Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report 02-19-2020Attachments A: Project Description B: Reconfigured AG Easement C: DEIR Executive Summary D: LAFCO DEIR Comments E: LAFCO Policies TO: MEMBERS, FORMATION COMMISSION FROM: DAVID CHURCH, EXECUTIVE OFFICER MIKE PRATER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2020 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION - CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ANNEXATION AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Recommendation. It is respectfully recommended that the Commission consider the information provided at this study session and give direction and comments to staff as appropriate. Summary. This study session is to provide the Commission with information regarding the Froom Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report released by the City of San Luis Obispo in November 2019. Attachments A and B are summaries of the proposal and a description of the various land uses, infrastructure demands and proposed phasing. Attachment C is a summary of the Environmental Impact Report. Attachment D contains LAFCO’s comment letter regarding the EIR and proposal. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is currently located in the County of San Luis Obispo immediately southwest of the City. The Specific Plan area consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 110 acres just south of the Irish Hills Plaza and across Los Osos Valley Road from the auto park. Beyond the defined Specific Plan area, the project site also includes an offsite drainage basin easement area which is 7.1 acres in size. See vicinity map on the next page. The northeastern portion of the Specific Plan Area is located within the City’s Urban Reserve Line, and the entire site is within the Sphere of Influence. The Sphere of Influence was last adopted in 2016. The Froom Ranch site was a receiver site of 7.1 acres to off -set agricultural protection from the Madonna/Gap Annexation approved by LAFCO in 2010. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is divided into two distinct areas – Madonna Froom Ranch on the north and a Life Plan Community known as Villaggio to the south. Madonna Froom Ranch primarily contains multi- family residential uses with some commercial in the northeast corner. LAFCO - San Luis Obispo - Local Agency Formation Commission SLO LAFCO - Serving the Area of San Luis Obispo County COMMISSIONERS Chairperson TOM MURRAY Public Member Vice-Chair MARSHALL OCHYLSKI Special District Member DEBBIE ARNOLD County Member ROBERT ENNS Special District Member ROBERTA FONZI City Member LYNN COMPTON County Member ED WAAGE City Member ALTERNATES ED EBY Special District Member STEVE GREGORY City Member HEATHER JENSEN Public Member JOHN PESCHONG County Member STAFF DAVID CHURCH Executive Officer BRIAN A. PIERIK Legal Counsel MIKE PRATER Deputy Executive Officer IMELDA MARQUEZ Commission Clerk B-1-1 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 2 Figure 1 Existing Site Conditions and Vicinity Map B-1-2 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 3 Villaggio is a gated community intended to provide a variety of different senior residential living units from independent housing, assisted living units, memory care beds, and skilled nursing beds. This community will also include ancillary services for residents such as recreational facilities, restaurants, and movie theaters. Consistent with the City’s General Plan, approximately 50 percent of the site will remain as open space. BACKGROUND. The City of San Luis Obispo has released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and held a Planning Commission hearing on December 11, 2019 and a number of additional public hearings at City advisory bodies in November and December 2019. The City anticipates additional public review by advisory bodies (Architectural Review Committee, Cultural Heritage Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Active Transportation Committee), Planning Commission, and City Council on the Final EIR and project entitlements in Spring-Summer 2020. LAFCO staff has reviewed the DEIR and provided comments (Attachment D). LAFCO is likely to use the EIR as a Responsible Agency. Based on the input from the City, public and various agencies, the applicant has agreed to modify the proposed project to reflect the Actionable Alternative, which is evaluated in the DEIR as Alternative 1 and identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Today’s project description and figures represent the most current proposal. The site is characterized by relatively flatter grassland areas which transition to steeper slopes before approaching City open space property at the base of the Irish Hills. The bulk of the property is undeveloped, but includes an assemblage of historical ranch and dairy structures on part of the site directly to the south of Home Depot . Current uses on the property are office (main ranch house) and equipment storage yard to support a construction business. The site also includes unimproved roads, staging and materials storage, a quarry area, and a storm water detention facility for the neighbori ng Irish Hills Plaza. Approximately 67 acres of the site, which includes the previously dedicated 7.1-acre open space easement, would be preserved as open space/conservation that creates a contiguous viewshed, biological and corridor habitat protection, and natural backdrop. The development would convert approximately 50 acres of which 43.5 acres consist of prime agricultural class II soils. The Specific Plan would call for a 1:1 on -site or off-site mitigation to meet the City and LAFCO’s agricultural preservation policies. Commercial uses would make-up 100,000 square feet mixed-use; current anticipated uses could include a 70,000 square foot hotel and 30,000 square feet of commercial/retail. Residential units would add 404 senior housing units, 51 beds for assisted living, and up to 174 multi-family units. B-1-3 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project includes two main components: Villaggio – Life Plan Community  366 Independent Living units  38 Assisted units  17 Memory Care beds  34 Skilled Nursing beds  15,000 square feet of restaurant uses and theaters  11,000 square feet of recreational facility Madonna Froom Ranch  Up to 174 Multi-Family units  30,000 square feet of retail and office space  70,000 square feet Hotel; 120 rooms For greater detail on the project components, please refer to Attachment A. For more information on the open space/ conservation easement, refer to Attachment B. The applicant proposes that the project be developed in three phases driven by economic and market demands, and the completion of the extended services and infrastructure. The first phase would include the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) improvements, public utility connections, on-site public streets, Froom Creek restoration, and drainage basin. The second phase will include Villaggio (the Life Plan Community), including the health center, common area buildings, and emergency access road. The third phase will include Madonna Froom Ranch, including the commercial and independent residential areas, public trailhead park and historic buildings. B-1-4 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 5 Figure 2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan B-1-5 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 6 KEY ISSUES FOR LAFCO. Agriculture/Open Space: Most of the property is undeveloped, but includes an assemblage of historical ranch and dairy structures on part of the site directly to the south of Home Depot. Approximately 43.5 acres of the project site meets the CKH definition of prime agricultural land. San Luis Obispo County LAFCO sets forth specific policies when considering annexation proposals that involve annexation of agricultural resources. LAFCO provides the following mitigation options to off -set the conversion of prime agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio: a. Acquisition and dedication of farmland, development rights, and/or agricultural conservation easements to permanently protect farmlands within the annexation area or lands with similar characteristics within the County Planning Area. b. Payment of in-lieu fees to an established, qualified, mitigation/conservation program or organization sufficient to fully fund the acquisition and dedication activities stated above in 12a. c. Other measures agreed to by the applicant and the land use jurisdiction that meet the intent of replacing prime agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio. The Project would reconfigure the existing onsite 7.1-acre agricultural and open space easement (portion of the Madonna/Gap Annexation) to include lands on both sides of Calle Joaquin. While the boundary would change, the easement would have the same total area of 7.1 acres but would more efficiently encompass identified onsite jurisdictional wetland areas. See Figure 3.2 on the next page. The applicant is proposing a total of approximately 67 acres of mostly contiguous C/OS zones to meet the City’s General Plan requirements for at least 50 percent to be designated as Open Space. This open space area could also mitigate the conversion of prime agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio. See Figure 3.2-1 on the following next page. A portion of the onsite prime soils (approximately 3.2 acres) lie within the existing Irish Hills stormwater basin, which supports substantial wetland vegetation (approximately 2 acres), particularly during wetter periods. The EIR requires the conversion of these wetland areas to be mitigated through the development of replacement wetlands on - or off-site at a 3:1 ratio, or as otherwise required by regulatory agencies. This mitigation could also mitigate the conservation of primate agricultural land. LAFCO’s comment letter acknowledges the City’s efforts to meet the intent of LAFCO's prime agricultural policies through the adopted conditions of approval placed on the project. LAFCO also encouraged the City and applicant to look for an off-site opportunity to preserve prime agricultural land that meets LAFCO's 1:1 preservation requirements. B-1-6 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 7 Figure 3.2 Open Space B-1-7 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 8 Figure 3.2-1 Agricultural Resources Traffic and Circulation: The project site would be accessed via LOVR at a new intersection with Auto Park Way. W idening of LOVR is proposed to facilitate turning movements into the project. In addition to the main entry point into the project from LOVR, two emergency access roads would be provided for t he project: (1) the northern terminus of Commercial Collector “B” at the Project site boundary would provide for passage of emergency vehicles and personnel via the parking lot of Irish Hills Plaza with removal of proposed bollards; and (2) a second access off of LOVR approximately 800 feet southeast of the LOVR/Auto Park Way traffic signal. A brief summary of the major components are provided below:  Proposed internal roadway network consisting of public and private roads;  Proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the Specific Plan area;  Parking facilities to accommodate residents, employees, and visitors within the Specific Plan area;  Widening of LOVR along a portion of the Project site’s frontage;  A new bus stop that would be integrated into the regional public transportation system; B-1-8 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 9  Installation of sidewalks along an approximate 550-foot-long portion of LOVR from the new transit stop location north to Irish Hills Plaza; and  A proposed signalized intersection at LOVR and Auto Park Way to serve as the primary entrance to the Specific Plan area. A new bus stop is proposed in the southbound direction of LOVR, just south of the proposed intersection. The Villaggio Life Community Plan will also provide shuttle services for residents. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 2,700 daily vehicle trips. The City has identified a number of impact s to surrounding roadway intersection that would remain impacted as significant and unavoidable with the implementation of mitigation measures, see EIR – Mitigations section below. Emergency evacuation has been given consideration given the potential for 1,231 residents and employees could be onsite within the proposed residential and commercial areas. Life Plan Community residents of the health car e unit, which includes skilled nursing and memory care, may require special evacuation needs. A site specific Evacuation Plan will be required to address this inevitability. This plan will be prepared by the applicant consistent with State requirements for Life Plan Communities and vetted by the City Fire Department prior to annexation. Housing Income Levels & Jobs-to-Housing Ratio: The City's General Plan Land Use Element requires that a total of 15% of new housing within the Specific Plan Area be affordable, and that affordable housing be provided onsite. This 15% consists of 5% of the new units being rented or sold at prices affordable to low income households and 10% to moderate income households. This affordable housing requirement is proposed to be met by constructing 27-qualified deed-restricted low-income housing units on a portion of the R-4 site near Los Osos Valley Road near the entrance. The applicant may select the option to dedicate land to the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, or other City recognized low-income housing developer to construct an affordable housing project. For housing to qualify as "affordable" under the provisions of the City’s Housing Element guarantees must be presented that ownership or rental housing units will remain affordable for the longest period allowed by State law or for a shorter period under an equity-sharing or housing rehabilitation agreement with the City. Affordable Rent and Purchase Prices for All Income Categories Income Category Annual Income1 Affordable Rent 2 Affordable Income Category Annual Income1 Affordable Rent 2 Affordable Purchase Price3 Extremely Low (< 31%) < $26,950 $742 or less < $103,775 Very Low (31-50%) $26,951- $44,950 $728 - $1,269 $94,500 - $1,269 Low (51 - 80%) $44,951 - $71,900 $919 - $1,523 $151,050 - $250,350 Moderate (81 – 120%) $71,901 - $87,500 $1,276 - $2,115 $257,250 - $426,300 Above Moderate (>120%) > $87,501 > $2,115 > $426,301 Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2019. B-1-9 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 10 1 Annual incomes are based on median income of four-person households which is $87,500 for the City. 2 Affordable rent is defined as 30 percent or less of gross income spent on rent for studio and one -bedroom through four bedroom households. 3 Affordable purchase price is defined as three times the annual income for extremely low, very low, and low; and as 3.5 times the annual income for moderate and above moderate. The jobs-to-housing ratio in a jurisdiction is an overall indicator of both availability of jobs within an area, providing residents with an opportunity to work locally, and availability of housing, providing employees with adequate housing opportunities. The jobs-to-housing balance is a planning tool to review whether a community has a healthy balance between jobs and the housing supply available to potentially house workers for those jobs. According to the City’s 2018 General Plan Annual Report (GPAR), the desired target is a jobs-to-housing-units ratio of 1.5:1, which reflects that there is more than one worker living in the average household. The 2018 GPAR estimates there were 54,132 jobs and 21,416 housing units in the City. This creates a jobs-to-housing balance of 2.5:1; however, when considering jobs within the City, as well as those generated by neighboring major employers, the City’s jobs -to- housing ratio was 2.7:1 as of 2018. This jobs -to-housing ratio indicates that the City is jobs-rich, in comparison to the countywide ratio of 0.87:1. Under LAFCO’s General Policy 14: 14. In any proposal, the impacts on affordable housing must be considered. The Commission will consider the impact of the creation of new jobs on affordable housing stock, not only in the jurisdiction to which the annexation is proposed, but also in neighboring jurisdictions. The agency to which the annexation is proposed should demonstrate to the Commission that the effects of the proposed project on affordable housing have been mitigated (CKH 56001). The Commission recognizes that providing a range of housing opportunities for persons and families of all incomes is an important factor in promoting orderly development. And CKH under government code 56001: The Legislature also recognizes that providing housing for persons and families of all incomes is an important factor in promoting orderly development. Therefore, the Legislature further finds and declares that this policy should be effected by the logical formation and modification of the boundaries of local agencies, with a prefere nce granted to accommodating additional growth within, or through the expansion of, the boundaries of those local agencies which can best accommodate and provide necessary governmental services and housing for persons and families of all incomes in the mos t efficient manner feasible. These policies give broad discretion to the Commission in considering affordable housing and housing opportunities for all incomes as a factor in LAFCO’s decision. LAFCO is considering updating and reinforcing these policies in the near future that align with the encouragement, and promotion of affordable housing. These future policies have not been fully developed yet, but the Froom Ranch Specific Plan proposes a senior housing project with multi-family units that will meet the City’s inclusionary B-1-10 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 11 housing standard. The proposed project would also offer some commercial uses for resident amenities in close proximity. Airport Compatibility: The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) conceptually reviewed the project on April 19, 2017 and determined that the use of the corrected map was appropriate for defining airport hazards for the Project . The Project site is not located in the path of the arrival/departure pattern for either runway and is not located within a Runway Protection Zone. On the revised corrected map (known unofficially as the “Cannon Map”), the project site is included completely within the S-2 safety area1 and would meet density standards associated with this safety zone . The ALUP is currently being updated. The Draft Airport Safety Zone Map released for public review in November 2019 shows the project site completely outside of any airport safety zones. Other Factors: The City will provide water and wastewater services to the project via new pipelines that will be located within the internal roadway connecting to the main lines located in LOVR. The project will also connect to the City’s recycled water facility for outdoor irrigation. Other project components and design measures considered are: grading, drainage and storm water conveyance, geotechnical constrains, water and energy efficiency measures, utilities and wetland mitigation. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) estimated an indoor potable water demand of 134.6 AFY. The WSA estimated outdoor water demand at 39.59 AFY. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The DEIR completed for the Specific Plan included mitigation measures relative to future development, there is a reference provided to the mitigation measures from Table 5-7 of the DEIR that presents a summary of the impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts from the implementation of the Project. In summary, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable construction-related and long-term impacts to air quality, historic resources, biological resources, wildfire risks, land use and planning (related to inconsistencies with City policies for historic resource protection), and long-term transportation and traffic. These impacts will require Findings of Overriding Consideration because certain impacts associated with future development are considered significant and unavoidable. As a Responsible Agency, LAFCO has approval authority over part of the project; in this case the annexation and reconfiguration of the AG Easement. A Responsible Agency relies on the lead agencies environmental documentation to approve the portion of the project under its jurisdiction. As Lead Agency the City will completed the necessary environmental documents to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, LAFCO is required to prepare and adopt its own set of findings and overriding considerations based on the City’s environmental documentation. 1 Safety Area S-2 represents the area where aircrafts operate frequently or in conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes between 501 and 1,000 feet above ground level. B-1-11 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 12 EIR – MITIGATIONS AREAS OF CONCERN Through the City process several areas of controversy and issues were raised by comment letters from public agencies and members of the public to be addressed by the City. Primary environmental areas of concern raised by the commenting agencies and public include: AREA OF CONCERN EIR SECTION Access to U.S. Highway 101, sidewalk & bike improvements, existing connections Section 3.13: Transportation and Traffic Drainage characteristics, hydrology, flooding, and other impacts associated with the area floodplain Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water Construction equipment regulation and permit requirements associated with air pollution emissions Section 3.3: Air Quality Agriculture, prime agricultural lands, easements Section 3.2: Agricultural Resources Long-term and short-term air quality impacts Section 3.3: Air Quality Impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions Section 3.3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cumulative Impact Analysis Section 3.0.3: Cumulative Impact Analysis Alternatives to the project Section 5.0: Alternatives KEY MITIGATION Pursuant to the CEQA process, mitigation for the environmental impacts has been identified and will be required by the City through conditions of approval placed on the project. The proposed project would result in impacts associated with changed views and scenic resources, air quality and emissions, habitat, and biological resources, and traffic impacts. Mitigation for all these identified impacts are listed in the DEIR along with other mitigations as a result of the proposed project being implemented. Of particular note for LAFCO are traffic mitigations at the various roadways and intersections impacted by the proposed project. Transportation: The DEIR has identified a number of mitigation measures that require the landowners of the development to make improvements to various intersections and roadways including but not limited to LOVR, Calle Joaquin, U.S. 101 southbound ramps, Buckley Road/South Higuera, South Higuera Street/Suburban Road and Tank Farm Road, LOVR/Foothill Boulevard as well as Prado Road, and Vachell Lane. For greater detail of these mitigations and conditions you may refer to Attachment C. All identified impacts would be mitigable to a less than significant level, except for those associated with the construction of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project prior to 2025, and impacts at the LOVR / Foothill Boulevard intersection, which is in County B-1-12 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 13 jurisdiction. Significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be fully mitigated without construction of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange by 2025 include the intersections of South Higuera Street / Tank Farm Road (MM TRANS -6, & TRANS-16), South Higuera Street / Prado Road (MM TRANS-6), Madonna Road / Dalidio Drive (MM TRANS-20) , Madonna Road / Oceanaire Drive (MM TRANS-14), Madonna Road / U.S. 101 SB & NB Ramps (MM TRANS-14). LAFCO POLICIES AND FACTORS In 2016, LAFCO updated the Sphere of Influence (SOI) to the City of San Luis Obispo. The Municipal Services Review summarizes the service capability of the City. Overall, the City was found to have adequate capability to provide services to the SOI areas. A number of LAFCO Policies (#2.1.7, #2.1.15, #2.3.4, & #2.3.6) call for directing growth towards urban existing areas that have the capability of providing services. Other important LAFCO Policies include (#2.1.8, #2.9) regarding agricultural preservation of prime farmland. Policy #2.1.16 regarding adequate, reliable and sustainable water supply among others will assist in making decisions. Attachment E includes a number of LAFCO policies that will be addressed in the review of this annexation. KEY FACTORS: Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act Government Code Section 56668 identifies a number of factors that are to be considered by LAFCO in reviewing a proposal. As with all change of organizations (annexations, detachments, formations, dissolutions, etc.), these factors will be addressed in an attachment to the staff report. Each factor will be listed and a staff response provided for LAFCO‘s consideration. The factors are intended to provide the Commission with information about certain topics that are often relevant to annexations. The factors include information on:  Population and Land Use  Need for Services  Impact on Adjacent Areas  Commission Policies  Agricultural Lands  Definite Boundaries  Consistency with General Plans and Reg. Trans. Plan  Sphere of Influence  Other Agency Comments  Ability to provide services  Availability of water supplies  Housing  Comments from landowner, voters or residents  Existing information about existing land use  Environmental Justice Several key factors have been identified above that would be considered along with the impacts this proposed project may have on the environment. These factors would be analyzed in light of the record as the annexation process is undertaken. B-1-13 San Luis Obispo LAFCO February 20, 2020 Annexation Froom Ranch-City of SLO Study Session P a g e | 14 SUMMARY. The information provided at this Study Session has been summarized from the documentation submitted by the City for this project. The SLO LAFCO website has additional information about the project proposal: http://www.slolafco.com/current-projects-notices.html. B-1-14 Attachment A Project Description B-1-15 5.0 ALTERNATIVES improvements (i.e., Class IV bike lanes and sidewalks) or intersection improvements at Auto Park Way. Utilities and Energy Conservation Impacts to utility and energy supplies and services would be much less compared to the proposed Project. There would be no new significant demand for water, electricity, natural gas, and fuel supplies nor additional demand for or increased strain on utility services and infrastructure. Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not require treatment capacity from the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) during dry or wet- weather conditions. Mineral Resources Under this alternative, the onsite red rock quarry would continue as an existing permitted mining site in the County, though the quarry is not planned to be utilized for further production. Impacts to this mineral resource would be less than the proposed Project. 5.4.2.2 Alternative 1 – Clustered Development Below the 150-foot Elevation Alternative (the Actionable Alternative) Through review of the Draft FRSP, the City acknowledged potential inconsistencies of the Project with hillside protection policies prohibiting development above 150-foot elevation line within the Irish Hills, requiring a General Plan amendment as part of the Project to accommodate the proposed Upper Terrace and Madonna Froom Ranch development that would intrude into the hillsides onsite. In the interest of Project review and decision- making, the City requested the Applicant develop an “Actionable Alternative” involving a land use configuration that would meet the Project objectives but could be approved under the existing City policy framework without substantial amendments. Alternative 1 was directly influenced by the Applicant’s work on the Actionable Alternative, which proposes to relocate development downhill and increased density within the Lower Area. This alternative is analyzed in project-level of detail compared to the Project to facilitate flexibility in City decision-making and action. Alternative 1 would include a major reconfiguration of the proposed land use plan and redesign of key Project elements specifically to cluster proposed land uses into a smaller development footprint, thereby reducing environmental impacts identified in the EIR. Alternative 1 represents an alternative largely designed by the Project Applicant (see Appendix C for a conceptual design plan that informed this alternative analysis) with three Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-17 Draft EIR B-1-16 5.0 ALTERNATIVES key changes to respond to the EIR’s impact analysis for the Project, as discussed further below. This alternative is analyzed at a high level of detail to allow City adoption of this alternative (if selected). Alternative 1 would include three primary features that differ from the Project to substantially reduce identified Project impacts: 1) Consistent with the 2014 General Plan LUE, all new urban development would occur below the 150-foot elevation line. All residential land uses under Alternative 1 would be relocated to areas within the Project site that are below the 150-foot elevation line and all development within the Upper Terrace would be removed. The only development that would occur above the 150-foot elevation line would be the proposed public park containing the same four Froom Ranch Dairy structures proposed to be retained by the proposed Project. This would restrict development to roughly 30 percent of the site; 2) Development would be clustered within the Lower Area of Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch. Overall building density in developed areas of the site would increase to accommodate the same capacity for development as the Project but within a smaller area. Maximum heights of some buildings would increase by approximately one story. a. The Lower Area would remain designated R-3-SP, but development of buildings within the Lower Area would be reconfigured and some building heights and sizes would increase by one story, including the Villaggio Commons buildings and the proposed tower. b. Residential areas within Madonna Froom Ranch would be designated R-4- SP and maximum residential density would increase to 24 units per acre from 20 units per acre under the Project; 3) Emergency access would be provided via three different connections: 1) from the Irish Hills Plaza into Madonna Froom Ranch; 2) from LOVR to the Lower Area of Villaggio; and 3) from Calle Joaquin to the Lower Area of Villaggio through the proposed stormwater detention basin area. Required discretionary actions would be similar to the proposed Project: • General Plan Amendment and Pre-zoning. Similar to the Project, Alternative 1 would exceed a maximum of 350 units as identified in Section 8.1.5 of the General 5-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-17 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Plan LUE, which would require a General Plan amendment to LUE SP-3 performance standards to ensure consistency with the Specific Plan. Because the site is currently unincorporated, it would also need to be pre-zoned based on the approved Project before annexation to the City could be approved (see Table 5-1). Since Alternative 1 would only include a public park within the existing permitted quarry area developed above the 150-foot elevation, including retention of rural ranch buildings from the Froom Ranch Dairy complex, and would not involve urban development above the 150-foot elevation line, this alternative would not require a General Plan amendment to address hillside policy inconsistency related to grading, visual resources, biological and cultural resources, and hydrology associated with the Project. Specific amendments to the General Plan include: • Amend LUE Section 8.1.5 – Performance Standards to allow a Life Plan Community senior housing land use, including health, support, and recreational amenities, and up to 404 senior housing residential units with 51 beds in health care facilities within the Specific Plan area. • FRSP Adoption. The General Plan LUE identifies Froom Ranch as a Specific Plan area (SP-3, Madonna on LOVR) that requires the adoption of a Specific Plan prior to any development. The proposed Project would require adoption by the City prior to implementation, including Planning Commission and City Council discretionary review proceedings. • Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM). The Project would require a vesting tentative tract map (VTTM) to implement the provisions of the adopted Specific Plan. The VTTM establishes the proposed lot lines to allow individual ownership of properties and to layout the required infrastructure, water supply assessment, and utilities. • Architectural Review and Planning Commission Approval. Final architectural review of housing, commercial buildings, and some site facilities by the City’s Architectural Review Commission would be required, with a recommendation provided to the final action hearing body. • Annexation. If the Project is approved, the City would initiate the annexation process with the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Annexation would depend on the City’s ability to address any key issues raised by LAFCO, such as the ability to provide public services to the site (e.g., water, wastewater treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, and fire and police services) and the nature of a tax-sharing arrangement with the County. Responsible and trustee agency permit requirements would remain similar to the Project and regulatory permits would be required from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CFDW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and SLO County APCD (refer to Section 2.5, Required Approvals). Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-19 Draft EIR B-1-18 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Land Use Plan and Site Design The land use plan under Alternative 1 would substantially reduce the area of disturbance and development compared to the Project, including limiting residential and commercial land uses to areas of the site below the 150-foot elevation line (see Figure 5-1). Overall developed area would decrease by 8.2 acres as compared to the Project, and more than 6.1 additional acres within the Upper Terrace area would remain as open space, substantially reducing direct and indirect disturbance of habitats and natural resources in this area. Similar to the Project, Alternative 1 would allow for the development of up to 174 multi- family units, 404 independent and assisted senior villas and townhomes, and 51 beds in residential health care facilities. These residential uses would be located within medium- high and high-density residential zones, with 100,000 sf of commercial uses within retail- commercial zones (Table 5-1). Table 5-1. Summary of Alternative 1 Zoning and Land Uses Proposed Zones Acreage Housing Units/ sf VILLAGGIO R-3-SP Medium-High Density Residential 23.5 404 units/ 51 beds Independent Living Units 366 units Assisted Living Units 38 units Health Care Units (Skilled Nursing & Memory Care) 51 beds Health Care Administration Building 85,670 sf Ancillary Uses (wellness center, restaurants, theater, etc.) 76,509 sf MADONNA FROOM RANCH R-4-SP High Density Residential 7.4 174 multi-family units C-R-SP Retail-Commercial 3.1 100,000 sf Hotel with Restaurant 70,000 sf Other Commercial 30,000 sf PF-SP Public Facilities 3.3 -- ADDITIONAL USES C/OS-SP Conservation/ Open Space 66.8 -- Designated Open Space 59.7 -- Reconfigured Agricultural Easement 7.1 -- Roadways 5.6 -- TOTAL 109.7 578 units/51 beds1 100,000 sf commercial 1 Total exceeds Maximum 350 units as allowed in Section 8.1.5 of the General Plan LUE due to transition of allowed commercial land uses to residential land uses. This total assumes all units planned within residential land uses. 5-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-19 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Similar to the Project, Alternative 1 would include adoption of specific zoning standards to govern development within the Specific Plan area. Modified development standards for residential uses from the City’s Municipal Code would apply to the Specific Plan area (Table 5-2). Table 5-2. Proposed Development Standards for Residential Zones Standard R-3-SP R-4-SP Maximum Density (units/acre) 20 du/ac 24 du/ac Maximum Building Coverage 60% 60% Maximum Building Height1,2,3 55 feet for Villaggio only 35 feet Minimum Street Yard Setback4 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Other Yard Setback4 0-5 feet 0-5 feet Minimum Lot Size5 1,000 sf 1,000 sf Minimum Lot Width5 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Lot Depth5 50 feet 50 feet 1 Building heights are measured from finished grades established at the time of completion of subdivision grading. 3 Components of solar energy systems, towers, and mechanical equipment screening may extend up to 10 feet above the maximum building height. 4 Yard setbacks do not apply to development in Villaggio as all development is located along private streets. 5 Lot area and dimensions standards do not apply to Villaggio as individual lots for housing units are not proposed. Villaggio Development Alternative 1 would continue to provide a Life Plan Community in Villaggio, designated within 23.4 acres of R-3-SP located entirely within the lower portion of the site. Alternative 1 development standards would only differ from the Project related to maximum building heights, where maximum building height within Villaggio would increase from 45 feet to 55 feet to accommodate higher density development within the Lower Area. This would result in changes to building configurations in proposed structures surrounding the Commons where additional Piazza Apartments and Community Village Suite Apartments would be provided (see Appendix C). Clustered development and taller buildings in the central Community Village area of Villaggio, including the proposed apartment buildings in the Commons, would accommodate more units compared to the Project in this area. Similar to the Project, Villaggio would provide planned residential use with independent living units and specialized residential facilities for assisted living, skilled nursing, and memory care (Table 5-3). Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-21 Draft EIR B-1-20 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-3. Types of Senior Housing within Villaggio Type of Senior Housing Units Size (sf) Independent Living Units 366 units 700-2,000 sf Piazza Apartments 180 units 700-1,900 sf Village Suites 85 units 700-1,900 sf Garden Terraces 60 units 1,300-1,800 sf Villas 41 units 1,700-2,000 sf Assisted Living Units1 38 units 310-620 sf 1 Assisted Living Units are assumed to be single occupancy. Independent living units would vary in size, as follows: • Piazza Apartments and Village Suites – 265 total units within the upper floors of three- to four-story multi-use buildings up to 55 feet in height; • Garden Terraces – two- to three-story apartment buildings, containing a total of 60 two-bedroom units; and • Villas – 41 detached one-story single-family homes with two bedrooms, up to 20 feet in height. Similar to the Project, residential land uses would extend to the southwest portion of the Project site and would be proximate (i.e., within 50 feet) to the confluence of Drainages, 1, 2 and 3 with Froom Creek, but would not extend to the Upper Terrace. Alternative 1 would replace two Garden Terrace apartment buildings along the western bank of Froom Creek with Piazza Apartment development and would include additional Villas accessed via cul-de-sac at the base of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 to accommodate more units within the designated residential area. Like the Project, Alternative 1 proposes non-residential development to serve future Villaggio residents, including health care facilities, ancillary restaurant and recreational uses, and other private amenities. These uses are proposed to serve onsite residents, guests, and staff only, and would not be open to the public or residents of Madonna Froom Ranch. Non-residential development within Villaggio would include: • Health Care Administration Building – A three-story 85,670-sf building within the lower terrace near the Villaggio entrance gate. This building includes the assisted living units, memory care, and skilled nursing beds where residents require 24-hour care and supervision. • Wellness Center – A 17,720-sf wellness center located within the lower terrace would provide recreational facilities, including an outdoor swimming pool, restrooms, lockers, yoga area, exercise equipment, and physical therapy services. 5-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-21 5.0 ALTERNATIVES • The Commons – A four-story mixed-use building, known as “The Commons”, would serve as the community center and include ground floor resident-serving uses, such as restaurants, craft areas, workshops, recreation rooms, and a movie theater. • Assembly Room – A 5,688-sf room would accommodate a variety of functions and gatherings. • Tower – A 60-foot-tall tower is proposed that would include a library on the first floor, a total of four guestrooms on the second and third floors, and an observation deck on the fourth floor. • Security Gatehouse – An approximately 250-sf security gatehouse structure would be located at the main entrance to Villaggio to control access and entry of residents, and provide directions, parking passes, etc. for visitors, employees, and deliveries. Madonna Froom Ranch Development Madonna Froom Ranch would continue to provide multi-family housing and retail commercial uses similar to the Project within 7.4 acres of High Density Residential (R-4- SP) and 3.1 acres of Retail Commercial/General Commercial (C-R-SP) designated areas. All proposed development standards for R-4-SP would remain the same as the Project; however, the proposed density of the residential areas would increase slightly from a maximum of 20 units per acre under the Project to 24 units per acre under Alternative 1. This change would accommodate the same number of residential units as the Project within a smaller development footprint and cluster the residential development within areas below the 150-foot elevation line. As a result of the reconfigured residential land uses, a portion of the multi-family homes would be relocated eastward to lower elevations within Madonna Froom Ranch, away from the habitats and wildfire hazards of the Irish Hills. Under Alternative 1, the trailhead park would be provided within 3.3 acres of Public Facilities (PF-SP) designated area and would be relocated above the 150-foot elevation line in the northwest corner of the Project site adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. This would increase the size of the public park by approximately 0.4 acre. Alternative 1 would include the same commercial uses as the Project located in the northeast portion of the Specific Plan area, including a three-story, 70,000-sf hotel up to 45 feet in height with ground floor retail and restaurant uses and 30,000 sf of retail and office uses within a one- story building up to 24 feet in height. The reconfigurations included in Alternative 1 would ensure the land use plan better aligns with the policies of the City’s General Plan regarding development above the 150-foot elevation contour and natural resource protection. The land use plan for Alternative 1 would reserve 66 percent of the Specific Plan area (66.9 acres) in Conservation/Open Space Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-23 Draft EIR B-1-22 5.0 ALTERNATIVES (C/OS-SP), which would be consistent with the City General Plan performance standard of providing a minimum of 50 percent of the Specific Plan area as Open Space/Agriculture (LUE Section 8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan area). Alternative 1 would also comply with the General Plan LUE 150-foot elevation development limit line within the Irish Hills Hillside Planning Area, specifically, Subsection 6.4.7.H of the LUE (see also, Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning). Alternative 1 would be similar to the Project in many ways but would represent a substantially more clustered approach to site design, with development restricted to approximately 30 percent of the site (34 acres) in the lower portions of the site. Alternative 1 would reduce overall residential acreage by 8.2 acres while increasing open space by 7.9 acres and public park acreage by 0.4 acres. Increased clustering under Alternative 1 would require substantial changes in the Villaggio design when compared to the Project, including changes to building locations and footprints, increases in maximum residential building heights by one floor (i.e., 10 feet), and an increase in the proposed tower height by five feet (refer to Table 5-4). Most significantly, all development would be removed from the Upper Terrace and nearly 50 acres of land in this area would be retained as contiguous, permanent open space within Villaggio adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. These changes would substantially increase contiguous open space and result in improved ecologic and hydrologic connectivity within the Project site compared to the Project. Site Design Features Froom Creek would be realigned and restored similar to the Project and stormwater management would be provided similar to the Project; see Section 2.5.4, Stormwater Management System and Froom Creek Realignment. Froom Creek would be realigned to along the eastern edge of development and a public trail along the realigned Froom Creek would be developed, similar to the Project. Additionally, the LOVR ditch would be reconstructed and revegetated similar to the Project and would experience the same reconfiguration to accommodate widening of LOVR. However, due to the reduction in developed area, fewer onsite retention and treatment features would be required, including one stormwater treatment area, one linear water quality treatment area, and four headwall and pipe culverts that would no longer be required in the Upper Terrace. 5-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-23 A-A B-B CROSS SECTIONCROSS SECTION LOCATIONLOCATION (FIGURE 5-4)(FIGURE 5-4) Drainage 4Drainage 4 150-FOOT E L EVATION CONTO UR LIN EProposed Froom Creek RealignmentF ro o m C r e e k *Prefumo CreekSan Luis Obispo Creek101 CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADCALLE JOAQUINAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS NATURALNATURAL RESERVERESERVE VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIALVISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL (HOTELS)(HOTELS) COSTCOCOSTCO MOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK CHURCHCHURCH CALLE JOAQUINCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLS NATURAL RESERVE VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL (HOTELS) COSTCO MOUNTAINBROOK CHURCH F ro o m C r e e k *Prefumo CreekSan Luis Obispo CreekUNINCORPORATEDUNINCORPORATED SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTYCOUNTY UNINCORPORATED SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Proposed Froom Creek RealignmentVILLAGGIOVILLAGGIO LIFE PLANLIFE PLAN COMMUNITYCOMMUNITY MADONNA FROOMMADONNA FROOM RANCHRANCH VILLAGGIO LIFE PLAN COMMUNITY MADONNA FROOM RANCH AUTOAUTO DEALERSHIPSDEALERSHIPS IRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS PLAZAPLAZA SHOPPINGSHOPPING CENTERCENTER IRISH HILLS PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER AUTO DEALERSHIPS CITY OFCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO CITY OFCITY OF SAN LUISSAN LUIS OBISPOOBISPO CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Drainage 3 Drainage 4 Drainage 2 Drainage 1 150-FOOT E L EVATION CONTO UR LIN EEMERGENCYEMERGENCY ACCESSACCESS POINTPOINT EMERGENCY ACCESS POINT EMERGENCYEMERGENCY ACCESSACCESS EMERGENCY ACCESS EMERGENCYEMERGENCY ACCESSACCESS EMERGENCY ACCESS LOWER AREA UPPER TERRACE CROSS SECTION LOCATION (FIGURE 5-4) LEGEND Proposed Specific Plan Land Use Project Site Cross Section Location (refer to Figure 5-2) Villaggio (Private) Madonna Froom Ranch B-B Public Site Access Roadways: 5.6 acres Easement for Relocated Stormwater Basin: 7.1 acres Reconfigured Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Easement C-R-SP – Retail Commercial/ General Commercial: 3.1 acres C/OS-SP – Conservation/ Open Space: 66.9 acres PF-SP – Public Facilities: 3.3 acres R-3-SP – Medium-High Density Residential: 23.4 acres R-4-SP – High Density Residential: 7.4 acres *Notes: Roadways within Villaggio are private and are included as part of the medium high density residential land use. Froom Creek would be realigned. Alternative 1 Land Use Plan 5-1 FIGURE Aerial Source: Google 2018. 0 500 SCALE IN FEET N 5-25 B-1-24 200180160150140ELEVATION120100ElevatorElevator Subterranean Parking28’18’18’LocalRoad “C”Mixed-Use Commericaland ResidentialResidentialCommercial Uses (i.e.,restaurants, recreationrooms, movie theater)Mixed-Use Commericaland ResidentialResidentialResidential ResidentialResidentialElevator ResidentialResidential2nd Level SkybridgeResidentialResidentialResidentialCommercial Uses (i.e.,restaurants, recreationrooms, movie theater)PathPath55’ HighThe Commons45’ HighPiazza Apartments60’ HighTower150-FootElevationProjectGradeExistingGradeElevatorElevator Subterranean ParkingResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialElevator Residential28’Local Road “C”3.5’ HighRetaining Wall5’ HighFence18’Path45’ HighPiazza Apartments20’ HighVillaIrish HillsNaturalReserve200180160150140ELEVATION120100150-FootElevationProjectGradeExistingGrade5-2FIGUREAlternative 1 –Villaggio Life Plan Community Conceptual Cross Sections (refer to Figure 5-1 for cross section locations)Cross Section B-B – Villaggio CenterCross Section A-A – Irish Hills Natural Reserve to Villaggio Center5 -26 B-1-25 5.0 ALTERNATIVES As with the proposed Project, at least two major retaining walls would be required under Alternative 1. An approximately 300-foot-long retaining wall would be constructed along the border of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and northwestern area of Villaggio adjacent to proposed Villa units (refer to Cross Section A-A on Figure 2-6 within Chapter 2, Project Description). Another 75-foot-long retaining wall would be located near the historic dairy barn in Madonna Froom Ranch to support the eastern corner of the building if it is retained in its current location in the final design of the public park. These walls would vary from 3 feet to 8 feet in height but would be limited to a maximum exposed above ground height of 8 feet. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 1 would include five-foot-tall security fencing to enclose Villaggio and adjacent to the residential areas within Madonna Froom Ranch. Villaggio would be a gated community with keyed access points for residents to access the Irish Hills Natural Reserve public trail system and the proposed public trail along the realigned Froom Creek. In addition to Villaggio security fencing, five-foot-tall wildlife- compatible agricultural fencing would surround the Specific Plan area and would be designed to allow for animal passage to open space areas, water sources, and wildlife corridors within the site. In summary, Alternative 1 would differ from the Project in several ways, including a reconfigured residential land use plan, but would retain the basic features of the Project to provide a senior living community and multi-family neighborhood, as detailed in Table 5-4. Circulation and Site Access Circulation within Alternative 1 would involve public roadways within Madonna Froom Ranch and private roadways in Villaggio similar to the Project; however, the road system would be substantially reduced in length compared to the Project due the clustered development of Alternative 1. Similar to the Project, Alternative 1 would have a primary entrance from LOVR at Auto Park Way. Private access roads within Villaggio would only serve Villaggio and no roads would extend to the Upper Terrace above the 150-foot elevation line. Public roadways would lead to the public park at the northwestern corner of the site (above the 150-foot elevation) and the private gated entrance to Villaggio. Major components of the Alternative 1 circulation system are similar to the Project and are summarized below: Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-27 Draft EIR B-1-26 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-4. Comparison of Alternative 1 to the Proposed Project Item Project Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Difference Froom Creek Froom Creek Realignment Realigned Realigned None Emergency access road through proposed stormwater detention basin area. No emergency access road in proposed stormwater detention basin area. 20-foot-wide emergency access road along west edge of proposed stormwater detention basin area. Emergency access road would replace the Project’s proposed emergency access road through Mountainbrook Church. Drainage crossings would be required for Drainage 1 and Drainage 4. Residential Uses Residential: Acreage 39.1 acres 30.9 acres -8.2 acres Residential: Units 578 units/51 beds 578 units/51 beds None Mix of Units 534 R-3-SP units 44 R-4-SP units 404 R-3-SP units 174 R-4-SP units -130 R-3-SP units +130 R-4-SP units Retail Commercial Uses Acreage 3.1 acres 3.1 acres None Maximum Square Footage 100,000 sf 100,000 sf None Potential Uses Hotel, restaurants, and other commercial Hotel, restaurants, and other commercial None Open Space & Parks Open Space: Acreage 59.0 acres 66.9 acres +7.9 acres Parks: Acreage 2.9 acres 3.3 acres +0.4 acres Parks: Number 1 trailhead Park 1 trailhead Park None Building Heights Maximum Height Residential: 20’ to 45’ (1 to 3 stories) Tower: 55’ Residential: 20’ to 55’ (1 to 4 stories) Tower: 60’ +10’ (1 story) residential buildings +5’ tower 1) A proposed signalized intersection with LOVR and the proposed main entrance to serve as the primary access to the Specific Plan area; 2) Widening of LOVR along a portion of the Project site’s frontage; 3) Proposed internal roadway network consisting of public and private roads; 4) Proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the Specific Plan area; 5) Parking facilities to accommodate residents, employees, and visitors within the Specific Plan area; and 6) A new bus stop that would be integrated into the regional public transportation system. Major circulation improvements under Alternative 1 within Madonna Froom Ranch and the lower portion of Villaggio would be the same as under the proposed Project. As with the Project, primary access to the Specific Plan area under Alternative 1 would be via a new two-lane road Commercial Collector “A”, which would intersect with LOVR at Auto 5-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-27 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Park Way and would be located approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Froom Ranch Way with LOVR. The intersection would be signalized and would provide four-way pedestrian crosswalks. Alternative 1 would include improvements to an 813-foot-long segment of LOVR along the northeastern boundary of the Specific Plan area at the proposed intersection of Commercial Collector “A” and LOVR. LOVR would be widened along this segment by about 35 feet into the Specific Plan area to accommodate new left and right turn lanes into the Project site (Figure 2-9). Alternative 1 would also include restriping the existing travel lanes, Class II bicycle lanes, and center median along this segment and a new sidewalk and parkway would be installed along approximately 550 feet of the west side of LOVR to connect to the Project site entrance (see Figure 2-10 in Chapter 2, Project Description). Bicycle racks would continue to be provided at the proposed retail commercial zone and the trailhead park within Madonna Froom Ranch. Similar to the Project, all roadways within Madonna Froom Ranch would be open to the public and accessible by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians from LOVR. Similar to the Project, Alternative 1 would also include two public Commercial Collector roadways, “A” and “B”. Commercial Collector “A” would connect LOVR to residential and commercial areas within Madonna Froom Ranch. Commercial Collector “B” would connect to the main entrance to Villaggio and terminate at the Project site’s boundary to the north to only allow pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency access to Irish Hills Plaza. Local Road “A” would be a public roadway that extends to residential areas within Madonna Froom Ranch and to the proposed trailhead park. Proposed Class II striped bicycle lanes would be included along Commercial Collector “A” and Class III bicycle routes would be provided along Commercial Collector “B” and Local Road “A” to connect the public park and residential areas within Madonna Froom Ranch. All roads in Madonna Froom Ranch would have sidewalks, similar to the Project (see Figure 2-11 in Chapter 2, Project Description). As with the Project, all roadways within Villaggio would be private roads. Similar to the Project, Alternative 1 would include Local Roads “B” and “C” as private roads within Villaggio (see Figure 2-11 in Chapter 2, Project Description). Local Road “B” would serve as the primary ingress/egress to Villaggio from Commercial Collector “B” to the Villaggio entrance gate. Local Road “C” would provide private access throughout Villaggio and would not provide sidewalks; however, a network of private walking trails separated from vehicle roadways would be provided for Villaggio residents similar to the Project (see Figure 2-12 in Chapter 2, Project Description). Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-29 Draft EIR B-1-28 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 would include the proposed Froom Creek Trail that would be accessible from Madonna Froom Ranch, Villaggio, and the existing Irish Hills Natural Reserve trails system. The proposed Froom Creek Trail would be a 6-foot-wide, decomposed granite (or other stabilized natural surface) public pedestrian trail along the north bank of the realigned Froom Creek. Under Alternative 1, the public trail would terminate at a wetlands viewing area adjacent to a Villaggio gated access point similar to the Project, but would provide an additional connection through to the proposed emergency access road in the proposed stormwater detention basin area. This additional connection would give pedestrians the opportunity to reach the public trail and its connections to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and proposed public park, as well as Irish Hills Plaza, from Calle Joaquin, including the adjacent hotel properties. In contrast to the Project, under Alternative 1, the trailhead park would be located at the highest elevation on the Madonna Froom Ranch side of the site, immediately adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, providing complementary amenities and direct access to this existing City open space. Parking would be similar to the proposed Project and provided in accordance with City development standards consistent with the requirements of Chapter 17.16 of the City Municipal Code. Parking in Madonna Froom Ranch residential and commercial areas would be provided via surface parking lots while parking in Villaggio would be a combination of surface parking lots and subterranean parking garages. A public surface lot would be located within the trailhead park, as under the Project. Similar to the Project, a single new bus stop is proposed at the site’s main entrance at Auto Park Way. Refer to Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic, for a more complete description of transit operations. Emergency Access Emergency access to Mountainbrook Church would not be part of Alternative 1. Rather, emergency access would be provided via three different connections: 1. From the Irish Hills Plaza into Madonna Froom Ranch. A paved, level connection between Madonna Froom Ranch and Irish Hills Plaza would be provided near the end of Commercial Collector “B” and controlled with removable bollards that would be opened under emergency conditions, such as wildfire evacuation. This would require an easement from Irish Hills Plaza owners. 2. From LOVR to Villaggio. Another emergency access point would be provided via construction of a new free span bridge and access road across the realigned Froom 5-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-29 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Creek channel to connect LOVR with Villaggio. This bridge and access road would be located roughly 800 feet east of the primary project entrance at Auto Park Way. 3. From Calle Joaquin to Villaggio through the proposed stormwater detention basin area. Because the two emergency access routes described above would funnel all evacuees onto LOVR and introduce challenges for ingress and egress of emergency responders, an additional 20-foot-wide paved emergency access road would be installed along the western edge of the proposed stormwater detention basin to connect Calle Joaquin to the Project site (see Figure 5-1); however, evacuees along this route would also ultimately funnel to LOVR further south and would connect to U.S. 101. This alternate emergency access road is included in Alternative 1 to replace the Project’s proposed emergency access through Mountainbrook Church and would supplement the two emergency access points discussed above to ensure a southern access/evacuation route for Villaggio that connects with Calle Joaquin, similar to the Project (See Figures 5-1 and 5-3). Given that this road would be immediately adjacent to the proposed stormwater detention basin, during times of very high stormwater flows the road could be partially submerged. Given that this road is intended primarily for emergency access during the fire season (e.g., typically August-November), occasional submersions during periods of heavy rain appears consistent with its use as a fire evacuation or access route. Figure 5-3 presents a conceptual design, but final engineering design would account for City standards. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-31 Draft EIR B-1-30 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Onsite Historic Structures Similar to the Project, Alternative 1 would include relocation of three structures contributing to the historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex, namely the creamery, the main residence, and the dairy barn, to the public park area; the fourth contributing structure, the granary, would remain in place within the park. These four structures would be rehabilitated and adaptively reused as part of the trailhead park, including interpretive signage/displays to document the history of Froom Ranch. The buildings would be relocated and reconstructed on graded terrain to maintain the historic configuration and proportional relationship of the buildings to each other. Similar to the Project, three contributing structures (shed/storage building, old barn, and bunkhouse) to the potential historic district would be demolished and removed from the site, and documented consistent with Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards. Proposed Housing and Population The proposed mix of housing types under Alternative 1 would be similar to the Project with slight modifications to the location/extent of residential zones and distribution of units within each zone; the allocation of units between different allowable densities and product types (e.g., Life Plan Community, multi-family units) would remain similar. Alternative 1 would alter the land use plan and incrementally adjust dwelling unit allocation, resulting in a reduction of 130 R-3-SP units to be replaced with an increase of 130 R-4-SP units, a net zero change (Table 5-5). Similar to the Project, proposed housing components of Alternative 1 would include a mix of single-family or duplex units in Villaggio and higher density multi-family condominiums and apartments in both Madonna Froom Ranch and Villaggio. Residential uses would have a similar mix of housing densities and average lot sizes as proposed for the Project, with dispersed single-story Villas, two story Garden Terraces, and up to four- story buildings supporting Piazza Apartments and Community Village Apartment suites. Exact unit layout and design is not currently known (see Appendix C for Applicant’s conceptual site plan that informed Alternative 1). 5-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-31 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-5. Summary and Comparison of Housing and Population Residential Project Alternative 1 Housing Type Project Proposed Units Estimated Population Alternative 1 Proposed Units Estimated Population1 R-3-SP - Villaggio 404 units/51 beds 825 people 404 units/51 beds 825 people R-3-SP – Madonna Froom Ranch2 130 units 303 people - - R-4-SP -Madonna Froom Ranch2 44 units 103 people 174 units 406 people TOTAL 578 units/51 beds 1,231 people 578 units/51 beds 1,231 people 1 Population estimates are based on the number of units multiplied by the average number of persons per household Based on the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, the City’s average persons per household is 2.33 as of 2015 (SLOCOG 2017) 2Per City zoning, R-3 and R-4 units are expressed as density units. The number of actual dwelling units in the R-3 and R-4 zone may vary depending on the number of bedrooms. Project Construction and Phasing Similar to the Project, this EIR analysis assumes that Alternative 1 construction would occur over approximately five years between 2020 and 2024 although Alternative 1 would only require three phases (see Table 5-6). • Phase 1 would involve construction activities including site preparation such as grading, realignment of Froom Creek, and installation of roadways, utility infrastructure, and trails. • Phase 2 would include final grading and vertical development of Villaggio (to be located entirely in the lower portion of the site). • Phase 3 would include final grading and vertical development of Madonna Froom Ranch, including extension of utilities and construction of residential and commercial buildings. Each phase of Alternative 1 would follow a progression of stages similar to that proposed for the Project, as follows: construction design and permitting, site preparation and grading, construction, and final landscaping. Equipment anticipated for use during these stages would be similar to that of the Project. Alternative 1 would include a different assortment of construction activities within each construction phase, but it would follow a similar progression of development within the Project site. Each phase would be subject to permit review to ensure conformity with the approved FRSP, and consistency with applicable regulations. Each phase would identify the development activities to be performed during the phase and specify mitigation measures and best management practices (BMPs) that would apply. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-33 Draft EIR B-1-32 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-6 identifies which project component would occur within each phase. Table 5-6. Alternative 1 Construction Phasing Phase Project Component Year Estimated Grading (cy)1 1 Installation of Project Infrastructure and Stormwater Management System. • Rough grading for Madonna Froom Ranch and distribution of export material to Phase 2 (31,800 cy stockpiled onsite). • Realign Froom Creek and reconstruct creek corridor. • Install proposed stormwater detention basin with emergency access road and bridge between Villaggio and Calle Joaquin. • Widen LOVR and install frontage improvements along LOVR, including bicycle lanes, sidewalks, bus stop, and signalized intersection. • Install onsite public roads (Commercial Collectors “A” and “B” and associated bicycle lanes and sidewalks). • Install public utility connections along Commercial Collectors “A” and “B”. • Construct crossing across Froom Creek from Commercial Collector “B”. • Construct crossing across Froom Creek from Local Road “C” to LOVR for emergency access. • Modify Irish Hills Plaza drainage, including modifications to the vegetated channel prior to connection with the realigned Froom Creek. • Install stormwater management system, including removal of existing culverts and onsite stormwater detention basin. • Installation of Froom Creek Trail. • Begin site clearing of lower portion of Villaggio in preparation for Phase 2. 2020 - 2021 65,800 cut/ 34,000 fill 2 Development of Villaggio. • Grading of the lower portion of the Villaggio site and import fill materials (158,000 cy import). • Install onsite private roads (Local Roads “B” and part of “C”). • Extend utility lines throughout Villaggio. • Construct water quality treatment areas within Phase 2. • Install fencing and pedestrian access gates. • Construct Villaggio residential uses. • Construct the Villaggio Health Administration Building. • Construct the Wellness Center. • Begin site clearing of Madonna Froom Ranch in preparation for Phase 3. 2020 - 2023 27,500 cut/ 185,000 fill 5-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-33 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-6. Alternative 1 Construction Phasing (Continued) Phase Project Component Year Estimated Grading (cy)1 3 Development of Madonna Froom Ranch. • Extend utility lines throughout Madonna Froom Ranch. • Construction of multi-family units within Madonna Froom Ranch. • Construct commercial retail buildings, including hotel, within Madonna Froom Ranch. • Construction of the public park. 2023- 2024 0 cut/ 0 fill 1 Grading estimates (cy) are approximate. Analysis – Alternative 1 (Clustered Development Below the 150-Foot Elevation Alternative – Actionable Alternative) The significance of each impact resulting from implementation of Alternative 1 has been determined based on impact significance criteria and applicable CEQA Guidelines for each impact topic (see Table 5-7). Table 5-7. Alternative 1 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources VIS-1. Alternative 1 implementation would change views of scenic resources, including hillsides, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings, from a State Scenic Highway or local scenic roadway. MM VIS-1 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Incrementally Less) VIS-2. Alternative 1 would significantly impact the existing visual character of the site by changing a rural setting to a commercial and residential setting, particularly as viewed from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve trail system. MM VIS-1 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less) VIS-3. Alternative 1 would introduce a major new source of nighttime light, impacting the quality of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light. None required Less than Significant (Similar) 3.2 Agricultural Resources AG-1. Alternative 1 would convert onsite Farmland of Local Potential and prime soils if irrigated to non- agricultural uses. None Required Less than Significant (Similar) AG-2. Implementation of Alternative 1 would create potential conflicts with existing agricultural zoning. None Required Less than Significant (Incrementally Less) AG-3. Alternative 1 adjust the boundary of an existing open space and agricultural conservation easement to a location that would reduce the viability of agricultural operations within the recorded easement. None Required Less than Significant (Similar) Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-35 Draft EIR B-1-34 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-7. Alternative 1 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance 3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions AQ-1. Alternative 1 would result in potentially significant construction-related emissions, including dust and air pollutant emissions. MM AQ-1 MM AQ-2 MM AQ-3 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Incrementally Less) AQ-2. Alternative 1 would result in potentially significant long-term operational emissions. MM AQ-4 Significant and Unavoidable (Incrementally Less) AQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions or naturally occurring asbestos during construction of Alternative 1 could expose sensitive receptors to emissions- related health risks. None required Less than Significant (Incrementally Less) AQ-4. Alternative 1 would be consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan, but would result in potentially significant GHG emissions during construction and operation which would be inconsistent with other state and local goals for reducing GHG emissions. MM AQ-4 MM AQ-5 MM AQ-6 Significant and Unavoidable (Incrementally Less) AQ-5. Alternative 1 is potentially inconsistent with the SLO County APCD’s Clean Air Plan. MM AQ-2 MM TRANS-5 MM TRANS-8 MM TRANS-9 MM TRANS-10 Significant and Unavoidable (Similar) 3.4 Biological Resources BIO-1. Alternative 1 implementation would impact sensitive riparian, wetland, and native grassland habitats identified as sensitive natural communities under state and City policy. MM BIO-1 MM BIO-2 MM BIO-3 MM BIO-4 MM BIO-5 MM BIO-6 MM BIO-7 MM BIO-8 MM BIO-Alt. 1 MM HAZ-2 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less) BIO-2. Alternative 1 implementation would have substantial direct and indirect adverse impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species that are known to or may occur on the Project site. MM BIO-1 MM BIO-9 MM BIO-10 MM BIO-11 MM BIO-12 MM HAZ-2 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less) BIO-3. Alternative 1 implementation would have a substantial adverse impact on state and federally protected wetlands. MM BIO-1 MM BIO-2 MM BIO-4 MM BIO-5 MM BIO-6 Significant and Unavoidable (Less) 5-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-35 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-7. Alternative 1 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance MM BIO-7 MM BIO-Alt. 1 BIO-4. Alternative 1 construction and operation would have a substantial adverse impact on the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or resident and migratory wildlife corridors along Froom Creek, Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and across open grasslands on the Upper Terrace of the Project site. MM BIO-1 MM BIO-2 MM BIO-3 MM BIO-4 MM BIO-5 MM BIO-6 MM BIO-9 MM BIO-11 MM BIO-12 MM BIO-14 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less) BIO-5. Alternative 1 construction would result in the potential disturbance, trimming, or removal of up to 75 mature trees. MM BIO-15 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Incrementally Less) 3.5 Cultural and Tribal Resources CR-1. Alternative 1 grading and construction would occur within areas of prehistoric archaeological sensitivity with the potential to impact subsurface cultural or tribal cultural resources. MM CR-1 MM CR-2 MM CR-3 MM CR-4 MM CR-5 MM CR-6 MM CR-7 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Incrementally Less) CR-2. Future resident recreational activities could impact archaeological resources located within proposed open space. MM CR-8 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less) CR-3. Alternative 1 would result in relocation, demolition, disturbance, and/or removal of historic resources onsite, including individually eligible historic resources and a historic district. MM CR-9 MM CR-10 MM CR-11 MM CR-12 MM CR-13 MM CR-14 Significant and Unavoidable (Similar) 3.6 Geology and Soils GEO-1. Alternative 1 would expose people or structures to adverse effects from earthquakes and seismically induced hazards. None required Less than Significant (Similar) GEO-2. Alternative 1 has the potential to exacerbate potential soils hazards, including expansive soils, differential settlement, and subsidence. None required Less than Significant (Similar) GEO-3. Alternative 1 would potentially cause erosion, landslides, and rockfall. None required Less than Significant (Similar) GEO-4. Alternative 1 would include subterranean parking in Villaggio and may require groundwater dewatering in areas with high groundwater. None required Less than Significant (Similar) Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-37 Draft EIR B-1-36 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-7. Alternative 1 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance GEO-5. Alternative 1 construction could uncover paleontological resources in geologic deposits during earthwork activities. If improperly handled, such resources could be adversely impacted. MM GEO-1 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Similar) 3.7 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfires HAZ-1. Alternative 1 would exacerbate wildfire risks by exposing occupants to wildfire hazards and impairing emergency response and would require wildfire fuel management in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. MM HAZ-1 MM HAZ-2 MM HAZ-3 MM HAZ-4 MM HAZ-5 Significant and Unavoidable (Less) HAZ-2. Alternative 1 would potentially expose persons to toxic, hazardous, or otherwise harmful chemicals through accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. None required Less than Significant (Similar) HAZ-3. Alternative 1 site is located within the ALUP Safety Areas and would potentially result in an airport-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project site. None required Less than Significant (Similar) 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality HYD-1. Alternative 1 construction activities would result in impacts to water quality due to polluted runoff and increased erosion or siltation. MM HYD-1 MM HYD-2 MM HYD-3 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less) HYD-2. Alternative 1 would potentially exacerbate flooding and erosion hazards onsite and in areas downstream, particularly related to the proposed alignment and design of Froom Creek and developed areas of the site. MM HYD-4 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Similar) HYD-3. Operation of Alternative 1 would potentially impact water quality of Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek due to polluted urban runoff and sedimentation. None required Less than Significant (Similar) HYD-4. Alternative 1 would involve development of new impervious surfaces and potentially interfere with groundwater recharge. None required Less than Significant (Similar) 3.9 Land Use and Planning LU-1. Alternative 1 would allow urban development above the 150-foot elevation and would relocate portions of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex, which would potentially conflict with City General Plan policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding impacts to visual, biological, and cultural resources and wildfire hazards. MM BIO-1 MM BIO-2 MM BIO-3 MM BIO-4 MM BIO-5 MM BIO-6 MM BIO-9 MM BIO-10 MM BIO-11 Significant and Unavoidable (Less) 5-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-37 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-7. Alternative 1 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance MM BIO-12 MM BIO-13 MM BIO-14 MM CR-9 MM CR-10 MM CR-11 MM CR-12 MM CR-13 MM CR-14 MM HAZ-1 MM HAZ-2 MM HAZ-3 MM HAZ-4 MM HAZ-5 LU-2. Alternative 1 would potentially be inconsistent with existing easements and setback requirements onsite. None Required Less than Significant (Incrementally Less) 3.10 Noise NO-1. Alternative 1 construction, including site grading and heavy truck trips, would generate noise levels that exceed thresholds established in the City’s General Plan NE and Noise Guidebook with potential impacts to sensitive receptors. MM NO-1 MM NO-2 MM NO-3 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Incrementally Less) NO-2. Alternative 1 construction activities (e.g., excavation, transportation of heavy equipment) could result in exposure of sensitive receptors and buildings to excessive groundborne vibration. None required Less than Significant (Less) NO-3. Long-term operational noise impacts would include higher roadway noise levels from increased vehicle traffic generated by Alternative 1, Alternative 1 operational noise, and exposure of future residents to high noise levels that could result in the exceedance of thresholds in the City’s General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidelines. None Required Less than Significant (Similar) NO-4. Future residents and occupants of Alternative 1 could be exposed to periodic high noise levels from nearby commercial uses (e.g., delivery trucks, forklifts, backup alarms) that would exceed City thresholds for residential land uses. MM NO-4 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Similar) 3.11 Population and Housing PH-1. Residential and commercial development associated with the Project would induce population growth. None required Less than Significant (Similar) PH-2. Alternative 1 would provide additional housing for the City, assisting the jobs-to-housing ratio. None required Less than Significant (Similar) Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-39 Draft EIR B-1-38 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-7. Alternative 1 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance PH-3. The construction of affordable housing units under the Project would provide additional affordable housing for the City. None required Less than Significant (Similar) 3.12 Public Services and Recreation PS-1. Alternative 1 would increase demand on the SLOPD for police protection services. None required Less than Significant (Similar) PS-2. Alternative 1 would increase the demand for SLOFD and CALFIRE fire protection services and create potential declines in firefighter-to- resident ratios, however would be located within the accepted response time performance area. Development of senior residential uses, which are associated with extraordinary calls for emergency medical service, would increase emergency calls for service beyond what the SLOFD anticipates being able to accommodate. None required Less than Significant (Similar) PS-3. Alternative 1 would generate increases in enrollment at public schools (especially C.L. Elementary and Laguna Middle). None required Less than Significant (Similar) PS-4. Alternative 1 would increase the demand for public parkland and neighborhood parks from increased residential population. MM PS-1 MM PS-2 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Incrementally Less) 3.13 Transportation and Traffic TRANS-1. Alternative 1 construction activities would potentially create traffic impacts due to congestion from construction vehicles (e.g., construction trucks, construction worker vehicles, equipment, etc.) as well as temporary traffic lane and sidewalk closures. MM TRANS-1 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Incrementally Less) TRANS-2. Under Existing plus Project conditions, the addition of Alternative 1 traffic would exacerbate existing queuing and peak hour traffic for automobiles, and poor levels of service for pedestrians and bicycle modes of transportation, causing transportation deficiencies in the Project vicinity. MM AQ-6 MM TRANS-2 MM TRANS-3 MM TRANS-4 MM TRANS-5 MM TRANS-6 MM TRANS-7 MM TRANS-8 MM TRANS-9 MM TRANS-10 MM TRANS-11 Significant and Unavoidable (Similar) TRANS-3. Under Near-Term plus Project (Scenario 2) conditions, the addition of Alternative 1 traffic would exacerbate existing queuing and peak hour traffic for automobiles and poor levels of service for pedestrians and bike modes of transportation, MM TRANS-2 MM TRANS-5 MM TRANS-6 MM TRANS-8 MM TRANS-9 MM TRANS-12 Significant and Unavoidable (Similar) 5-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-39 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-7. Alternative 1 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance causing transportation deficiencies in the Project vicinity. MM TRANS-13 MM TRANS-14 MM TRANS-15 MM TRANS-16 MM TRANS-17 MM TRANS-18 MM TRANS-19 MM TRANS-20 TRANS-4. Alternative 1 would result in traffic safety impacts and inadequate emergency access and evacuation options, resulting in potential for structural damage, injuries, or loss of life due to wildland fires or other emergency situations. MM HAZ-4 MM TRANS-21 MM TRANS-22 MM TRANS-23 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Incrementally Less) TRANS-5. Onsite circulation would result in safety impacts to pedestrian and bicycle access. MM TRANS-24 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Incrementally Less) TRANS-6. Under long-term Cumulative plus Project conditions, Alternative 1-generated traffic would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to traffic for automobiles and poor levels of service for pedestrians and bike modes of transportation, causing transportation deficiencies in the Project vicinity. MM TRANS-8 MM TRANS-9 MM TRANS-13 MM TRANS-25 MM TRANS-26 MM TRANS-27 MM TRANS-28 MM TRANS-29 MM TRANS-30 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Incrementally Less) 3.14 Utilities and Energy Conservation UT-1. Alternative 1 would require the expansion of utility infrastructure to serve new development, including water, sewer, natural gas, and electricity into the site; the construction of which could cause environmental effects. MM AQ-1 MM BIO-1 MM CR-3 MM CR-4 MM CR-5 MM HAZ-1 MM HYD-1 MM HYD-2 MM NO-1 MM NO-2 MM NO-3 MM NO-4 MM TRANS-1 MM UT-1 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less) UT-2. Alternative 1-related increases in water use would increase demand for the City’s potable water supply. None required Less than Significant (Similar) Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-41 Draft EIR B-1-40 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 5-7. Alternative 1 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance UT-3. Alternative 1-generated wastewater would contribute to demand for wastewater collection facilities and remaining available and planned capacity of the City’s WRRF. MM UT-2 Less than Significant with Mitigation (Similar) UT-4. Alternative 1 would generate additional solid waste for disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill. None required Less than Significant (Incrementally Less) UT-5. Alternative 1 would result in an increase of energy consumption and requirement for additional energy resources. None required Less than Significant (Similar) 3.15 Mineral Resources MN-1. Alternative 1 implementation would result in the loss of the existing onsite red rock quarry (Froom Ranch Pit). None required Less than Significant (Similar) Aesthetics and Visual Resources Under Alternative 1, site design alterations would substantially reduce aesthetic impacts in comparison to the Project. Although total residential units and commercial square footage would remain the same, urban development would not occur above the 150-foot elevation line. Avoiding development of the Upper Terrace of Villaggio would reduce impacts to scenic resources, including natural habitats, historic resources, and rock outcroppings, that are visible to viewers in the surrounding area, including within the public trail system of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Further, relocation of the public park to the northwest corner of the Project site would relocate residential development to areas below the 150- foot elevation and reduce impacts to the scenic transition between adjacent natural habitats and residential development in the Madonna Froom Ranch. Impact VIS-1 regarding impacts to scenic resources from a state scenic highway or local scenic roadway would be similar impacts under the Project. Unlike the Project, Alternative 1 would not include development within the Upper Terrace and scenic natural resources within this area, including serpentine rock outcroppings, woodlands, open grasslands and riparian habitat, would be preserved. Similar to the Project, impacts to views from the portion of U.S. 101 eligible for State Scenic Highway designation would not be significant, nor would impacts to viewers along Calle Joaquin (see KVA 1). Similar to the Project, views from LOVR would be substantially impacted, and increased building density and height under Alternative 1 would incrementally increase the severity of these impacts (see KVAs 2 and 3). However, implementation of MM VIS-1 would ensure that landscape 5-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-41 Attachment B Reconfigured AG Easement B-1-42 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION floor retail and restaurant uses. In addition, 30,000 sf of retail and office uses are proposed within a one-story building up to 24 feet in height (Figure 2-4 and 2-5). Public Facilities (PF-SP) Madonna Froom Ranch would include 2.9 acres zoned for public facilities to provide a public park; the park would serve as a trailhead, with recreational amenities, parking, and connections to existing public trails within Irish Hills Natural Reserve. While the Project would include development of the park, it would be owned and maintained by the City. The proposed park facilities would include four relocated and/or reconstructed/rehabilitated historically significant structures from the former Froom Ranch Dairy Farm, along with visitor signage and information, a playground area, picnic areas, 30 off-street parking spaces, and a trailhead plaza with bicycle parking. The proposed public park would link to the surrounding residential and retail uses and the regional pedestrian and bikeway system with connecting Class II and Class III bicycle lanes and sidewalks. 2.4.1.3 Proposed Open Space The Project includes a total of 59.0 acres of discontinuous C/OS zones, including 38.9 acres within Villaggio and 20.1 acres within Madonna Froom Ranch (Table 2-4). The total of 59.0 acres includes 51.9 acres of dedicated open space and an existing 7.1-acre agricultural and open space easement. The Project would reconfigure the existing onsite 7.1-acre agricultural and open space easement to include lands on both sides of Calle Joaquin (Figure 2-4). While the boundary would change, the easement would have the same total area of 7.1 acres. Since the easement already protects 7.1 acres of land as open space, this easement area is not included in the Project’s open space calculations for purposes of meeting General Plan requirements. Accordingly, the 51.9 acres of dedicated open space would meet the City’s General Plan requirements for at least 50 percent of the Specific Plan area to be designated as Open Space. All C/OS areas within the Project site would be owned and maintained by Villaggio and/or the future Madonna Froom Ranch management association, respectively, unless otherwise agreed to by the City. Proposed open space uses are based on guidance from the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update, and would include open lands supporting existing wetlands, the realigned Froom Creek and associated setbacks and drainages, and the hillsides surrounding Villaggio, including those bordering the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (refer to Figure 2-4). Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-23 Draft EIR B-1-43 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 2-4. Summary of Proposed Open Space C/OS Zones Acres VILLAGGIO Conservation/Open Space 38.9 MADONNA FROOM RANCH Conservation/Open Space 20.1 Open Space 13.0 Proposed Reconfigured Open Space Easement 7.1 Total 59.0 2.4.2 Project Design The Project proposes standards and guidelines that address building orientation, setbacks, visual quality of the streetscape, pedestrian activity areas, design of public parks and recreational facilities, access and parking, and architecture styles. The siting and design of proposed development is intended to consider site characteristics and constraints within the Specific Plan area, including natural features and access requirements. The proposed standards include actions or requirements that must be fulfilled by new development, while guidelines refer to methods and approaches used to achieve the desired outcome (Appendix C, Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Development Standards). The Project provides a programmatic description of required actions within the Specific Plan area to direct physical design, land use design, circulation design, and infrastructure. Future development proposals to implement the approved FRSP would be subject to existing City review and permitting requirements, including design review (see also, Section 2.5, Required Approvals). 2.4.2.1 Architectural Design Project architecture would comprise common styles found within the San Luis Obispo region, such as Ranch, Craftsman, California Mission, and Mediterranean. However, architectural design would differ between Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch. For example, the architectural style of Commons within Villaggio would be primarily Mediterranean while the retail commercial structures proposed within the Madonna Froom Ranch would include Ranch and Craftsman features with a form, massing, and architectural style that complements the existing historic buildings onsite. Architectural style would differ also by proposed land uses. Design features of residential areas within Madonna Froom Ranch would include the following: 2-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-44 Attachment C DEIR Executive Summary B-1-45 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 INTRODUCTION JM Development Group, Inc. (Applicant) proposes the implementation of the Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan (FSRP), including an amendment to the City’s General Plan, pre- zoning, annexation to the City, and related actions to allow for the development of a 116.8 acre Project site with several offsite infrastructure improvements, which collectively comprise the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project (Project). The Project is intended to implement the City of San Luis Obispo’s (City’s) vision for the Project site as guided by the City’s 2014 Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan. The City’s LUE specifically identifies the Project site as a Special Focus Area and requires preparation of a specific plan for this area to address key planning and environmental issues including: the designation of an appropriate land use mix, the need for a variety of housing types and levels of affordability, provision of both commercial and open space, an internal network of public and private roads, and the implementation of a complex stormwater management system. The Applicant proposes the adoption of the FSRP and related actions to permit a mix of residential uses (39.1 acres), open space and a public park (61.9 acres), and retail commercial uses (3.1 acres) within the approximately 109.7-acre Specific Plan area. The proposed Project would allow for construction of up to 174 residential units and 404 senior independent living units as follows: • 31.6 acres of R-3 SP medium-high density senior-living uses, with 366 independent-living units (700 to 2,000 sf in size), 38 assisted-living units (310 to 620 sf in size), and 51 beds for skilled nursing and memory care; • 5.7 acres of R-3 SP medium-high density uses with 130 multi-family units on a minimum lot size of 1,000 sf; • 1.8 acres of R-4 SP high density uses with 44 multi-family units on a minimum lot size of 1,000 sf; The Project would also allow for up to 100,000 sf of commercial retail space, including approximately 70,000 sf of hotel use with up to 120 rooms and 30,000 sf of retail and office uses. The Project would retain approximately 55 percent of the Project site as open space and include a 2.9-acre public park that connects to the existing trail network within the adjacent Irish Hills National Reserve. The Project would include an internal network of public and private roads with some bicycle and pedestrian access. The Project would also Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-1 Draft EIR B-1-46 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY implement a complex stormwater management system, including realignment of Froom Ranch through the Specific Plan area, relocation and expansion of an existing onsite stormwater detention basin immediately south of the Specific Plan area, and onsite water quality retention and treatment areas. ES-2 PROJECT OVERVIEW This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project in the City of San Luis Obispo (City), California. The City prepared this EIR with assistance from its environmental planning consultant, Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc (Wood). This EIR discloses the findings of the City regarding potential environmental impacts of adoption and implementation of the proposed Project. The Project site consists of two parcels (APNs 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) and 7.1 acres outside the Specific Plan area, totaling 116.8 acres. The site is currently unincorporated in San Luis Obispo County (County), but is located within the City’s adopted Sphere of Influence immediately southwest of the City limits and adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) between Calle Joaquin and Irish Hills Plaza. The City’s 2014 LUE designates the Specific Plan area (109.7 acres within the Project site) as a Special Focus Area (SP-3) for provision of residential and small-scale commercial uses, along with open space and/or agricultural uses. The SP-3 designation requires a specific plan to guide development and operation within the Specific Plan area following annexation to the City, per Section 8.1.6 of the LUE. The Project site is primarily undeveloped and used for agriculture (horse grazing) and stormwater management but contains historic farming structures, a construction office, and a permitted, but inactive red rock quarry in the northwestern portion used for construction materials storage. Froom Creek traverses the Project site in a mostly north to south direction and joins San Luis Obispo Creek south of the Project site before flowing towards the Pacific Ocean. ES-3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This EIR examines potential short- and long-term impacts of the Project. These impacts were determined through a rigorous process mandated by CEQA in which existing conditions are compared and contrasted with conditions that would exist once the project is implemented. For each impact topic, thresholds for determining impact significance are identified based on City and State CEQA Guidelines, along with descriptions of methodologies used for conducting the impact analysis. For some topics, such as air ES-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-47 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY quality, traffic, and noise, the analyses of impacts are more quantitative in nature and involve the comparison of effects against a numerical threshold. For other topics, such as land use/planning, the analyses of impacts are inherently more qualitative, involving the consideration of a variety of factors, such as adopted City policies. The EIR impact discussions classify impact significance levels as: 1. Significant and Unavoidable (Class I) - a significant impact to the environment that remains significant even after mitigation measures are applied; 2. Significant but Mitigable (Class II) - a significant impact that can be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation; 3. Less Than Significant (Class III)- a potential impact that would not meet or exceed the identified thresholds of significance for the resource area; 4. No Impact (Class IV) – no impact would occur for the resource area; and 5. Beneficial (Class IV) – a positive effect on the natural or human environment would occur. Determinations of significance levels in the EIR are made based on impact significance criteria and applicable CEQA Guidelines for each resource area. ES-4 NOTICE OF PREPARATION/SCOPING The City prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the Project in July 2017, made publicly available through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) distribution process in July 2017. The IS found that the Project may have potentially significant impacts to the following resources: aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities (Appendix A). Pursuant to Section 21080(d) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15064(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, if there is a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR, even when other substantial evidence has been presented that a project will not have a significant effect. Consequently, the City has determined that the preparation of an EIR would be required to analyze potential environmental impacts of the Project. Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-3 Draft EIR B-1-48 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In compliance with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City performed a public scoping process consistent with Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines. The public was provided an opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIR through a NOP released on July 10, 2017, which was distributed to federal, state, regional, and City agencies, and neighborhood groups. The NOP comment period ran from July 10, 2017 through August 14, 2017, and a public hearing was held on July 26, 2017. During the NOP comment period, City received 12 comment letters. Comments received during the NOP comment period were considered during EIR preparation and are included in Appendix B. ES-5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS The significance of each impact resulting from implementation of the Project has been determined based on impact significance criteria and applicable CEQA Guidelines for each impact topic. Table ES-1 presents a summary of the impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts from implementation of the Project. In summary, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable construction-related and long-term impacts to aesthetics, air quality, historic resources, biological resources, wildfire risks, and long-term transportation and traffic. The Project would also result in potential inconsistency with several City General Plan policies. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Project implementation would change views of scenic resources, including hillsides, rock outcrops, open space, and historic buildings as viewed from a State Scenic Highway and local scenic roadway. In addition, the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts on the existing visual character of the site, which would be changed from a rural to a commercial and residential setting, especially as viewed from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Although the impacts to views from the Irish Hills cannot be fully attenuated, mitigation will include following the Landscape Screening Guidelines to provide effective screening of proposed structures as experienced from public views along LOVR and LOVR overpass. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions In the long-term, the projected emissions for the Project were found to be above the established daily thresholds for operational emissions of ROG and NOx, and projected increases in greenhouse gas emissions would result in inconsistencies with the local Clean Air Plan planning policies due to exceedance of projected population growth, vehicle trips, and vehicle miles traveled. Implementation of the Project and associate net increases in ES-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-49 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY greenhouse gas emissions would also result in inconsistencies with adopted local and statewide policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to the maximum degree possible for operational-related air quality impacts; however, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation. Biological Resources The Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts on sensitive habitats (riparian, wetland, and native grassland) identified under state and City policy. Substantial direct and indirect adverse impacts would occur to sensitive species, federally protected wetlands, and the movement of species along wildlife corridors. To mitigate these impacts, the Applicant shall prepare and implement a City-approved Biological Mitigation Plan (BMP) that identifies both construction and operational related mitigation measures for impacts to sensitive communities and species. The BMP shall also include a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) and address the movement of special-status species. Sensitive natural communities outside of approved development footprints shall be avoided. Chorro Creek Bog Thistle Management and the preparation of a Community Fire Protection Plan shall also occur. However, the Project would result in the direct and indirect loss or disturbance of sensitive species for which the avoidance, replacement, and/or mitigation is not considered feasible. Land Use Implementation of the Project that would allow development above the 150-foot elevation, and more specifically development within the environmentally sensitive Upper Terrace, would result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetic and visual resources, biological resources, and emergency access and fire hazards. After a review for consistency with City General Plan policies, this aspect of the Project would be potentially inconsistent with City LUCE and General Plan COSE policies that protect sensitive biological, open space, and visual resources include protections reflected in Policy 6.4.7, Hillside Planning Areas, which prohibits development above the 150-foot elevation within the Irish Hills area. Impacts are therefore significant and unavoidable. Transportation and Traffic Impacts to traffic and transportation upon implementation of the Project would consist of delays and/or exceedance of intersection capacities, resulting in poor levels of service for automobiles, pedestrians and bicycle modes of transportation. More specifically, Project Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-5 Draft EIR B-1-50 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY generated traffic would cause exceedance of intersection capacities at various intersections not subject to the City’s authority or requiring completion of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project. Although the Project would implement mitigation measures and the Applicant would pay a fair share fee to offset Project contributions to this impact, as no County or Caltrans program for improvements is currently adopted, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. ES-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR B-1-51 Attachment D LAFCO DEIR Comments B-1-52 B-1-53 B-1-54 B-1-55 Attachment E LAFCO Policies B-1-56 Attachment E LAFCO Policies 2.1 LAFCO General Policies 1. The Commission shall endeavor to balance the need to efficiently provide public services with the sometimes-competing interests of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving prime agriculture land and open space (CKH Act 56001 and 56301). 4. Jurisdictions are encouraged to create places to live that integrate various land uses as a way of providing for a diverse social and economic community. 5. Cities and special districts are encouraged to annex unincorporated islands as well as land that is mostly surrounded by a jurisdiction. (CKH 56001, 56375.3). 7. The Commission prefers urban development within Cities and the Urban Reserve Line of unincorporated communities as opposed to development in the unincorporated area (CKH 56001). 8. The Commission will recognize and preserve clearly defined, long-term agricultural and open space areas established by the County or other jurisdictions to preserve critical environmental areas and to bolster local economies (CKH 56001). This may be accomplished using agricultural easements, open space easements, conservation easements, or other mechanisms, that preserve agricultural or open space lands in perpetuity. 14. In any proposal, the impacts on affordable housing must be considered. The Commission will consider the impact of the creation of new jobs on affordable housing stock, not only in the jurisdiction to which the annexation is proposed, but also in neighboring jurisdictions. The agency to which the annexation is proposed should demonstrate to the Commission that the effects of the proposed project on affordable housing have been mitigated (CKH 56001). The Commission recognizes that providing a range of housing opportunities for persons and families of all incomes is an important factor in promoting orderly development. 15. Prior to annexation of territory within an agency’s Sphere of Influence, the Commission encourages development on vacant or underutilized parcels already within the boundaries of a jurisdiction. The agency should provide LAFCO with a build-out estimate or inventory and document how it was prepared. 16. In any proposal requiring water service, the Commission requires that the agency to which the annexation is proposed should demonstrate the availability of an adequate, reliable and sustainable supply of water. In cases where a phased development is proposed, the agency should demonstrate that adequate service capacity will be provided as needed for each phase. In cases where a proposed annexation will be served by an onsite water source, the proponent should demonstrate its adequacy (CKH 56668 (k)). B-1-57 Attachment E LAFCO Policies 2.3 Policies for City Annexations 1. The boundaries of a proposed annexation must be definite and certain and must conform to lines of assessment whenever possible. 2. The boundaries of an area to be annexed will not result in any areas difficult to serve. 3. There is a demonstrated need for governmental services and controls in the area proposed for annexation. 4. The municipality has the resources capable of meeting the need for services in the area proposed for annexation and has submitted studies and information documenting its ability to serve. 5. There is a mutual social and economic community of interest between the residents of the municipality and the proposed territory. 6. The proposed annexation is compatible with the municipality’s general plan. The proposed annexation represents a logical and reasonable expansion of the annexing municipality. 7. The Commission shall determine if a disadvantaged unincorporated community is associated with an application. If a disadvantaged unincorporated community does exist, the procedures for processing the annexation as outlined in the CKH Act shall be implemented. 8. That the City Prezone the area to be annexed and complete CEQA as the Lead Agency for the proposal and/or project. LAFCO should in most instances act as the Responsible Agency with regard to an annexation and CEQA 2.9 Agricultural Policies 7. In considering the completeness and appropriateness of any proposal, the Executive Officer and this Commission may require proponents and other interested parties to provide such information and analysis as, in their judgment, will assist in an informed and reasoned evaluation of the proposal in accordance with these policies. 10. The Commission will consider feasible mitigation (found in the following guidelines) if a proposal would result in the loss of agricultural land. 12. The Commission may approve annexations of prime agricultural land only if mitigation that equates to a substitution ratio of at least 1:1 for the prime land to be converted from agricultural use is agreed to by the applicant (landowner), the jurisdiction with land use authority. The 1:1 substitution ratio may be met by implementing various measures: B-1-58 Attachment E LAFCO Policies a. Acquisition and dedication of farmland, development rights, and/or agricultural conservation easements to permanently protect farmlands within the annexation area or lands with similar characteristics within the County Planning Area. b. Payment of in-lieu fees to an established, qualified, mitigation/conservation program or organization sufficient to fully fund the acquisition and dedication activities stated above in 12a. c. Other measures agreed to by the applicant and the land use jurisdiction that meet the intent of replacing prime agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio. B-1-59