areas, and special design standards for the hillside areas. The location of the development limit and the standards should cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element, and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards. Also, the development limit line and the standards should help protect the city’s scenic setting. (Locations of hillside planning areas are shown in Figure 7. 6.4.3. Development Standards The City shall require development – including buildings, driveways, fences and graded yard areas – on hillside parcels to: A. Be entirely within the urban reserve line or development limit line, whichever is more restrictive (though parcel boundaries may extend beyond these lines when necessary to meet minimum parcel-size standards), unless one of the following three exceptions applies: (a) A location outside the urban reserve line or development limit line is necessary to protect public health and safety. (b) New wireless telecommunication facilities may be appropriate on South Street Hills inside the three- acre leasehold already developed with commercial and municipal radio facilities, subject to use permit approval and architectural review and approval. Applicants shall comply with all other provisions of this section, and demonstrate that (a) new facilities will not individually or additively interfere with City radio equipment necessary for emergency response coordination, and (b) will not cause on-site radio frequency radiation levels to exceed exposure standards established for the general public by the American National Standards Institute. (c) Where a legally built dwelling exists on a parcel which is entirely outside the urban reserve line or development limit line, a replacement dwelling may be constructed subject to standards B through H below. B. Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes; C. Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles, or columns; D. Minimize grading of roads; E. Minimize grading on individual lots; generally, locate houses close to the street; minimize the grading of visible driveways; F. Include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and which provides a visual transition from developed to open areas; G. Use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high contrasts; H. Minimize exterior lighting. 6.4.4. Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines The City shall require that before development occurs on any parcel that crosses the urban reserve or development limit lines, the part outside the lines be protected as permanent open space. 8.c Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element Page 1-71!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!o £¤101 BROADO R C U T T BUCKLEY TANK FARM M ILLH IG U ER ACH OR ROP ISM O L O S O S O S V A L L E Y MA D ON N A FOOTHILL HIGH M A RS H LEFFF O O THILL W JOHNS O NT O R O PRADOOSOS SOUTHCA L I F ORNIA BU C H O N HIGUERASSANTAROSAELKSSANLUISELLAH IGHLA N D B ISHO PLAURELSLACK EVANS PO IN S ETTIAHI L L HOOVERSOUTHWOOD BUL L OCKL U N ET A D EL R I O MOU NT BIS H O P P ALM V A LLEVIS TAV I L L AGE G R A N D LAWR E N C EPO LYCANYONSYDN E YLIZ Z IEMEISSNER SUBURBAN M I OSSI G ATHEWOOD B R I D G E ROCK VIE W LONGBEEBEEDAN AHOPE DA LIDIO SANTAFEELM MARGARITA BOND ISABEL L A BROADFLO R A D Orcutt L Luneta Sto neridge C Goldtree J Prefumo H Irish Hills K Madonna B Woodland Drive A Cal Poly - Cuesta Park I Billygoat Acres G Calle Joaquin F EM argarita Figure 7 Legend Hillside Planning Area Boundaries LUCE SOI Area !!!!City Limits Highway Roads Railroad o Airport Water Body Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012 010.5 Mile Hillside Planning Areas 8.c Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-72 6.4.5. Development Credit Transfer Any residential development credit obtained from Open Space designations outside the urban reserve line or development limit line should be transferred to land in the Downtown Core or Specific Plan area. 6.4.6. Homesites Outside the Limit Lines Where homesites are to be developed outside the urban reserve or development limit lines, and beyond the City’s jurisdiction within the City’s greenbelt, the City shall encourage the County to promote the transfer of development credits into the Downtown Core or Specific Plan area. If development is to proceed in these areas, the City shall encourage the County to only allow creation of home sites consistent with the following guidelines: A. Be on land sloping less than 15 percent; B. Have effective emergency-vehicle access from a City street or County road; C. Be on a geologically stable site; D. Have adequate water supply for domestic service and fire suppression; E. Avoid areas with high wildland fire hazard; F. Be next to existing development; G. Avoid significant visual impacts; and H. Be clustered to minimize impacts and retain open space. 6.4.7. Hillside Planning Areas The City shall urge the County to implement the following hillside policies. Specific policies to address particular concerns for the areas as shown on Figure 7 are listed below. For each of these areas, land above the development limit line should be secured as permanent open space. A. The Cal Poly – Cuesta Park area includes the hill east of Cal Poly and north of Highway 101 near Cuesta Park. Development should be separated or protected from highway traffic noise and should have adequate fire protection. The City shall urge the County to conduct architectural review of development on lots fronting Loomis Street to address visual impacts of development. B. The Woodland Drive area Development of vacant land near Woodland Drive (Figure 7) shall address the following: (a) The location and design of new public streets and private drives serving several owners, and any necessary changes to existing streets in the area; (b) Water and sewer systems, including new storage tanks, pumps, main pipes, and access roads, and changes to existing facilities necessary for adequate service to the area; (c) New parcels and existing parcels to be changed or combined; (d) Location of building sites on parcels next to or crossing the urban reserve line; (e) Areas to be kept open through easements or dedication of fee ownership; (f) A program for transferring development potential, consistent with these hillside planning policies; (g) Location of creek easements to provide flood protection and to protect existing creekside vegetation; (h) Phasing of development and public improvements. 8.c Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element Page 1-73 C. The Goldtree area extends up the hill from the Alrita Street neighborhood. This is a minor expansion area which can accommodate single-family houses. In addition to meeting the usual criteria for approving minor annexations, this area should: (a) Provide a gravity-flow water system giving standard levels of service to all developed parts of the expansion area and correcting water-service deficiencies in the Alrita Street neighborhood; (b) Correct downslope drainage problems to which development within the expansion area would contribute. (c) A development plan or specific plan for the whole expansion area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided, or developed. (Existing houses inside the urban reserve line need not be annexed along with any new subdivision) (d) All new houses and major additions to houses should be subject to architectural review. D. The Orcutt area includes land on the western flanks of the Santa Lucia foothills east of the Southwood Drive neighborhood and Orcutt Road. No building sites should be located above the development limit line. E. The Margarita area includes the southern slopes of the South Street Hills. No building sites should be located above the development limit line. F. The Stoneridge area includes land on the northern slopes of South Street Hills. Development west of the end of Lawrence Drive should be subject to architectural review and to measures assuring that building sites will be stable. G. The Calle Joaquin area should allow the continuation of a commercial use for the existing building on the hill, but no further development. H. The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation, in conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8, Special Focus Areas.) I. The Billygoat acres area extends into the Irish Hills above Prefumo Creek. No further development should occur beyond the urban reserve line. J. The Prefumo Creek area extends into the Irish Hills west of Prefumo Canyon Road. Development should be limited to areas within the urban reserve line with permanent protection of the creeks and upper hillsides. K. The Madonna Inn area includes land west of Highway 101 on the lower slopes of San Luis Mountain and the northeast slopes of the foothill bordering Laguna Lake Park. (a) A development plan for the whole area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided, or further developed. (See also Section 8, Special Focus Areas.) (b) The City shall require that development locations and building forms respect the area's extraordinary visual quality and natural slopes, and maintain views of the mountain from the highway and nearby neighborhoods. (c) The area immediately west of Highway 101 should be retained as an open space buffer. L. The Luneta Drive area includes parcels which may be used for housing, so long as new construction and major additions are approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 8.c Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-74 6.5. Hillside Programs (See also Section 12, Implementation) 6.5.1. Designating Sensitive Sites Subdivision approval in hillside planning areas shall include designation of "sensitive sites," which shall be subject to architectural review. 6.5.2. Delineation of Development Limit Lines The City shall create and maintain a GIS layer to accurately document development limit lines as they are applied in the General Plan. 6.5.3. Community Design Guidelines Consistent with the Community Design guidelines, all hillside areas are considered sensitive sites, and architectural review is required for new development. The Community Development Director will screen all proposals to identify any which do not need architectural review. The City will mitigate the visual impacts of hillside structures, including revising the way maximum building height is determined. 6.6. Creeks Wetlands, and Flooding Policies San Luis Obispo's aquatic ecosystems consist of creeks, Laguna Lake, floodplains, marshes, wetlands, serpentine seeps, and springs. These aquatic ecosystems provide habitat, recreation, water purification, groundwater recharge, and soil production as well as natural flood protection by reducing the force of floodwaters as they spread and decelerate over floodplains. Creeks, which are the most obvious of these systems because they flow under and through the City, provide wildlife habitat, backyard retreats, and viewing and hiking pleasures, in addition to carrying storm water runoff. When some creeks overflow during major storms, they flood wide areas beyond their channels (Figure 8). San Luis Obispo wants to avoid injury or substantial property losses from flooding, while keeping or improving the creeks' natural character, scenic appearance, recreational value, and fish and wildlife habitat. 6.6.1. Creek and Wetlands Management Objectives The City shall manage its lake, creeks, wetlands, floodplains, and associated wetlands to achieve the multiple objectives of: A. Maintaining and restoring natural conditions and fish and wildlife habitat; B. Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding; C. Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection, and use of adjacent private properties. D. Recognizing and distinguishing between those sections of creeks and Laguna Lake which are in urbanized areas, such as the Downtown core, and sections which are in largely natural areas. Those sections already heavily impacted by urban development and activity may be appropriate for multiple use whereas creeks and lakeshore in a more natural state shall be managed for maximized ecological value. 6.6.2. Citywide Network The City shall include the lake, creeks, and wetlands as part of a citywide and regional network of open space, parks, and – where appropriate – trails, all fostering understanding, enjoyment, and protection of the natural landscape and wildlife. 8.c Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element Page 1-75!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!o £¤101 BROADO R C U T T BUCKLEY TANK FARM M ILLH IG U ER ACH OR ROP ISM O L O S O S O S V A L L E Y MA D ON N A FOOTHILL HIGH M A RS H LEFFF O O THILL W JOHNS O NT O R O PRADOOSOS SOUTHCA L I F ORNIA BU C H O N HIGUERASSANTAROSAELKSSANLUISELLAH IGHLA N D B ISHO PLAURELSLACK EVANS PO IN S ETTIAHI L L HOOVERSOUTHWOOD BUL L OCKL U N ET A D EL R I O MOU NT BIS H O P P ALM V A LLEVIS TAV I L L AGE G R A N D LAWR E N C EPO LYCANYONSYDN E YLIZ Z IEMEISSNER SUBURBAN M I OSSI G ATHEWOOD B R I D G E ROCK VIE W LONGBEEBEEDAN AHOPE DA LIDIO SANTAFEELM MARGARITA BOND ISABEL L A BROADFLO R A £¤101 £¤1 Figure 8 Legend 100-Year Floodplain Creeks LUCE SOI Area !!!!City Limits Highway Roads Railroad o Airport Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012 010.5 Mile Creeks and Floodplains 8.c Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-76 6.6.3. Amenities and Access The City shall require new public or private developments adjacent to the lake, creeks, and wetlands to respect the natural environment and incorporate the natural features as project amenities, provided doing so does not diminish natural values. Developments along creeks should include public access across the development site to the creek and along the creek, provided that wildlife habitat, public safety, and reasonable privacy and security of the development can be maintained, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. 6.6.4. Open Channels The City shall require all open channels be kept open and clear of structures in or over their banks. When necessary, the City may approve structures within creek channels under the limited situations described in the Conservation and Open Space Element. 6.6.5. Runoff Reduction and Groundwater Recharge The City shall require the use of methods to facilitate rainwater percolation for roof areas and outdoor hardscaped areas where practical to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. 6.6.6. Development Requirements The City shall require project designs that minimize drainage concentrations and impervious coverage. Floodplain areas should be avoided and, where feasible, any channelization shall be designed to provide the appearance of a natural water course. 6.6.7. Discharge of Urban Pollutants The City shall require appropriate runoff control measures as part of future development proposals to minimize discharge of urban pollutants (such as oil and grease) into area drainages. 6.6.8. Erosion Control Measures The City shall require adequate provision of erosion control measures as part of new development to minimize sedimentation of streams and drainage channels. 6.7. Creeks and Flooding Programs 6.7.1. Previously Developed Areas To limit the potential for increased flood damage in urbanized areas, the City shall ensure new development complies with the City’s flood plain ordinance, setbacks, specific plans, and design standards to minimize flood damage and flood plain encroachment. 6.7.2. National Flood Program The City shall administer the National Flood Insurance Program standards. 6.7.3. Creekside Care and Notification In maintaining creek channels to accommodate flood waters, the City shall notify owners of creeks and adjacent properties in advance of work, and use care in any needed removal of vegetation. 6.7.4. Evaluate Use of Financing Districts The City shall evaluate the feasibility of establishing a financing district or districts to address flood concerns in affected areas. Cost and benefits will be weighed in relation to the cost of flood insurance for affected property owners. 8.c Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-82 8. SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS Introduction Within the Planning Area are several areas where it is appropriate to consider a range or mix of uses which do not correspond with any one open-space, residential, commercial, or public designation used by this element. However, a particular use or mix of uses may not be desirable unless it is chosen in combination with a specific physical design which solves problems of relationships between activities within the site, and between the site and its neighbors. In addition, there are areas where special design concepts can help revitalization efforts. In Special Focus Areas, the City intends to do one or more of the following: A. Require a specific plan for areas with complex development parameters (e.g. land use mix, significant infrastructure needs environmental site constraints), prior to development. B. Make a choice about appropriate land uses based on information which will become available. In some cases, the choice will be connected with approval of a development plan, possibly with customized limits on specific activities and requirements for improvements or dedications. C. Work with properties in areas where an innovative design approach is needed to help revitalize and beautify the area. Special Focus Areas are designated by number on Figure 10. These areas and the guidelines for their development are listed below. (The number following the decimal point corresponds to the map number.). The following areas require a specific plan prior to development: SP-1 (Margarita), SP-2 (San Luis Ranch/Dalidio), SP-3 (Madonna), and SP-4 (Avila Ranch). The Special Focus Areas are those that present opportunities to develop customized land use approaches or special design implementation to enhance their appearance and achieve their respective development potential: Foothill Blvd/Santa Rosa, Bishop Knoll, Alrita area, Upper Monterey, Mid-Higuera, Caltrans site, General Hospital site, Broad Street Area, Madonna Inn area, Sunset Drive-in/ Prado, Pacific Beach, Calle Joaquin auto sales area, LOVR Creek area, CalFire / Cal Poly property, and Broad Street at Tank Farm area. POLICIES Introduction To help guide the development of large land areas (previously referred to as “expansion areas”) and to provide guidance on the redevelopment of sites identified, the City shall use the following policy statements to guide their review and actions relative to these properties. 8.1. Specific Plan Areas 8.1.1. Specific Plan / General Plan Amendment The City shall require the completion and approval of a specific plan and associated General Plan Amendment prior to annexation (if applicable) and development of land within an area designated as a Specific Plan Area on Figure 10. The required General Plan Amendment will modify the General Plan Land Use Diagram to reflect the land use diagram from the approved specific plan, based on the land uses listed under “Performance Standards” for each site. Attachment c 8.c Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !£¤101UV227LagunaLake£¤101£¤1!(7!(6!(3!(5!(8!(15!(13!(2!(10!(11!(12!(1!(9!(4!(14Orcutt AreaSPAirport Area SPSP-4Avila RanchSP-1MargaritaAreaSP-2San LuisRanchSP-3Madonnaon LOVRBR O A D ORCUTTBUCKLEYTANK FARMJO H N S O N MILLC H O R R O PISMOLOS OSOS VALLEYFOOTHILLHIGUERA SHIGHMARSHLEFFISLAYHIGHLANDHIGUERAFLO R A FOOTHILL WTOROO S O SSOUTHGRANDC AL IFO R N IA SA N T A R O S A N S ANT A R O S APEACHMONTEREYMADONNASAN LUISELLABISHOPAU G U STAEVANSPRADOP O IN S E T T IA LAURELH ILLHOOVERDIABLOLUNETACALLE JOAQUINVI A CA R T A DEL RIOPALMVACHELLM O U N T B IS H O P FULLEROCEANAIREVALLE VISTAROYALPOLY CANYONC A S A LIZZIELINCOLNSACRAMENTOELKS LNSUBURBANLIM AGATHES H I G U E R A S TWOODBRIDGESLACKROCKVIEW AIRPORTLONGHAYSTIBURONBEEBEELOOMIS STSANTA FELAWRENCEMEISSNER STNASELLAPRADO RDSPANISH OAKSELMVIA LAGUNA VISTAK E N TU CK Y F E R R I N I SOUTHWOODKENDALLHANSENIRONBARKMURRAYM IS S ION KLAM A T H HE LE NA DALYISABELLAD E E R ETOSANTA BARBARATON IN ICAUDILLCLARIONLA ENTRADAMcMILLANCLOVERB U LLO CK ALDERC U ES T A ALRITAJESPERSONSOUTH PERIMETERESPERANZATWIN RIDGELOS PALOSDAVENPORT CREEKPINEDALIDIO DRHORIZONH O L L Y H O C K RACHELSTENNER CREEKCONEJOVISTA LAGOHIDDEN SPRINGSTULIPMELLOTHREADCRAIG WAYOAKRIDGESISQUOC STPACIFICPHILLIPSKENTWOODSAN SIMEONLA LOMAFROOM RANCHPACIFICFigure 10LegendSpecific PlansExisting Specific PlansNew Specific Plans010.5MileSpecial Focus AreasWater Body!!!!City LimitsFreewayHighway/ Regional RouteArterialLocalRailroadOtherLUCE SOI Planning SubareaUrban ReserveSource: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012Special Focus Area!(1 Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Area!(2 Upper Monterey!(3 Mid-Higuera Area!(4 Caltrans Site!(5 General Hospital Site!(6 Broad Street Area!(7 Madonna Inn Area!(8 Sunset Drive-In Theatre/Prado Road Area!(9 Pacific Beach Site!(10 Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Site Area!(11 LOVR Creekside Area!(12 Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site!(13 CalFire/Cal Poly!(14 North Side of Foothill (Bishops Knoll)!(15 Alrita PropertiesPage 1-838.c Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element Page 1-85 For each specific plan site identified in this section, the location, purpose and performance standards for that site are defined. The performance standards section defines the following standards that must be met as part of the specific plan submitted for each site. A. Type. This defines the basic type of use being described. B. Designations Allowed: This defines the standard General Plan designations that can be used to describe the development proposed. See Table 1 for ranges allowed. C. % of Site: This defines the percent of each site dedicated to open space (using the gross project site). D. Minimum: This provides a minimum development assumed for each site. For residential and commercial types, these are not considered requirements, and a number lower than that shown can be proposed. E. Maximum: In order to exceed the minimum development for a given site, transfer of development credits or other permanent protection of open space would be provided. Development credits would be transferred from areas in the city, the urban reserve, or the greenbelt where development would be less appropriate, generally those designated conservation/open space or, on the County's map, agriculture or rural lands. The performance standards listed are to supplement other City requirements, standards, and Zoning Code requirements. If a conflict occurs, the most stringent standard shall apply. 8.1.2. Specific Plan Content All specific plans prepared for a Specific Plan Area must meet the requirements of State law and be comprised of four planning frameworks. Within each framework, the specific plan will provide the goals and policies that will guide future decisions on projects within the specific plan area. The plan will also include a detailed implementation plan that will identify responsibilities, financing requirements, and phasing / timing. The Land Use Framework will include the proposed land use pattern, actual development densities in each subarea on the project site, and development phasing. The framework will also include specifics on development standards. The Specific Plan prepared will provide complete guidance on the land use provisions that will guide future development within the Planning Area. At a minimum, these provisions will address the following topics. In consultation with City staff, other topics may be required depending on site specific needs. A. Land Use Classification. A land use classification system that clearly identifies the uses that may be allowed in each subarea. Based on the land use designations listed under “Performance Standards” section for each site, the specific plan will provide further details on development standards for each subarea. This classification system would use clear terminology to define and further describe allowable uses. Both the land use classification system and the uses allowed within the various subareas will provide for an overall mix of uses. B. General Site Planning and Development Standards. These standards will specify the requirements that would be applied to all development and land uses regardless of the applicable land use designation. These would address, as appropriate, sensitive resources; site access requirements; energy efficiency; fences, walls, hedges, buffers, and other screening; noise regulations; outdoor lighting standards; performance standards (e.g., air quality, glare, vibration, etc.), undergrounding of utilities; and other similar topics. Planning should also address how the development will be designed to enhance compatibility with adjacent properties. Attachment c 8.c Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-86 C. Development Standards. Development standards for each land use designation (e.g., building forms, design objectives, land use objectives, height limitations, setback requirements, site coverage requirements, etc.) will be organized in tables and graphically illustrated wherever possible. D. Housing Mix. The specific plan will discuss the proposed mix of housing types within the area. In keeping with the City’s Housing Element, affordable housing requirements and density bonus provisions and related incentives will be incorporated as appropriate. A key to the housing component will be to incorporate a mix of housing types, and to provide phasing mechanisms that ensure to the City the development of this housing mix as a part of each phase of the project. The Design Framework will provide detailed design guidelines that will be used as the specific plan is implemented / developed. The purpose of these guidelines will be to establish the expected level of design within the area while still maintaining project flexibility and innovation. The objective of this framework is not to dictate a specific design, but to establish design expectations. The design guidelines will be illustrated to help explain the intent and expectations. This part of the Specific Plan will also incorporate detailed landscaping standards. The Design Framework will also provide guidance on the integration of the streetscape into the overall project design. The framework will define public improvements and the public rights-of-way to define the overall character of the streetscape. The Circulation Framework will include the proposed circulation network system elements, design standards, and system phasing. This framework will address all modes of circulation as well as parking and loading standards if different from the standard City requirements. The Infrastructure / Public Facilities Framework will cover infrastructure requirements (water, sewer, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, and communications) as well as parkland, schools, and other public facilities. For infrastructure, the framework will address the proposed trunk infrastructure system improvements and system phasing necessary to support implementation of the land use plan and financing mechanisms to implement planned facilities. 8.1.3. SP-1, Margarita Area Specific Plan Update Location: The Margarita Area covers about 420 acres bounded by South Higuera Street, Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, and the ridge of the South Street Hills in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo. Purpose: Adopted in October 2004, the Margarita Area Specific Plan contains five key principles: open space and sensitive resource production, cohesive neighborhood creation, transit supporting land uses and densities, pedestrian environment, and minimizing infrastructure costs. The approved specific plan includes 868 residential dwelling units, as well as a business park, a neighborhood park, sports fields, and open space areas. Over 40 percent of the land area is designated as open space and 56 acres are designated as parks. The City shall consider this area as potentially appropriate to accommodate additional housing. Revisions to the Margarita Area Specific Plan will be required if residential development in excess of that accommodated in the plan is proposed. 8.c Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element Page 1-87 8.1.4. SP-2, San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area Location: This specific plan area is located in the southwest quarter of the city at the corner of Madonna Road and Dalidio Drive. The site is approximately 132 acres and is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is primarily flat topographically. The entire site is within the City’s Planning Area, but is outside the current city limits. Purpose: This project site should be developed as a mixed use project that maintains the agricultural heritage of the site, provides a commercial / office transition to the existing commercial center to the north, and provides a diverse housing experience. Protection of the adjacent creek and a well-planned integration into the existing circulation system will be required. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues. a.Provide land and appropriate financial support for development of a Prado Road connection. Appropriate land to support road infrastructure identified in the Final Project EIR (overpass or interchange) at this location shall be dedicated as part of any proposal and any area in excess of the project’s fair share of this facility shall not be included as part of the project site area used to calculate the required 50% open space. b.Circulation connections to integrate property with surrounding circulation network for all modes of travel. c.Connection to Froom Ranch and Calle Joaquin, if proposed, shall not bifurcate on- site or neighboring agricultural lands. Any connection to Calle Joaquin shall be principally a secondary / emergency access by design. d.Development shall include a transit hub. Developer shall work with transit officials to provide express connections to Downtown area. e.Maintain agricultural views along Highway 101 by maintaining active agricultural uses on the site, and maintain viewshed of Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis. f.Maintain significant agricultural and open space resources on site (see Policy 1.13.8.B). Land dedicated to Agriculture shall be of size, location and configuration appropriate to maintain a viable, working agricultural operation. g.Where buffering or transitions to agricultural uses are needed to support viability of the agricultural use, these shall be provided on lands not counted towards the minimum size for the agriculture / open space component. Provide appropriate transition to agricultural uses on-site. h.Integrate agricultural open space with adjacent SLO City Farm and development on property. i.Site should include walkable retail and pedestrian and bicycle connections to surrounding commercial and residential areas. j.Commercial and office uses shall have parking placed behind and to side of buildings so as to not be a prominent feature. k.Neighborhood Commercial uses for proposed residential development shall be provided. 8.c Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-88 l.Potential flooding issues along Prefumo Creek need to be studied and addressed without impacting off-site uses. m.All land uses proposed shall be in keeping with safety parameters described in this General Plan or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport. n.Historic evaluation of the existing farm house and associated structures shall be included. Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards. Type Designations Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum Residential LDR MDR MHDR HDR 350 units 500 units Commercial NC CC 50,000 SF 200,000 SF Office/High tech) O 50,000 SF 150,000 SF Hotel/Visitor-serving 200 rooms Parks PARK 5.8 ac Open Space / Agriculture OS AG Minimum 50%2 No maximum Public n/a Infrastructure n/a 1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints. 2 The City Council may consider allowing a portion of required open space to be met through off-site dedication provided: a.A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off-site property exchanged to meet the on-site requirement; and b.Off-site land is of similar agricultural and visual value to the community; and c.Off-site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for agriculture/open space. 8.c Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element Page 1-89 8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area Location: This site includes just over 111 acres and is located directly west of the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin. Purpose: The purpose of the specific plan is to provide design flexibility that will secure the appropriate development of the site while protecting sensitive environmental resources on the site. Development on the site should be a compact, mixed use project that provides workforce housing options and neighborhood commercial uses that support pedestrian and bicycle access. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues. a.Develop a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints and adjusts accordingly through design. Constraints include wetland protection, slope protection, historic structures, and open space protection. b.Maintain viewshed of surrounding mountains and secure steeper hillsides as protected open space areas. c.Variable height limits will be required to protect views of adjacent hills. d.Provide access to trails. e.Provide a plan for adequate and safe infrastructure, including appropriate points of access to Los Osos Valley Road. f.Address neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhood. g.Provide connectivity to adjacent development. Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards. Type Designations Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum Residential (Mixed Use) MDR MHDR HDR 200 units 350 units Commercial NC CR 50,000 SF 350,000 SF Parks PARK Open Space / Agriculture OS AG Minimum 50% Public n/a Infrastructure n/a 1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints. 8.c Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-90 8.1.6. SP-4, Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area Location: Avila Ranch is located on the north side of Buckley Road at the far southern edge of the City of San Luis Obispo. The three parcels that make up the Avila Ranch area comprise approximately 150 acres. The entire site is located within the Airport Area Specific Plan. Purpose: This area will be developed as primarily a residential neighborhood development with supporting neighborhood commercial, park, recreation facilities, and open space/resource protection. Within the project, emphasis should be on providing a complete range of housing types and afford abilities. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues: a.Provision of a variety of housing types and affordability levels. b.Modification of the Airport Area Specific Plan to either exclude this area or designate it as a special planning area within the Airport Area Specific Plan. c.Provision of buffers along Buckley Road and along eastern edge of property from adjacent agricultural uses. d.Provision of open space buffers along northern and western boundaries to separate this development from adjacent service and manufacturing uses. e.Provision of open space buffers and protections for creek and wildlife corridor that runs through property. f.Safety and noise parameters described in this General Plan and the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act; or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport. g.Participation in enhancement to Buckley Road and enhancement of connection of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street. h.Appropriate internal and external pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to the City’s circulation network. i.Implementation of the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan including connections to the Bob Jones Trail. j.Water and wastewater infrastructure needs as detailed in the City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans. This may include funding and/or construction of a wastewater lift station. k.Fire protection and impacts to emergency response times. l.Architectural design that relates to the pastoral character of the area and preserves view of agrarian landscapes. m.Provision of a neighborhood park. 8.c Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element Page 1-91 Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards. Type Designations Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum Residential LDR MDR MHDR HDR 500 700 Commercial NC 15,000 SF 25,000 SF Open Space / Agriculture OS AG 50%2 Public n/a Infrastructure n/a 1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints. 2 Up to 1/3 of the open space may be provided off-site or through in-lieu fees consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan. 8.2. Special Planning Areas The policies under Section 8.2 provide site specific guidance on the development / redevelopment of sites in the city. For sites that have existing development, renovation of streetscapes, landscaping, and building facades is encouraged. The City shall require property owners to prepare area plans with land uses consistent with this section, as well as multi-modal circulation and infrastructure facilities as appropriate, design guidelines and implementation programs. The City may consider implementation incentives for redevelopment areas, such as variations from development standards and/or participation in the installation or financing of infrastructure. 8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa, is currently developed as commercial centers that include highway and neighborhood serving commercial uses. At the affected property owners’ request, the boundary of this area on the north side of Foothill may be extended to include one or more of the existing commercial properties west of Chorro Street. The City shall work with property owners / developers to redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical mixed use) to include a mix of uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and Medium High to High Density Residential designations. The non-residential component of the project should include elements that serve the nearby neighborhoods. Examples include: specialty stores and services food service entertainment, and recreational facilities (except that movie theaters, nightclubs, bars/taverns and restaurants serving alcohol after 11 pm shall be prohibited) 8.c Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-92 As part of this project, the City will evaluate adjustments to parking requirements to account for predominant pedestrian and bike access. Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered with mixed use development. Redevelopment plans shall include consideration of improving the existing complex intersections of Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability of modifying Boysen at and through the property on the northeast corner of the area, and enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections across Foothill and Santa Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus. Among other possible incentives, building height adjustments on the North side of Foothill may be considered with mixed use development. The Fire Station will be maintained or relocated within the area. 8.2.2. Upper Monterey In the Upper Monterey area, the emphasis will be on revitalization and enhancement. The area above Johnson shall have an emphasis on land use compatibility and neighborhood preservation. The following actions will be pursued in this area. A. The City shall investigate adding the Upper Monterey area to the Downtown Parking District, thereby allowing in-lieu payment towards common parking facilities. B. The City shall integrate a new Downtown Transit Center in the Upper Monterey area and provide enhanced connectivity to the center from the Upper Monterey area. C. The City will work with hotels in the Upper Monterey area to provide shuttle service to the Downtown and Downtown Transit Center. D. The City will promote restaurant development in the Upper Monterey area, and include outdoor dining opportunities and other public activities oriented toward Monterey Street. North of California, these types of activities shall be prohibited on the creek side of buildings. E. The City will evaluate reconfiguring Monterey Street in this area to enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to Downtown and to Cal Poly. F. The City will work with local hotels and Cal Poly to develop enhanced meeting rooms and conference facilities. These types of facilities would not be located on the east side of Monterey north of California Street, nor is a stand-alone conference center appropriate for this area. G. The City will work with developers to assemble adjacent properties into lots of suitable size for redevelopment limited to areas southwest of California Street. H. The City will develop an Upper Monterey area master plan and design guide that will provide guidance on street enhancements, façade improvement programs, and pedestrian enhancement along Monterey Street. As part of this effort, the City will investigate the ability to apply form-based codes to guide future development and will involve residents in adjoining areas as well as business and property owners along Monterey Street as part of the public review process in development of the master plan/design guide. Particular attention will be given to creek protection, noise, safety, light and glare, and privacy impacts to adjoining neighborhoods 8.c Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element Page 1-93 PROGRAMS (See also Section 12, Implementation) 8.3. Ordinance 1130 The City will review and update Ordinance 1130 and involve residents to ensure that neighborhood concerns are addressed. 8.4. Mid-Higuera Area The City will update the plan for this multi-block commercial area to reflect current needs and changes that have occurred since the 2001 plan was adopted. 8.5. Caltrans Site While this area is within the Mid-Higuera Area, the unique qualities and opportunities provided by the site warranted special consideration in the General Plan. This area is planned for redevelopment from a Caltrans office and yard complex to a mixed use development. Commercial uses will be as described under the Tourist Commercial designation with some residential incorporated using a Medium High to High Density Residential component. Redevelopment plans shall consider the suitability of realignment of the Madonna/South Higuera intersection. The site should be developed to serve as a gateway into the community, with consideration of additional open space uses, retention and rehabilitation of the Master List historic structure, and retention of Heritage Trees on the site. Conference center-type uses are encouraged along with other appropriate tourist-serving uses as appropriate for the site. Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered with mixed use development. The site shall also include a park site north of Madonna Road. 8.6. General Hospital Site The General Hospital site includes County-owned property including the old hospital building (which is planned to remain as an office / treatment facility) and lands behind the facility. Lands behind the hospital building that are inside the City’s Urban Reserve line will be designated as Public (for existing public facility) and a range of residential uses (Low Density and Medium Density Residential) and will include the ability to support residential care, transitional care use, and other residential uses consistent with the adjacent areas. The remaining site outside the City’s Urban Reserve line will remain as Open Space. The City shall seek to secure permanent protection of the open space outside of the urban reserve line as part of any development proposal. The undeveloped portion of this site on the southwest side of Johnson Avenue will remain designated for Public uses. 8.7. Broad Street Area The City shall implement the South Broad Street Area Plan to create a safe, attractive and economically vital neighborhood with a mix of complementary land uses. The Area Plan shall: A. Encourage innovative design concepts that help revitalize and beautify the area. B. Facilitate housing development to meet the full range of community housing needs. C. Improve circulation safety and connectivity within the area and across Broad Street. 8.c Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Chapter 1 Page 1-94 8.8. Madonna Inn Area The Madonna Inn Area includes land west of Highway 101 on the lower slopes of San Luis Mountain and the northeast slopes of the foothill bordering Laguna Lake Park. This area may be developed further only if surrounding hillsides including area outside the Urban Reserve Line are permanently protected as open space. (See also hillside policies under 6.4 and programs under 6.5.) A. A development plan for the whole area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided, or further developed. B. Upon amendment to an urban designation, the area may accommodate a generously landscaped, low intensity extension of the existing tourist facilities. This area may also be suitable for assisted and/or senior living facilities. Development locations should be clustered and building forms should respect the area's extraordinary visual quality and natural slopes, and should maintain views of the mountain from the highway and nearby neighborhoods. C. The area immediately west of Highway 101 should be retained as an open space buffer. D. Any plan for further development in this area must address reconfiguration of the Marsh Street interchange and larger circulation issues throughout the area. E. Walking and biking paths shall be provided as appropriate to connect to the City’s network and to the Downtown, amenities along Madonna Road, and open space areas. 8.9. Sunset Drive-in Theater / Prado Road Area This 38-acre area should be further developed only if flooding can be mitigated without significant harm to San Luis Obispo Creek. Until flood hazards are mitigated, continued agricultural use and low-intensity recreational use are appropriate. Any use drawing substantial regional traffic also depends on providing needed infrastructure at Prado Road, extending Prado Road to connect with Madonna Road, and realignment of Elks Lane. Once flooding, access, and agricultural preservation issues are resolved, the area would be suitable for development as a mixed use (horizontal or vertical) development with a mix of Commercial uses. Permanent open space shall be required in order to protect the adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek. As part of future development, a full assessment of the Drive-in Theater site’s potential as a historic resource will need to be evaluated and addressed. Bicycle connectivity as referenced in the Bicycle Transportation Plan is an important component of future development of the area. Property within the area may need to be designed to accommodate the Homeless Services center and/or transportation agency use. 8.10. Pacific Beach Site This area is planned for redevelopment from current use as a continuation school, school office and park uses to commercial retail uses along Los Osos Valley Road and Froom Ranch Road and the remaining site maintained under a Park designation. 8.11. Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area These four vacant lots are suitable for commercial mixed use and other uses described under the Tourist Commercial designations. Portions of the site may be appropriate for use as auto sales, depending on market demand. Development of this area must address preservation of and transition to the agricultural parcels/uses to the northwest; connectivity to the Dalidio Ranch area; viewshed preservation; and treatment as a gateway to the City visible from Highway 101. 8.c Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Land Use Element Page 1-95 8.12. LOVR Creekside Area This area is heavily constrained by flood potential along the western boundary as well as limited circulation access to the site given its proximity to the proposed LOVR / Highway 101 interchange and its limited frontage on LOVR. Flooding and access issues must be resolved prior to developing Medium High Density Residential (in areas adjacent to existing residential uses). Agricultural Designations must be maintained along the west side of site. As part of future development, compatibility with adjacent residential areas to the east will be required. Permanent protection of the adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek will need to be addressed as part of proposed development. The south side of the site will also need to accommodate relocation of LOVR right-of-way and changes related to the planned Highway 101 interchange. 8.13. Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site Located at the northwest corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road, this approximate 10 acre site will be used as a mixed use site, providing for a mix of uses as described under the Community Commercial and Office designations. The site will provide a strong commercial presence at the intersection. Areas along the creek on the western edge of the site will be appropriately buffered to provide creek protections. Attention to connectivity, safety and comfort of bicycle and pedestrian circulation will be especially important in the development of this corner. 8.14. CalFire /Cal Poly-owned property on Highway 1 The Cal Poly Master Plan currently designates this area for Faculty and Staff housing. The City shall collaborate with Cal Poly in updating the Master Plan for development of campus property. Master Plan direction for this property shall address sensitive visual and habitat resources, circulation issues, impacts to City services, transition and potential impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. 8.15. North Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll) Future development of this area shall address open space requirements under Policy 1.13.8 and open space buffers in accordance with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.3.2. This area shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource protection; circulation and access, and transition to existing neighborhoods. The steep hillside should be dedicated as Open Space and residential lots grouped at the bottom of the hill closer to Foothill. Development shall provide a parking lot and trail access to Bishops Peak. Circulation connectivity shall be provided to Los Cerros Drive as feasible. Density shall be limited to 7 units / acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance. 8.16. Alrita Properties Future development of this area shall address hillside planning requirements under Policy 6.4.7C. This area shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource protection; circulation and access; visual impacts, and transition to existing neighborhoods. Additional analysis will need to occur in the LUCE EIR to evaluate potential water service issues. While there is a pump station nearby, more analysis is needed to determine if the City’s water distribution system can adequately serve development in this area. Density shall be limited to 7 units/acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance. 8.c Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: c - General Plan Policies (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of request to initiate preparation of Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan PROJECT ADDRESS: 12165 and 12393 BY: Shawna Scott, Consulting Planner Los Osos Valley Road Phone: 543-7095 e-mail: sscott@swca.com VIA: Steve Matarazzo, Senior Planner Phone: 781-7522 FILE NUMBER: PRE 1293-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Consider key issues related to proposed land uses and proposed modifications to hillside development limits and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the request to initiate the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (Alternatives 5.1-5.5). 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant is requesting authorization from the City Council to pursue preparation of the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (identified as Specific Plan Area SP-3 in General Plan Land Use Element). The applicant has requested clarification and direction on a number of policies and regulations, which staff discusses further in this report. The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend to the City Council whether to initiate the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. SITE DATA Applicant John Madonna, John Madonna Construction Company Bob Richmond, Villagio Senior Living Representative Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group Zoning County of San Luis Obispo – Commercial Retail, Agriculture, Rural Lands General Plan SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area Site Area 111 acres Environmental Status A Program-Level Final EIR was adopted for the LUCE in 2014. Meeting Date: December 9, 2015 Item Number: 1 8.d Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 2 2.0 SPECIFIC PLAN INITIATION The applicant’s proposal includes several components that require additional review and direction from the City Council, due to inconsistencies with the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan. The purpose of the Commission’s review is to evaluate the request and provide a recommendation to Council on the requested Specific Plan initiation. In addition to the initiation request, the applicant has requested clarification on how a number of development standards and policies would apply to the proposed development (Attachment 3). The initiation review is not an exhaustive analysis of the applicant’s conceptual project plans and does not identify all potential conflicts with City regulations or policies that may require amendment or which could require revisions. If the initiation request is authorized by the City Council, a subsequent formal application would be submitted and evaluated based on Council direction. The proposed project would then be evaluated comprehensively as a formal application including complete environmental review in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of the initiation review is to receive direction on whether a formal submittal is warranted given the fact that the proposal would require amendments to General Plan Policy. Two key issues include: 1) alteration of the 150-foot maximum site development elevation and 2) the conceptual mix of uses appropriate for the SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area. Staff has included a brief discussion of the policies and standards which will be reviewed in the formal application. The initiation review does not include definitive direction on many of the questions posed by the applicant, since most of the items will require a complete submittal, environmental review, and advisory body input. These issues include: realigning Froom Creek to reflect its historic flow pattern; management and access to the historic Froom Ranch Complex; and how the Specific Plan should comply with the 50% Open Space requirement for annexed areas. Other items included in the applicant’s initiation narrative will require further analysis, such as required setbacks from Froom Creek, avoidance of Chorro Creek bog thistle, on and off-site mitigation for impacts to native bunch grass, and determination of appropriate building heights. These issues would be addressed as part of the overall evaluation of a complete project submittal, which would occur following review of this initiation request. 3.0 SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The Madonna-Froom Ranch project site consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 111 acres, currently located within County of San Luis Obispo jurisdiction, and adjacent to the City limits. The current land use and natural setting includes livestock grazing, unpaved agricultural roads, the Irish Hills and Home Depot stormwater basins, the historic Froom Ranch Complex, the John Madonna Construction office (within the historic complex), staging and materials storage, quarry area, and 8.d Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 3 vacant land. The project site is identified in the LUE as the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area (SP-3) (Attachment 5, LUE Chapter 8 Special Focus Areas). The applicant intends to submit a Specific Plan, pursuant to the guidelines set forth in the LUE. The project would require pre-zoning by the City, and annexation into the City limits. The applicant’s conceptual exhibit shows a mix of land uses within the Specific Plan area, including Senior Housing (Continuing Care Retirement Community), multi-family housing, single-family housing, retail sales uses, open space, and parks (Attachment 4, Exhibit B.1 Conceptual Land Uses). The preliminary proposal includes the realignment and restoration of Froom Creek within the property boundaries, and construction of parks and pathways. The applicant’s submitted narrative (Attachment 3) seeks to receive initial feedback on several issues. As noted above, this initiation request focuses on two key issues, which will ultimately drive the components of the Specific Plan application submittal, if authorized by the City Council. 4.0 EVALUATION 4.1 Initiation Request a. Alteration of 150-foot maximum site development elevation The most significant issue raised by the applicant is the request to allow development above the 150- foot elevation. The applicant’s conceptual land use exhibit shows senior housing extending to the 250- foot elevation and residential uses extending to the 180-foot elevation. The project site is located within Hillside Planning Area H Irish Hills1 (refer to Attachment 5, Figure 1). The topography of the project site ranges from approximately 110-120 feet near Los Osos Valley Road to 450 feet in the upper elevations. Approximately 44.3 percent (48.61 acres) of the project site is located above the 150- foot elevation. The applicant’s conceptual land use plan shows 19.12 acres of development (39.3 percent of the project site) above the 150-foot elevation line (refer to Attachment 4). Modification of the existing development limit line would allow development in the upper elevations of the Irish Hills above the 150-foot elevation. This area is identified as having high scenic value and is located within a scenic vista as seen from U.S. Highway 101.2 The site is also visible from Los Osos Valley Road and other areas within the City (i.e. public streets, parks, open space). Should the Council approve the proposed Specific Plan initiation, full environmental analysis would be required, including an assessment of the project’s impacts on aesthetic resources and consistency with adopted plans and policies. 1 LUE Policy 6.4.7.H.: “The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150 -foot elevation, in conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8, Special Focus Areas.)” 2 COSE Figure 11 (Scenic Roadways and Vistas) and Circulation Element Figure 3 (Scenic Roadways) 8.d Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 4 The language specifying the 150-foot elevation development limit was carried forward into the LUE from the City’s previously adopted Land Use Element (adopted August 23, 1994 and revised June 15, 2010). The 1994 Land Use Element included a Hillside Planning Policies and Standards section; the purpose of this section was to “protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features, set boundaries for commercial and residential development in sensitive hillside areas by creating a permanent open space greenbelt at the edge of the community, and to protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards”.3 The Hillside Policies identified in the 2014 LUE focus on “where and how some hillsides may be developed” (refer to Attachment 5, LUE Chapter 6 Resource Protection). The Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) EIR provides an analysis of each proposed Specific Plan area, including the project site. Potential visual impacts identified in the LUCE EIR, specific to SP-3, include the following: Development of the site, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, could result in increased urbanization of the existing viewshed along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially block or obstruct existing public views. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Development of the area, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, has the potential to result in increased urbanization of an undeveloped area which could degrade the existing visual character and its surroundings. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Development of the area could result in increased ambient nighttime lighting through the addition of residential and commercial uses and associated structural development in a primarily undeveloped area. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.4 Therefore, the less than significant impact determinations specific to visual impacts were based on compliance with policies included in the LUE, such as the 150-foot development limit. Further environmental analysis, including a viewshed study and photo-simulations, would be required to determine if development above the 150-foot elevation would result in any significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts, and to determine appropriate mitigation measures. The applicant points to existing development in the area, including Mountainbrook Church and the KSBY Station building, which are located above the 150-foot elevation line and contribute to the 3 Final Environmental Impact Report Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates, August 1994 4 Land Use and Circulation Element Update Final EIR, September 2014 8.d Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 5 existing visual setting. However, it should be noted that the Mountainbrook Church development was approved by the County of San Luis Obispo, pursuant to the County’s General Plan and Land Use Ordinance, and associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. The City did not have discretionary review authority for the project. These developments are also located outside of the Irish Hills Hillside Area, although Mountainbrook Church is located at elevation 203, right at the line between the Irish Hills and Calle Joaquin Hillside areas (refer to Attachment 4 Exhibit A.4). The applicant notes that the specific numerical elevation appears arbitrary, and does not reflect the land form conditions (topography) and visual considerations of the project site. The applicant requests that development performance standards (for view protection) be addressed through the Specific Plan, including identification of site-specific maximum roof elevations. Staff Discussion – Alteration or deletion of the 150-foot maximum site development elevation policy to allow development standards to be established in the Specific Plan: As noted above, the 150-foot development limitation line was carried forward into the recently adopted LUE, and was contributing evidence supporting the City Council’s finding that implementation of the LUE would result in less than significant aesthetic impacts. The LUE and associated Final EIR also anticipated that further discretionary review would be required during analysis of the anticipated Specific Plan, although there is no policy or indication that the development line could or should be adjusted during discretionary review of the Specific Plan. Development limits and special design standards for hillside areas are intended to “cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE), and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards” and help protect the city’s scenic setting.5 Development is required to be located within the development limit line unless a location outside the line “is necessary to protect public health and safety”.6 Land outside of the development limit line is required to be protected as permanent open space.7 The upper elevations of the project site support sensitive resources, including Chorro Creek bog thistle, native bunchgrass, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) listed plant species. The applicant’s conceptual exhibits show avoidance of Chorro Creek bog thistle, and note that mitigation will be required for the loss of native bunchgrass and CNPS listed vegetation. Approximately 37 percent of the project site (28 acres) is located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone. These lower elevations proximate to Los Osos Valley Road are subject to flooding, and this area includes floodway management features and two stormwater management basins, creating a significant constraint regarding development in the flat lands. 5 LUE Section 6.4.2 Development Limits 6 LUE Section 6.4.3 Development Standards 7 LUE Section 6.4.4 Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines 8.d Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 6 As identified in the County’s General Plan, the upper elevations of the subject parcels are within the County Sensitive Resource Area (SRA) designation. The intent of the SRA is to call attention to the importance of highly scenic and important backdrops and natural landmarks visible from scenic highways and urban areas and the locations of rare or endangered plants and animals. The SRA extends down to the 200-foot elevation line.8 The project site is also located at the urban/wildland interface, and the upper elevations are located within the County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Geologic Study Area (GSA) overlay for geologic hazards. This overlay does not present a restriction; however, further study would be warranted to address potentially significant geologic hazards such as slope stability and landslide hazards. Steeper slopes also have a greater potential for rockfall and erosion. The applicant’s Conceptual Land Use exhibit (Attachment 4, Exhibit B.1) shows Senior Housing, Single Family, Park, and Open Space land uses above the 150-foot elevation line (refer to Attachment 5, Figure 2). The topography above the 150-foot elevation within the project site shows a natural plateau (0-15 percent slopes) and intervening topography, which may provide natural screening of future development; however, construction of access roads and utilities would require grading along moderately to steeply sloping topography. Additional information including photo-simulations and environmental analysis is required to fully evaluate the potential effects of raising or eliminating the development limit line and identifying specific building height elevations within the project site. Key public health and safety issues associated with the project site that may limit development in the lower elevations include flooding hazards and the need for floodway management along Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin Road. This area is identified as Open Space on the applicant’s conceptual exhibit, and is intended to support a realigned section of Froom Creek and existing and future stormwater basins. The certified Final EIR for the LUCE Update states that the Specific Plan will be required to address several issues (as listed in the LUE), including environmental constraints, resource protection, hillside 8: “Scenic and visual qualities of distant ridges, peaks and hillsides, as well as the closer or "foreground" elements such as rock outcrops, oak woodlands, creeks and other visually appealing natural formations and vegetation contribute to the widespread perception by local residents and visitors alike that the San Luis Obispo area is a desirable place to live or visit. This perception, in turn, has a beneficial effect on the economic stability of the recreation and tourist industries. Other economic sectors also benefit from local employees and employers alike who place a high value on living in San Luis Obispo. Therefore, identification and protection of the scenic resources in the San Luis Obispo planning area is an important aspect of planning. Ridges, peaks and hillsides comprise scenic backdrops and natural landmarks. They rise above urban areas and highways, terminating vistas with a largely undeveloped appearance” (County of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Planning Area, San Luis Obispo Sub-Area North Area Plan). 8.d Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 7 and open space protection, viewsheds, and views from off-site locations.9 The applicant’s project narrative states the project can be designed to minimize impacts to scenic resources by using the existing topography, which may provide a natural visual barrier between the development and public viewing areas. Variations in topography may provide opportunities to screen future development from view; however, certain components including lighting and grading cut slopes may be difficult to fully “hide”, and overall the project is anticipated to create some change in the visual environment, and may increase cumulative views of the existing structures and the proposed development in the upper elevations of the Irish Hills. It is difficult to evaluate the full extent of the potential changes prior to full environmental analysis and review of a specific project. This analysis would need to be undertaken as part of the recommended EIR analysis in the event Council approves the applicant proposed initiation. If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, including preliminary authorization to proceed with a Specific Plan that includes development above the 150-foot elevation, the application package would include a General Plan Amendment to modify the current language presented in LUE Policy 6.4.7.H to allow for hillside development above the 150-foot elevation. The planning and environmental review process would include preparation of an EIR that would evaluate the potential impacts to visual, biological, and hydrological resources, potential geologic and soils hazards, and consistency with plans and policies specifically identified to protect these sensitive resources. The review process would include review and direction from the City’s Architectural Review Commission. As proposed, the conceptual layout does not meet the intent of the LUE and COSE, which calls for a compact mixed-use project and includes numerous policies calling for the protection of hillsides in and proximate to the City. Additional information, including photo simulations of the proposed development within the hillside context would be necessary to determine if the project could be designed to protect hillside views, consistent with LUE hillside development policies and LUE resource protection policies10, Open Space Policies protecting scenic vistas, and Circulation Element policies which call for the protection of views from roadways designated as having scenic value. b. Receive confirmation that the development of more housing (CCRC, SFR, and MF Rental Housing) and less commercial space on this Specific Plan site is an acceptable refinement of the LUCE planning vision for this site. Staff Discussion – Mix of Uses: The LUCE identified a vision for this Specific Plan area, which includes a compact mixed use development including the following land uses (refer to Table 1 on the following page). A private care facility is not specifically envisioned for the project site, and this type 9 “Future development to consider viewsheds, hillside and open space protection, height limits, wetland protection, access to other connections, historic farm buildings, mixed use to accommodate workforce housing, and neighborhood commercial type uses” (LUCE Final EIR 2014). 10 LUE Chapter 6 Resource Protection 8.d Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 8 of facility is generally not of the low to moderate housing type. The LUE identifies the following Special Focus Areas as suitable for residential care and assisted and/or senior living facilities: General Hospital Site (Special Focus Area 5, located on Johnson Avenue) Madonna Inn Area (Special Focus Area 7, located on Madonna Road) Table 1. Comparison of Land Use Standards (LUE identified and Applicant Proposed) LUE Type/Designation Min-Max1 Applicant Proposed Land Uses Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 200-250 apartment units 60-80 single-family units CCRC including: - 276 independent living apartments - 66 independent living villas and assisted living units - 122-bed skilled nursing and memory care facility Commercial / NC, CR 50,000 to 350,000 sf 25,000 to 45,000 sf Parks / PARK Small neighborhood park including historic structures (education, community use) Open Space, Agriculture / OS, AG 50% 50% open space to be provided throughout the project site Public To be determined Infrastructure Integrated circulation, drainage/floodway management, utilities, parking, etc. to be provided 1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints Additional information is necessary to determine if the Specific Plan would provide the appropriate range of housing envisioned for this area of the City, in addition to meeting inclusionary and affordable housing regulations.11 Additional market analysis would be necessary to determine the economic impact resulting from the proposed mix of uses, which include a significant reduction in commercial uses compared to that identified in the LUE. 11 New development is required to provide affordable housing by: 1) constructing affordable housing, or 2) paying an in- lieu fee, or 3) contributing real property to be used as affordable housing, or 4) a combination of these methods. 8.d Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 9 CONCLUSION The scope of the initiation review only provides authorization for the applicant to proceed with the application process for the Specific Plan. Conceptual land use plans submitted for the initiation include two key issues which are not consistent with existing General Plan Policy: 1) the proposed mix of land uses, which differ substantially from the General Plan performance standards for SP-3, and 2) comments on whether development over the 150-foot contour should be included for further evaluation in the formal submittal. Staff recommends that other issues raised by the applicant (i.e., appropriate designation of Open Space, treatment of the Froom Ranch historic complex, realignment and restoration of Froom Creek, building heights, and resource mitigation) are more appropriately addressed through further evaluation in a formal Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment application based on Council direction. The proposed project would then be evaluated comprehensively by Staff, including complete environmental review in an EIR. If the Commission recommends inclusion of the applicant’s request to propose alteration of the 150 foot maximum site development alteration and/or modification to the mix of land uses envisioned in the Land Use Element for the Specific Plan area, Staff recommends the recommendation include the following conditions: 1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on the hillsides above the 150-foot contour line including but not limited to: photo-simulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details. The formal application shall assess potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highways, and open space areas. 2. Evaluation of the formal application shall include market analysis to determine the economic impact resulting from the proposed mix of uses, which include a significant reduction in commercial uses compared to what was identified in the LUE. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Recommend the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the applicant: (1) alteration of the 150 foot elevation maximum site development; and, (2) modification of the Land Use Element specified land use mix. 8.d Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 10 5.2 Recommend the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments, but provide a land use mix that more closely correlates with LUE policies for Specific Plan Area 3 5.3 Recommend the City Council approve the initiation but the formal submittal should not include a General Plan Amendment to develop above the 150-foot contour line. 5.4 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 5.5 Determine that no major amendments should be made to the General Plan and recommend the City Council deny the request for Specific Plan Amendment Initiation. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3.Applicant’s Project Description Statement and Applicant’s Review and Discussion of Issues (dated April 30, 2015) 4.Applicant’s Exhibit Plan Set (8.5 x 11 in color) 5. General Plan Policies Pertinent to the Initiation Request NOTE: Not Attached to Attachment d, please refer to individual attachments to the Council Agenda Report 8.d Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 99 0 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 9, 2015 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, December 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Larson. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice- Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner John Fowler. City Staff Present: Interim Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, and Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minut es of the Planning Commission meeting of October 28, 2015 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.12165 Los Osos Valley Road. PRE-1293-2015; Request to initiate preparation of a Specific Plan and Environmental Review, including guidance regarding select City Policies, for the Madonna-Froom Ranch (SP-3); John and Susan Madonna, applicants. 8.d Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) City Consultant, Shawna Scott, presented the staff report requesting the Commission recommend City Council approve the request to initiate the Madonna LOVR Specific Plan (Alternatives 5.1-5.5). Commissioner Dandekar acknowledged being familiar with the site; Commissioner Malak stated having an ex-parte visit and tour of the site with the Applicant; Commissioner Draze stated visiting the site on his own. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Applicant, John Madonna, summarized the project; indicated that the property is uniquely suited for a complete continuing care facility and stated there is a need in the community for this type of elder care; expressed a desire to receive authorization to move forward with the project. Applicant Representative, Victor Montgomery, provided an overview of the project; indicated having key meetings with perspective residents, neighbors, City staff, and agencies from the Froom Creek Realignment and noted no issues were brought up during those meetings that would hinder moving forward with the project. He pointed out that a site evaluation was completed; noted site constraints that would require amendments to General Plan Policy such as alteration of the 150-foot maximum site development elevation and the conceptual mix of uses appropriate for the SP-3 Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area; requested guidance and direction from the Commission. Judy Reiner, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the project stating the need for a continuing care retirement community in the area; indicated there is a lack of choice for elderly care facilities and shared that her parents had to be separated and live apart due to the lack of a facility that would accommodate both of their needs. Ken Reiner, San Luis Obispo, stated that there are over 245 households over the age of 75 in the area who are interested in moving into a continuing care facility; noted that people who are retiring are very active and would like to be close to hiking and biking trails; stressed the need and interest for this type of facility in the community. Rey Walters, Avila Beach, principal of Villaggio Communities, spoke in support of the project, stated there is an overwhelming need for this type of housing; shared a presentation demonstrating statistics and demographics that reflect the lack of elder care options and the need for a continuing care facility; opined that after looking at many locations throughout the County, the LOVR location would be the best location for the project. John Wilbanks, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the project; suggested that a General Plan amendment may not be needed to develop above the 150-foot elevation contour, noting that policy 6.4.7.H of the General Plan Land Use Element states: “The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation” and pointed out that the word “should” is permissive. 8.d Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Riggs, inquired regarding the creek setback. Natural Resources Manager, Robert Hill, clarified that the zoning regulations require a 35-foot creek setback. Commissioner Draze stated that he was not opposed to the change in uses and the mixed uses being proposed are not inconsistent with the General Plan ; agreed that there is a need for a continuing care facility; indicated there are issues related to development above the 150-foot elevation contour that still need to be evaluated and voiced concerns over the visual impacts this project could have on the edge of the community. Commissioner Dandekar stated that the intended use of this area was for workforce housing; noted concerns over allowing development above the 150-foot elevation contour due to the fact that this area serves as a gateway into the City and stated the importance of maintaining the open space character in the area. Vice-Chair Multari thanked staff for the thoughtful analysis and the applicant for their presentation; recommended the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission review the project; stated the City is over zoned for commercial uses and noted concerns over traffic on LOVR. He stated that there are pending questions which warrant further analysis as to whether this location is right for the elderly care facility, such as topography and proximity to hospitals; indicated that there is a growing demand for this type of facility; stated it would be premature to recommend conceptual approval or recommend a General Plan amendment without further examination. Commissioner Riggs noted that the development capacity of the site belo w the 150-foot threshold and the carrying capacity were discussed in the late summer of 2014; indicated that he was not convinced the use is critical enough to warrant development above the 150-foot elevation contour, considering the potential visual impacts; voiced concerns over possible ecological impacts from relocating Froom Creek, and noted having mixed feelings about relaxing setback policies; commented that specific zoning standards are inconsistent with the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE); indicated being concerned about circulation and access. Chair Larson stated that a General Plan amendment would be needed in order to reconcile the issues; opined that the mix of uses are consistent with the mix of uses envisioned for this area in the Land Use Element; noted not being convinced that this project would preclude workforce housing. Stated the re-alignment of the creek could be an opportunity to enhance the habitat, appearance, and functioning of the creek; agreed with Commissioner Riggs’s comments regarding circulation and access; stated it would be beneficial to receive more community input. 8.d Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Commissioner Dandekar commented that during the LUCE deliberations the 150-foot development limit contour was seen as a safeguard to protect the open space and the City’s ambience; stated having a great deal of concern about extending the 150-foot elevation threshold. Commissioner Draze suggested that if the Commission decides to adopt alternative recommendation (5.1) “the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the applicant: (1) alteration of the 150-foot elevation maximum site development; and, (2) modification of the Land Use Element specified land use mix”, that language should be included to address the visual impacts of development above the 150-foot elevation. Also, stated there needs to be broader public notification in order to gain more community involvement and feedback. Commissioner Malak opined that the view shed would not be degraded by allowing the height extension from the 150-foot to the 200-foot elevation contour; noted supporting the modification to the land use element, stating that there is a need for this type of elder care facility; stated being in favor of re-locating the creek; indicated he would like to see more information regarding traffic impacts and an EIR; indicated he would like to see ADA approved apartments as well as workforce housing to be included in this project; commented that this is a great opportunity to meet the needs of the community. In response to inquiry by Vice-Chair Multari, Commissioner Riggs, clarified his position stating not being convinced that the proposed site is the most appropriate for this land use; noting that environmental impacts, the historic value of the landscape and the visual impacts are very significant issues that also needed to be addressed. Commissioner Dandekar stated that the intent for this site was dense mix-use residential, and was hoping to see an urban development in this site; indicated feeling discomforted over the visual impacts and the land use. Commissioner Draze suggested that issues regarding the creek, circulation, and visual impacts need to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Riggs stated it is important to highlight the fact that zoning regulations have not been updated to reflect the LUCE objectives; urged staff to address this issue as soon as possible. Commissioner Malak noted that the zone would remain dense; Chair Larson concurred, stating he did not think the proposal would displace housing; noted these details would have to be worked out when the project moves forward; concurred it would be beneficial to include language in the resolution to include the additional issues brought up by Commissioner Riggs. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Malak to adopt alternative recommendation 5.1 with the following changes: Recommending the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the 8.d Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) applicant : (1) revisit of the 150-foot elevation maximum site development, particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge; and, (2) modification of the Land Use Element specified land use mix. Including the following changes to Section 3 condition 1: Condition 1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on the hillsides above the 150-foot contour line, particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge, including but not limited to: photo-simulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details. The formal application shall assess potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highways, and open space areas. Removal of Finding 2. Finding 2. Evaluation of the formal application shall include market analysis to determine the economic impact resulting from the proposed mix of uses, which include a significant reduction in commercial uses compared to what was identified in the LUE. AYES: Commissioners Malak, Larson, and Draze, NOES: Commissioners Multari, Riggs, and Dandekar RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The motion did not carry 3:3. No action was taken. Commissioner Riggs requested more information regarding the re-alignment of the creek, information on the setbacks, and asked for more strategies to improve consistency with the Circulation Element. Chair Larson stated that if the proposal to re-align the creek is pursued, he would like to see an improvement to the habitat, noted that all constraints and recourses should be taken into consideration; requested additional information that is more comprehensive to help make a decision on this matter. Commissioner Dandekar expressed interest in seeing if the mix-use requirements could be met without violating the 150-foot elevation threshold. Vice-Chair Multari indicated that many of the issues are linked, and stated there were more issues aside from the elevation such as flood zones and visual impacts that needed to be addressed; stated not having the information needed to make a decision. The Co mmission discussed the importance of having a transparent process and having community involvement. 8.d Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) On motion by Commissioner Riggs, seconded by Commissioner Malak, to continue to a date uncertain with the intent to provide additional information. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Malak, Multari, Larson, and Riggs. NOES: Commissioner Draze RECUSED: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The motioned passed on a 5:1 vote. RECESS: The Commission recessed at 8:09 p.m. and reconvened at 8:17 p.m. 2.2881 Broad Street. SBDV-1988-2015; A determination of whether the disposition of a city- owned lot and the acquisition of the property bordering 2881 Broad Street is in conformance to the City’s General Plan; R-2-S zone; Dustin Pires, applicant. Assistant Planner, Walter Oetzell, presented the staff report and provided an overview of the project, recommending, adopting a draft resolution of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission determining the disposition of a portion of a City-owned lot at the southerly edge of Stoneridge Drive and acqu isition of property along the northerly edge of Perkins Lane, adjacent to Property Located at 2881 Broad Street is in Conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan (SUBDV-1988-2015), based on findings. Commissioner Malak asked for clarification on the improvements that would be made to the area; Assistant Planner Oetzell explained that a side walk, curb and gutter were going to be added to Perkins Lane. In response to Commissioner Dandekar and Malak’s inquiries, regarding the process of determining an equitable exchange, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere, stated the City looks at a number of factors including the location, and the significance of the land, noting that if the property is large, they get an appraisal, but in small cases such as the one at hand the appraisal would likely exceed the fair market value of the property. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Applicant, Dustin Pires, stated that the project would drastically improve the street and circulation in the area, noting that the excha nge would be a win-win situation. COMMISSION COMMENTS On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Malak, moved to adopt staff recommendation, finding that the proposed property exchange is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, with the addition of the following amendment: 8.d Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15312, Surplus Government Property Sales, of the CEQA Guidelines. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Larson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. There were no further comments made from the Commission. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 1.Staff a.Agenda Forecast – Interim Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, provided an update of upcoming projects; noted that the next meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2016, in which the Commission will be reviewing the Motel Inn project. 2.Commission Commissioner Malak brought to light a synopsis in the Tribune regarding the Fremont Square development. Commissioner Riggs pointed out that he forwarded comments from the October 28, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, and asked the Commission to review them. ADJOURMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Respect fully submitted by, Sarah Reinhart Recording Secretary 8.d Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) December 16, 2015 John Madonna 12165 Los Osos Valley Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Subject: PRE 1293-2015 (12165 and 12393 Los Osos Valley Road): Request to Initiate Preparation of Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (Madonna-Froom Specific Plan) Dear Mr. Madonna: On December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission met to review the request to initiate preparation of the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (Madonna-Froom Specific Plan). The Planning Commission requested additional information to better inform their decision-making process. Based on this direction, staff requests that you provide the following items by January 5, 2016, with the intention of scheduling the item for a January 2016 hearing date: 1.Provide justification why development is conceptually proposed above the 150-foot elevation. 2.Clearly identify constraints warranting development above the 150-foot elevation, which correlate to Exhibit A.1 (Site Constraints Map) or an amended constraints map. 3.Quantify approximate resource impacts potentially resulting from development above the 150-foot elevation, including but not limited to: grading on slopes exceeding 20 percent; USACE and CDFW jurisdictional waters and habitat; Chorro Creek bog thistle; native bunchgrass; and mature trees by species. 4.Amend visual simulations to show elevation contours. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (805) 543-7095 extension 6811. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Contract Planner Community Development Department sscott@swca.com 8.e Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: e - PC Directional Items (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.f Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.f Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Planning Commission Minutes Draft San Luis Obispo Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Wednesday, January 27, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Larson. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, William Riggs Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent: Commissioner Michael Draze* *Note: Commissioner Draze joined the meeting at 8:27 P.M. Staff Present: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Planning Technician Kyle Bell, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Assistant City Clerk John Paul Maier ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.2450 Victoria Avenue. GENP-2550-2015: Review of General Plan conformance for the abandonment and acquisition of right-of-way for Victoria Avenue between Alphonso Street and Woodbridge Street and for the abandonment and acquisition of right-of-way for a sewer line, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-S-SF and C-R-SF zones; PC Opportunity 3, LLC., applicant.DRAFT8.f Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) City of San Luis Obispo, Tit le, Subtit le Community Development Deputy Director Davidson and Planning Technician Bell narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled, “2450 Victoria Avenue” and reviewed the contents of the report. Planning Technician Bell provided a brief summary, noting that the alignment closely reflects the original conceptual design of the extension of Victoria Avenue of the South Broad Street Area Plan and the proposed right-of-way fulfills the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element goals. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Larson noted that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for 2450 Victoria Avenue on December 9, 2015 and mentioned that Attachment 3 of the staff report includes the report for that hearing. On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to adopt “A Resolution of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission determining General Plan conformance for the abandonment and acquisition of right-of-way for Victoria Avenue between Alphonso Street and Woodbridge Street and for the abandonment and acquisition of right-of-way for a sewer line over portions of 783 Alphonso Street and 780 Woodbridge Street Properties for use of a right-of-way by the City of San Luis Obispo with a categorical exemption from environmental review, as represented in the staff report and attachments dated January 27, 2016 (2450 Victoria Avenue, GENP-2550- 2016),” which determines and reports to the City Council, that the proposed acquisition conforms to the General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Fowler, Malak, Riggs, Vice Chair Multari and Chair Larson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioners Draze The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 2.1101 Monterey Street. OTHR-2484-2015: Conceptual review and preliminary feedback for a Planned Development with a new 75-foot tall mixed-use project that includes an 80-room hotel, 26,000 square feet of residential units, 20,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space, 33,000 square feet of office space, a 45- foot tall parking garage and a transit center; CR zone; Stone Park Capital and NKT Commercial, applicant. Commissioner Fowler announced he would recuse himself for Item 2, due to a potential conflict of interest; noting that his employer Peoples’ Self-Help Housing is in discussion with the applicant about a possible participation in the project site. DRAFT8.f Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) City of San Luis Obispo, Tit le, Subtit le Community Development Director Codron and Associate Planner Cohen provided the staff report, highlighting that the presented project is a planned development for conceptual review and preliminary feedback; noted the opportunity for the public to learn about and comment on a project proposal early in the design phase; recognized the Downtown Concept Plan and Downtown Core/Monterey Focus Area Key Policies. Applicant representatives Andrew Firestone and Pam Ricci summarized the plans submitted for conceptual review and described the project. The applicants addressed public concerns, concluding that a floor of office space would be removed from the original design to allow for four floors of work-force and affordable housing. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dia Hurd, expressed concerns with allowing a 75 foot building at this location and inquired if construction of the parking structure would be built first. William Cochran, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the Commission’s purview, noting concerns with parking and noise effects on small businesses in the area; expressed concerns with the proposed 75 foot height of the structure; urged the Planning Commission to consider the scenic views of the hillside, when deciding the height of the project. Pam Orth, San Luis Obispo, expressed gratitude for consideration of the parking, affordable housing, and transit center elements of the project; voiced concerns with the current empty retail stores, suggesting that currently, new developments are constructed and have a difficulty in retaining occupants; urged the Planning Commission to consider the size and scope of the project for this location. Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, noted that he submitted a letter of concerns, highlighting increases for downtown building heights and intensity limits; noted negative impacts of taller buildings associated in a small town ambience; expressed concerns with the project conforming to the policy objectives; and urged that a 75 foot tall building must meet all planned development objectives. Diane Duenow, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the size of the 75 foot building in the proposed location and consistency of heights of the other buildings in the area; opined that to allow a project of that scale, it should be considered at an alternative location; explained that the City needs Ordinances to allow developers to follow when designing plans and urged the Planning Commission to consider the scenic views when considering future developments. Ron DeCarhi, Executive Director of San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, spoke about a study completed in 2012 to determine a location for a transit center; expressed support for a public-private partnership and urged the City to work closely with transit agencies to allow a mixed use facility and transit center; urged the Planning Commission to support the construction of a transit center at the presented location. DRAFT8.f Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) City of San Luis Obispo, Tit le, Subtit le Jerry Rioux, San Luis Obispo, stated that construction of a new transit center will improve parking in the downtown area; spoke about the San Luis Obispo County government building’s height in comparison to the proposed project. Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, stated that he is a former president of the Chamber of Commerce and highlighted the different elements of a downtown area; spoke about the height of the proposed project, noting that the location chosen for this project is ideal; urged support to the conceptual plan. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, stated that the building is too large for the City’s downtown area; opined that allowing this building in the downtown would be a drastic change; voiced concerns with the proposed project. Linda White, San Luis Obispo, submitted a letter, expressing concerns with the height of the proposed project; stated that the developers should consider a 45 foot building; stated that the building scale and mass are not consistent with the other buildings in the downtown area. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, identified similar buildings in comparison to proposed structure, relating to the mass and scale; spoke about the downtown area of Santa Maria and how it has developed; stated that the proposed height of structure is too tall. John Grady, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the benefits of a new transit center; urged the Commission to enforce a 45 foot height limit for the proposed project; stated that the City of Santa Barbara has similar regulations for the downtown area, regarding the height of buildings that limits new development to 45 feet. Melissa James, San Luis Obispo, spoke about economic development in the downtown area; noted that the City has a difficulty in attracting and retaining a growing workforce; opined that there is a need for affordable housing in the City of San Luis Obispo. Russell Brown, Save Our Downtown - San Luis Obispo Chair, stated that the proposed structure is too large for the downtown area; explained that the building is not consistent in aspects of height and mass; spoke about his service on the Land Use Task Force, noting that the entry point of San Luis Obispo downtown area needs to be carefully considered. Baylin Vieeland, San Luis Obispo, urged support to the proposed project, regarding the element of additional residential living spaces in the downtown area; spoke about preservation of the downtown area and the effects of additional residential space of a downtown. Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the mass and scale of the proposed structure; explained that the proposed structure is not consistent with the existing residential area; urged the Commission to consider a 45 foot limit for the proposed mixed-use project. DRAFT8.f Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) City of San Luis Obispo, Tit le, Subtit le Bob Lucas, San Luis Obispo, submitted a letter to the Planning Commission, addressing affordable workforce housing in the downtown area; expressed concerns with plans for a proposed hotel. Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, about the preservation of open space and the downtown area; urged the Commission to consider policies and projects thoughtfully when updating the downtown; stated that cities that consider development projects need to be well designed, regardless of scale. Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, stated that development projects need to have parking on site; spoke about the impacts of off-site parking; explained that employees of the County offices park in residential areas due to a lack of parking. Dominic Tartalia, San Luis Obispo, explained that he neither supports or disagrees with the proposed project; expressed support to invigorate the downtown area through private investment. Charlene Rosales, Chamber of Commerce, expressed support to the conceptual project; stated that the proposed project brings the opportunity of a new transit center and affordable housing to the community. Chair Larson recessed the meeting at 8:16 P.M. Chair Larson called the meeting to order at 8:27 P.M. Commissioner Draze joined the meeting at 8:27 P.M. DRAFT8.f Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) City of San Luis Obispo, Tit le, Subtit le COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Riggs expressed support to the mixed-use element of the proposed project; stated that additional housing and a transit center are needed; urged the developer to include a wider sidewalk; stated that this site is appropriate for the level of density; expressed concerns with the traffic flow of vehicles, noting that there would be a high volume of drivers who may make sudden turns behind the building; encouraged the developer to include a pedestrian interface, possibly including the corner and a pedestrian scramble. Commissioner Draze voiced support to Commissioner Riggs’ comments and expressed support to the proposed transit center; stated that he is a proponent of vertical design rather than horizontal design. Chair Larson expressed support of a proposed transit center, noting the importance and convenience for bus riders in the downtown area; urged the developer to consider the importance of the scenic views, including hillsides; noted that the proposed project mass is not consistent to the area; urged the developer to consider the integration of a parking structure; expressed support to integrating pedestrian space and consideration of a pedestrian scramble. Commissioner Dandekar expressed support to the mixed-use component of the proposed project, including additional housing and urged the developer to maximize the number of units in the structure; urged the developer to consider design details for public space and how it will enhance the downtown; expressed support to a 60 foot range for the proposed structure and consider store-fronts around the building. Commissioner Malak expressed support to Commissioners’ Riggs and Dandekar comments, regarding an open patio or open area; urged the developer to consider an open area at the corner of the development; expressed support to the proposed transit center; urged the developers to consider additional store-fronts around the front of the building, noting the importance of sidewalk space; expressed support to a 60 foot height limit for the proposed structure. Vice Chair Multari expressed support to additional housing; expressed support to Commissioners Riggs’ and Malak’s comments, relating to moving the transit center; stated that housing should be located farther away from the transit center; expressed support to Malak’s comments regarding a structure that maintains the downtown character. Commissioner Riggs’s stated that the Commission needs to consider the effects to the community, relating to parking and architectural use for this project. In response to the Public and Commissioner comments, Chair Larson urged the applicants to consider the provided feedback and to work with staff in developing the project. There were no further comments made from the Commission. DRAFT8.f Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) City of San Luis Obispo, Tit le, Subtit le 3.12165 Los Osos Valley Road. PRE-1293-2015: Request for authorization to proceed with Specific Plan and Environmental Review and guidance regarding select City policies; John and Susan Madonna, applicant. (Shawna Scott, SWCA) Deputy Director Davidson and Consulting Planner Scott reviewed the contents of the report, highlighting that the presented project is a continued hearing to review request to initiate preparation of the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan and associated general amendments and provided a brief background. Consulting Planner Scott explained that the Planning Commission considered the applicant's request on December 9, 2015 at a Planning Commssion Meeting, providing feedback and direction for the conceptual land use plan. Applicant Representative Victor Montgomery of RRM Design Group narrated a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commissioners’ inquiries. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ray Walters, Co-Applicant, spoke about a shortage of senior housing in the State; expressed support to the location of the proposed retirement care facility; noted that there are no continuing care retirement communities in the County of San Luis Obispo. Judy Riener, San Luis Obispo, spoke about a need for retirement communities in San Luis Obispo; explained that her parents lived in a rental apartment in a retirement community. Ken Riener, San Luis Obispo, spoke about different properties and locations considered for a continuing care retirement community and the need for a CCRC; provided a history of problematic locations, noting that the proposed location would be better if nearer to a hospital. John Madonna, Applicant, stated that senior housing is underserved in the area and there are no similar retirement facilities in the County; stated that without the allowance of the 150 foot proposal the creek would not be moved; and voiced support for a need of a continuing care retirement community. Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, expressed support to the retirement facility concept; expressed concerns regarding water resources for the proposed development; and expressed concerns with the proposed projects as it relates to the 150 foot height limit. COMMISSION COMMENTS Deputy Director Davidson clarified that the fundamental question for the proposed development is the consideration of a proposed development that is above 150 feet. The Commission deliberated the Applicant’s requests for two projects on the same property, noting consideration of change of policies to the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. Chair Larson noted that there are two major considerations for the proposed development: authorization of a General Plan Amendment to change the 150 foot contour line and to allow consideration of a new use at this location. DRAFT8.f Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) City of San Luis Obispo, Tit le, Subtit le On motion by Commissioner Malak, seconded by Commissioner Draze, to allow continuance of the Planning Commission meeting and hear the agenda item after 11:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Malak, Riggs, Vice Chair Multari and Chair Larson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. On motion by Commissioner Malak, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution, “a Resolution of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission recommending the City Council authorize initiation of the Madonna-Froom Ranch Specific Plan (PRE 1293-2015)” and providing a recommendation to the City Council for consideration of the request to initiate the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan and associated General Plan amendments. AYES: Commissioners, Fowler, Malak, Riggs, Vice Chair Multari and Chair Larson NOES: Commissioners Dandekar, Riggs, and Vice Chair Multari RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 4:3 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Deputy Director Davidson provided an agenda forecast of upcoming items. On motion by Commissioner Malak, seconded by Commissioner Draze, to direct staff to provide workshops on usage and conservation for energy and water. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Multari and Chair Larson NOES: Commissioners Fowler and Riggs RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 5:2 vote. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, John Paul Maier Assistant City Clerk Approved by the Planning Commission on xx-xx-xxxx. _______________________________ Lee Price Interim City Clerk DRAFT8.f Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Continued hearing to review request to initiate preparation of the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan and associated General Plan amendments PROJECT ADDRESS: 12165 and 12393 BY: Shawna Scott, Consulting Planner Los Osos Valley Road Phone: 543-7095 ext. 6811 e-mail: sscott@swca.com VIA: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phone: 781-7176 FILE NUMBER: PRE 1293-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Consider key issues related to proposed land uses and proposed modifications to hillside development limits and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the request to initiate the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan and associated General Plan amendments (Alternatives 4.1-4.5). 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant is requesting authorization from the City Council to pursue preparation of the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (identified as Specific Plan Area SP-3 in the General Plan Land Use Element). The action was initially considered by the Planning Commission on December 9, 2015; at that time, the Planning Commission moved to continue the item and provided direction to staff and the applicant, which is addressed in this report. The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend to the City Council whether to initiate the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. SITE DATA Applicant John Madonna, John Madonna Construction Company Bob Richmond, Villagio Senior Living Representative Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group Zoning County of San Luis Obispo – Commercial Retail, Agriculture, Rural Lands General Plan SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area Site Area 111 acres Environmental Status A Program-Level Final EIR was adopted for the LUCE in 2014. Meeting Date: January 27, 2016 Item Number: 3 8.f Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 2 2.0 SPECIFIC PLAN INITIATION HEARING CONTINUANCE On December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the applicant’s request to initiate the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan and provided feedback and direction regarding several key issues identified in the applicant’s submitted project description narrative and the staff report (refer to Attachment 3, December 9, 2015 staff report and attachments). The Planning Commission generally supported the applicant’s proposed mix of uses, which include Senior Housing (Continuing Care Retirement Community), multi-family housing, single-family housing, retail sales uses, open space, and parks (Attachment 3, Exhibit B.1 Conceptual Land Uses). The most significant issue raised by the applicant is the request to allow development above the 150-foot elevation. The applicant’s conceptual land use exhibit shows the senior housing land use area extending to the 250-foot elevation (existing grade) and residential use area extending to the 180-foot elevation (existing grade). As indicated by the applicant, the conceptual land use plan includes 19.12 acres of development above the 150-foot elevation line (refer to page 3 of Attachment 3, Planning Commission Staff Report, December 9, 2015). The Planning Commission moved to continue the item pending receipt of additional information and clarification as discussed in section 2.1 below. 2.1 Response to Planning Commission a.Planning Commission Direction #1: Clearly identify constraints warranting development above the 150-foot elevation: Approximately 61 acres of the 111-acre project site is located below the 150-foot elevation. As indicated by the applicant and as graphically shown on the applicant’s Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map (refer to Attachment 4, Exhibit A.1), existing land use and resource constraints below the 150-foot elevation include: 1. Existing historic buildings associated with the Froom Ranch Historic Complex (1.5 acres) 2. Wetland habitat proximate to Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin Road (7.0 acres) 3. Stormwater basin serving adjacent commercial development (2.8 acres) 4. Slopes 21 percent or greater (6.0 acres) The applicant’s preliminary conceptual plans include the realignment and restoration of Froom Creek below the 150-foot elevation (refer to Attachment 5, Exhibit D.1, Conceptual Creek Corridor Plan and Section). This component would result in approximately 11.6 acres of drainages onsite; this acreage includes a 35-foot building setback from Froom Creek and a 20-foot building setback from an unnamed tributary to Froom Creek. Therefore, the applicant indicates that approximate area of constrained land below the 150-foot elevation is 28.9 acres. This would leave approximately 32.1 acres of developable area below the 150- foot elevation. This acreage is a key component of the applicant’s justification for requesting 8.f Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 3 the City’s consideration of development above the 150-foot elevation, as discussed further below. b.Planning Commission Direction #2: Provide justification for development above the 150- foot elevation: The applicant’s justification for development above the 150-foot elevation relates to the acreage of unconstrained land, compliance with the LUE standards for SP-3, and the additional Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) component of the conceptual plan. As noted above, the applicant has identified approximately 32.1 acres of developable land below the 150-foot elevation. As shown in Table 1 below, the approximate acreage to meet LUE standards for SP-3 ranges between 25.5 and 67.5 acres, due to the variations in minimum to maximum units and square footage for identified land uses. Please note the acreages identified in Table 1 on the following page are conceptual and approximate, and are intended to give the Planning Commission and the public a general understanding of the comparison between developable acreage and the approximate acreage needed to accommodate a Specific Plan development. In addition to the development area estimated to be necessary to comply with the LUE standards which could feasibly be accommodated in some form below the 150-foot elevation, the applicant estimates that the CCRC would require an additional 20 acres of developable land to accommodate activities and life transitions from active adult to skilled nursing and hospice. As shown in Table 1, the applicant’s conceptual plan, which includes general compliance with the LUE SP-3 standards and the CCRC, would require up to approximately 55.5 acres of total developed land, which would exceed the developable land acreage below the 150-foot elevation by approximately 23.4 acres. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a recommendation to initiate the Specific Plan that would allow submittal of an application package including development of the CCRC and residential land uses above the 150-foot elevation. As shown in Table 1, if a Specific Plan were proposed to meet the minimum LUE development standards (25.5 acres) and accommodate the proposed CCRC (20 acres), this concept would exceed developable land area below the 150-foot elevation by approximately 13 acres. 8.f Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 4 Table 1. Developable Land Requirements1 LUE SP-3 Development Standards Applicant’s Conceptual Land Use Mix Type/Designation Min-Max2 Approximate Area Conceptual Land Use Mix Approximate Area Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 8 – 29 acres 275 dwelling units 18 acres CCRC including: - 276 independent living apartments - 66 independent living villas and assisted living units - 122-bed skilled nursing and memory care facility 20 acres Commercial / NC, CR 50,000 to 350,000 sf 3- 24 acres 25,000-45,000 sf3 2-3 acres Parks / PARK -- 6.5 acres Small neighborhood park including historic structures (education, community use) 6.5 acres Circulation and Stormwater management -- 8 acres Circulation and stormwater management 8 acres Total (approx.) -- 25.5 – 67.5 acres -- 54.4 - 55.5 acres 1 Does not include 50% Open Space Requirement (55 acres) 2 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints 3 The applicant has also indicated 50,000 sf of commercial uses to meet the LUE minimum standards c.Planning Commission Direction #3: Description of potential impacts to environmental resources as a result of potential development above the 150-foot elevation Prior to formulation of a recommendation to the City Council regarding initiation of the Specific Plan, the Commission requested additional information regarding the resources potentially affected by development above the 150-foot elevation. Based on the applicant’s submitted Biological Resources Inventory (Kevin Merk Associates [KMA], January 2016) (Attachment 7), Section 106 Prehistoric and Historic Report (First Carbon Solutions, February 2015) (confidential report), and Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map (refer to Attachment 4, Exhibit A.1), sensitive environmental resources present above the 150-foot elevation include special-status plant species and habitats, a portion of the Froom Ranch Historic Complex, and archaeological resources. Due to the conceptual nature of the current proposal, which does not yet include a Specific Plan application package, impacts to 8.f Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 5 these resources as a result of a specific project has not yet been determined; however, preliminary information based on the conceptual plan is presented below. Special Status Habitats and Plant Species As shown on the applicant’s Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map dated December 16, 2015 (Attachment 4, Exhibit A.1), sensitive habitats present above the 150-foot elevation include: wetland habitat, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, serpentine rock outcrop, and coast live oak woodland. Special-status plant species documented above the 150-foot elevation include: Chorro Creek bog thistle, San Luis Obispo owl’s clover, San Luis mariposa lily, Eastwood’s larkspur, mouse-grey dudleya, Blochman’s dudleya, Jones’s layia, chaparral ragwort, Cambria morning glory, club hair mariposa lily, and Palmer’s spineflower (KMA, January 2016). Based on an approximation of potential impacts, development of the conceptual project above the 150-foot elevation may impact approximately: 1. 6.68 acres of serpentine bunchgrass 2. 1.24 acres of California Rare Plant Rank List 1B species, and 3. 7,500 square feet of wetland habitat (road and trail drainage crossings). The applicant’s conceptual exhibit shows approximately 24 individual Chorro Creek bog thistle plants located onsite and identifies a 50-foot buffer surrounding these plants (refer to Attachment 3, Exhibit A.3 April 2015 Pre-Application Basis for Design Studies). If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, potential impacts to biological resources and associated avoidance and mitigation measures would be fully evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the General Plan, and Municipal Code. Historic and Archaeological Resources The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located in the northwest portion of the project site. With the exception of a historic dairy barn, the complex is located below the 150-foot elevation (refer to Attachment 4, Exhibit A.1). The two intact prehistoric resources (CA- SLO-783 and CA-SLO-1195) onsite are located above the 150-foot elevation. These resources are comprised of bedrock mortars and lithics, dietary shellfish, and bone remains, and it is possible that undiscovered subsurface resources are present. In addition, a number of isolate prehistoric artifacts and historic features were documented onsite, including a small concentration of stone artifacts, isolate waste flakes, linear rock wall features, and a stacked stone revetment/retaining wall (First Carbon Solutions, February 2015). The applicant’s conceptual exhibits show avoidance of archaeological sites (refer to Attachment 3, Exhibit A.3 April 2015 Pre-Application Basis for Design Studies). If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, potential impacts to historic and prehistoric resources, and avoidance and mitigation measures would be fully evaluated pursuant to CEQA, the General Plan, and Municipal Code. 8.f Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 6 d.Planning Commission Direction #4: Amended visual simulations to show elevation contours and graphic simulations In response to the Planning Commission’s questions and concerns regarding potential impacts to scenic viewsheds and hillsides, the applicant provided a visual simulations package (refer to Attachment 6) including the following scenarios for comparison: 1. Photograph of existing view 2. Photo-simulation of conceptual development 3. Photo-simulation of conceptual development showing the approximate location of the 150-foot elevation line 4. Photo-simulation of conceptual development showing only proposed buildings above the 150-foot elevation 5. Photo-simulation of conceptual development showing only proposed buildings below the 150-foot elevation If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, potential impacts to visual resources including independent verification and analysis of project photo-simulations would be conducted pursuant to CEQA, the General Plan, and Municipal Code. 3.0 CONCLUSION The scope of the initiation review only provides authorization for the applicant to proceed with the application process for the Specific Plan. If the Commission recommends inclusion of the applicant’s request to propose alteration of the 150-foot maximum site development alteration and/or modification to the mix of land uses envisioned in the Land Use Element for the Specific Plan area, Staff recommends the Planning Commission’s recommendation include the following direction: 1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on natural and scenic resources (particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge), including but not limited to: photo- simulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details; assessment of potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highways, and open space areas; a comprehensive project-specific and quantified impact analysis on special-status plants, animals, vegetative communities and trees, and creeks, drainages, and wetland habitat; proposed mitigation plan(s) for both on and off-site restoration (as applicable); and hydrological analysis accompanying proposed plans to modify and restore Froom Creek. 4.0 ALTERNATIVES 4.1 Recommend the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the applicant: (1) revisit the 150 foot elevation maximum site development, particularly as it relates to visual 8.f Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 7 impacts on the City’s edge; and, (2) modification of the Land Use Element specified land use mix. 4.2 Recommend the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments, but provide a land use mix that more closely correlates with LUE policies for Specific Plan Area 3. 4.3 Recommend the City Council approve the initiation but the formal submittal should not include a General Plan Amendment to develop above the 150-foot contour line. 4.4 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 4.5 Determine that no major amendments should be made to the General Plan and recommend the City Council deny the request for Specific Plan Amendment Initiation. 5.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments, December 9, 2015 4. Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map (Updated Exhibit A.1) 5. Conceptual Creek Corridor Plan and Section (Updated Exhibit D.1) 6.Applicant’s Updated Photo-simulations 7. Biological Resources Inventory (KMA 2016) NOTE: Not Attached to Attachment f, please refer to individual attachments to the Council Agenda Report 8.f Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.g Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan 8.g Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan 8.g Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan 8.g Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan 8.g Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan 8.g Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan 8.g Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan 8.g Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan 8.g Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan 8.g Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan 8.h Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.h Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.h Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.h Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.h Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.h Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.h Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.h Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 2015 To: Victor Montgomery Organization: RRM Design Group From: William Strand Title: Manager of Engineering Project Name: Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Il Villaggio) Project Number: 1014012 Topic: Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Il Villaggio) Stormwater Location and Existing Conditions The Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Il Villaggio) project is located in the city of San Luis Obispo, California on the west side of Los Osos Valley Road and approximately 600 feet northwest of Highway 101. The project boundary is approximately 111 acres with approximately 76 acres proposed to be developed. The site is underlain by soils with high clay content which are poorly suited for infiltration (5.). The site is mainly undeveloped and used as range land with approximately 4 existing buildings and dirt roads at the northern end of the site. An existing drainage channel (Q100 = 102 cfs) runs south along Los Osos Valley Road conveying runoff from upstream development through the property (1.). Froom Creek also flows through the site along the northwestern and southeastern boundaries and has a 100-year flow rate of 1,066 cfs (2.). Approximately 28 acres (37%) of the project area lies within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Zone A). The site has two existing stormwater basins that receive runoff from the adjacent Home Depot and Irish Hills commercial sites. The basin serving the Home Depot development was sized to retain a water quality volume equal to the 95th percentile capture volume of 1.27 ac-ft. The detention basin serving the Irish Hills shopping center has a capacity of 2.03 ac-ft. (sized per County of San Luis Obispo Standards to detain the 50-year storm while discharging at the 2-year storm flow rate). Proposed Development Proposed improvements include the construction of approximately 55 acres of single family, multi-family, and assisted living and 21 acres of commercial developments. Existing drainage patterns along Los Osos Valley Road, and Froom Creek will be maintained. Froom Creek will be slightly re-aligned and modified to contain the 100-year storm event; however, the channel will still release at the historical point of discharge. A channel with a capacity of 102 cfs will be constructed to convey flows parallel to Los Osos Valley Road. Above and below ground stormwater basins will be constructed to provide storage for the existing 1.27 ac-ft. Home Depot basin and 2.03 ac-ft. Irish Hills basin. Culverts and channels will be designed to provide capacity for flows from the 100-year storm event. No upgrades to culverts at Highway 101 are proposed. Stormwater Requirements Stormwater requirements are listed in the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. The proposed improvements to the Froom Ranch property will require compliance with Runoff Retention and Peak Management. The design of this project will be driven by the Runoff Retention requirement since this volume is greater than the Peak Management Volume. 8.h Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Runoff Retention Most of the proposed project area lies within Watershed Management Zone 1—requiring capture of the 95th percentile storm event without runoff for water quality (3.). The 95th percentile storm depth is 2.0 inches. Since harvesting/reuse and infiltration are infeasible, retention volumes shall be multiplied by 1.2. The total required runoff retention volume is 10.91 acre-ft. Sub-Basin # Depth (inches) Landuse Post-Dev. Runoff Coeff. Dev. Area (acres) Capture Vol. (ac- ft.) 1 2.0 Commercial 0.75 20.95 3.14 2 2.0 CCRC 0.75 11.16 1.67 3 2.0 Residential 0.70 27.04 3.79 4 2.0 Residential 0.70 16.51 2.31 75.66 10.91 Total Peak Management Post-development peak flows discharged from the site shall not exceed pre-project peak flows for the 2- through 10-year storm events (respective depths of 2.00” and 4.51”) (4.). The required Peak Management volume is 7.71 acre-ft. Existing On-site Retention Ponds Sub- Basin Pre- dev. Runoff Coeff. Landuse Post- Dev. Runoff Coeff. Dev. Area (acres) 95th Percentil e Depth (inches) Detention Basin (Q-50 – Q- 2) ac-ft. 95th Percentile Capture Vol. (ac-ft) Home Depot 0.45 Commerci al 0.75 10.14 2.0 -- 1.27 Irish Hills 0.45 Commerci al 0.75 18.62 2.0 2.03 2.33 Notes: 1.Per pg. V-6, Eagle Hardware EIR 10-1-2014 Sub- Basin # Pre- Dev. Runof f Coeff . Proposed Landuse Post- Dev. Runoff Coeff. Dev. Area (acre s) 2-Year, 24 Hr Depth (in.) 10- Year, 24 Hr Depth (in.) 2-Year Peak Manageme nt Volume (ac-ft) 10-Year Peak Manageme nt Volume (ac-ft) 1 0.45 Commerci al 0.75 20.95 2.00 4.51 1.05 2.36 2 0.45 CCRC 0.75 11.16 2.00 4.51 0.56 1.26 3 0.45 Residential 0.70 27.04 2.00 4.51 1.13 2.54 4 0.45 Residential 0.70 16.51 2.00 4.51 0.69 1.55 75.66 7.71 Total 8.h Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 2.Per pg. 22, Revised Hydraulic Study Report Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvement Project. November 2010. San Luis Obispo County 3.Per Section B.4 Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region 4.Per Section B.5 Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region 5.Per USGS Web Soil Survey 8.h Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.h Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) 8.h Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: h - Applicant Exhibits (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 1January 11, 2016VISUAL SIMULATIONSFroom Ranch Specific Plan8.i Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 2Froom Ranch Specific PlanView from Northbound 101View 1.1 - ExistingCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE1Before18.i Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 3Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 1.2 - ProposedView from Northbound 101CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE1After18.i Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 4Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 2.1 - ExistingView from Dalidio PropertyCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE2Before28.i Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 5Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 2.2 - ProposedView from Dalidio PropertyCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE2After28.i Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 6Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 2.3 - Proposed with 150’ ContourView from Dalidio PropertyCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE2After2Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 7Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 2.4 - Proposed Project without Buildings Below 150’ ElevationView from Dalidio Property - Proposed Project without Buildings Below 150’ ElevationCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE2After2Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 8Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 2.5 - Proposed Project without Buildings Above 150’ ElevationView from Dalidio Property - Proposed Project without Buildings Above 150’ ElevationCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE2After2Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 9Froom Ranch Specific PlanThis page has been intentionally left blank.8.i Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 10Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 3.1 - ExistingCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE3BeforeView from Calle Joaquin38.i Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 11Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 3.2 - ProposedCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE3AfterView from Calle Joaquin38.i Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 12Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 3.3 - Proposed with 150’ ContourCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE3AfterView from Calle Joaquin3Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 13Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 3.4 - Proposed Project without Buildings Below 150’ ElevationCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE3AfterView from Calle Joaquin - Proposed Project without Buildings Below 150’ Elevation3Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 14Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 3.5 - Proposed Project without Buildings Above 150’ ElevationCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE3AfterView from Calle Joaquin - Proposed Project without Buildings Above 150’ Elevation3Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 15Froom Ranch Specific PlanThis page has been intentionally left blank.8.i Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 16Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 4.1 - ExistingCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE4BeforeView from Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road48.i Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 17Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 4.2 - ProposedCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE4AfterView from Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road48.i Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 18Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 4.3 - Proposed with 150’ ContourCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE4AfterView from Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road4Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 19Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 4.4 - Proposed Project without Buildings Below 150’ ElevationCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE4AfterView from Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road - Proposed Project without Buildings Below 150’ Elevation4Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 20Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 4.5 - Proposed Project without Buildings Above 150’ ElevationCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE4AfterView from Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road - Proposed Project without Buildings Above 150’ Elevation4Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 21Froom Ranch Specific PlanThis page has been intentionally left blank.8.i Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 22Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 5.1 - ExistingCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE5BeforeView from Los Osos Valley Road Overpass over 101 Freeway58.i Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 23Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 5.2 - ProposedCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE5AfterView from Los Osos Valley Road Overpass over 101 Freeway58.i Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 24Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 5.3 - Proposed with 150’ ContourCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE5AfterView from Los Osos Valley Road Overpass over 101 Freeway5Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 25Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 5.4 - Proposed Project without Buildings Below 150’ ElevationCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE5AfterView from Los Osos Valley Road Overpass over 101 Freeway - Proposed Project without Buildings Below 150’ Elevation5Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 26Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 5.5 - Proposed Project without Buildings Above 150’ ElevationCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE5AfterView from Los Osos Valley Road Overpass over 101 Freeway - Proposed Project without Buildings Above 150’ Elevation5Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 27Froom Ranch Specific PlanThis page has been intentionally left blank.8.i Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 28View 6.1 - ExistingCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE6BeforeView from South Higuera and Los Osos Valley Road68.i Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 29Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 6.2 - ProposedCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE6AfterView from South Higuera and Los Osos Valley Road68.i Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 30Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 7.1 - ExistingCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE7BeforeView from Madonna Road Overpass over 101 Freeway78.i Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 31Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 7.2 - ProposedCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE7AfterView from Madonna Road Overpass over 101 Freeway78.i Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 32Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 8.1 - ExistingCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE8BeforeView from Southbound 101 across from Prado Road88.i Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 33Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 8.2 - ProposedCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE8AfterView from Southbound 101 across from Prado Road88.i Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 34Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 8.3 - Proposed with 150’ ContourCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE8AfterView from Southbound 101 across from Prado Road8Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 35Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 8.4 - Proposed Project without Buildings Below 150’ ElevationCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE8AfterView from Southbound 101 across from Prado Road - Proposed Project without Buildings Below 150’ Elevation8Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 36Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 8.5 - Proposed Project without Buildings Above 150’ ElevationCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE8AfterView from Southbound 101 across from Prado Road - Proposed Project without Buildings Above 150’ Elevation8Approximate 150 ft Elevation8.i Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 37Froom Ranch Specific PlanThis page has been intentionally left blank.8.i Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 38Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 9.1 - ExistingCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE9BeforeView from Froom Ranch Way & Los Osos Valley Road Intersection98.i Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 39Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 9.2 - ProposedCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE9AfterView from Froom Ranch Way & Los Osos Valley Road Intersection98.i Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 40Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 10.1 - ExistingCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE10BeforeView from Froom Ranch Way108.i Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Page 41Froom Ranch Specific PlanView 10.2 - ProposedCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROADPRADO RD.HWY 101S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE10AfterView from Froom Ranch Way108.i Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: i - Applicant Visual Simulations (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) FROOM RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY Prepared for: John Madonna Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 5310 San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Prepared by: KMA Kevin Merk Associates, LLC P.O. Box 318 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 January 2016 8.j Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. ES-‐i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a biological resources inventory to support development planning efforts on the Froom Ranch located in San Luis Obispo County, California. The purpose of the study was to characterize the existing conditions on the property and evaluate the potential for special status biological resources to be present within the study area. A background literature review, floristic inventory, tree inventory and special status species evaluation was conducted. The study took place over the course of the winter, spring, summer and fall of 2015 to delineate and characterize plant communities onsite, conduct rare plant surveys, and identify any habitat that could potentially support special status species or otherwise be of concern to the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), NOAA Fisheries, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the City of San Luis Obispo. As stated above, prior to field work, a background literature review including past biological studies conducted in the region and environmental documents from projects onsite and in the immediate area was conducted. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) maintained by the CDFW was queried to compile a list of special status resources known to occur in the area that could potentially be present onsite. The field effort mapped onsite habitat types, characterized natural drainage features, and identified all plants within the study area to a sufficient level to determine their respective rarity status. For special status wildlife, a habitat suitability analysis was used to determine the species that could potentially occur within the study area. The following findings were gathered in the report: Existing Conditions. The site is a 111 acre working cattle/horse ranch that supports primarily grassland habitat (both native bunchgrass and non-‐native annual). Oak woodlands, coastal scrub, and serpentine outcrops were identified within the study area. Froom Creek and three tributary drainages are also present onsite. Froom Creek is a tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek located offsite to the southeast. A site location map, aerial overview map, soils map, habitat map, CNDDB botanical occurrences map, special status plant occurrences map, and CNDDB wildlife occurrences map are provided herein. A list of plant and animal species observed, special status species known to occur in the region and an evaluation of their potential to occur onsite, a photo plate, and tree inventory data are included as appendices. Special Status Biological Resources. The site contains Froom Creek and associated tributary drainages. The upper elevation areas in the southwest of the site have serpentine derived soils and rock outcrops. Grasslands in the southwest part of the study area contain native species such as purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), and was mapped as serpentine bunchgrass grassland separated from the annual grassland that forms the dominant cover onsite. Other special status resources onsite include coast live oak/California bay woodland, and wetland and riparian habitat associated with natural drainage features. In addition, wetlands were delineated along Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road where surface and subsurface hydrology has been impounded due to the construction of roads and adjacent development. The floristic inventory identified the following special status plants occurring in the serpentine bunchgrass grassland, wetlands and on scattered serpentine outcrops in the southwest part of the site: ¥ Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae; CRPR List 1B.1); ¥ Brewer's spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri; CRPR List 1B.3); ¥ Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis; CRPR List 4.2); ¥ Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis; CRPR List 2.2); ¥ Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense; federal and state endangered and CRPR List 1B.2); ¥ club hair mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus CRPR List 4.3); 8.j Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. ES-‐ii • Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; CRPR List 1B.1); • Eastwood’s larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae; CRPR List 1B.2); • Jones's layia (Layia jonesii; CRPR List 1B.2); • mouse-‐gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina; CRPR List 1B.2); • Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri: CRPR List 4.2); • San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2); and • San Luis Obispo owl's-‐clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2). No rare animals were observed onsite during the field surveys, but based on a habitat suitability analysis, the following special status animals could potentially occur onsite: • American badger (Taxidea taxus; species of special concern) • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; species of special concern); • California homed lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; watch list); • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi; watch list); • Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; watch list and CDFW Fully Protected); • Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; species of special concern); • Merlin (Falco columbarius; watch list); • Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus; species of special concern); • Purple martin (Progne subis; species of special concern); • Sharp-‐shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; watch list); • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; candidate species and species of special concern); • White-‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; CDFW Fully Protected); • Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri; species of special concern); • Big free-‐tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; species of special concern; • Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; special animal); • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; species of special concern); • San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; species of special concern); • Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; federal threatened and species of concern); • Townsend’s western big-‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendi townsendi; species of special concern); • Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; species of special concern); • Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli; species of special concern); and • Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis; special animal). A variety of birds and bats could also utilize the larger trees within the oak/bay woodland and riparian habitat for nesting and roosting activities. In addition, several bird species could potentially use the grassland habitat in the study area for nesting. Given the property contains a mosaic of habitat types, birds and bats would be expected to forage throughout the property. 8.j Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Background Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Special Status Biological Resources Definition ......................................................................................... 4 2.3 Field Surveys ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Tree Inventory ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.5 Floristic Inventory ................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.6 Wildlife Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 7 3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 Habitat Types ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Tree Survey ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Drainage Features .............................................................................................................................................. 15 3.4 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.5 Special Status Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 19 5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................. 26 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 27 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – Aerial Overview Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 -‐ Soils Map .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 4 – Habitat Map ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5 – Tree Survey Map ................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 6 – CNDDB Botanical Occurrences Map .......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7 -‐ Special Status Plant Occurrences Map ..................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8 – CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences Map ............................................................................................................. 24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Survey Dates and Personnel .............................................................................................................................. 6 APPENDICES Appendix A – List of Plants and Animals Observed Onsite Appendix B – CNDDB Table of Special Status Biological Resources Known or Potentially Occurring on the Site Appendix C – Photo Plate Appendix D – Tree Survey Data Form 8.j Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a biological resources inventory on the Froom Ranch located just outside the current city limits of the City of San Luis Obispo, in San Luis Obispo County, California. The purpose of the investigation was to provide baseline information of the biological resources present or potentially present on the site for future development planning and review by the project team and the City of San Luis Obispo. The site is located in the eastern flank of the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range just north and west of Highway 101, and west of Los Osos Valley Road (please refer to Figures 1 and 2). The subject property is bounded by the Irish Hills Plaza to the north, Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) to the east, the City of San Luis Obispo Irish Hills Natural Reserve to the west, and Mountainbrook Church and several hotels along Calle Joaquin to the south. The Froom Ranch has a long history as a working ranch composed of a diverse array of coastal habitats including annual and perennial grasslands, coastal scrub, chaparral, oak and bay woodland, riparian and wetland creating a mosaic of plant communities across the landscape. The region is characterized as a Mediterranean climate with mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Due to the site’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean, daily temperatures do not fluctuate as much as the County’s interior northeast of the Santa Lucia Mountains. Average annual temperatures range from approximately 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 71 degrees F, and annual precipitation in the San Luis Obispo area ranges from approximately 21 to 24 inches depending on location (Western Regional Climate Center and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015). Most of the rain occurs between November and March with a small amount attributed to coastal fog and monsoonal flow during the summer months. The biological resources inventory was prepared at the request of Mr. John Madonna to identify plant communities, plants and wildlife present on the property that could be of special regulatory importance. In addition, a delineation of waters of the United States and State of California was conducted onsite (KMA 2015), and the report was reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Based on field and office review of the delineation report, the USACE confirmed the maps identified the extent of their Clean Water Act jurisdiction (letter dated September 24, 2015). 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Background Literature Review Prior to conducting field work, KMA’s Principal Biologist, Kevin Merk, and Senior Biologist, Robert Sloan, reviewed pertinent background information from the general area. This included the review of past studies conducted by KMA and other biological consultants in the region and on the subject site. Portions of the study area and surrounding lands have been subject to previous biological studies. Several Environmental Impact Reports for nearby development projects were also reviewed. Several surrounding development projects included wetland delineations and some focused biological studies. In some instances, the focused studies included the northern and eastern parts of the study area (i.e.: Home Depot/Irish Hills Plaza and Calle Joaquin Improvement projects). Hydrologic studies and wetland mitigation plans and subsequent mitigation monitoring reports were also prepared and reviewed as part of the investigation. Clean Water Act permitting for the Home Depot project, and subsequent regulatory actions taken by the USACE for permit violations during the construction of Home Depot resulted in a settlement agreement (e.g., Consent Decree dated August 12, 2002) between the former owner of the property and the USACE. The Consent Decree has been resolved and all stipulations were met (letter from the USACE on 2/19/2015). 8.j Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Site Location Froom Ranch Figure 1 Sources: Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 1 inch = 10,000 feet Site Location John Madonna Construction, Inc.Site Location 1 in = 400,000 ft 8.j Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Froom Ranch John Madonna Construction, Inc. Figure 2 Aerial Overview Sources: (c) ESRI and its data providers; USFWS, NWI Data; City of San Luis Obispo Study Area Boundary 1 inch = 1,500 feet HWY 101Lo s O so s Va l le y Rd Madonn a R d S. Higuera St8.j Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 4 The following documents were reviewed as part of the existing conditions characterization and preliminary biological constraints analysis: • Madonna Eagle Hardware Environmental Impact Report (1998); • Biological Resources Analysis Letter of Findings for the Los Osos Valley Road Improvement Project (Olberding Environmental, 2001); • Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plans Relating to the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Project (Olberding Environmental, 2002); • San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Enhancement Plan (Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, 2002); • Year 1 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Boysen Ranch Mitigation Sites (Olberding Environmental, 2003); • Calle Joaquin Realignment Wetland Delineation (Morro Group, 2004); • Irish Hills Plaza II Wetland Delineation Map (Morro Group, 2004); • Froom Ranch Wetland Assessment (Morro Group, 2005); • Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for Sustaining a Separated Wetland Near Calle Joaquin (Balance Hydrologics, 2005); • Irish Hills Plaza Detention Basin Report (Wallace Group, 2006); • Year 5 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Site (Olberding Environmental, 2007); • Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 Interchange Improvements Project Biological Assessment for Central California Coast Steelhead (2008); and • Irish Hills Natural Area Conservation Plan Update (2011). The California Natural Diversity Database maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game (updated in 2015; CNDDB) was searched for special status biological resources documented within the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-‐minute topographic quadrangle maps centered on and surrounding the site. This included the Morro Bay South, San Luis Obispo, Lopez Mtn., Port San Luis, Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande NE quads. Given the project site’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean and geographic setting within the San Luis Range in close proximity to San Luis Obispo, the focus on these six quads was deemed a sufficient search area to identify special status species occurring in the vicinity of the site for inclusion in the study. A larger search radius picks up a number of plants and animals known from higher elevations in the Santa Lucia Mountains and further south in the Callendar and Guadalupe Dunes that would not be expected to occur on this site based on the lack of suitable habitat and soils. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey was reviewed to determine the soil mapping units present within the study area (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s online Wetland and Critical Habitat Mapper (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html; http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/) were also reviewed to evaluate the extent of documented wetlands and designated critical habitat defined in the region. 2.2 Special Status Biological Resources Definition For the purpose of this report, special status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); those listed or proposed for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8.j Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 5 (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern,” “Fully Protected,” or “Watch List” by the CDFW; and plants occurring on California Rare Plant Rank 1, 2, 3 and 4 developed by the CDFW working in concert with the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The specific code definitions are as follows: • Rank 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California; • Rank 1B.1 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat); • Rank 1B.2 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly endangered in California (20-‐80% occurrences threatened); • Rank 1B.3 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known); • Rank 2 = Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; • Rank 3 = Plants needing more information (most are species that are taxonomically unresolved; few species on this list meet the definitions of rarity under CEQA); and • Rank 4.2 = Plants of limited distribution (watch list), fairly endangered in California (20-‐80% occurrences threatened, seldom meets the definition of rarity under CEQA). • Rank 4.3= Plants of limited distribution (watch list), not very endangered in California (seldom meets the definition of rarity under CEQA). Sensitive or special status natural communities are those plant communities listed as rare in the CNDDB queried in April and November 2015. In addition, those habitat types or plant communities that have special regulatory status such as riparian habitats protected by California Fish and Game Code or the Clean Water Act are also identified as special status biological resources. 2.3 Field Surveys Kevin Merk and Robert Sloan were the primary investigators for all field work associated with the biological resources inventory. Additional field support was provided by KMA staff, Mr. Jaryd Block. Surveys were conducted on multiple days through the winter, spring, summer and fall of 2015. In addition, Mr. Merk conducted multiple site visits prior to, during and immediately following winter rain events during 2013/2014 to evaluate and characterize onsite wetlands to support the delineation of waters of the United States and state of California prepared by KMA in August 2015. A focused tree survey, a full floristic inventory, and a wildlife habitat assessment were conducted on the site. The following table provides the date and personnel for each survey conducted in 2015: 8.j Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 6 Table 1. 2015 Survey Dates and Personnel. Survey Date Survey Personnel January 28, Merk, Sloan, Block February 10 Sloan, Block March 3 Merk, Sloan March 11 Merk, Sloan, Block March 20 Merk, Sloan April 3 Merk, Sloan April 24 Merk May 22 Sloan June 1 Merk, Sloan June 19 Merk July 21 Merk, Sloan August 19 Merk September 17 Merk October 15 Merk The entire property was included in the study. During each survey, the study area was traversed on foot with special attention given to the drainage features, wetlands, native grasslands and serpentine rock outcrops. Extensive time was spent onsite, especially in the lower elevation grasslands along Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin, to delineate the extent of federal and state jurisdictional wetlands and other waters (please refer to KMA’s Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California prepared in August 2015 for further information). Existing plant communities were mapped on an aerial photograph obtained from Google Earth and ESRI, both from 2015. Serpentine bunchgrass grassland was identified based on the dominant cover of native bunchgrasses and forb associates, and then delineated with a Trimble GPS unit. Historic aerial imagery obtained from Google Earth was also utilized to assess plant community distribution onsite during field surveys. Photos of notable features including special status plants were also taken to document existing conditions of the study area. 2.4 Tree Inventory KMA Senior Biologist Robert Sloan with field support from Jaryd Block and Kevin Merk conducted an inventory of trees within the Froom Ranch property on February 10 and March 3, 2015. The survey covered the entire Froom Ranch property. Trees on the steep western hillside area were not tagged due to access and dense poison oak. All other trees located within the property with a diameter at breast height (about 4.5 feet above grade; DBH) of approximately four (4) inches or greater were identified, measured, tagged, and evaluated during the inventory. Tags consisted of aluminum disks numbered 1 through 96, and were attached with aluminum nails to the east side of the main trunk. The locations of all tagged trees were recorded with a Trimble GPS unit. Willow shrubs/trees along LOVR that were four inches DBH or greater were not tagged, but were counted and generally evaluated for health or vigor. Basic tree characteristics and physical conditions were evaluated for each tagged tree, and overall health was evaluated based on vigor, presence of damage (i.e. pathogens, insect pests, and other forms of natural and human-‐caused damage), and comparison to the typical archetype of the same species. Field evaluations of all trees considered the following attributes: 8.j Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 7 Trunk diameter – The diameter of the trunk of each tagged tree was measured at approximately 4.5 feet above grade using a forester’s steel diameter-‐equivalent tape measure. Trees with multiple trunks or stems were measured at the same height and measurements for all trunks larger than four inches were collected. Damage – Identification of damage caused by pathogens or insect pests, by natural causes such as wildlife interaction, or by human activity was noted. Vigor rating – All tagged trees were evaluated based on various parameters, including amount of new growth, leaf color, bark conditions, dead wood, evidence of wilt, excessive branch or leaf necrosis, thinning of crown, presence of exudate, etc. A subjective ranking was assigned to quantify the overall physical condition of each tree based on the ratings described below: • High: A healthy and vigorously growing tree characteristic of its species and reasonably free of any visible signs of stress, disease, or pest infestation. • Moderate: A healthy and vigorous tree with minor visible signs of stress, disease, and/or pest infestation. Some dead wood, broken branches, or yellowing leaves may be present. • Low: A tree exhibiting signs of dieback, necrosis, stress, disease, or insect damage at levels above what is typically expected for the species. Symptoms could also include sparse leaf growth, predominately yellow leaves, dead or rotted wood in lower trunk, broken limbs, exposed roots, and parasite growth. • Dead: Tree had no foliage and exhibited no sign of life or vigor. 2.5 Floristic Inventory Kevin Merk and Robert Sloan conducted the botanical surveys in accordance with accepted protocols developed by the USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000), CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2000), and CNPS (California Native Plant Society, 2001), which means: 1) survey personnel traversed all suitable habitat within the entire project area on foot by walking meandering transects to ensure thorough coverage of the area; 2) surveys were spaced throughout the late winter, spring, summer and fall seasons to document the site’s flora; a 3) surveys were floristic in nature, and all plant species observed were recorded and identified to a sufficient level to determine rarity. Plant taxonomy followed nomenclature included in the Jepson Manual, second addition (Baldwin et al., 2012). Robert Hoover’s The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California (1970) was also used to identify plants observed onsite. Species not readily identifiable in the field were brought to the office for further analysis. Calflora (www.calflora .org) and the Consortium of California Herbarium were also accessed online to obtain records of special status plant observations from the region. Special status plant occurrences observed in the field were delineated using a Trimble GPS (GeoXH 6000) unit capable of sub-‐meter and decimeter accuracy. 2.6 Wildlife Assessment Direct observations of wildlife including their sign (i.e.: tracks and scat) were noted in the field and are included on the species list in Appendix A. The evaluation of special status animal species and identification of habitat that could support these species was based on our field observations coupled with an understanding of the species biology. Definitive or protocol-‐level surveys to determine the presence or absence of the animal species that may occur within the project area were not conducted. USFWS protocol surveys for special status wildlife species, such as the federal threatened California red-‐legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF), require extensive field time to be 8.j Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 8 conducted only at certain times of the year. In addition, given that 2015 is the fourth year of an ongoing drought, no sufficient aquatic habitat was present to search for species such as the CRLF. Further, we relied on survey data from the immediate project vicinity contained in the CNDDB and conducted by other knowledgeable biologists to conclude whether or not certain special status animals were expected to occur onsite. Known occurrence records in the region coupled with our site-‐specific observations were used to make presence/absence determinations for special status wildlife potentially occurring onsite. 3.0 RESULTS The Froom Ranch covers approximately 111 acres spanning two Assessor’s parcels (APN 067-‐241-‐ 030 and 067-‐241-‐031). The ranch has been grazed by cattle and horses for many years, and is composed of a mix of habitat types, including annual grassland, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, coastal scrub/chaparral, coast live oak/California bay woodland, wetland, and riparian. Also present are developed and disturbed (or ruderal) areas including existing buildings, roads, an active mine in the northwestern part of the site, and storm water detention facilities for the neighboring Irish Hills Plaza to the north. Planted trees such as blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) and pepper tree (Schinus molle) are also present. The primary parent material underlying the site is serpentinite with varying amalgamations of serpentine derived clays that affect the distribution of vegetation on the site. Serpentine rock outcrops are scattered across the upper western part of the site and support a diverse assemblage of native plants adapted to the high metal content, including some that have special regulatory status. Many of the native plants are endemic to this area, and occur nowhere else on earth. Hoover (1970) referred to this biological hot spot, which is within an approximate ten-‐mile radius around San Luis Obispo, as the Obispoan pocket of endemism. Froom Creek and three small tributary drainages are present on the study area. In several areas, the drainages include pockets of wetland habitat. In addition, the steeper hillsides in the southwestern part of the site contain springs, or seeps, where fresh water “daylights” out of the ground. Coastal scrub/chaparral occurs on drier, shallow rocky soils on the steep slopes in the upper western part of the site. Coast live oak/California bay woodlands are present along drainage courses (identified as Drainages 1 and 2) and more north-‐facing slopes in the southwestern part of the site. As stated above, wetlands are present at seeps and springs formed at fractures in the serpentinite bedrock, along drainages, and along Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin where the roads have impounded surface and subsurface flow. Riparian habitat is also present onsite, but primarily restricted to the drainage ditch constructed along Los Osos Valley Road. A total of 204 plant species were identified in the study area, including 151 native species and 53 non-‐natives. Thirteen of the native plants are special status species as defined in this report. Of this number one plant is a federal and state endangered species, nine (9) are California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) List 1B species and one (1) is a CRPR List 2 species. Three (3) are CRPR List 4 species, which is a watch list. The endangered and List 1B and 2 species meet the rarity threshold defined in Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). List 4 species typically do not. 37 animal species were observed within the project area during field surveys. A soils map is provided as Figure 3 to illustrate soil map units present onsite, and Figure 4 illustrates the plant communities, or habitat types, present onsite. A list of plants and animals observed during the surveys is included as Appendix A. Appendix B includes a list of all special status species and plant communities identified in the CNDDB, and identifies whether they were 8.j Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Study Area Boundary Soil Type Cropley clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 15 to 30 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Obispo-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 75 percent slopes Riverwash Salinas silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 0 230 460 690 920115Feet Soils Map Figure 3Froom Ranch Source(s): (c) Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers (2010): NRCS, SLO County Soils Data (2008) John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 in = 400 ft HWY 101L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d Calle Joaquin8.j Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Irish Hills Plaza Mountainbrook Church Los Osos Valley RdHWY 101 Calle J o a q u i n Irish Hills Natural Reserve Froom Creek Drainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 Study Area Boundary Storm Water Basin (5.21 ac) Sycamore Trees (0.13 ac) Developed/Disturbed (8.88 ac) Eucalyptus Trees (0.61 ac) Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub (1.87 ac) Wetland (7.25 ac) Drainage Feature (2.66 ac) Coast Live Oak/CA Bay Woodland (3.23 ac) Serpentine Rock Outcrop (1.96 ac) Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland (13.46 ac) Coastal Scrub/Chaparral (6.52 ac) Annual Grassland (59.22 ac) 0 230 460 690 920115Feet Habitat Map Figure 4Froom Ranch Source(s): ESRI and its data providers; San Luis Obispo County Parcel Information John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 in = 400 ft 8.j Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 11 observed onsite. If they were not observed, an evaluation as to their potential to occur onsite is provided. Appendix C includes a series of photographs of representative areas of the site and special status plants taken during the field surveys. Appendix D includes the tree inventory data. 3.1 Habitat Types Six primary habitat types, or plant communities, were observed within the project site, and included native bunchgrass grassland (Valley and Foothill Grassland/Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland), non-‐native annual grassland, coastal scrub, coast live oak woodland, wetland, and riparian. In addition, serpentine rock outcrops are present throughout the study area that support an interesting assemblage of native plants that thrive due to the lower competition from non-‐native species as a result of the higher metal content. The characterizations of these plant communities generally follow those of Holland’s (1986) vegetation classification system and the plant community descriptions in the Manual of California Vegetation, second edition (Sawyer, Keeler-‐ Wolf, and Evens; 2009). Other mapped features onsite included natural drainage features that traverse the property and horticultural plantings of Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) and blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus). The following discusses the habitat types delineated on Figure 4 and provides a characterization of the existing conditions. 3.1.1 Annual Grassland (Lolium perenne Semi-‐Natural Herbaceous Stands) The primary grassland type observed onsite is dominated by annual species, and occurs on the flat portions of the property historically impacted by cattle and horse grazing. The annual grassland habitat type corresponds to the perennial rye grass fields described in the Manual of California Vegetation (2009, second edition) with the exception that it is dominated by the annual Italian rye grass. It corresponds to the Non-‐native Grassland described by Holland (1986). The annual grassland onsite was dominated by Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum = Festuca perennis). Other non-‐native grasses observed in this habitat type included wild oats (Avena barbata), false brome (Brachypodium distachyon), soft chess (Bromus hordeacous), and prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper). Pockets of yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) were also present adjacent to disturbed areas. This grassland type was also present along the ranch roads as they become recolonized by vegetation. Annual grasslands provide foraging, breeding habitat and movement corridors for many wildlife species. Several mammals, such as the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and deer mice (Peromyscus spp.) were observed within this habitat type. Numerous invertebrate species (such as insects), many of which provide a food source for larger animals such as lizards, birds and some small mammals can also be found within grassland communities. A variety of birds rely on open expanses of grasslands for foraging habitat. Grasslands that are bordered by habitats containing trees are particularly important for raptors because the birds can use the large trees as nesting, roosting, and as observation points to locate potential prey within nearby grassland habitats. Reptiles are also frequently found in grasslands. In addition, in areas where grasslands surround creeks, wetlands and seasonal water availability is important for wildlife. 3.1.2 Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland Native grassland composed of purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) along with a mix of native and non-‐native species was present primarily in the upper elevation southwest portion of the study area where serpentine soils influence plant distribution. The native grassland onsite corresponds to 8.j Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 12 the Valley Needlegrass and Serpentine Bunchgrass Grasslands described by Holland (1986) and the Nassella (or Stipa) pulchra Herbaceous Alliance (purple needlegrass grassland) described by Sawyer, Keeler-‐Wolf and Evens (2009). Occurrences of non-‐native species, such as red-‐stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), cat’s ear (Hypochaeris glabra), and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa ssp. villosa) were observed scattered in this habitat on the site, but for the most part, the area was dominated by native species such as yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis), checker bloom (Sidalcea malviflora), blue-‐eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), and western vervain (Verbena lasiostachys). Similar to the wildlife habitat discussion above, this grassland type provides suitable habitat for a number of species common to the area. 3.1.3 Coastal Scrub/Chaparral The shrubland association found on the project site was dominated by open to dense stands of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), with other shrub constituents such as black sage (Salvia mellifera) primarily occurring on drier serpentine soils and rock outcrops in the steep upper reaches of the project site. This habitat type was described by Sawyer, Keeler-‐Wolf and Evens as the Artemisia californica-‐ Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance (Manual of California Vegetation, 2009), and the Central Lucian Coastal Scrub by Holland (1986). In some areas, the scrub vegetation segued into more chaparral habitat with species such as buck brush (Ceanothus cuneatus) forming the dominant cover. Also included in this shrub habitat were occurrences of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), bush monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus), California fuchsia (Epilobium canum), and deerweed (Acmispon glaber). The understory was composed of leaf litter in may places, but in some open areas the herbaceous layer consisted of scattered occurrences of non-‐ native grasses such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and rattail fescue (Festuca myuros) with pockets of purple needlegrass also present. Coastal scrub/chaparral communities provide cover and nesting habitat for a variety of animals such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), western rattlesnake (Crotalis viridis), blue-‐ gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), wrentit (Chamae fasciata), California towhee (Melazone crissalis), California mouse (Peromyscus californicus), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargentus). Larger mammals such as coyote (Canis latrans) and bobcat (Lynx rufus) would also be expected to occur onsite and use the entire property. Mountain lions (Felix concolor) have also been documented in the region and could occur onsite as a rare transient. 3.1.4 Coast Live Oak/California Bay Woodland The woodland community observed in the study area was dominated by coast live oak and California bay trees. This habitat type corresponds to the coast live oak woodland and California bay forest (Quercus agrifolia and Umbellularia californica woodland alliances) described by Sawyer et al. in the Manual of California Vegetation (2009). Holland (1986) classified this community as the coast live oak woodland and California bay forest. Shrubs and understory species observed in this part of the site consisted of toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California coffeeberry (Rhamnus =Frangula californica), poison oak, and hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea). In areas where California bay trees formed the dominant cover, the understory was sparse and consisted mostly of leaf litter. Similarly, very little understory vegetation was present where the oak tree canopy was dense. Oak/bay woodlands, in general, provide quality habitat for a large variety of wildlife species. Large 8.j Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 13 trees provide nesting sites and cover for birds and many mammals. Dead and decaying trees with few branches or no leaves provide “hawking sites” for raptors and perches for other bird species. They also contribute woody debris to the duff in the woodland understory, which provides foraging areas for small mammals and microclimates suitable for amphibians and reptiles in addition to fungi. Acorns are a valuable food source for many animal species, including acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), scrub jay (Aphelocoma corulescens), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), and black-‐tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Scrub jay, western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-‐tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and black-‐tailed deer were observed within oak/bay woodlands onsite. Other representative animal species that could potentially occur in the oak dominated woodland on-‐site include western screech owl (Otus kennicottii), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus). 3.1.5 Wetland This habitat type is a combination of the Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh and Vernal Marsh vegetation communities described by Holland (1986). Sawyer, Keeler-‐Wolf and Evens have several classifications for wetlands that describe the perennial and seasonal wetlands onsite, including the Eleocharis macrostachya, Juncus effusus, Juncus patens, and Juncus phaeocephalus Herbaceous Alliances (spike rush, soft rush, and western marshes). In the wetland area adjacent to Calle Joaquin, a more perennial wetland was observed that supports occurrences of other wetland plants such as round-‐leaf leather root (Hoita orbicularis), seep spring monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus), silverleaf (Potentilla anserina), California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), and rough sedge (Carex senta). Seasonal wetlands consisted of species such as rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Italian ryegrass, and grass poly (Lythrum hyssopifolia). Wetlands occur in nutrient-‐rich mineral soils that are saturated through part or all of the year. Wetland communities are best developed in locations with slow-‐moving, stagnant or ponded shallow water, which is the case with the impounded hydrology created by the construction of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin. In between the large constructed basin and the mapped wetland along Calle Joaquin, an extensive reed fescue occurrence was observed, most likely due to the historic grazing regime on the site. Small ponded areas within these wetlands may provide habitat for aquatic invertebrates such as water striders (family Gerridae) and boatmen (family Carixidae), and more opportunistic amphibians such as the Pacific chorus frog (Psuedacris regilla). Seasonal ponded water would also be expected to be used as a drinking source for larger animals, and also a potential stop over or foraging site for ducks and great blue herons (Ardea herodias). 3.1.6 Riparian This habitat on-‐site is consistent with the Arroyo Willow Shrubland Alliance as described by Sawyer, Keeler-‐Wolf and Evens (2009), and corresponds to the Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub community described by Holland (1986). This vegetation community was restricted to the lower reach of the study area along LOVR. This habitat was mostly dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and contained a few young cottonwoods in the ditch behind TJ Maxx. The dry ephemeral nature of Froom Creek and historic grazing pressure limited the extent of riparian vegetation development. In one location in the northwestern part of the site, a small occurrence of riparian scrub was observed on the creek bank, south of the existing buildings and equipment storage yard. Common plant species observed in this habitat included Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), poison oak, and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). Central Coast Arroyo Willow 8.j Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 14 Riparian Scrub is a form of forested wetland that is considered a sensitive natural community by the CDFW. Riparian communities along larger drainage courses are important for many wildlife species since the abundance of moisture and associated vegetation provide structure, materials, and food sources for nesting and roosting animals. However, the onsite riparian habitat consists of a relatively young monoculture of arroyo willows growing along a constructed roadside ditch. This severely limits the forage value within the understory and expected use of this habitat as cover or as a corridor for movement along the edges of open areas. In addition, people have been using the riparian habitat in this area as shelter. Given the limited extent of this habitat onsite, common wildlife such as the Pacific chorus frog, western fence lizard, raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum, and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) would be expected to use this area periodically. While nesting habitat is limited in this area, house wren (Troglodytes aedon), ruby-‐crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and goldfinches (Carduelis spp.) could potentially nest, perch and forage in this habitat. As stated above, the willows are relatively young, and would not be expected to provide suitable nesting or perching habitat for larger raptors such as the red-‐tailed hawk that are present in the area. Seasonal water and the wetness of the soil would typically increase the value of this habitat for wildlife if it wasn’t associated with a roadside ditch. This riparian habitat likely improves water quality by protecting the ditch from erosion, and filtering sediment and some pollutants from runoff before it drains to the Calle Joaquin wetland area, and eventually offsite towards San Luis Obispo Creek. 3.1.7 Developed/Disturbed (Ruderal) The existing ranch roads, equipment storage area, buildings and active mine were mapped as Developed/Disturbed (also known as ruderal) habitat based on the presence of bare soils, base rock, and structures. Developed/Disturbed (Ruderal) habitat is not a native plant community, nor is it described by the vegetation classification systems used in this study since it is an anthropogenic influenced land type. Along road margins, high concentrations of invasive, non-‐native species were present, likely due to the historic disturbance. Some plants characteristic of the onsite annual grassland habitat described above were present, in addition to dominant weedy species such as Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and yellow star thistle. Because of the highly disturbed nature of this habitat, it is of marginal value to wildlife. Nonetheless, its proximity to the natural plant communities onsite allow several common species such as the western fence lizard and California ground squirrel to utilize disturbed or ruderal areas of the site for basking in the sun and foraging. 3.1.8 Serpentine Rock Outcrop Scattered throughout the steeper portions of site, primarily in the southwest part of the study area, are areas of serpentine rock outcroppings. The exposed serpentine rocks were mostly bare, but did support native plants in cracks or areas of talus accumulation. Species observed included several species of mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus, C. obispoensis), cryptantha (Cryptantha clevelandii), mouse gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina), Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae), and stinging phacelia (Phacelia imbricata). 8.j Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 15 3.1.9 Eucalyptus and Sycamore Trees Within the study area, several planted blue gum eucalyptus trees were present. In addition, several sycamore (Platanus racemosa) trees were identified in the active mine in the northwestern part of the site. The extent of tree canopies was delineated on the habitat map included as Figure 4. While bird nests were not observed during surveys, these trees provide perching and nesting opportunities for a variety of birds, including raptors such as great horned owl and red-‐tailed hawk. 3.2 Tree Survey A total of 96 trees with DBH of four (4) inches or greater were tagged within the study area, and included five (5) species of native trees and two (2) non-‐native tree species. Please refer to Figure 5 – the Tree Survey Map. Trees were concentrated primarily along Drainage 1. Native trees recorded included 41 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), 31 California bay (Umbellularia californica), three (3) western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), three (3) Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), three (3) arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and one (1) holly-‐leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia). Non-‐native trees present included 12 blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), and two (2) Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle). Generally, the majority of trees present exhibited high or moderate vigor. Several large oak and bay trees exhibited hollow or dead main trunks, but had large, healthy secondary trunk growth. Several trees exhibited sparse canopy growth and poor leaf development. The very steep upper portion of Drainage 1 in the southwestern corner of the site contained oak and bay trees in a narrow canyon area. This area was not accessible due to steep terrain, dense vegetation and poison oak. The LOVR roadside channel contained approximately 200 arroyo willow shrubs/trees that have established along the channel over the last 10 years. These willows consisted primarily of multi-‐ stemmed specimens (some with 10 or more trunks) located mostly within the centerline of the ditch. The willow occurrences were mapped as riparian habitat as part of the plant community or habitat type mapping effort, and the areal extent calculated. 3.3 Drainage Features 3.3.1 Froom Creek and Tributaries Froom Creek is an intermittent stream with a relatively small watershed that originates in the Irish Hills to the southwest of the study area. The creek channel bisects the study area in a generally north to south direction, and ultimately passes beneath Calle Joaquin and U.S. Highway 101 via two concrete box culverts, heading to its confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo Creek flows in a westerly direction ultimately connecting to the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. Due to the lack of dominant wetland vegetation within or adjacent to the channel, Froom Creek was classified as Riverine Intermittent Streambed per Cowardin, and as non-‐wetland waters of the U.S. and state of California subject to USACE, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Three small ephemeral drainage features (identified as Drainages 1, 2, and 3) are present in the southwestern portion of the study area that are tributaries to Froom Creek. Due to the presence of a defined bed and bank, OHWM, and hydrologic connectivity to Froom Creek, these small features were classified as Riverine Intermittent Streambed per Cowardin, and constitute jurisdictional non-‐ wetland waters of the U.S. and state of California. While these drainages were mostly comprised of 8.j Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Los Osos Valley RdCalle Jo a q u i n HWY 101 Irish Hills Plaza Mountainbrook Church Tagged Trees (96 total) Arroyo Willow California Bay Coast Live Oak Eucalyptus Fremont Cottonwood Hollyleaf Cherry Peruvian Pepper Tree Western Sycamore Study Area Boundary Untagged Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub Untagged Coast Live Oak Forest John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 230 460 690 920115Feet Tree Survey Map Source(s): ESRI and its data providers; San Luis Obispo County Froom Ranch Figure 51 in = 400 ft 8.j Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 17 upland vegetation, areas of wetland habitat were observed and mapped in specific locations. In addition, several seeps or springs were observed originating on adjacent hillsides and were hydrologically connected to the drainage feature. In-‐channel areas and abutting areas dominated by wetland vegetation are classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and constitute wetlands under USACE, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. 3.3.2 LOVR Roadside Channel The LOVR Roadside Channel is located along the northern property boundary, and contained a dense willow canopy and wetland understory, along a narrow and shallow constructed channel area. The willow canopy has developed since the ditch was constructed, and the channel appears to have lost capacity due to vegetative growth and sediment accumulation. Current channel dimensions in this area ranged from six inches to two feet deep, and one to four feet wide. Willow canopy and wetland vegetation extended beyond the channel banks into the adjacent meadow area, apparently the result of the constructed roadways impounding seasonal surface and subsurface water. Because the majority of in-‐channel and abutting areas were dominated by wetland vegetation, the LOVR Roadside Channel is classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and constitutes wetland waters under USACE, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Jurisdictional boundaries in this area were mapped into the LOVR right-‐of way to the road shoulder, which was outside the Froom Ranch property line. Please refer to the KMA Delineation of Waters of The U.S. and State of California for further detail. 3.3.3 Detention Basins The northern basin is an approximately one-‐acre temporary basin constructed in upland grassland areas to receive runoff during the construction of Home Depot. During construction of the Irish Hills Plaza, a swale and culverts were installed behind the current Whole Foods and TJ Maxx buildings to direct surface runoff into this basin and then let it spread overland to support the historic wetland feature in the area. Seasonally ponded water was evident in the basin during aerial photograph review, and patchy occurrences of seasonal wetland vegetation were noted during field work conducted in 2015 confirming some wetland habitat attributes are still present. However, it is our understanding that once the Home Depot and surrounding areas were constructed, surface runoff from this development was directed into the larger basins constructed further south. As a result, this temporary basin was not identified as a potential jurisdictional feature subject to Clean Water Act regulation since it was constructed in an upland as a temporary basin to support construction of the neighboring project. The approximately 3.2-‐acre southern basin is a permanent feature constructed in upland grassland habitat to receive runoff from the Plaza Hills I development fronting LOVR. Following development of the Home Depot project, surface runoff was then directed into this basin. It consists of two basins and a spillway, and was sized to contain runoff from any future Phase II development within the study area (Wallace Group, 2006). This basin releases water to the LOVR Roadside Channel by a storm drain and swale. During large storm events, it was designed to discharge water into the wet meadow area along Calle Joaquin via a concrete spillway. Otherwise, water leaves the basin through evaporation and percolation into the ground. This feature was also not identified as a potential jurisdictional feature since it was constructed in an upland area and is part of the neighboring project’s storm drainage system. Because both basins are man-‐made structures constructed in uplands that are fed primarily by concentrated hardscape runoff from neighboring development, these basins and associated swales 8.j Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 18 are not expected to be subject to Clean Water Act or California Fish and Game Code requirements. The 2015 USACE verification of the Wetland Delineation does not include these features as Waters of the U.S. 3.4 Soils The NRCS identified eight soil map units as occurring on the study area (refer to Figure 3). Of these map units, Riverwash, and Xererts-‐Xerolls are listed as hydric soils by the NRCS California Hydric Soils List for San Luis Obispo County. An unnamed component of Cropley clay, 0-‐2 % slopes, is also considered hydric, when present in drainageways. Cropley clay 0-‐2 % slopes. Cropley clay consists of a dark gray or black (10YR 4/1, 3/1, 2/1 moist) clay horizon about 36 inches thick, underlain by a light brown calcareous clay loam to 60 inches or more. Permeability of this soil is slow and the available water capacity is high. Cropley soils formed in alluvium developed from sedimentary rocks. An unnamed component of Cropley clay is listed as a hydric soil when present in drainageways. This inclusion is typically very dark gray throughout, with mottles present in the lower horizons. This dark gray soil was not observed on-‐ site. Mapped inclusions within this series include Diablo clay, Los Osos loam, and Salinas silty clay loam. Diablo and Cibo clays 9-‐15 and 15 -‐ 30 % slopes. Diablo clay consists of a 0 to 23 inch, black (10YR 2/1) clay formed in residual material weathered from sandstone, shale, or mudstone, commonly displaying fine roots to four inches. The structure is granular to 4 inches, and coarse, angular, and blocky to 23 inches. This moderately to steeply sloping soil is very poorly drained. The soil has moderate erodibility and high shrink-‐swell characteristics, and has potential septic system constraints due to steep slopes and slow percolation. Cibo clay consists of a 0 to 31 inch, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) clay formed in residual material weathered from hard metasedimentary rocks, and commonly displaying fine roots. The structure is coarse and angular blocky. This moderately to steeply sloping soil is considered very poorly drained. The soil has moderate erodibility and high shrink-‐swell characteristics, and potential septic system constraints due to steep slopes, shallow depth to bedrock, and slow percolation. Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex 5-‐9 and 15-‐30 percent slopes. Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex consists of about 40 percent Los Osos soil, and 35 percent Diablo soil, found on foothills and mountain ridge tops. These soils are moderately deep, well drained, and have low permeability. Typical Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex soil (moist) consists of a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam or black (10YR 2/2) clay, 40-‐60 inches thick. Permeability of Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex soil is rapid, and the available water capacity is low. The available water capacity of Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex soil is low to very high, while surface runoff is rapid. Obispo-‐Rock outcrop 15-‐75% slopes. Obispo-‐Rock outcrop consists of about 50 percent Obispo soil and 30 percent Rock outcrop. Obispo soils are shallow, well drained, slowly permeable soils formed in residual materials weathered from serpentine rock. Typical Obispo soil (moist) consists of a black (10YR 2/1) clay to a depth of about 18 inches, underlain by serpentine rock. The available water capacity of Obispo-‐Rock outcrop soil is low, while surface runoff is rapid or very rapid. Riverwash includes soils found in active stream and river channels, and consists of excessively drained, water deposited sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles present. Riverwash soils located in and along stream channels are generally subject to 8.j Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 19 flooding during and immediately after every storm. Riverwash soils are typically excessively drained, but can be somewhat poorly drained in low lying areas. Permeability is very rapid, surface runoff is very slow, and the erosion hazard is variable. Typical inclusions include Psamments and Fluvents, and Corralitos soils. Riverwash and Psamments and Fluvents located in drainageways are listed as hydric soils. These soils have a Hydric Criteria Code of 4: soils that are frequently flooded for long or very long duration during the growing season. Xererts-‐Xerolls-‐Urban land complex 0-‐15% slopes. The Xererts-‐Xerolls-‐Urban land complex consists of nearly level to strongly sloping soils and miscellaneous areas that are covered by urban structures. Most areas of these soils are used for urban development. The soil materials have been modified by earthmoving equipment or covered by urban structures so that much of their original shape and physical characteristics have been altered. The Xererts of this complex are Cropley or Los Osos-‐Diablo soils. The percentage of the various soils in this complex and the degree of urbanization vary from place to place (SCS 1984). An unnamed inclusion of the Xererts-‐Xerolls-‐ Urban land complex associated with depressions has a Hydric Criteria Code of 2A: soils in Aquic suborder that are somewhat poorly drained and have a frequently occurring water table less than 0.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually 14 consecutive days or more) during the growing season. 3.5 Special Status Biological Resources The San Luis Obispo area supports numerous special status, or rare, plant communities, and species of plants and animals. As stated in the methodology section above, the biological resources inventory used a six quadrangle search of the CNDDB in addition to the review of environmental documents prepared for projects in the area to identify special status resources that could be present onsite. Appendix B provides a table with the special status biological resources occurrence data, listing status for all special status species and habitats, the results of the surveys, and an evaluation of wildlife presence or potential to occur onsite. The following discussion provides further detail regarding the special status biological resources occurring or potentially occurring on the Froom Ranch study area. 3.5.1 Special Status Natural Communities The CNDDB search identified occurrences of nine (9) special status plant communities within the general area and included Central Dune Scrub, Central Foredunes, Central Maritime Chaparral, Coastal Brackish Marsh, Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Northern Coastal Marsh, Northern Interior Cypress Forest, Serpentine Bunchgrass, and Valley and Foothill Grassland. Please refer to Figure 6 illustrating the botanical data obtained from the CNDDB. Our observations onsite identified another special status natural community in the area, consisting of the riparian habitat along LOVR and Froom Creek. Three special status natural communities, including the Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (Wetland), Riparian, and the Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland were observed onsite (please refer to Figure 6) and meet the special status natural communities definition pursuant to the CDFW. In addition, special status plants occur on serpentine rock outcrops or in areas of annual grassland, these features should also be considered special status resources since they support special status plants. 8.j Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) USGS QUAD PORT SAN LUIS USGS QUAD PISMO BEACH USGS QUAD MORRO BAY SOUTH USGS QUAD LOPEZ MTN.USGS QUAD SAN LUIS OBISPO USGS QUAD ARROYO GRANDE NE Study Area Boundary USGS Quadrangle Search Radius (5 miles) CNDDB Occurrences (CDFW October 2014) Agrostis hooveri Arctostaphylos cruzensis Arctostaphylos morroensis Arctostaphylos pechoensis Arctostaphylos pilosula Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus Calochortus obispoensis Calochortus simulans Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis Carex obispoensis Castilleja densiflora var. obispoensis Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Chorizanthe breweri Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Cirsium occidentale var. lucianum Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata Delphinium parryi ssp. blochmaniae Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae Dudleya abramsii ssp. bettinae Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae Eriodictyon altissimum Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Fritillaria viridea Horkelia cuneata var. puberula Layia jonesii Lupinus ludovicianus Monardella palmeri Monardella sinuata ssp. sinuata Monolopia gracilens Sanicula maritima Scrophularia atrata Senecio aphanactis Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus Trifolium hydrophilum Central Maritime Chaparral Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Serpentine Bunchgrass John Madonna Construction, Inc04,700 9,400 14,100 18,8002,350 Feet CNDDB Botanical Occurrences Map Figure 6Froom Ranch Source(s): ESRI and its data providers: CDFW, CNDDB, October 2014; USFWS Critical Habitat Data, September 2015 1 in = 8,000 ft 8.j Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 21 3.4.2 Special Status Plants The CNDDB contains records of many special status plant species that are known to occur within the greater San Luis Obispo area (please refer to Figure 6). Special status plant species typically have highly localized habitat requirements and many are known to occur on serpentine rock outcrops and soils, active and stabilized coastal dunes, or in maritime chaparral, and brackish marsh habitats. Coastal dunes, central maritime chaparral and brackish marsh habitats do not occur on the property, and therefore, species such as beach spectacle pod (Dithyrea maritima), Morro manzanita (Arctostaphylos morroensis), and salt marsh bird’s beak (Chloropyron maritimum) are not expected to occur onsite based on the lack of suitable habitat. In addition, a number of species identified in the database search occur at higher elevations in the Santa Lucia Mountains further to the north of the Ranch. This includes species such as the San Benito fritillary (Fritillaria viridea), hooked popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys uncinatus), and Cuesta Pass checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala). While elevation alone is not sufficient to rule out a species from a particular study area, these species were not observed during the focused surveys of the property at a time of year when they would have been identifiable. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that they are not expected to occur onsite. Moreover, special status perennials would have been identifiable at the time the field surveys were conducted. Perennial shrubs such as Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita (Arctostaphylos cruzensis), Santa Lucia manzanita (Arctostaphylos luciana), and Santa Margarita manzanita (Arctostaphylos pilosula) were not observed during field surveys, and as a result, are not expected to occur on the project site. Special status plants identified in the area by the CNDDB that are known to occur on serpentine based soils were identified as having potential to occur onsite and put on the target search list during the surveys (please refer to Appendix B for further detail). Surveys conducted in 2015 located the 13 special status plants listed below. Please refer to Figure 7 for species locations. • Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae; CRPR List 1B.1); • Brewer's spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri; CRPR List 1B.3); • Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis; CRPR List 4.2); • Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis; CRPR List 2.2); • Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense; federal and state endangered and CRPR List 1B.2); • club hair mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus CRPR List 4.3); • Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; CRPR List 1B.1); • Eastwood’s larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae; CRPR List 1B.2); • Jones's layia (Layia jonesii; CRPR List 1B.2); • mouse-‐gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina; CRPR List 1B.2); • Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri: CRPR List 4.2); • San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2); and • San Luis Obispo owl's-‐clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2). Even though drought conditions were experienced in the project region over the course of the last four years, sufficient rain fell during the 2015 growing season to allow an accurate inventory of the site’s vegetation and identification of special status plants on the study area as shown on Figure 7 – the Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. 8.j Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) De pa eaLa jo De pa ea De pa La jo Ca de ob Ca de obCa ob Du ab mu La jo Ca de obLa jo Ca de ob La jo Ca de obLa jo Ca de ob Du bl Du bl Du bl La jo Du ab mu Se ap Ca de ob Du ab mu Ch br Ch br Ca de ob Du bl Ce pa co La jo Study Area Boundary Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense CDFW List 1B Species John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 200 400 600 800100Feet Special Status Plant Occurrences Map Froom Ranch Figure 71 in = 350 ft Irish Hills Natural Reserve Irish Hills Plaza Mountainbrook Church Ca de ob = Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis Ca ob = Calochortus obsipoensis Ce pa co = Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Ch br = Chorizanthe breweri De pa ea = Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae Du ab mu = Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina Du bl = Dudleya blochmaniae La jo = Layia jonesii Se ap = Senecio aphanactis 8.j Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 23 3.4.3 Special Status Animals The CNDDB contained occurrence data for numerous special status animal species in the general area. Please refer to Figure 8 and Appendix B for the special status animals that were evaluated in this study, and a determination as to their potential to occur onsite. Similar to the plant evaluation above, many of these special status animal species are not expected to occur on the subject site due to the lack of suitable habitat. Species such as California black rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus), Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana), and Morro Bay blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides morroensis) are coastal species that have specific habitat attributes and requirements that are not present onsite, and therefore, are not expected to occur on the property because suitable habitat is not present. A number of avian species are known from the general area and could potentially utilize the grasslands, coast live oak/California bay woodland, coastal scrub, and eucalyptus stands for nesting and foraging. Given the large expanses of open grasslands and mixed shrub/woodlands on the property, many of the special status birds known from the general area could potentially occur on the property at least as transients moving through the region seasonally. Ground nesting birds, and small songbirds could potentially use the site for nesting activities. Special status species identified in the CNDDB and that could potentially occur onsite include the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and white-‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Bat species, such as the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big-‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and various species of Myotis have large home ranges, and could forage over and around the site, as well as roost in trees and under the eves of existing structures. The Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a relatively common species from the general area, and could forage onsite. It would not be expected to overwinter on the Ranch because the species requires specific autumnal and overwintering habitat attributes typically observed closer to the coast. The small grouping of eucalyptus trees, and riparian oak and bay trees that are present in the study area are not suitable to support monarch butterfly overwintering habitat. Based on the lack of suitable sandy soils, the legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) are not expected to occur in the coastal scrub habitat mapped onsite. The heavy clay soils on the property preclude fossorial (burrowing) reptiles such as the legless lizard from occurring under shrubs on the slopes or flatter areas of the site. Species such as the San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) and American badger (Taxidea taxus) could potentially occur onsite, and woodrat nests were observed in dense oak/California bay woodland areas in the southwestern part of the property. The portion of Froom Creek within the site does not appear to contain appropriate aquatic and riparian habitat to support the federally threatened California red-‐legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF). The closest known occurrence is from the waste water treatment ponds on the east side of Highway 101. No records of CRLF in the immediate project area were found. It appears that Froom Creek does not contain flowing water or any deep pools during the late spring or summer months to support a breeding population of CRLF. The small tributary drainages in the higher elevations of the study area also 8.j Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) USGS QUAD PORT SAN LUIS USGS QUAD PISMO BEACH USGS QUAD MORRO BAY SOUTH USGS QUAD SAN LUIS OBISPO USGS QUAD LOPEZ MTN. USGS QUAD ARROYO GRANDE NE Study Area Boundary USGS Quadrangle Search Radius (5 miles) CNDDB Occurrence (CDFW September 2015) American badger Atascadero June beetle California red-legged frog Coast Range newt San Luis Obispo pyrg Townsend's big-eared bat black legless lizard (silver legless lizard) ferruginous hawk foothill yellow-legged frog monarch butterfly pallid bat prairie falcon steelhead - south/central California coast DPS tidewater goby vernal pool fairy shrimp western mastiff bat western pond turtle western yellow-billed cuckoo white-tailed kite USFWS Critical Habitat California red-legged frog (USFWS 2010) Steelhead Critical Habitat (USFWS 2005) John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 4,100 8,200 12,300 16,4002,050 Feet CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences Map Figure 8Froom Ranch Source(s): (c)ESRI and its data suppliers (2010): CDFW, CNDDB, October 2014; USFWS Critical Habitat Data, September 2015 1 in = 7,000 ft 8.j Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 25 did not contain suitable aquatic habitat to support CRLF. The constructed detention basins onsite lack suitable aquatic habitat with a sufficient hydroperiod to support CRLF, and did not contain any emergent vegetation. Southern steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) are known to occur further to the southeast of the project site in San Luis Obispo Creek. They have also been identified as occurring within the upper reaches of Froom Creek outside the study area (personal communication with Freddy Otte, City of San Luis Obispo Biologist). Also, other highly aquatic species such as the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), the two-‐striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), and the Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa torosa) are not expected to occur onsite in Froom Creek, its tributaries or the constructed basins based on the lack of seasonally flowing and ponded water. The USFWS has identified critical habitat for steelhead and CRLF in the region. The project site, however, does not occur in the critical habitat polygons developed for CRLF, but Froom Creek is identified as critical habitat for southern steelhead. It is highly unlikely, however, that Froom Creek supports a steelhead run since it is separated from San Luis Obispo Creek by a series of culverts and man-‐made ditches. The Coast Range newt is a species of concern known to occur in the Santa Lucia Mountains and Santa Margarita region north of the project site. This species lives in terrestrial habitats and breeds in ponds and slow moving streams during winter months. Although the species is not documented from the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range, there is potential for this animal to occur further upstream in the watershed. It is unlikely to occur within the study area due to the lack of suitable habitat. The evaluation of special status species occurrences onsite was based on a habitat suitability analysis coupled with on the ground observations. Please refer to Appendix B for further detail. The investigation did not include definitive surveys to determine the presence or absence of species such as the CRLF, but did include direct observation of onsite and offsite conditions, inspection of the drainage channels and their respective hydrologic regime, and review of biological reports and the CNDDB records documenting recorded occurrence data from the area to conclude whether or not a particular species could be expected to occur. Based on this analysis, the following species have the potential to be present within the project study area at some point in time: • American badger (Taxidea taxus; species of special concern) • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; species of special concern); • California homed lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; watch list); • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi; watch list); • Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; watch list and CDFW Fully Protected); • Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; species of special concern); • Merlin (Falco columbarius; watch list); • Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus; species of special concern); • Purple martin (Progne subis; species of special concern); • Sharp-‐shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; watch list); • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; candidate species and species of special concern); • White-‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; CDFW Fully Protected); • Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri; species of special concern); • Big free-‐tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; species of special concern; • Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; special animal); 8.j Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 26 • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; species of special concern); • San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; species of special concern); • Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; federal threatened and species of concern); • Townsend’s western big-‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendi townsendi; species of special concern); • Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; species of special concern); • Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli; species of special concern); and • Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis; special animal). As stated above, CRLF, western pond turtle, Coast Range newt, and two-‐striped garter snake are known from the region. Given Froom Creek’s inconsistent flow regime, these species are not expected to occur onsite based on the lack of seasonal aquatic habitat. Under above average rainfall years when Froom Creek is flowing and seasonal in-‐channel pools persist for a longer period, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that these species could find their way onto the site. Furthermore, seasonally ponded water along Calle Joaquin could also potentially provide seasonal habitat for these highly aquatic species. 5.0 CONCLUSION The Froom Ranch is situated in a biologically rich area of San Luis Obispo County composed of a mosaic of annual and native grasslands, coast live oak/California bay woodland and coastal scrub/chaparral habitats bisected by natural drainages in the northeastern flank of the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range. Froom Creek traverses the site in a mostly north to south direction and joins San Luis Obispo Creek south of the site before flowing to the Pacific Ocean in Avila Beach. Wetland habitat occurs along the unnamed tributary drainages to Froom Creek, and in flat grassland areas where surface and subsurface water is impounded by LOVR and Calle Joaquin. The LOVR Roadside Channel also contained riparian habitat composed of an arroyo willow monoculture. The most significant biological resources present onsite are the natural drainage features (i.e.: Froom Creek and its three tributary drainages) and associated wetland and riparian habitats, and the native serpentine bunchgrass grassland and serpentine rock outcrops supporting a suite of special status plant species, many of which are endemic to the San Luis Obispo area. Non-‐native annual grassland was the dominant plant community on the ranch, primarily occurring in the flatter portions of the site where past disturbances such as cattle/horse feeding has occurred. The southwestern part of the site contained native serpentine bunchgrass grassland where rock outcrops and thinner, less developed soils were present. The wetland, riparian, and native bunchgrass grassland habitats delineated on the habitat map were identified as special status natural communities. Occurrences of special status plants were identified within the study area and their occurrences shown on Figure 7, the Special Status Plant Occurrence Map. Nine of the special status plants are California Rare Plant Rank List 1B species, and one is a List 2 species. List 2 means that the species is rare in California but more widespread elsewhere. The federal and state endangered and CRPR List 1B Chorro Creek bog thistle was also identified onsite, and was confined to wetland areas in Drainages 1 and 2 in the southwestern part of the study area. List 4 species are on a watch list and are relatively common in the project area. No special status wildlife species were observed onsite, but Froom Creek could potentially provide a movement corridor for the federal threatened southern steelhead between upstream breeding areas and San Luis Obispo Creek when flowing water was present. In addition, a number of species of special concern including a diverse range of birds, (including raptors), and bats could potentially occur onsite on a seasonal basis. 8.j Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 27 6.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Calflora. 2015. Information on wild California plants for conservation, education, and appreciation. Berkeley, CA. Accessed via: http://www.calflora.org/. California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. November 24, 2009. California Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Fish and Game Code of California, Section 3503.5. Gould Publications, Altamonte Springs, FL. California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. 3. Queried April and November 2015. County of San Luis Obispo. 2009. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Reports. Department of Planning and Building, Environmental Division. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State -‐ Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-‐06-‐008. Olympia, WA. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Hoover, Robert F. 1970. The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California, 1 November 1994. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 255 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006 (January). 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead; Final Rule. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed via: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-‐Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. January 2000. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Accessed via: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. 8.j Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) APPENDIX A List of Plants and Animals Observed KMA 8.j Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 1 Appendix A – List of Plants and Animals Observed Onsite During 2015 Field Surveys. Scientific Name Common Name Plants Achillea millefolium Yarrow Achyrachaena mollis Blow wives Acmispon americanus var. americanus Spanish lotus Acmispon glaber (=Lotus scoparius) Deer weed Acmispon wrangelianus Lotus Agrostis pallens Bent grass Aira caryophyllea* Silver hair grass Allium crispum Crinkled onion Ambrosia psilostachys Ragweed Amsinckia intermedia Common fiddleneck Anagallis arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Anthriscus caucalis* Bur chervil Aquilegia eximia Vanhouette’s columbine Artemisia californica California sagebrush Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort Asphodelus fistulosus* Onionweed Astragalus curtipes South coast milkvetch Astragalus gambelianus Gambel’s dwarf locoweed Avena barbata* Slender wild oats Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Bloomeria crocea Golden stars Brachypodium distachyon* False brome Brassica nigra* Black mustard Brodiaea terrestris Dwarf brodiaea Bromus carinatus California brome Bromus diandrus* Ripgut brome Bromus hordeacous* Soft chess Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens* Red brome Calandrinia ciliata Red maids Calochortus argillosus Clay mariposa lily Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus Club-‐hair mariposa lily (List 4.3) Calochortus obispoensis San Luis mariposa lily (List 1B.2) Calystegia macrostegia ssp. cyclostegia Coast morning glory Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis Cambria morning glory (List 4.2) Cardamine californica California toothwort Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge Carex senta Rough sedge Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis San Luis Obispo owl’s clover (List 1B.2) Ceanothus cuneatus Buck brush Centaurea solstitialis* Yellow star thistle Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon’s tarplant (List 1B.1) Chenopodium album* Goosefoot Chlorogallum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum Soap plant Chorizanthe breweri Brewer’s spineflower (List 1B.3) Chorizanthe palmeri Palmer’s spineflower (List 4.2) Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Chorro Creek bog thistle (FE, SE, List 1B.2) Cirsium vulgare* Bull thistle 8.j Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 2 Scientific Name Common Name Clarkia bottae Botta’s clarkia Claytonia perfoliata Miner’s lettuce Conium maculatum* Poison hemlock Conyza canadensis Horseweed Corethrogyne filaginifolia Corethrogyne Crassula connata Pygmy weed Cryptantha clevelandii Cryptantha Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda grass Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Deinandra fasciculata Yellow tarweed Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae Eastwood’s larkspur (List 1B.2) Dichelostemma pulchra Blue dicks Dipsacus fullonum* Fuller’s teasel Distichlis spicata Saltgrass Dodecatheon clevelandii Padre’s shooting star Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina San Luis Obispo serpentine dudleya (List 1B.2) Dudleya blochmaniae Blochman’s dudleya (List 1B.1) Eleocharis macrostachya Spike rush Elymus glaucus Western wild rye Epilobium canum California fuchsia Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia fleabane Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Eriogonum parvifolium Coastal buckwheat Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden yarrow Erodium botrys* Filaree Erodium cicutarium* Red-‐stemmed filaree Eschscholzia californica California poppy Eucalyptus globulus* Blue gum eucalyptus Euphorbia peplus* Petty spurge Euphorbia spathulata Spurge Festuca arundinaceae* Tall fescue Festuca microstachys Eastwood fescue Festuca perennis* Italian rye grass Filago californica California filago Filago (=Logfia) gallica* Narrowleaf cottonrose Foeniculum vulgare* Fennel Fritillaria biflora var. biflora Chocolate lily Galium aparine Bedstraw Galium porrigens Climbing bedstraw Gastridium ventricosum* Nit grass Genista monspessulana* French broom Geranium dissectum* Cut-‐leaf geranium Gilia achilleifolia California gilia Gilia capitatum Blue field gilia Gnaphalium californica California everlasting Gnaphalium purpureum Purple everlasting Hazardia squarrosa Saw-‐tooth golden bush Helminthotheca echioides Prickly ox tongue Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia Hayfield tarweed Hesperocyparis (=Cupressus) macrocarpa Monterey cypress Hesperoyucca whipplei Chaparral yucca 8.j Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 3 Scientific Name Common Name Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Hirschfeldia incana* Summer mustard Hoita orbicularis Round-‐leaf leather root Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum* Mediterranean barley Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum* Foxtail Hypochaeris glabra* Smooth cat’s ear Juncus bufonius Toad rush Juncus effusus Spreading rush Juncus patens Common rush Juncus phaeocephalus Brown headed rush Koeleria micrantha June grass Lactuca serriola* Wild lettuce Lamarckia aurea* Goldentop Lasthenia californica Common goldfields Layia jonesii Jones’s layia (List 1B.2) Leptosiphon parvifolius Variable linanthus Leymus condensatus Giant wild rye Leymus triticoides Creeping wild rye Lomatium utriculatum Biscuit root Lotus corniculatus Birdsfoot trefoil Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine Lupinus microcarpus Chick lupine Lupinus nanus Sky lupine Lupinus succulentus Succulent lupine Lythrum hyssopifolium* Grass poly Malva nicaaensis* Bull mallow Matricaria matricarioides* Pineapple weed Medicago polymorpha* Bur clover Melica californica California melic Melica imperfecta Melic grass Melilotus sativa* Sweet cicily Microseris douglasii Douglas’ microseris Mimulus aurantiacus Sticky monkey flower Mimulus guttatus Seep monkey flower Muhlenbergia stricta Deer grass Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco Oenanthe sarmentosa Water parsley Opuntia ficus-‐indica Prickly pear cactus Oxalis pes-‐caprae Bermuda buttercup Pellaea mucronata Birdfoot fern Pennisetum setaceum* Fountaingrass Phacelia imbricata Stinging phacelia Plagiobothrys nothofulvus Popcorn flower Plantago erecta California plantain Plantago lanceolata* English plantain Platanus racemosa Sycamore Platystemon californicus Cream cups Polypogon monspeliensis* Rabbitfoot grass Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Potentilla anserina Silverweed 8.j Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 4 Scientific Name Common Name Prunus ilicifolia Holly-‐leaved cherry Psilocarphus tenellus Wooly marbles Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Ranunculus californicus California buttercup Raphanus sativa* Wild radish Rhamnus (=Frangula) californica Coffeeberry Rosa californica California rose Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry Rubus ursinus California blackberry Rumex acetosella* Sheep sorrel Rumex crispus* Curly dock Rumex pulcher* Fiddle dock Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Salvia columbariae Chia sage Salvia mellifera Black sage Salvia spathacea Hummingbird sage Sanicula bipinnatifida Purple sanicle Sanicula crassicaulis Common sanicle Sanicula laciniata Coast sanicle Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis California tule Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush Scirpus microcarpus Panicled bulrush Scrophularia californica California bee plant Senecio aphanactis Rayless ragwort (List 2.2) Sidalcea malviflora Checker bloom Silene californica California catch-‐fly Silybum marianum* Milk thistle Sisyrinchium bellum Blue-‐eyed grass Solanum xantii Purple nightshade Sonchus asper* Prickly sow thistle Stachys pycnantha Short spike hedge nettle Stipa (=Nassella) pulchra Purple needlegrass Symphoricarpos mollis Creeping snowberry Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak Trifolium depauperatum var. depauperatum Dwarf sack clover Trifolium fucatum Sour clover Trifolium hirtum* Rose clover Trifolium subterraneum* Subterranean clover Trifolium willdenovii Tomcat clover Triphysaria eriantha ssp. eriantha Butter and eggs Typha latifolia Cattail Umbellularia californica California bay laurel Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea Stinging nettle Verbena lasiostachys Western vervain Veronica anagallis-‐aquatica Water speedwell Vicia sativa* Spring vetch Vicia villosa ssp. villosa* Hairy vetch Viola pedunculata Johnny jump up Woodwardia fimbriata Giant chain fern Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur 8.j Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 5 Scientific Name Common Name Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur Zeltnera davyi Davy’s centaury Zigadenus fremontii Star lily Animals Accipiter cooperi Cooper’s hawk Agelaius phoenicius Red-‐winged blackbird Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow Aphelocoma corulescens Scrub jay Ardea herodias Great blue heron Bubo virginianus Great horned owl Buteo jamaicensis Red-‐tailed hawk Buteo lineatus Red-‐shouldered hawk Callipepla californica California quail Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Canis latrans Coyote Carpodacus mexicanus House finch Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Chamae fasciata wrentit Circus cyaneus Northern harrier Egretta thula Snowy egret Elgaria multicarinata Alligator lizard Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole Melanerpes formicivorus Acorn woodpecker Melazone crissalis California towhee Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Odocoileus hemionus Black-‐tailed deer Pituophis catenifer catenifer Pacific gopher snake Procyon lotor Raccoon Regalus calendula Ruby crowned kinglet Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe Sceloporis occidentalis Western fence lizard Setophaga townsendi Townsend’s warbler Sialia mexicana Western blue bird Spermophilus beecheyi California ground-‐squirrel Sturnella neglecta Meadowlark Sturnus vulgaris* European starling Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher Tyrannus verticalis King bird Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Zonotrichia leucophorys White crowned sparrow *Asterisk identifies non-‐native species; species in bold type are special status species. 8.j Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) APPENDIX B Special Status Biological Resources Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring Onsite KMA 8.j Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 1 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations LICHENS/BRYOPHYTES Firm cup lichen Cladonia firma --/--/-- Lichen known from maritime habitats in Europe and North America on stabilized sand dunes on the coast. Documented in the Morro Bay/Los Osos area on sands of marine origin. No suitable habitat present onsite. Not expected to occur. Splitting yarn lichen Sulcaria isidiifera --/--/-- Known from the Los Osos area growing on branches of coast live oak and maritime chaparral plants in sandy areas. No suitable habitat present onsite. All reported collections are from the Baywood fine sands of Los Osos. Not expected to occur based on the lack of suitable habitat. PLANTS Adobe sanicle Sanicula maritima --/R/1B.1 Perennial herb; blooms February through March; ranges from 30 to 240 meters; Occurs on clay and serpentine soils in chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows, seeps, and valley and foothill grassland. Potential habitat present in on-site grasslands in proximity to serpentine rock outcrops. Not observed within the study area during floristic surveys. Not expected to occur. Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita Arctostaphylos cruzensis --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms from December to March; occurs between 60 and 310 meters in sandy soils; found in broadleaved upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland. This perennial shrub would have been easily identifiable during surveys. Not observed during surveys. Not present onsite. Beach spectaclepod Dithyrea maritima --/T/1B.1 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms March through May; found in sandy soils, usually near shore, in coastal dunes and coastal scrub habitats; ranges from 3 to 50 meters in elevation. Site is too far from the immediate coast for this species to occur. Species only known to occur on sand dunes along the coast. Not observed during surveys. Not present onsite. Betty’s dudleya Dudleya abramsii ssp. bettinae --/--/1B.2 Perennial succulent; blooms May through July and is endemic to coastal San Luis Obispo County west of Cerro Romualdo; found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands, usually on serpentine outcrops or shallow rocky soils; ranges in elevation from 20 to 180 meters. Suitable serpentine soils present on-site, but this particular subspecies is known to occur further west of the property towards Morro Bay and Cayucos. The Dudleya observed onsite was D. abramsii ssp. murina. Betty’s dudleya was not observed onsite and is not expected to occur. Black-flowered figwort Scrophularia atrata --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through July; ranges from 10 to 500 meters in elevation; occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and riparian scrub habitats, typically on sandy or diatomaceous shale soils. Marginal habitat present along the edges of coast live oak woodland and riparian habitats on-site. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur. S. californica was identified on site. Blochman’s dudleya Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae --/--/1B.1 Perennial herb; blooms April through June; found on rocky, often clay or serpentine soils in coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; ranges from 5 to 450 meters in elevation. This species was observed growing on rock outcrops in select locations in the southwestern part of the study area. Blochman’s leafy daisy Erigeron blochmaniae --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous perennial herb; blooms July through August; ranges from 3 to 45 meters in elevation and occurs in coastal dunes and coastal scrub. This species is restricted to coastal dunes typically along the immediate coastline. No suitable habitat or soils present onsite. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. 8.j Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 2 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Brewer’s spineflower Chorizanthe breweri --/--/1B.3 Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats on serpentine derived soils and rock outcrops, mostly in rocky and gravelly areas; ranges in elevation from 45 to 800 meters; annual herb; blooms May through August. This species was observed growing on serpentine rock outcrops and gravelly soils in the southwestern part of the study area. California seablite Suaeda californica E/--/1B.1 Perennial succulent shrub that grows along the margins of coastal salt marshes in a narrow elevational range from 0 to 5 meters; known to occur in the Morro Bay area Not expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat (i.e., no coastal salt marsh habitat present). Cambria (San Luis Obispo County) morning-glory Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis --/--/4.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms from April to May; occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and sparse to dense grassland covering sloped or flat areas in clay-rich soils; ranges from 60-500 meters; restricted to outer South Coast ranges in SLO and Santa Barbara Counties. Observed as a component of onsite serpentine bunchgrass grasslands. Present in varying densities throughout the western part of the study area. Caper-fruited tropidocarpum Tropidocarpum capparideum --/--/1B.1 Annual herb; blooms March through April; ranges from 1 to 455 meters and is found on alkaline clay soils in valley and foothill grassland. Potentially suitable habitat present in onsite grassland habitats. Not observed during surveys when species would have been in flower and identifiable. Not expected to occur onsite. Chorro Creek bog thistle (San Luis Obispo fountain thistle) Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense E/E/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms February to July; ranges from 35 to 365 meters in elevation; occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats, often in serpentine seeps. Species was observed in wetland habitat along the upper portions of Drainages 1 and 2. Club-haired mariposa lily Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus --/--/4.3 Perennial bulbiferous herb known to occur on serpentine rock outcrops, valley grassland (i.e., perennial bunchgrass), chaparral, and foothill woodland; typically blooms from May to June. Species was observed in the extreme southwestern portion of the study area growing on rocky serpentine soils in coastal scrub and native grasslands. Coast woolly threads Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata --/--/1B.2 Annual herb that grows in coastal sand dunes in open spaces of the coastal strand; known to occur in the Montana de Oro area in sandy soils. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Coastal goosefoot Chenopodium littoreum --/--/1B.2 Annual herb that grows on sandy flats in coastal dunes along wetland and salt marsh habitat. Typically found between 30 and 100 meters, and is known from the Morro Bay estuary. No suitable habitat present onsite for this species. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Congdon’s tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms from June to November; occurs in moist alkaline conditions in marshes, swamps, vernal pools, and valley and foothill grassland habitats; ranges from 1 to 230 meters in elevation. Species was observed growing in the temporary stormwater basin in the northern part of the site. 8.j Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 3 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Coulter’s goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri --/--/1B.1 Annual herb that grows in coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools usually on alkaline soils from 1- 1,400 meters. Marginal habitat present in onsite wetlands and seeps. Only Lasthenia californica, a common species, was observed growing in and around the serpentine outcrops. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Coulter’s saltbush Atriplex coulteri --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb grows in coastal bluff scrub, sandy dune habitat as well as in valley grassland and coastal sage scrub. Marginal habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys, therefore, not expected to occur. Crisp monardella Monardella crispa --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms April through August; ranges from 10 to 120 meters in elevation and occurs on sandy soils in coastal dunes and coastal scrub. Species typically occurs in coastal dunes in close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, and the site is therefore outside the species range. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Cuesta Pass checkerbloom Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala --/R/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms May through June; ranges from 600 to 800 meters and is found on serpentine soils in closed-cone coniferous forest; known from only three occurrences on Cuesta Ridge in San Luis Obispo County. Project site is outside the known range for this species. Although suitable serpentine soils are present onsite, only the common checkerbloom, Sidalcea malviflora, was observed in bunchgrass grassland on the site. Cuesta Pass checkerbloom was not observed during surveys and is not expected to occur onsite. Cuesta Ridge thistle Cirsium occidentale var. lucianum --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb known to occur along the Cuesta Ridge in openings on steep rocky serpentinite slopes from 500 to 750 meters. Although suitable serpentine-based soils are present onsite, the study area is lower in elevation than areas in the Santa Lucia Mountains where this species has been observed. This species was not observed during field surveys, and is not expected to occur onsite. Dacite manzanita Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. daciticola --/--/1B.1 Perennial shrub known to occur in chaparral and cismontane woodland. Only one known occurrence of this species in SLO County on the porphyry buttes (Hollister Peak) east of Morro Bay No suitable habitat for this species present onsite. Perennial shrub would have been identifiable if encountered during the surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Diablo Canyon blue grass Poa diabolic --/--/1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb known from highly localized areas along the coast from Montana de Oro south onto Diablo Nuclear Power Plant property. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub and closed cone coniferous habitat types on shale. Marginal habitat present onsite. This species was not observed during surveys of the site at times when it would have been identifiable if encountered. Given it is a highly restricted species known to occur on the western flank of the San Luis Range, and there are no shale outcroppings onsite, this species is not expected to occur. Dune larkspur Delphinium parryi ssp. blochmaniae --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through May; occurs in maritime chaparral and coastal dune habitats at elevations ranging from 0 to 200 meters, typically on volcanic soils and/or rocky slopes. No suitable habitat present onsite due to lack of sandy soils. Not observed during spring surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. A closely related species was observed onsite – see below. Dwarf soaproot Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. minus --/--/1B.2 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms May to August; occurs on serpentine soils in chaparral and valley and foothill grassland habitats, ranging from 305 to 1000 meters in elevation. Suitable habitat present at serpentine rock outcrops and thin soils in native bunchgrass grassland. Only the common soaproot, Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum was observed onsite. Dwarf Soaproot was not observed during rare plant surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. 8.j Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 4 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Eastwood’s larkspur Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb known to occur on serpentine based soils (clays) and outcrops in the general San Luis Obispo area with collections made on Camp San Luis Obispo. Blooms March to May. Species was observed in the southwestern portion of the study area growing in coastal scrub and native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils. Hardham’s evening- primrose Camissoniopsis hardhamiae --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in chaparral and foothill woodland habitats; typically blooms from March to May. Only one recorded occurrence in the region from sandy openings in oak woodland in Los Osos. No suitable sandy soils present onsite. Not observed during field surveys, therefore, it is not expected to occur onsite. Hooked popcorn flower Plagiobothrys uncinatus --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in the Santa Lucia Mountains growing in chaparral typically on shale and sandstone soils. No suitable habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur. Hoover’s bent grass Agrostis hooveri --/--/1B.2 Stoloniferous, perennial herb; blooms April to July; occurs between 60 and 600 meters on sandy soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. No suitable sandy soils present to support this species. Grassland and oak woodland areas were searched for this species, but it was not observed. Not expected to occur onsite. Hoover’s button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri --/--/1B.1 An herb that can occur as either an annual or a perennial; blooms in July and occurs at elevations ranging from 3 to 45 meters; found in vernal pools, seasonally wet grasslands, and often in roadside ditches. Marginal habitat present in wetlands on- site. Seasonally wet areas were searched for this species and it was not observed. Not expected to occur onsite. Indian Knob mountainbalm Eriodictyon altissimum E/E/1B.1 Evergreen shrub; blooms March through June; ranges in elevation from 80 to 270 meters and occurs in maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub, usually on sandstone; often found in open disturbed areas. Marginal habitat identified in oak woodland and coastal scrub habitats on-site. No suitable sandstone based soils present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Jones’ layia Layia jonesii --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms March through May; occurs on clay soils and serpentine outcrops in chaparral and valley and foothill grassland; ranges in elevation from 5 to 400 meters. Species was observed in the southwestern portion of the study area growing in native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils. Leafy tarplant Deinandra increscens ssp. foliosa --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms June through September; typically found in sandy soils in valley and foothill grassland, and ranges from 300 to 500 meters in elevation. No suitable sandy soils present on-site to support this species. Leafy tarplant is known to occur further east on the Arroyo Grande NE quad. Not observed during surveys and not expected to be present onsite. Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola E/E/1B.1 Stoloniferous, perennial herb; blooms May to August; occurs in freshwater marshes and swamps, bogs and fens, and some coastal scrub, ranging from 3 to 170 meters in elevation; common associates include Typha, Juncus, and Scirpus. Marginal habitat was identified in Drainage 1. Species was not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Mesa horkelia Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula --/--/1B.1 Sandy or gravelly sites in chaparral, coastal scrub and cismontane woodland; 70 to 700 meter elevation range. Marginal habitat identified in coastal scrub and oak woodland on-site, but this species typically occurs in sandy soils not on clay and serpentine. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. 8.j Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 5 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Miles’ milk-vetch Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms March to June; found in coastal scrub habitats, typically occurring on clay soils; ranges in elevation 20 to 90 meters. Suitable habitat identified in coastal scrub and adjacent bunchgrass grassland habitats on-site. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur within the site. Morro manzanita Arctostaphylos morroensis T/--/1B.1 Evergreen shrub; blooms December through March; ranges in elevation from 5 to 205 meters; typically found on sandy-loam or Baywood sands in chaparral, woodlands, coastal dunes and coastal scrub. Project site is outside the known range for this species. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Most beautiful jewel- flower Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms April through June; occurs on serpentine soils in chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, and cismontane woodland, ranging from 120 to 1000 meters in elevation. Suitable serpentine soils and rock outcrops present. Not observed during surveys when this species would have been in identifiable condition. Not expected to occur onsite. Mouse-gray dudleya (aka San Luis Obispo dudleya) Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina --/--/1B.3 Perennial succulent herb; blooms May through June; occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland, usually on serpentine rock outcrops, at elevations ranging from 90 to 300 meters. Species was observed in the western portion of the study area growing in coastal scrub and native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils, and in the northern portion of Froom Creek. Oso manzanita Arctostaphylos osoensis --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub known to occur in chaparral and cismontane woodland on the porphyry buttes east of Morro Bay. No suitable habitat present. Shrub would have been identifiable if encountered during surveys. Not expected to occur. Palmer’s monardella Monardella palmeri --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms June through August; occurs on serpentine soils in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats at elevations ranging from 200 to 800 meters. Suitable serpentine soils and habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Palmer’s spineflower Chorizanthe palmeri --/--/List 4.2 Annual herb known to occur on serpentine-based soils in grassland and coastal scrub habitats in the outer coast ranges of Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties. Blooms from April through August Species was observed in the western portion of the study area growing in native grasslands on thin rocky and clay derived serpentine soils. Pappose tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, coastal salt marsh and valley and foothill grasslands typically vernally mesic; elevation ranges from 2 – 420 meters. Only occurrence of this species in the area is known from the Boysen Ranch wetland mitigation area at Foothill Blvd. and Los Osos Valley Road in seasonal wetlands on the valley floor east of Laguna Lake. It is possible that this occurrence was confused with Congdon’s tarplant, which is known from the Boysen Ranch. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur. Pecho manzanita Arctostaphylos pechoensis --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms November to March; occurs on siliceous shale in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and coastal scrub habitats, ranging from 170 to 1100 meters in elevation. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. 8.j Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 6 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Pismo clarkia Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata E/R/1B.1 Annual herb; blooms May through July; ranges from 25 to 185 meters in elevation and occurs in sandy soils in chaparral (margins, openings), cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Rayless (chaparral) ragwort Senecio aphanactis --/--/2.2 Annual herb; blooms January through April; ranges from 15 to 800 meters in elevation; typically found on drying alkaline flats, serpentine soils and barren gravelly or sandy slopes in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats. Three plants were observed at one location in the southwestern portion of the study area, growing on rocky serpentine soils. Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms April through June; ranges from 0 to 300 meters in elevation and occurs in mesic and alkaline conditions in marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Marginal habitat identified in wetlands on- site, however not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Salt marsh bird’s-beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum E/E/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur along margins of salt marsh habitat and coastal dunes. Limited to the higher zones of the Morro Bay estuary. No suitable habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys. Species not expected to occur onsite. San Benito fritillary Fritillaria viridea --/--/1B.2 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms March to May; ranges from 200 to 1525 meters in elevation and occurs in chaparral on serpentine soils. Suitable serpentine soils present. Not observed during surveys. Only Fritillaria biflora observed onsite. Not expected to occur onsite. San Joaquin spearscale Atriplex joaquinana --/--/1B.2 Annual herb that grows in seasonal alkali wetlands and alkali sink scrub typically found in the San Joaquin Valley. One recorded occurrence of this species from 1899 in CNDDB was from the vicinity of Morro Bay. Unlikely that this species occurs in the project area. No alkali meadow habitat present, or other indicator species such as Distichlis spicata or Frankenia salina. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. San Luis mariposa-lily Calochortus obispoensis --/--/1B.2 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms May to July; ranges from 75 to 730 meters on sandstone, serpentine and/or sandy soils in chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland; endemic to San Luis Obispo County and is known from localized occurrences in the San Luis Obispo and Arroyo Grande region. Species was observed in the southwestern portion of the study area growing in native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils. San Luis Obispo (La Panza) mariposa-lily Calochortus simulans --/--/1B.3 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms April to May; occurs in sandy, often granitic, sometimes serpentine soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland; ranges from 395 to 1100 meters in elevation. Suitable serpentine soils present in western portion of site. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. San Luis Obispo County lupine Lupinus ludovicianus --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through July; commonly found on sandstone or sandy soils in chaparral and cismontane woodland, ranging in elevation from 50 to 525 meters. Suitable habitat identified in oak woodlands and adjacent scrub/grasslands on-site, but no suitable soil substrate given the serpentine and clay soils. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. 8.j Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 7 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations San Luis Obispo monardella Monardella frutescens --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms May through September; ranges from 10 to 200 meters and occurs on sandy soils in coastal dunes and coastal scrub. Species is known to occur in sand dunes along Pacific Ocean. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. San Luis Obispo owl’s clover Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms in April; ranges from 10 to 400 meters in elevation and occurs in meadows, seeps, and valley and foothill grassland. Occurrences of this species were observed in the southwestern portion of the study area, growing in native grasslands on rocky serpentine and clay soils. San Luis Obispo sedge Carex obispoensis --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms April to June; ranges from 10 to 790 meters; occurs in closed- cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland (usually near seeps and springs); Usually occurs in transition zone on sand, clay or serpentine. Suitable soils and wetland/seep habitat present on-site. Suitable habitat was searched, but species was not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Santa Lucia manzanita Arctostaphylos luciana --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms February to March; occurs on shale outcrops in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats; ranges from 350 to 850 meters in elevation. Site lacks shale outcrops and is well outside known range for this species. Perennial shrub would have been identifiable during field surveys. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Santa Margarita manzanita Arctostaphylos pilosula --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms December to March; occurs in Closed cone coniferous forests, cismontane woodland, and chaparral, typically on shale outcrops/soils in San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties; ranges from 170 to 1100 meters in elevation. Potentially suitable habitat identified in oak woodland on-site. Perennial shrub would have been identifiable during field surveys. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Straight-awned spineflower Chorizanthe rectispina --/--/1B.3 Annual herb; blooms May through July; occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats, ranging in elevation from 200 to 1035 meters; has even been found in vineyards and other frequently disturbed areas. Found in granite sand or disintegrating shale. Marginal habitat present in coastal scrub and oak woodland habitat on-site. Unlikely to occur on serpentine-based soils. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Surf thistle Cirsium rhothophilum --/T/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through June; ranges in elevation from 3 to 60 meters; occurs in coastal dune and coastal bluff scrub communities in close proximity to the ocean. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Woodland woolly threads Monolopia gracilens --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands and cismontane woodlands growing on serpentine soils. Potentially suitable habitat present in grasslands near serpentine rock outcrops. This species was not observed within the project area. Not expected to occur. INVERTEBRATES Atascadero June beetle Polyphylla nubila --/SA/-- Sand dunes. No suitable habitat. Not expected to occur. 8.j Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 8 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations California linderiella Linderiella occidentalis --/SA/-- Seasonal pools in grasslands underlain by hardpan or in sandstone depressions. Marginal habitat identified in seasonally wet areas. Site does not appear to support necessary habitat attributes to support the species. Further, no vernal pool habitat present onsite or in the immediate vicinity. Unlikely to occur. Globose dune beetle Coelus globosus --/SA/-- Inhabits coastal sand dune habitat in foredunes and sand hummocks most common beneath dune vegetation. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur onsite Mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) Tryonia imitator --/SA/-- Found only in permanently submerged areas in coastal lagoons. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus --/SA/-- Wind-protected tree groves of eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress with nectar and water sources nearby. No suitable overwintering habitat present on-site. Eucalyptus trees present do not create the necessary microclimate needed for overwintering. Species expected to forage onsite, but is not expected to use the project area for overwintering. Morro Bay blue butterfly Plebejus icarioides moroensis --/SA/-- Inhabits stabilized dunes and adjacent areas of coastal San Luis Obispo and NW Santa Barbara counties. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Morro shoulderband snail Helminthoglypta walkeriana E/--/-- Known to occur in coastal sage scrub and dune scrub habitats on Baywood fine sands on the southside of Morro Bay. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. San Luis Obispo pyrg Pyrgulopsis taylori --/SA/-- Freshwater habitats in San Luis Obispo County. Marginal habitat present in lower wetlands of project area, but unlikely since they are man-induced wetlands. Unlikely to occur. Sandy beach tiger beetle Cicindela hirticollis gravida --/SA/-- Inhabits area adjacent to non- brackish water along the coast of California from San Francisco Bay to Northern Mexico. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi T/SA/-- Endemic to grasslands of central coast mountains; opportunistic species inhabits a variety of small clear-water pools including sandstone depressions and grassland swales that contain surface water for approximately 30 days during the winter and spring rain season. Marginal habitat identified in seasonally wet areas at Calle Joaquin wetland. Nearest observation of vernal pool fairy shrimp is on the Chevron Tank Farm near the San Luis Obispo Airport. Past studies for Calle Joaquin improvements did not locate this species. Unlikely that this species would have colonized the site in a short period of time. Unlikely to occur. White sand bear scarab beetle Lichnanthe albipilosa --/SA/-- Coastal sand dunes of San Luis Obispo County, in the vicinity of dune lakes. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. 8.j Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 9 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations FISH Steelhead – South/Central California ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus T/SSC/-- Fresh water, fast flowing, highly oxygenated, clear, cool stream where riffles tend to predominate pools. Suitable habitat present further upstream offsite in Froom Creek. SLO Creek is identified by USFWS as critical habitat for the species, and Froom Creek is shown as a steelhead stream. Potentially could occur onsite during high rainfall years when flowing water is present. Not expected to spawn onsite, but would use this portion of Froom Creek as a movement corridor to areas of suitable habitat further upstream in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi E/SSC/-- Brackish water habitats along the California coast from San Diego county to Del Norte county. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. AMPHIBIANS/REPTILES California red-legged frog Rana draytonii T/SSC/-- Lowland and foothills in or near permanent or semi-permanent sources of deep water (at least 0.5 meter) bordered by emergent wetland and/or riparian vegetation. May use a variety of aquatic and upland habitats during the year for refugia and dispersal. Potential habitat was identified in several locations onsite including a ponded culvert at Calle Joaquin wetland. Onsite portion of Froom Creek does not contain aquatic habitat with any frequency to support this species, which reduces the potential for red-legged frogs to successfully breed onsite. Nearest recorded occurrence is from the wastewater treatment ponds to the east of San Luis Obispo Creek that are separated from the site by Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. No direct surveys were conducted as part of this investigation due to the lack of aquatic habitat greater than 12 inches deep due to the ongoing drought. Unlikely to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable aquatic habitat at least on a seasonal basis. Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii --/SSC/-- Frequents a wide variety of habitat including sandy washes with scattered shrubs and open areas for sunning. Loose soils for burial. Marginal habitat present on-site given dense clay soils and rock outcroppings. Even though site does not contain loose friable sandy soils, species could potentially occur in onsite coastal scrub habitat in upper elevations, but appears unlikely. Coast Range newt Taricha torosa torosa --/SSC/-- Coastal drainages from Mendocino County to San Diego County. Lives in terrestrial habitat and breeds in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams. No suitable habitat present in this portion of Froom Creek. The onsite tributary drainages are highly ephemeral in nature and lack suitable in channel ponds and vegetative cover to support breeding. Known records of this species are in Santa Lucia Mountains to the north and Arroyo Grande Creek to the south. Not expected to occur based on the lack of suitable habitat. Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii --/SSC/-- Occurs in partly shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats typically in the upper mountainous reaches of drainages in the outer coast ranges. Species needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying and 15 weeks of aquatic habitat to attain metamorphosis. No suitable habitat present onsite given the highly ephemeral nature of the drainages. Two old occurrence records in CNDDB from upper San Luis Obispo Creek and upper Lopez Canyon. Unlikely that this species occurs onsite due to lower elevation of the Ranch and lack of typical habitat. 8.j Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 10 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra --/SSC/-- Sandy or loamy soils in valley and foothill woodlands, chaparral, coastal scrub and coastal dunes. No suitable habitat present onsite due to the heavy clay soils and rocky serpentine outcrops. Not expected to occur. Southern Pacific (western) pond turtle Emys marmorata --/SSC/-- Basking sites such as partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, or open mud banks. No suitable habitat present in onsite drainages, and marginal habitat present seasonally within the Calle Joaquin wetland. Species known to occur in San Luis Obispo Creek where perennial water is present. Unlikely to occur onsite due to barriers such as Highway 101 and LOVR. Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii --/SSC/-- Perennial and intermittent streams bordered by dense vegetation; stock ponds bordered by dense emergent riparian vegetation. Small highly ephemeral drainages and wetlands do not provide sufficient habitat for this species. Not expected to occur. Western spadefoot Spea hammondii --/SSC/-- Grassland habitats and vernal pools for breeding/egg-laying with loose friable soils for burrowing. No suitable vernal pool habitat present nor are suitable loose friable soils present to support burrowing during dry summer/fall months. Not expected to occur. BIRDS Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia --/SSC/-- (burrow sites and wintering sites) Grasslands; nests in burrows. They prefer areas with low vegetation on small hills that provide a vantage point of the surrounding areas. Suitable habitat present in grasslands, however extensive burrowing mammal activity was not observed within the project area. Could occur as a seasonal transient overwintering on and around the site, but would not be expected to breed onsite. California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus --/T/-- Freshwater marshes, wet meadows and shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch that does not fluctuate and dense vegetation for nesting. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus E/E/-- Occurs in salt-water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs with abundant growths of pickleweed. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. California condor Gymnogyps californianus E/E/-- Roosts in cliffs or ledges; feeds in open areas up to 100 miles from roost. No suitable roosting or nesting habitat on- site, but could forage in grasslands as a very rare transient. Unlikely to occur. California homed lark Eremophila alpestris actia --/WL/-- Sparse coastal sage scrub and grasslands. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat in grasslands on-site. Could occur. California least tern Sterna antillarum browni E/E/-- Nests along coast from San Francisco Bay to northern Baja California. Nests on sandy beaches, alkali flats, landfills or paved areas. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii --/WL/-- (nesting) Wooded areas. Nests in tall trees and often hunts around human structures. Potentially suitable nesting habitat present in oak/bay woodlands and eucalyptus/sycamore trees on-site. Could also forage across the site. Could occur. Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis --/WL/-- (nonbreeding/ wintering) Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Eats mostly lagomorphs, ground squirrels and mice. Suitable foraging habitat present in grasslands on-site, however this species typically does not nest in California. Could occur as a seasonal transient during fall/winter months. Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos --/WL, FP/-- (nesting & nonbreeding/ wintering) Nests on cliffs and rocks and forages in open country, grasslands. Suitable foraging habitat in grasslands on- site. Unlikely to nest on the property, but rock outcroppings and cliff faces in the upper elevations outside the study area could be used for nesting. 8.j Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 11 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus --/SSC/-- (nesting) Nests in shrubs in coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats or in trees that overlook grasslands; preys over semi-open habitats and feeds primarily on large insects and often skewers prey on a barb or thorn to cache for later feeding. Suitable woodland, grassland, and scrub habitat present for foraging and nesting. Could occur. Merlin Falco columbarius --/WL/-- (nonbreeding/ wintering) Nests outside of California; forages in a variety of habitats. Uses clumps of trees or windbreaks for roosting. Suitable foraging habitat present on-site. Could occur. Northern harrier Circus cyaneus --/SSC/-- (nesting) Forages and nests in grasslands and marshes. Requires large expanses of habitat for foraging. Suitable habitat present onsite for this species as the grassland habitat is expansive and connected to large open space. Observed foraging across the site, but no signs of nesting behavior. Could occur. Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus --/WL/-- (nesting) Catches pray in air and in open ground in grasslands. Nests in cliffs overlooking large areas. No nesting habitat present, but rocky outcrops in hills outside study area could potentially support nesting activities. Potential foraging habitat present on-site. Unlikely to occur. Purple martin Progne subis --/SSC/-- (nesting) Nests in cavities of large trees in oak and riparian woodlands, and low elevation coniferous forests; rare; usually found near water. Suitable nesting habitat present in oak woodland and marginal habitat present in riparian habitat along LOVR. Could occur. Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus --/WL/-- (nesting) Prefers riparian plant communities, but can be found in pine and oak woodlands on north-facing slopes. Potentially suitable foraging and nesting habitat in oak//bay woodland and large trees present onsite. Could occur. Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor (nesting colony) C/SSC/-- (nesting colony) Found near freshwater habitats where it nests in emergent freshwater or riparian vegetation. This species prefers nesting in dense thickets of cattails and tules. Due to their highly colonial nature, nesting areas must be large enough to support a colony of about 50 pairs. No suitable nesting habitat present in onsite detention basins or along the Froom Creek corridor. While a patch of tules is present along Calle Joaquin the area does not appear to be large enough to support nesting tricolored blackbirds. Not observed during surveys and unlikely to nest within the study area. Could occur as an uncommon transient and potentially nest onsite should the tule patch enlarge. Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T/SSC/-- (nesting) Sandy beaches, salt pond levees or shores of large alkali lakes. Sandy, gravelly or friable soils required for nesting. Federal listing refers only to the Pacific coastal population. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis C/E/-- (nesting) Nests and forages in dense lowland riparian vegetation during summer. Marginal habitat present in onsite riparian habitat along OVR. Last CNDDB record for the County was in 1921, and given the riparian habitat is comprised of a thin band of willows along a busy road, it is unlikely that this species would nest onsite. White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus --/FP/-- (nesting) Riparian woodlands near agricultural fields; forages over open grasslands and scrub. Suitable nesting habitat in oak, bay, eucalyptus and sycamore trees on-site, with good quality foraging habitat in grasslands throughout the Ranch. Not observed during surveys and no stick nests observed that could be used by this species for nesting activities. Known to occur further north of the site in the Los Osos Valley, and could occur onsite during foraging activities. Could also potentially nest onsite in the future. 8.j Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 12 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri --/SSC/-- (nesting) Riparian plants, prefers willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores and alders for resting and foraging. Marginal habitat is present in willow riparian area along the LOVR ditch, especially considering the well developed riparian corridor along San Luis Obispo Creek to the east. Could potentially occur in more dense riparian habitat but unlikely to nest onsite given disturbance along LOVR. MAMMALS American badger Taxidea taxus --/SSC/-- Friable soils and open, uncultivated ground for denning. Preys on burrowing rodents such as groundsquirrels. Suitable habitat is present in grassland on- site, but heavy clay soils likely preclude badgers from being regular residents onsite. No dens or large ground squirrel colonies observed within the project area. Could potentially occur as a transient across the site. Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis --/SSC/-- Occurs in low lying arid areas of Southern California. Needs high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. Feeds primarily on large moths. Could potentially occur onsite, and use the upper rocky ridgelines and rock outcrops outside the study area for roosting sites. Not expected to roost onsite, but could forage over the grasslands, oak woodlands and coastal scrub areas. Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus --/SA/-- Roosts in dense foliage of large trees. Requires water. Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics with access to trees for cover and open areas of habitat edge for feeding. Suitable foraging habitat on-site. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak woodland especially in close proximity to confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 with Froom Creek. Could occur. Morro Bay kangaroo rat Dipodomys heermanii morroensis E/E/-- Coastal sage scrub on the south side of Morro Bay. Needs sandy soil on stabilized dunes with vegetation. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus --/SSC/-- Occurs in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts under bridges and in some areas in old structures such as barns. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak/bay woodland. Suitable foraging habitat in on-site grasslands and coastal scrub. Could occur. San Diego woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia --/SSC/-- Coastal scrub, oak woodlands with moderate to dense canopies. Abundant in and around rock outcrops and rocky cliffs and slopes with shrub and tree cover. Suitable habitat present in oak woodlands and coastal scrub throughout the southwestern part of the site. Wood rat nests observed in upper reaches of the property in coastal scrub habitat. Could potentially occur. Townsend’s western big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii --/-SSC/-- Requires caves, tunnels, mines, or similar man-made structures for roosting. This bat feeds primarily on moths, but will eat a variety of soft- bodied insects. Suitable foraging habitat present throughout the site. Potential roosting habitat located at existing buildings. Could occur. Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus --/SSC/-- Open, arid habitats including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grassland, and chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliffs faces high buildings, trees and tunnels. Suitable foraging habitat in grasslands on- site. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak woodland and large eucalyptus and sycamore trees. Could occur. Western red bat Lasiurus blossevilli --/SSC/-- Roosts in trees near open areas for foraging. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak/bay woodland and foraging habitat consists of onsite grasslands. Could occur. Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis --/SA/-- Riparian, arid scrublands, deserts, and forests near permanent sources of water. Roosts in trees, rock crevices, trees hollows, mines, caves and a variety of manmade structures. Potentially suitable roosting and foraging habitat on-site. Could occur. 8.j Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 13 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Plant/Natural Communities Central Dune Scrub Not present Central Foredunes Not present Central Maritime Chaparral Not present Coastal Brackish Marsh Not present Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Present. In select areas in Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and along LOVR and Calle Joaquin Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Not present Northern Interior Cypress Forest Not present Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland Present. Identified on the habitat map as Native Bunchgrass habitat. Valley Needlegrass Grassland Present. Synonymous with the above Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland habitat. *E = Endangered; T = Threatened; R = Rare CL = Candidate for Listing Status; SSC = California Species of Special Concern; FP = Fully Protected; WL = Watch List; SA – Special Animal; ‘—‘ = no status; List 1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; List 2 – Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; List 4 – Limited distribution (Watch List). Source: California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2015); California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare Plants, accessed April and November 2015 (online at www.cnps.org); and background literature review. 8.j Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) APPENDIX C Photo Plate KMA 8.j Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 PHOTO PLATE Photo 1. Northwesterly view of annual grassland in the flat areas adjacent to the Calle Joaquin wetland. In the distance is the large detention basin and spreading occurrence of reed fescue. Photo 2. Representative view of serpentine bunchgrass grassland with Eastwood’s larkspur in flower on the slopes in the southwest part of the site. 8.j Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 2 Photo 3. Northerly view of the Calle Joaquin wetland area showing tules growing in shallow surface water. Photo 4. Overview of annual grassland and serpentine bunchgrass grassland in the southwest part of the site. Oak/bay woodland can be seen near the confluence of Drainages 1, 2 and 3. Coastal scrub/chaparral habitat is in the foreground with black sage, buck brush and California sagebrush present. 8.j Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 3 Photo 5. View of wetland habitat at seep dominated by sedges and rushes adjacent to Drainage 2. Photo 6. Wetland habitat in the upper reach of Drainage 2 with young Chorro Creek bog thistle plants present. Steep hillside in the distance is composed of coastal scrub/chaparral habitat. 8.j Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 4 Photo 7. View of oak/bay woodland with large eucalyptus present near confluence of Drainages 1 and 2. Native serpentine bunchgrass grassland with associated wildlfowers is in the foreground. Photo 8. Westerly view of the upper reach of Drainage 1 showing purple needlegrass in flower (beige color) on opposite sides of the drainage. Oak/bay woodland and coastal scrub/chaparral is visible on the hillside in the distance. 8.j Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 5 Photo 9. Southerly view of Froom Creek traversing the center of the site. Channel is composed of serpentine cobble and gravel substrate with very little in-‐channel vegetation. Photo 10. Northerly view of the Los Osos Valley Road Roadside Channel showing arroyo willows growing in the constructed channel. Wetland vegetation was also present with poison hemlock visible in the lower right. 8.j Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 6 Photo 11. Calochortus obispoensis observed growing in the upper elevations of the southwestern part of the study area in thin rocky serpentine soils. Photo 12. Castilleja densiflora ssp. obsipoensis growing in serpentine bunchgrass grassland in the southwestern part of the site. Photo to the right shows stigma extending beyond corolla lip. 8.j Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 7 Photo 13. Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii observed in the constructed Home Depot detention basin in the northeastern part of the site. Photo 14. Chorizanthe breweri growing in serpentine gravelly soils along Froom Creek. 8.j Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 8 Photo 15. Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense growing in wetland habitat along Drainage 2. Photo 16. Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae growing in serpentine bunchgrass grassland in southwest part of the site. 8.j Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 9 Photo 17. Serpentine rock outcrop with Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina. Photo 18. Young Dudleya blochmaniae plants observed in small occurrences in the southwest part of the site. 8.j Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 10 Photo 19. Layia jonesii growing in the southwest part of the site. Photo 20. Senecio aphanactis growing along top of serpentine rock outcrop north of Drainage 3. 8.j Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) APPENDIX D Tree Inventory Data Form KMA 8.j Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 1 Tree Survey Monitoring Form Date______2/10/15_____ Surveyor__________Sloan, Block_______ Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 1 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 16, 11, 12 154 large healthy tree 2 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 12, 12, 11, 10 153 one 12” is dead 3 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 13 155 young healthy tree 4 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 9 156 young healthy tree 5 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 8, 8, 11, 7, 12 157 large healthy tree 6 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 14, 10, 9, 14 158 old tree, large burl, poor condition 7 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 12 159 young healthy, edge of channel 8 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 9 160 young healthy, edge of channel 9 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 7, 9, 14, 8 161 some splitting at base, old, large burl 10 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 19, 12 162 old tree 11 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 15 163 young tree 12 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 6, 7 164 young tree 13 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 4, 7, 7, 7 165 young tree 8.j Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 2 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 14 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 10, 8 166 young healthy tree 15 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 11, 11 167 weak crotch on one trunk, main trunk splitting at base 16 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 21, 22, 28 168 very old large tree 17 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 26 169 old, low vigor, small canopy 18 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 7 170 young healthy tree 19 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 5 171 young healthy tree, numerous trunks under 4” 20 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 10 172 Spanish moss, thin canopy, unhealthy 21 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 13 173 healthy tree 22 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 13, 5 174 healthy tree 23 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 14, 7, 11, 9 175 healthy tree 24 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 6, 4, 5 176 Spanish moss on base, stunted, small 25 Umbellularia californica California Bay L 6, 5, 4 177 Spanish moss, 2 trunks under 4” 26 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 13 178 old tree, rotten bark on main trunk 27 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 20 179 old tree, leaning, lichens on bark 28 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 10, 13 180 healthy tree 29 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 12 181 very large burl, in lower creek bank 30 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 22, 23 182 very large burl, old tree 8.j Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 3 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 31 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 12 183 small, split at base 32 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 22 184 hollow, large cavity at base 33 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 18, 23, 22 185 large healthy tree 34 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 27 186 large healthy tree 35 Umbellularia californica California Bay L 9 187 small, sparse canopy 36 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 8 188 small healthy tree 37 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 9, 10, 8 189 sparse canopy 38 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 32 190 splits in bark, old, large tree 39 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 14, 16 191 large healthy tree 40 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 6 192 small tree, 2 stems under 4” dbh 41 Prunus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Cherry M 7 193 very large old specimen 42 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 28 194 large old tree 43 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 31 195 large old tree 44 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 37, 16 196 large old tree 45 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 5, 4, 6, 5 197 one dead trunk, moderate health 46 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 45 198 very large tree, leaning over channel 47 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 23 199 tall, straight, on bank 8.j Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 4 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 48 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 5, 5, 4 200 hollow base, split trunk 49 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 16, 22, 21 201 large, within the channel bank 50 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 23, 34 202 big, old, pruned up from ground 51 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 15, 27, 22 203 big, old, leaning, hollow base 52 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 8 204 young healthy tree 53 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 24, 13, 5 205 largest trunk hollow, others healthy 54 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 16, 4, 15, 21, 28 206 bark damage/cuts from campers 55 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 24 208 large, healthy tree 56 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 24, 15 209 large tree, in channel 57 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 12, 23 210 lower branches pruned up from ground 58 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 17 211 large broken branch, on bank 59 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 39, 30 212 big, old, on bank of channel 60 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 20, 10, 10, 12, 14, 6, 22 213 old, healthy, large burl 61 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 97 215 very large old tree, upland area 62 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 83 216 very large old tree, upland area 63 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 22 217 young tree, upland area 8.j Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 5 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 64 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 16, 16, 8,13 218 upland area 65 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 32, 36 214 old, large, thin canopy 66 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 25 219 old, thin canopy, many burl sprouts 67 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 21 220 thin canopy, hill top 68 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 26 221 thin canopy, hill top 69 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 48 222 thin canopy, hill top 70 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 42 223 hollow trunk, sparse canopy 71 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 8, 10, 15, 8, 21, 26 224 large burl, lichen on trunk, hollow 72 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 20 225 small, sparse canopy 73 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 21 231 lichen on trunk 74 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 5 232 hilltop, young, sparse canopy 75 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 7 233 hilltop, moss, few leaves 76 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 19 234 in channel, thick canopy 77 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 30 in channel, sparse canopy 78 Schinus molle Peruvian Pepper M 34 235 very old, hollow, many new sprouts 79 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 35 236 very large, upland area 80 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 12 236 upland area 81 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 32 237 upland area 8.j Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 6 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 82 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 51 237 upland area 83 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 22 238 upland area 84 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 36 238 upland area 85 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 53 238 upland area 86 Schinus molle Peruvian Pepper M 12, 12, 8, 9 239 old, moss/lichens, young sprouts at base 87 Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood H 14, 10 277 young, healthy, dormant 88 Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood H 9, 9, 8, 6 278 young, healthy, starting to leaf out 89 Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow H many, 4-‐ 12 inches 279 large base, 10 to 12 trunks 90 Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow H many, 4-‐ 10 inches 280 at culvert, 8 trunks observed 91 Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood H 11 281 starting to leaf out 92 Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow H 11 282 at culvert 93 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 49, 32, 27, 14, 12 303 rock outcrop on hillside, very large tree 94 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore H 18, 6 304 upland area near road base mining / storage activity 95 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore H 16, 14 305 upland area near road base mining / storage activity 96 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore H 16 306 upland area near road base mining / storage activity 8.j Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: j - Biological Resources Inventory (1295 : Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation)