HomeMy WebLinkAboutFroom_Ranch_DEIR-PRINT_VERSIONDraft Environmental Impact Report
for the Proposed Froom Ranch
Specific Plan Project
SCH No. 2017071033
November 2019
Prepared for:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Services Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Prepared by:
Wood Environment &
Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A
San Luis Obispo, California 93101
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2017071033
FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
P REPARED FOR:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
P REPARED BY:
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204-A
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Contact: Dan Gira
805.962.0992
November 2019
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report. November 2019.
Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, CA.
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
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
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
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
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
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
VIS-1. Project 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 The Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan shall be revised to include
the following Landscape Screening Guidelines to provide effective screening
of proposed structural massing as experienced from public views along LOVR
and the LOVR Overpass. The Project landscape plan shall be prepared by a
qualified landscape architect and include the following:
1.Maximize protection of existing vegetation along the Project site
boundary to provide visual screening during Project construction and
operation.
2.Specify a plant palette and landscape plan that ensure a vegetated site
boundary of sufficient height and density to provide visual screening of
the proposed development from public views.
3.Native tree specimens and shrubs capable of reaching or exceeding the
heights of the adjacent proposed structures shall be planted along
Project site boundaries visible from public views.
4.Screening planting specimen selection and location shall emphasize the
ability to interrupt the contiguous massing of structures as experienced
from area roadways and scenic vistas. Spacing shall be sufficient to
minimize views of structures within the Project site.
5.Screening planting specimen selection shall emphasize the ability of
planting species to effectively establish and thrive over the life of the
Project, such that smaller sizes shall be considered rather than
exclusively larger box sizes. Planting establishment rates shall be
considered but shall not preclude the use of slower-growing species,
such as coast valley oak and willows.
6.Native tree specimens capable of reaching or exceeding the heights of
adjacent structures shall be planted adjacent to multi-family and
commercial structures located within the interior of the Specific Plan
area consistent with the specifications above.
7.A bond for screening landscaping and irrigation shall be provided to
ensure establishment of plantings. The bond shall be revoked upon
satisfactory establishment of screen planting vegetation according to
the plan.
Requirements and Timing. The Specific Plan Landscape Screening
Guidelines and landscape bond shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Community Development Department prior to vesting tract map recordation.
Landscape plantings, including irrigation, shall be in place prior to issuance
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-7
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
of building permits for each phase of the Project. A landscape architect
approved by the City shall provide verification of landscaping establishment
pursuant to the Screening Plan to the City’s Community Development
Department for review and approval prior to relinquishment of the bond.
Monitoring. The City Community Development Department shall review and
approve the Specific Plan Landscape Screening Guidelines. The Applicant
shall ensure that all landscape planting and irrigation are in place and shall
prepare a memo verifying condition compliance. The City Community
Development Department shall review and approve the landscaping
establishment bond letter.
VIS-2. The Project 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 The Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan shall be revised to include
the following Landscape Screening Guidelines to provide effective screening
of proposed structural massing as experienced from public views along LOVR
and the LOVR Overpass. The Project landscape plan shall be prepared by a
qualified landscape architect and include the following:
1.Maximize protection of existing vegetation along the Project site
boundary to provide visual screening during Project construction and
operation.
2.Specify a plant palette and landscape plan that ensure a vegetated site
boundary of sufficient height and density to provide visual screening of
the proposed development from public views.
3.Native tree specimens and shrubs capable of reaching or exceeding the
heights of the adjacent proposed structures shall be planted along
Project site boundaries visible from public views.
4.Screening planting specimen selection and location shall emphasize the
ability to interrupt the contiguous massing of structures as experienced
from area roadways and scenic vistas. Spacing shall be sufficient to
minimize views of structures within the Project site.
5.Screening planting specimen selection shall emphasize the ability of
planting species to effectively establish and thrive over the life of the
Project, such that smaller sizes shall be considered rather than
exclusively larger box sizes. Planting establishment rates shall be
considered but shall not preclude the use of slower-growing species,
such as coast valley oak and willows.
6.Native tree specimens capable of reaching or exceeding the heights of
adjacent structures shall be planted adjacent to multi-family and
Significant and
Unavoidable
ES-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
commercial structures located within the interior of the Specific Plan
area consistent with the specifications above.
7. A bond for screening landscaping and irrigation shall be provided to
ensure establishment of plantings. The bond shall be revoked upon
satisfactory establishment of screen planting vegetation according to
the plan.
Requirements and Timing. The Specific Plan Landscape Screening
Guidelines and landscape bond shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Community Development Department prior to vesting tract map recordation.
Landscape plantings, including irrigation, shall be in place prior to issuance
of building permits for each phase of the Project. A landscape architect
approved by the City shall provide verification of landscaping establishment
pursuant to the Screening Plan to the City’s Community Development
Department for review and approval prior to relinquishment of the bond.
Monitoring. The City Community Development Department shall review
and approve the Specific Plan Landscape Screening Guidelines. The
Applicant shall ensure that all landscape planting and irrigation are in place
and shall prepare a memo verifying condition compliance. The City
Community Development Department shall review and approve the
landscaping establishment bond letter.
VIS-3. The Project would introduce a new source of
nighttime light, impacting the quality of the
nighttime sky and increasing ambient light.
None required. Less than Significant
3.2 Agricultural Resources
AG-1. The Project would convert onsite Farmland of
Local Potential and prime soils if irrigated to non-
agricultural uses.
None required. Less than Significant
AG-2. Implementation of the Project would create
potential conflicts with existing agricultural zoning.
None required. Less than Significant
AG-3. The Project would 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
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-9
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
AQ-1. The Project would result in potentially
significant construction-related emissions, including
dust and air pollutant emissions.
MM AQ-1 A Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP) shall be
included as part of Project grading and building plans and shall be submitted
to SLO County APCD and to the City for review and approval prior to the
start of construction. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following
elements:
1. A Dust Control Management Plan that encompasses the following dust
control measures:
• Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible;
• Water trucks or sprinkler trucks shall be used during construction
to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust
from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20
percent opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute
period. At a minimum, this would require twice-daily applications.
Increased watering frequency would be required when wind
speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph). Reclaimed water or the
onsite water well (non-potable) shall be used when possible. The
contractor or builder shall consider the use of a SLO County
APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the
amount of water used for dust control;
• All dirt stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
• Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved
Project revegetation and landscape plans of any development
within the Specific Plan area should be implemented as soon as
possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
• Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates
greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a
fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established;
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be
stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or
other methods approved in advance by SLO County APCD;
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be
completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should
be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used;
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
ES-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph
on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to
be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114;
• Designate access points and require all employees,
subconsultants, and others to use them. Install and operate a
“track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention device
can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at
preventing track-out, located at the point of intersection of any
unpaved area and a paved road. If utilized, rumble strips or steel
plate devices shall be cleaned periodically. If paved roadways
accumulate tracked-out soils, the track-out prevention device shall
be modified or replaced to prevent track-out;
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed
water should be used where feasible;
• All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans; and
• The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to
monitor the fugitive dust control emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and
to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include
holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided
to SLO County APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of
any grading, earthwork or demolition.
2. Implementation of the following BACT for diesel-fueled construction
equipment. The BACT measures shall include:
• Use of at least Tier 3 off-road equipment and 2010 on-road
compliant engines;
• Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
• Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-11
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
3. Implementation of the following standard air quality measures to
minimize diesel emissions:
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to
manufacturer’s specifications;
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with
CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version
suitable for use off-road).
• Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or
cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
• Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have
engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in
the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets)
may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;
• On- and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for
more than five minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated
queuing areas to remind drivers and operators of the five-minute
idling limit;
• Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not
permitted;
• Staging and queing areas shall not be loated within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors;
• Electrify equipment when feasible;
• Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered
equipment, where feasible; and,
• Use alternatively fueled construction equipment onsite where
feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural
gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
4. Tabulation of on- and off-road construction equipment (age, horse-
power, and miles and/or hours of operation);
5. Schedule construction truck trips during non-peak hours (as
determined by the Public Works Director) to reduce peak hour
emissions; and
6. Limit the length of the construction work-day period to 8 hours max.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The CAMP shall be submitted to SLO
County APCD and to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of
ES-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
grading and construction permits and recordation of the final VTM. All
required fugitive dust and emissions control measures shall be noted on all
grading and building plans and all construction activities shall adhere to
measures throughout all grading, hauling, and construction activities. The
contractor or builder shall provide the City Community Development Director
and SLO County APCD with the name and contact information for an
assigned onsite dust and emissions control monitor(s) who has the
responsibility to: a) assure all dust control requirements are complied with
including those covering weekends and holidays, b) order increased watering
as necessary to prevent transport of dust offsite, and c) attend the pre-
construction meeting. The dust monitor shall be designated prior to grading
permit issuance for each Project phase. The dust control components apply
from the beginning of any grading or construction throughout all development
activities until occupancy is issued and landscaping is successfully installed.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are depicted on the CAMP and
all submitted grading and construction plans for each Project phase. The
Applicant shall be responsible for compliance during construction activities,
including holidays or weekends when work may not be in progress. City
grading and building inspectors shall spot check and ensure compliance
onsite.
MM AQ-2 To reduce ROG and NOx levels during the architectural coating
phase, low or no Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)-emission paint shall be
used with levels of 50 grams per liter (g/L) or less (Odorless, Zero VOC
Paint). The schedule for architectural coatings application shall be extended,
limiting the daily coating activity to a level determined acceptable by SLO
County APCD.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall verify the measures
through written documentation submitted to the City and SLO County APCD
for review and approval. Measures shall be indicated on all building and
construction plans and submitted to SLO County APCD and to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. City shall verify measures with the Applicant and SLO County
APCD. City staff shall ensure measures are depicted on all building and
construction plans. City building inspectors shall perform site inspections to
ensure compliance.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-13
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
MM AQ-3 An offsite mitigation strategy shall be developed and agreed upon
by the Applicant, City, and SLO County APCD at least three months prior to
the issuance of grading permits. Offsite mitigation strategies may be in the
form of cash payment, circulation improvements above the Project’s fair
share, or funding for ongoing transit improvements. The Applicant shall
provide appropriate funding necessary to offset the Project’s residual
construction-related ROG+NOx emissions beyond SLO County APCD’s daily
threshold at least two months prior to the start of construction to help
facilitate emission offsets that are as real-time as possible. Cash payment of
offsite mitigation fees shall be calculated based on the most current ARB-
approved Carl Moyer Guidelines at the time of commencement of each
Project phase. Offsite mitigation strategies shall include one or more of the
following:
• Develop or improve park-and-ride lots;
• Fund a program to buy and scrap older, higher emission passenger and
heavy-duty vehicles;
• Retrofit or repower heavy-duty construction equipment, or on-road
vehicles;
• Subsidize vanpool programs;
• Contribute to funding of new bike lanes;
• Replace/repower San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(SLORTA) transit buses;
• Purchase Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) for
transit buses or construction fleets; and
• Fund expansion of existing SLORTA transit services.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit the
offsite mitigation strategy to SLO County APCD for review and to the City
for approval at least three months prior to the issuance of grading permits for
Phase 1 construction. The Applicant shall provide any necessary funding to
SLO County APCD at least two months prior to the start of construction.
Monitoring. SLO County APCD and City staff shall ensure offsite mitigation
measures are appropriate. If the Applicant elects to pay mitigation fees, SLO
County APCD shall verify the receipt of funding to the City. If the Applicant
elects to provide improvements, proposed improvements shall be approved by
the City and SLO County APCD prior to implementation. City and SLO
ES-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
County APCD staff shall monitor proposed improvements to ensure
compliance.
AQ-2. The Project would result in potentially
significant long-term operational emissions.
MM AQ-4 Consistent with standard mitigation measures set forth by SLO
County APCD, Projects generating more than 50 lbs/day of combined ROG
+ NOx shall implement all feasible measures within Table 3-5 of the Air
Quality Handbook. The following mitigation measures shall apply to the
Project (Table 3.3-9).
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall include the mitigation
measures in Table 3-5 of the 2012 SLO County APCD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (as amended by the 2017 Clarification Memorandum), as indicated
in the column “How the Project Will Include This Measure” in Table 3.3-9,
above. All feasible standard mitigation measures shall be included in the
FRSP prior to approval of the final FRSP and these measures shall also be
included on the final VTM prior to recordation. City staff shall ensure the
above measures are incorporated into the FRSP, final VTM, and building
plans prior to permit issuance.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are listed on final plans
submitted for review and approval by the City. City staff shall work with the
Applicant to ensure that these strategies are implemented. The City shall
conduct periodic site visits to ensure compliance, in consultation with the SLO
County APCD.
Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions or naturally
occurring asbestos during construction of the Project
could expose sensitive receptors to emissions-related
health risks.
None Required. Less than Significant
AQ-4. The Project 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-5 The Applicant shall revise the Draft FRSP to include measures
necessary to reduce Project operational stationary-source GHG emissions to
achieve net zero emissions, consistent with the City’s 2035 net-zero GHG
emissions target. These measures shall include Best Available Mitigation
strategies for reducing operational emissions, including but not limited to the
following:
• Electrical power for the entirety of Project operations including but not
limited to illumination, heating, cooling, and ventilation shall be
provided by alternative or carbon-free energy sources according to the
following priority: 1) on-grid power with 100-percent renewable or
carbon-free source (a planned product of Monterey Bay Community
Significant and
Unavoidable
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-15
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Power available to the City in 2020), or 2) a combination of grid power
and on site renewable generation to achieve annual zero net electrical
energy usage, or 3) purchase of carbon offsets of any portion of power
not from renewable or carbon-free sources. As a first priority, carbon-
free sourced energy shall be purchased from Monterey Bay Community
Power.
• For new buildings, onsite solar photovoltaic systems shall be required,
and retrofitted buildings shall be encouraged to install onsite solar
photovoltaic systems to offset energy demand, regardless of building
size.
• All proposed commercial and health care facilities shall exceed the
minimum standards of Title 24, Part 11 (Cal Green) by adopting all or
some elements of Cal Green Tier 1 and 2 voluntary elective measures
to increase energy efficiency in new buildings, remodels and additions.
These measures shall prioritize upgrading lighting (e.g., using light-
emitting diode [LED] lights), heating and cooling systems, appliances,
equipment and control systems to be more energy efficient.
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall include the above measure
in the Final FRSP prior to approval and shall include the above measure on
the final VTM prior to recordation. Plans submitted for building permits shall
incorporate Best Management Strategies, and for the selected Best
Management Strategies, the Applicant shall work with City and SLO County
APCD staff to calculate estimated stationary-source emissions to ensure
achievement of net-zero stationary source operational emissions for the
Project. City and SLO County APCD staff shall ensure the above measures
are incorporated into the FRSP, final VTM, and building plans prior to permit
issuance.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are listed on final plans
submitted for review and approval by the City. City and SLO County APCD
staff shall work with the Applicant to ensure that these strategies are
implemented. The City shall verify compliance in consultation with the SLO
County APCD.
MM AQ-6 The Applicant shall revise the FRSP to include measures necessary
to reduce the Project’s operational, mobile-source emissions, and VMT to the
maximum extent feasible, including, but not limited to the following:
• Rideshare and Employee Ridership Programs: The FRSP shall be
amended to include measures for encouraging and incentivizing
ES-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
residents and employees of the proposed development participate in the
San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare program.
• Senior Shuttle Service: Villaggio shall provide clean fuel shuttle
services or coordinate with existing shuttle services such as Dial-A-
Ride and the Senior Go! Shuttle to provide curb-to-curb shuttle service
for residents of the Villaggio Life Community Plan.
• All Electric Small Vehicles: The FRSP shall require all personal small
vehicles (e.g., golf carts) be 100 percent electric powered.
• Car Share: Provide car-sharing opportunities within the Villaggio Life
Community Plan and Madonna Froom Ranch areas.
• Promote Carpools, Vanpools, and Electric Vehicle (EV) Vehicles:
Provide dedicated parking for carpools, vanpools, and high-efficiency
vehicles in exceedance of Cal Green Tier 2 standards.
• Offsite EV Improvements: Work with SLO County APCD to expand or
fund the expansion of EV charging stations throughout the City.
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall include all feasible Best
Management Strategies as part of the final FRSP and final VTM. For the
selected Best Management Strategies, the Applicant shall work with City and
SLO County APCD staff to calculate estimated mobile-source emissions to
ensure emissions are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. City and SLO
County APCD staff shall ensure the above measures are incorporated into the
FRSP and final VTM prior to recordation.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are listed on the final VTM
submitted for review and approval by the City. City and SLO County APCD
staff shall work with the Applicant to ensure that these strategies are
implemented. The City shall verify compliance in consultation with the SLO
County APCD.
AQ-5. The Project is potentially inconsistent with the
SLO County APCD’s Clean Air Plan.
MM AQ-2 To reduce ROG and NOx levels during the architectural coating
phase, low or no Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)-emission paint shall be
used with levels of 50 grams per liter (g/L) or less (Odorless, Zero VOC
Paint). The schedule for architectural coatings application shall be extended,
limiting the daily coating activity to a level determined acceptable by SLO
County APCD.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall verify the measures
through written documentation submitted to the City and SLO County APCD
for review and approval. Measures shall be indicated on all building and
construction plans and submitted to SLO County APCD and to the City for
Significant and
Unavoidable
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-17
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. City shall verify measures with the Applicant and SLO County
APCD. City staff shall ensure measures are depicted on all building and
construction plans. City building inspectors shall perform site inspections to
ensure compliance.
MM TRANS-5 The Project Applicant shall extend the westbound bike lane
on Tank Farm Road approaching the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection to the intersection and install a bike box to facilitate bicycle left-
turn movements. If improvements are constructed sooner by others, the
Applicant may be responsible for a fair share contribution towards
improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development. If
improvements are completed sooner by others, the Applicant may be
responsible for a fair share contribution prior to issuance of building permits
for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-8 The Project Applicant shall design and install Class IV
bikeways (protected bike lanes) along LOVR to provide a physical buffer
between the sidewalk and vehicular traffic lanes. Improvement extents shall
occur in the northbound direction between Laguna Lane and Diablo Drive,
and in the southbound direction between Diablo Drive and Madonna Road.
Project is responsible for fair share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible
for fee credits or reimbursements.
ES-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-9 The Project Applicant shall design and install ADA-compliant
curb, gutter and sidewalk along the west side of LOVR to complete the
sidewalk connection between the Irish Hills Plaza and Calle Joaquin. The
Project Applicant shall also design and install Class IV bikeways (protected
bike lanes) along LOVR to provide a physical buffer between the sidewalk and
vehicular traffic lanes in the northbound and southbound directions between
Madonna Road and South Higuera Street. The Project is responsible for all
costs related to construction of sidewalks, curb and gutter, and a fair share
contribution towards Class IV bikeway improvements. This mitigation
measure requires Caltrans approval and coordination for improvements near
LOVR/U.S. 101 interchange.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Bikeway improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may
be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-10 The Project Applicant shall design and install a Class I
Multi-Use Path parallel to Madonna Road between Oceanaire Drive and the
U.S. 101 southbound ramps intersection. The Project is responsible for a fair
share contribution towards improvements through payment of City Traffic
Impact Fees.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible
for fee credits or reimbursements. If improvements are completed sooner by
others, the Applicant shall make a fair share contribution through participation
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-19
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program prior to issuance of
building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
3.4 Biological Resources
BIO-1. Project implementation would impact
sensitive riparian, wetland, and native grassland
habitats identified as sensitive natural communities
under state and City policy.
MM HAZ-2 In accordance with PRC Section 4291, the Applicant shall hire
a City-qualified team that consists of appropriate specialists (i.e., fire
management professionals, biologists) to prepare a Community Fire
Protection Plan to design the creation and maintenance of required fire
buffers and fuel management zones around developable areas and detail
methods for achieving fire safety around new buildings while preserving the
integrity and function of affected native plant communities to the maximum
extent feasible, and that ensures that consistent fire fuel management
practices are applied throughout the City. The Plan shall incorporate
management strategies in coordination with adjacent property owners,
including Mountainbrook Church and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The
Plan shall outline the removal and control of invasive, non-native vegetation,
and conservation of sensitive habitats and rare species, while developing fire
fuel management practices that will discourage or prevent non-native grasses
and other non-native invasive species from dominating surrounding areas.
Landscaping shall be maintained by the Applicant and periodically inspected
by the SLOFD during fire inspections in each of the fuel management zones
to avoid the buildup of deadwood and leaf litter, which, if left to accumulate,
would reduce the mitigating effect of the Plan. Specifically, the Plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
• Vegetation coverage and type;
• Setbacks between structures, sensitive wildlife species, and access
routes;
• Development plan landscaping and planting standards within the
setback areas;
• Native trees and shrubs, such as coast live oak, coastal scrub, and
grassland shall be thinned and limbed up but left in place;
• All allowable weed abatement techniques, qualifications, and
requirements for weed abatement contractors, as well as measures and
techniques that ensure the required fuel management and vegetation
Significant and
Unavoidable
ES-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
clearance, shall be designed and implemented to provide adequate
structure protection and avoid degradation of sensitive biological
habitat; and
• Invasive species shall be removed and controlled.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to approval of the final development
plan, the Community Fire Protection Plan shall be prepared and submitted to
the City Natural Resources Manager and SLOFD for review and approval,
with coordination from the San Luis Obispo County Fire Department. The
Plan shall be implemented consistent with the approved maintenance
schedule.
Monitoring. The City-qualified biologist shall submit a monitoring report to
the City Natural Resources Manager and SLOFD at the end of the first year
following Project occupancy documenting the fuel management activities that
took place. Conformance with the Community Fire Protection Plan shall be
demonstrated through the submittal of annual photo documentation by the
Applicant or site visits as necessary at the discretion of the Compliance
monitoring staff.
MM BIO-1 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and
operational related avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measures for
impacts to sensitive natural communities. The Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid
or minimize impacts to biological resources, and implementation of on and
offsite habitat replacement as follows:
1) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the
following construction-related measures and BMPs:
a) Construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored at least 100
feet away from existing and proposed drainage features and
adjacent riparian habitat, and all construction vehicle
maintenance shall be performed in a designated offsite vehicle
storage and maintenance area approved by the City.
b) Prior to commencement of construction, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4
and all associated springs, seeps, and wetlands shall be protected
with construction fencing located a minimum of 25 feet from the
edge of the stream channel or top of bank and signed to prohibit
entry of construction equipment and personnel unless authorized
by the City. Fencing shall be maintained throughout the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-21
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
construction period for each phase of development. Fencing and
signage shall be removed following completion of construction.
c) During any construction activities within 50 feet of the existing
Froom Creek channel, realigned Froom Creek channel, LOVR
ditch, Drainages 1, 2, 3, or 4, or other existing or proposed
drainage features, a City-approved biological monitor shall be
present and have the authority to stop or redirect work as needed
to protect biological resources.
d) All construction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building
materials) shall be stored at designated construction staging
areas, which shall be located outside of designated sensitive areas.
Should spills occur, materials and/or contaminants shall be
cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction
of the RWQCB.
e) All trash and construction debris shall be properly disposed at the
end of each day and dumpsters shall be covered either with locking
lids or with plastic sheeting at the end of each workday and during
storm events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand
weather conditions.
f) The Applicant shall implement measures designed to minimize
construction-related erosion and retain sediment on the Project
site, including installation of silt fencing, straw waddles, or other
acceptable construction erosion control devices. Such measures
shall be installed along the perimeter of disturbed areas and along
the top of the bank of the existing and proposed Froom Creek
channel and other existing or proposed drainage features and 25
feet from the edge of Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4. All drainage shall
be directed to sediment basins designed to retain all sediment
onsite.
g) Concrete truck and tool washout shall occur in a designated
location such that no runoff will reach the creek, onsite drainages,
or other sensitive areas.
h) All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps
to allow species that fall into a trench to escape. All open trenches
shall be inspected at the beginning of each work day to ensure that
no wildlife species is present. Any sensitive wildlife species found
during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the Project
ES-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
site by a qualified biologist or otherwise trained and City-
approved personnel. Trenches will remain open for the shortest
period necessary to complete required work.
i) Existing disturbed areas shall be used for construction staging and
storage to the maximum extent possible to minimize disturbance of
undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging
areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and
minimize habitat fragmentation.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to issuance
of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. The plan shall
incorporate any additional measures or requirements identified by state and
federal agencies, including but not limited to CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and
USFWS. The Applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan that
identifies and incorporates all required measures identified in MM BIO-2
through MM BIO-12 below. The plan shall specify all mitigation site
locations, timing of surveys and activities, species composition, habitat
compensation, species avoidance measures, and other required information,
including identification of appropriate onsite construction staging locations.
The plan shall demonstrate compliance with all required measures and any
required permits shall be obtained from state and federal regulatory agencies
prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. A 7-year site mitigation
monitoring plan shall also be prepared by the City-approved biologist and
incorporated into the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prior to
issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM, with annual
reports submitted to the City Natural Resources Manager and Community
Development Department.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures
have been included. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements of
the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through frequent monitoring
and inspection, and receipt of quarterly monitoring reports provided by the
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator required per MM BIO-2. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring,
inspection, and reporting of restoration activities.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-23
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
MM BIO-2 The Applicant shall retain a qualified Environmental
Coordinator/qualified biologist, subject to review and approval by the City to
oversee compliance with the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all construction
activities, conduct a biological resources education program for all
construction workers prior to the initiation of any clearing or construction
activities, and provide quarterly reports to the City regarding construction
activities, enforcement issues, and remedial measures. The Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator shall be responsible for conducting inspections
of the work area each work day to ensure that excavation areas and sensitive
or restored habitats do not exhibit construction-related impacts or hazards to
wildlife. If any exposure risk is identified, the Environmental Coordinator
shall implement measures that could include, but not be limited to, hazing,
fencing, and wildlife removals to eliminate the exposure risk.
In addition, the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall monitor and
regulate all construction occurring within 50 feet of the existing and proposed
Froom Creek channel, other existing or proposed drainage features, riparian
habitat, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4, and seasonal or permanent wetlands.
During appropriate flowering, nesting, breeding, migration, and dispersal
seasons, the Environmental Coordinator shall also conduct sensitive species
surveys immediately prior to construction activities and shall monitor
construction activities in the vicinity of habitats to be avoided.
The work area boundaries and other off-limit areas shall be identified by the
biologist and/or Environmental Coordinator on a daily basis. The biologist
and/or Environmental Coordinator shall inspect construction and sediment
control fencing each work day during construction activities. Any vegetation
clearing activities shall be monitored by the biologist and/or Environmental
Coordinator.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The City shall approve the Applicant’s
qualified Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist prior to issuance of
grading and building permits for each phase of construction. The
Environmental Coordinator shall be present onsite to monitor construction
activities pursuant to the approved Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan.
Monitoring. The Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all grading and
construction activities occurring within the vicinity of sensitive habitats or
known location of sensitive species, shall conduct regular site inspections
ES-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
throughout the entire site, and shall be responsible for compliance of the
construction activities and the above BMPs within MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-
3 through MM BIO-8. During construction, the Environmental Coordinator
shall submit quarterly monitoring reports to the City to ensure compliance
with the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and applicable laws,
regulations, and policies. The Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist
shall be onsite during all construction activities which take place within 50
feet of sensitive creek, wetland, and riparian habitat areas.
MM BIO-3 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include a
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) with details on timing and
implementation of required habitat restoration, enhancement, or creation
measures. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP shall
be prepared under the direction of, and approved by, the City’s Natural
Resources Manager in conjunction with regulatory agencies with permitting
authority over the Project. The HMMP shall contain, at a minimum, the
following components (or as otherwise modified by regulatory agency
permitting conditions):
a) Pre-construction surveys and delineation of vegetation communities,
habitat, and wetland features, including clear maps and a summary of
onsite habitats to be protected and acreage, design, and locations of
required habitat mitigation sites.
b) A description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and
description of existing site conditions.
c) A description of measures to be undertaken to enhance the mitigation
site for the target species and to protect sensitive resources.
d) Record necessary replacement of disturbed, altered, and/or lost area
of habitat.
e) A binding long-term agreement with the Applicant to implement and
maintain protected and restored sensitive habitats, including native
bunch grassland, wetlands, springs, seeps, tributary drainages, and
other sensitive or restored native habitats. These measures shall
identify typical performance and success criteria deemed acceptable by
the City and CDFW based on measurable goals and objectives. Said
criteria for restored habitats shall be, at a minimum, at least 70-percent
survival of container plants and 70-percent relative cover by vegetation
type.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-25
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
f) A description of habitat and species restoration and monitoring
measures, including specific and objective performance criteria,
monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, and
monitoring schedule. (At a minimum, success criteria shall be at least
70-percent survival of container plants and 70-percent relative cover
by vegetation type and will include a replacement ratio of 2:1 and
determination by a City-approved biologist that the mitigation site
provides ecological functions and values for the focal species equal to
or exceeding the impacted habitat.)
g) Plan requirements that ensure mitigation elements that do not meet
performance or final success criteria within 5 years are completed
through an extension of the plan for an additional 2 years or at the
discretion of the City Natural Resources Manager with the goal of
completing all mitigation requirements prior to the HMMP end date.
h) Monitoring of the mitigation and maintenance areas shall occur for the
period established in the HMMP, or until success criteria are met; an
endowment may be required in some cases as determined by the City.
If success criteria cannot be met through the HMMP, the City Natural
Resources Manager shall specify appropriate commensurate measures
(e.g., onsite or offsite restoration, endowment, or bond to the City for
completion of necessary mitigation).
i) A binding long-term agreement with the Villaggio Life Plan
Community to fund and retain a qualified biologist to train all
landscaping crew staff hired over the life of the development on
sensitive plant species and habitat within the vicinity of the
development, including the identification and avoidance of sensitive
plants and habitat. The qualified biologist shall conduct annual
monitoring of vegetation surrounding the development and prepare a
report summarizing the avoidance or disturbance of sensitive resources
from operational activities of the Villaggio development, and
identifying necessary replacement or restoration of affected resources.
Necessary mitigation shall be subject to the same standards for
performance, monitoring, and success identified in subitems b through
h, above. The report shall be submitted to the City annually for review
and approval.
ES-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
j) A plan for fencing and/or signage around the Upper Terrace of the
Villaggio development, prohibiting residents, guests, and employees
from accessing and disturbing the surrounding sensitive resources.
k) Requirements for payment of annual fees to the City to fund City review
and inspection of the site and Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan and HMMP requirements.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance
with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through
frequent monitoring and inspection. The Environmental Coordinator shall
also ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities through routine monitoring and inspection of restoration activities.
MM BIO-4 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require
avoidance of sensitive natural communities outside approved development
footprints such as the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance, Central Coast
Arroyo Willow Scrub Community, Coastal and Central Valley Freshwater
Marsh, and wetland areas to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation for
impacted sensitive natural communities that cannot be avoided shall be
achieved through one or more of the following options, subject to City
approval:
a) Onsite restoration, enhancement, or creation of suitable replacement
habitat, if feasible onsite restoration opportunities exist and at ratios
consistent with those identified in MM BIO-5;
b) Offsite restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted
species at the minimum replacement ratio of 2:1 for sensitive natural
communities, native grasslands, and riparian habitat;
c) Financial contribution to an in-lieu fee program that results in
restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted natural
communities and/or species; and/or
d) Purchase of mitigation credits at a USFWS- and/or CDFW-approved
mitigation bank.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-27
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to be submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the BMMP and HMMP to
ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures have been included.
The Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring,
inspection, and reporting of restoration activities pursuant to the approved
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP. The City shall ensure
compliance with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan and HMMP through receipt and review of monitoring reports, and site
inspections.
MM BIO-5 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require all
temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands, grasslands, and riparian
habitat be mitigated, as follows:
a) Temporary wetland, native grassland, and riparian habitat impacts
shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (area of restored
habitat to impacted habitat).
b) Permanent impacts to sensitive natural communities, native
grasslands, and riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (area
of restored and enhanced habitat to impacted habitat).
c) Permanent direct impacts to wetlands shall be mitigated at a minimum
3:1 ratio unless otherwise directed by state and federal agencies,
including but not limited to the CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and USFWS.
d) Potential indirect impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetlands affected by the
Froom Creek realignment and changes to site hydrology shall be
mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio and require mitigation of at least
10.24 acres. For the purpose of this mitigation, the area of the Calle
Joaquin wetlands potentially affected by the Project include those
wetlands northwest of Calle Joaquin within the Specific Plan area and
southeast of the proposed Froom Creek low-flow channel.
e) Habitat revegetation or creation shall occur in the fall or winter no
more than 1 year following habitat disturbance. Revegetation shall be
monitored monthly for 7 years with a goal of at least 70-percent
survival of container plants and 70-percent relative cover by vegetation
type at the end of the 7-year period. Irrigation shall be provided during
ES-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
this period or until otherwise determined necessary by the Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator.
f) Riparian vegetation along Froom Creek shall be maintained in
perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City by the Applicant or a City-
approved designee. Froom Creek conditions shall be monitored
annually following winter storm seasons to assess damage to riparian
vegetation and need for maintenance restoration. Monitoring and
maintenance of riparian vegetation conditions shall be conducted
consistent with the requirements of the Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan outlined in MM BIO-3.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The Environmental Coordinator
shall ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities through routine monitoring, inspection, and reporting of restoration
activities. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through receipt of monitoring
reports and site inspections.
MM BIO-6 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall detail
timing and implementation of required habitat restoration and shall be
submitted to the City’s Natural Resources Manager for review and approval,
including requirements for consultation with CDFW, NMFS, and USACE as
needed. A copy of the final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. The plan shall be implemented by the Project Applicant, under
supervision by the City and the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator, and
shall:
a) Describe replacement of sensitive natural community habitats
removed, lost, or adversely impacted by the Project, including a list of
the soil, plants, and other materials that will be necessary for successful
habitat restoration/ replacement, and a description of planting
methods, location, spacing, erosion protection, and irrigation
measures that will be needed. Restoration and habitat enhancement
shall be limited to use of appropriate native species. Habitat
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-29
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
restoration or enhancement areas shall be designed to facilitate
establishment of appropriate native plants such as willows,
cottonwoods, bunchgrass, and rushes.
b) Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be established within
the Project boundaries, adjacent to and contiguous with existing
habitats to the maximum extent possible.
c) Habitat restoration or enhancement sites shall be placed within
existing or additional necessary deed-restricted area(s) and shall be
maintained and monitored for a minimum of 7 years. If sufficient onsite
mitigation area is not practicable, an offsite mitigation plan shall be
prepared as part of the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and
approved by permitting agencies.
d) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall identify
appropriate restoration and enhancement activities to compensate for
impacts to creek, wetland, native bunch grass and riparian habitat,
including a detailed planting plan and maintenance plans using locally
obtained native species, and shall include habitat enhancement to
support native wildlife and plant species.
e) A weed management plan and weed identification list shall be included
in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
f) Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be maintained weekly
for the first three years after Project completion and quarterly
thereafter. Maintenance shall include replacement of unsuccessful
planted specimens and eradication of noxious weeds found on
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Lists A and B.
Noxious weeds on CDFA List C may be eradicated or otherwise
managed.
g) Quarterly and annual reports documenting site inspections and site
recovery status shall be prepared and sent to the City and appropriate
agencies.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to be submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The Environmental Coordinator
ES-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
shall ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP through receipt of
monitoring reports and site inspections.
MM BIO-7 All utility lines proposed to be installed across the realigned
Froom Creek from LOVR to the Project site shall be installed via horizontal
directional drilling (HDD) to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats. Prior to
installation of utility lines, a site-specific geotechnical investigation and frac-
out clean-up plan shall be completed in areas proposed for HDD. The
geotechnical investigation shall provide recommendations for avoidance of
frac-outs and/or other HDD related impacts and to determine appropriate
HDD methods (i.e., appropriate drilling mud mixtures for specific types of
sediments). The investigation shall include results from at least three borings,
a geologic cross-section, a discussion of drilling conditions, and frac-out
clean-up plan. The frac-out clean-up plan shall identify methods for
minimizing potential for frac-outs and addressing any necessary clean-up or
remediation in case of a frac-out. The boring operation would be stopped
immediately if a frac-out occurs and steps would be taken to contain and
minimize the effects of any spill of drilling mud. The Applicant shall comply
with all recommendations of the geotechnical investigation.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Geotechnical investigations shall be
conducted, and a report of findings submitted to the City for approval. The
findings shall be incorporated into the final Utilities Plan prior to issuance of
grading permits and recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review the findings of the geotechnical
investigations and final Utilities Plan and confirm compliance through review
of grading and improvement plans.
MM BIO-8 The Applicant shall submit a Froom Creek restoration plan that
identifies measures for securing the proposed low-flow channel berm along
the stretch of Froom Creek proposed adjacent to the Calle Joaquin wetlands
to protect the bank from erosion and prevent migration of the Froom Creek
channel into these wetlands. Measures for securing the bank may include a
mix of natural and biotechnical measures capable of prevention erosion based
on the anticipated erosive velocity of the creek under 100-year storm
conditions.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit a Froom Creek
restoration plan for review and approval by the City, which incorporates these
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-31
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
requirements in addition to all requirements identified by state and federal
resource agencies. The proposed bank stabilization measures shall be depicted
on final plans prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final
VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review the final plans, and shall inspect the
Project site during construction to confirm installation of proposed
stabilization measures.
BIO-2. Project 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 HAZ-2 In accordance with PRC Section 4291, the Applicant shall hire a
City-qualified team that consists of appropriate specialists (i.e., fire
management professionals, biologists) to prepare a Community Fire
Protection Plan to design the creation and maintenance of required fire
buffers and fuel management zones around developable areas and detail
methods for achieving fire safety around new buildings while preserving the
integrity and function of affected native plant communities to the maximum
extent feasible, and that ensures that consistent fire fuel management
practices are applied throughout the City. The Plan shall incorporate
management strategies in coordination with adjacent property owners,
including Mountainbrook Church and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The
Plan shall outline the removal and control of invasive, non-native vegetation,
and conservation of sensitive habitats and rare species, while developing fire
fuel management practices that will discourage or prevent non-native grasses
and other non-native invasive species from dominating surrounding areas.
Landscaping shall be maintained by the Applicant and periodically inspected
by the SLOFD during fire inspections in each of the fuel management zones
to avoid the buildup of deadwood and leaf litter, which, if left to accumulate,
would reduce the mitigating effect of the Plan. Specifically, the Plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
• Vegetation coverage and type;
• Setbacks between structures, sensitive wildlife species, and access
routes;
• Development plan landscaping and planting standards within the
setback areas;
• Native trees and shrubs, such as coast live oak, coastal scrub, and
grassland shall be thinned and limbed up but left in place;
• All allowable weed abatement techniques, qualifications, and
requirements for weed abatement contractors, as well as measures and
techniques that ensure the required fuel management and vegetation
Significant and
Unavoidable
ES-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
clearance, shall be designed and implemented to provide adequate
structure protection and avoid degradation of sensitive biological
habitat; and
• Invasive species shall be removed and controlled.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to approval of the final development
plan, the Community Fire Protection Plan shall be prepared and submitted to
the City Natural Resources Manager and SLOFD for review and approval,
with coordination from the San Luis Obispo County Fire Department. The
Plan shall be implemented consistent with the approved maintenance
schedule.
Monitoring. The City-qualified biologist shall submit a monitoring report to
the City Natural Resources Manager and SLOFD at the end of the first year
following Project occupancy documenting the fuel management activities that
took place. Conformance with the Community Fire Protection Plan shall be
demonstrated through the submittal of annual photo documentation by the
Applicant or site visits as necessary at the discretion of the Compliance
monitoring staff.
MM BIO-1 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and
operational related avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measures for
impacts to sensitive natural communities. The Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid
or minimize impacts to biological resources, and implementation of on and
offsite habitat replacement as follows:
1) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the
following construction-related measures and BMPs:
a) Construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored at least 100
feet away from existing and proposed drainage features and
adjacent riparian habitat, and all construction vehicle
maintenance shall be performed in a designated offsite vehicle
storage and maintenance area approved by the City.
b) Prior to commencement of construction, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4
and all associated springs, seeps, and wetlands shall be protected
with construction fencing located a minimum of 25 feet from the
edge of the stream channel or top of bank and signed to prohibit
entry of construction equipment and personnel unless authorized
by the City. Fencing shall be maintained throughout the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-33
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
construction period for each phase of development. Fencing and
signage shall be removed following completion of construction.
c) During any construction activities within 50 feet of the existing
Froom Creek channel, realigned Froom Creek channel, LOVR
ditch, Drainages 1, 2, 3, or 4, or other existing or proposed
drainage features, a City-approved biological monitor shall be
present and have the authority to stop or redirect work as needed
to protect biological resources.
d) All construction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building
materials) shall be stored at designated construction staging
areas, which shall be located outside of designated sensitive areas.
Should spills occur, materials and/or contaminants shall be
cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction
of the RWQCB.
e) All trash and construction debris shall be properly disposed at the
end of each day and dumpsters shall be covered either with locking
lids or with plastic sheeting at the end of each workday and during
storm events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand
weather conditions.
f) The Applicant shall implement measures designed to minimize
construction-related erosion and retain sediment on the Project
site, including installation of silt fencing, straw waddles, or other
acceptable construction erosion control devices. Such measures
shall be installed along the perimeter of disturbed areas and along
the top of the bank of the existing and proposed Froom Creek
channel and other existing or proposed drainage features and 25
feet from the edge of Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4. All drainage shall
be directed to sediment basins designed to retain all sediment
onsite.
g) Concrete truck and tool washout shall occur in a designated
location such that no runoff will reach the creek, onsite drainages,
or other sensitive areas.
h) All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps
to allow species that fall into a trench to escape. All open trenches
shall be inspected at the beginning of each work day to ensure that
no wildlife species is present. Any sensitive wildlife species found
during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the Project
ES-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
site by a qualified biologist or otherwise trained and City-
approved personnel. Trenches will remain open for the shortest
period necessary to complete required work.
i) Existing disturbed areas shall be used for construction staging and
storage to the maximum extent possible to minimize disturbance of
undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging
areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and
minimize habitat fragmentation.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to issuance
of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. The plan shall
incorporate any additional measures or requirements identified by state and
federal agencies, including but not limited to CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and
USFWS. The Applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan that
identifies and incorporates all required measures identified in MM BIO-2
through MM BIO-12 below. The plan shall specify all mitigation site
locations, timing of surveys and activities, species composition, habitat
compensation, species avoidance measures, and other required information,
including identification of appropriate onsite construction staging locations.
The plan shall demonstrate compliance with all required measures and any
required permits shall be obtained from state and federal regulatory agencies
prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. A 7-year site mitigation
monitoring plan shall also be prepared by the City-approved biologist and
incorporated into the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prior to
issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM, with annual
reports submitted to the City Natural Resources Manager and Community
Development Department.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures
have been included. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements of
the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through frequent monitoring
and inspection, and receipt of quarterly monitoring reports provided by the
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator required per MM BIO-2. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring,
inspection, and reporting of restoration activities.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-35
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
MM BIO-9 Construction and grading of the realigned portion of Froom
Creek, including planting of riparian vegetation, watering, and bank
stabilization, shall be conducted prior to removal of the existing creek
segment to ensure a habitat for special-status species within the creek is
maintained through the Project site with no interruption during construction.
Project phasing shall be adjusted as needed to accommodate this sequence of
construction activities.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall demonstrate phasing
and creek restoration within the final VTM, and the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan. The Applicant shall submit the plan to the City for review
and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final
VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan, and final VTM for compliance. The Applicant’s Environmental
Coordinator shall monitor creek realignment activities to ensure compliance
with this mitigation measure.
MM BIO-10 Chorro Creek Bog Thistle Management. Prior to issuance of
grading and building permits, the Applicant shall submit or fund a site survey
for Chorro Creek bog thistle, and:
1. All individual locations of Chorro Creek bog thistle shall be mapped
using GPS coordinates. No construction activities or disturbance shall
occur within 50 feet of mapped Chorro Creek bog thistle. This setback
shall be delineated and maintained with construction fencing and clear
signage for the duration of grading and construction. If the site survey
results identify Chorro Creek bog thistle that may be disturbed or lost
from Project construction, the Project shall be redesigned to ensure a
minimum 50 foot buffer from mapped Chorro Creek bog thistle
occurrences.
2. Development adjacent to Drainages 1, 2, and 3 shall be set back a
minimum of 50 feet from the top of the bank of these drainages and the
edge of delineated associated wetlands.
3. Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and associated wetlands shall be fenced a
minimum of 50 feet from the top of the bank or edge of delineated
wetland. The Applicant shall ensure and demonstrate to the City
through frequent reporting requirements approved by the City that
these areas are managed and maintained in perpetuity to maintain
wetland and Chorro Creek bog thistle habitat values.
ES-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance
with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities.
MM BIO-11 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address
special-status wildlife species management. Grading and construction
activities shall avoid the rainy season (typically October 15 to April 15) to the
extent practicable, particularly within 50 feet of the existing and proposed
Froom Creek channel, and other existing or proposed drainage features,
riparian or wetland habitat, and any suitable nesting sites as determined by
the City-approved biologist. Injury, mortality to, or significant disturbance of
onsite sensitive species, including the California red-legged frog, south-
central California coast steelhead, and white-tailed kite, shall be avoided. The
plan shall include the following measures: pre-construction surveys; worker
awareness; cessation of work in occupied areas if individuals are identified;
relocation (if necessary) of frogs and steelhead from the work area by a
professional biologist authorized by the USFWS and/or CDFW; and
monitoring of construction activities within the vicinity of sensitive habitats
by a qualified biologist during construction, consistent with MM BIO-2.
Necessary permits shall be obtained from the state (CDFW) and federal
(USACE and USFWS) regulatory agencies with jurisdiction and/or permitting
authority over a portion of the Project. Any other sensitive species observed
during the pre-construction surveys shall be relocated by the qualified
biologist into the nearest suitable habitat outside the disturbance area as
determined in consultation with the appropriate jurisdictional resource
agency.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-37
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance
with requirements in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities.
MM BIO-12 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address
the movement of special-status species, as follows:
1. Migratory and Nesting Bird Management. Grading and construction
activities shall avoid the breeding season (typically from February 15
to August 15) to the extent practicable, particularly within 50 feet of
riparian or wetland habitat and mature trees. If Project activities must
be conducted during this period and within the vicinity of riparian or
wetland habitat and/or mature trees, pre-construction nesting bird
surveys shall take place no more than one week prior to habitat
disturbance associated with each phase; if active nests are located
during these surveys, the following measures shall be implemented:
a. Construction activities within 50 feet of active nests shall be
restricted until chicks have fledged, unless the nest belongs to a
raptor, in which case a 500-foot activity restriction buffer shall be
observed.
b. Construction shall be limited to daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00
PM or sunset, whichever is sooner).
c. A pre-construction survey report shall be submitted to the City
immediately upon completion of the survey. The report shall detail
appropriate fencing or flagging of the buffer zone and make
recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map
of the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the
report. If any sensitive species are observed during pre-
construction surveys, the Project biologist shall coordinate with
appropriate resource agencies to determine appropriate
procedure for handling or avoidance of the specimen.
d. The Project biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the
authority to reduce or increase the recommended buffer
depending upon site conditions and the species involved. A report
of findings and recommendations for bird protection shall be
submitted to the City prior to vegetation removal. If sensitive
ES-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
species are observed during pre-construction surveys, the Project
biologist shall coordinate with appropriate resource agencies to
determine appropriate procedures for handling or avoidance of
the specimen.
2. Bat Colony Management. Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches
diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) or demolition/relocation of existing
onsite structures, a survey shall be conducted by a City and CDFW-
approved biologist to determine if any tree or structure proposed for
removal, trimming, demolition, or relocation harbors sensitive bat
species or maternal bat colonies. Maternal bat colonies shall not be
disturbed, and grading and construction activities shall avoid the bat
breeding season to the extent feasible. If disturbance of structures must
occur during the bat breeding season, buildings must be inspected and
deemed clear of bat colonies/roosts within 7 days of demolition and an
appropriately trained and approved biologist must conduct a daily site-
clearance during demolition. If bats are roosting in a structure or tree
in the Project site during the daytime but are not part of an active
maternity colony, then exclusion measures shall be utilized and must
include one-way valves that allow bats to leave but are designed so that
the bats may not re-enter the structure. For each occupied roost
removed, one bat box shall be installed in similar habitat as determined
by the Project biologist and shall have similar cavities or crevices to
those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions,
height above ground, and thermal conditions. If a bat colony would be
eliminated from the Project site, appropriate alternate bat habitat shall
be installed within the Project site. To the extent practicable, alternate
bat house installation shall occur near onsite drainages.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall include a management plan for migrating and nesting birds and bat
colonies and shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of grading and construction permits and recordation of the final
VTM. Construction shall be conducted between August 16 and February 14
unless pre-construction surveys are completed. Reports summarizing pre-
construction species surveys (i.e., nesting, bat surveys, etc.) shall be submitted
to the City within 10 days of survey completion. Construction work shall not
commence until after the completion of surveys and City review of
corresponding reports. Any required permits shall be obtained from
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-39
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
appropriate state and federal agencies prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits and recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that appropriate requirements have
been included to address potential impacts to bird and bat species. The City
shall ensure compliance with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan. The Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also
ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration activities.
BIO-3. Project implementation would have a
substantial adverse impact on state and federally
protected wetlands.
MM BIO-1 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and
operational related avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measures for
impacts to sensitive natural communities. The Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid
or minimize impacts to biological resources, and implementation of on and
offsite habitat replacement as follows:
1) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the
following construction-related measures and BMPs:
a) Construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored at least 100
feet away from existing and proposed drainage features and
adjacent riparian habitat, and all construction vehicle
maintenance shall be performed in a designated offsite vehicle
storage and maintenance area approved by the City.
b) Prior to commencement of construction, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4
and all associated springs, seeps, and wetlands shall be protected
with construction fencing located a minimum of 25 feet from the
edge of the stream channel or top of bank and signed to prohibit
entry of construction equipment and personnel unless authorized
by the City. Fencing shall be maintained throughout the
construction period for each phase of development. Fencing and
signage shall be removed following completion of construction.
c) During any construction activities within 50 feet of the existing
Froom Creek channel, realigned Froom Creek channel, LOVR
ditch, Drainages 1, 2, 3, or 4, or other existing or proposed
drainage features, a City-approved biological monitor shall be
present and have the authority to stop or redirect work as needed
to protect biological resources.
Significant and
Unavoidable
ES-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
d) All construction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building
materials) shall be stored at designated construction staging
areas, which shall be located outside of designated sensitive areas.
Should spills occur, materials and/or contaminants shall be
cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction
of the RWQCB.
e) All trash and construction debris shall be properly disposed at the
end of each day and dumpsters shall be covered either with locking
lids or with plastic sheeting at the end of each workday and during
storm events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand
weather conditions.
f) The Applicant shall implement measures designed to minimize
construction-related erosion and retain sediment on the Project
site, including installation of silt fencing, straw waddles, or other
acceptable construction erosion control devices. Such measures
shall be installed along the perimeter of disturbed areas and along
the top of the bank of the existing and proposed Froom Creek
channel and other existing or proposed drainage features and 25
feet from the edge of Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4. All drainage shall
be directed to sediment basins designed to retain all sediment
onsite.
g) Concrete truck and tool washout shall occur in a designated
location such that no runoff will reach the creek, onsite drainages,
or other sensitive areas.
h) All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps
to allow species that fall into a trench to escape. All open trenches
shall be inspected at the beginning of each work day to ensure that
no wildlife species is present. Any sensitive wildlife species found
during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the Project
site by a qualified biologist or otherwise trained and City-
approved personnel. Trenches will remain open for the shortest
period necessary to complete required work.
i) Existing disturbed areas shall be used for construction staging and
storage to the maximum extent possible to minimize disturbance of
undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging
areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and
minimize habitat fragmentation.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-41
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to issuance
of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. The plan shall
incorporate any additional measures or requirements identified by state and
federal agencies, including but not limited to CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and
USFWS. The Applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan that
identifies and incorporates all required measures identified in MM BIO-2
through MM BIO-12 below. The plan shall specify all mitigation site
locations, timing of surveys and activities, species composition, habitat
compensation, species avoidance measures, and other required information,
including identification of appropriate onsite construction staging locations.
The plan shall demonstrate compliance with all required measures and any
required permits shall be obtained from state and federal regulatory agencies
prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. A 7-year site mitigation
monitoring plan shall also be prepared by the City-approved biologist and
incorporated into the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prior to
issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM, with annual
reports submitted to the City Natural Resources Manager and Community
Development Department.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures
have been included. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements of
the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through frequent monitoring
and inspection, and receipt of quarterly monitoring reports provided by the
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator required per MM BIO-2. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring,
inspection, and reporting of restoration activities.
MM BIO-2 The Applicant shall retain a qualified Environmental
Coordinator/qualified biologist, subject to review and approval by the City to
oversee compliance with the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all construction
activities, conduct a biological resources education program for all
construction workers prior to the initiation of any clearing or construction
activities, and provide quarterly reports to the City regarding construction
activities, enforcement issues, and remedial measures. The Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator shall be responsible for conducting inspections
ES-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
of the work area each work day to ensure that excavation areas and sensitive
or restored habitats do not exhibit construction-related impacts or hazards to
wildlife. If any exposure risk is identified, the Environmental Coordinator
shall implement measures that could include, but not be limited to, hazing,
fencing, and wildlife removals to eliminate the exposure risk.
In addition, the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall monitor and
regulate all construction occurring within 50 feet of the existing and proposed
Froom Creek channel, other existing or proposed drainage features, riparian
habitat, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4, and seasonal or permanent wetlands.
During appropriate flowering, nesting, breeding, migration, and dispersal
seasons, the Environmental Coordinator shall also conduct sensitive species
surveys immediately prior to construction activities and shall monitor
construction activities in the vicinity of habitats to be avoided.
The work area boundaries and other off-limit areas shall be identified by the
biologist and/or Environmental Coordinator on a daily basis. The biologist
and/or Environmental Coordinator shall inspect construction and sediment
control fencing each work day during construction activities. Any vegetation
clearing activities shall be monitored by the biologist and/or Environmental
Coordinator.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The City shall approve the Applicant’s
qualified Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist prior to issuance of
grading and building permits for each phase of construction. The
Environmental Coordinator shall be present onsite to monitor construction
activities pursuant to the approved Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan.
Monitoring. The Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all grading and
construction activities occurring within the vicinity of sensitive habitats or
known location of sensitive species, shall conduct regular site inspections
throughout the entire site, and shall be responsible for compliance of the
construction activities and the above BMPs within MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-
3 through MM BIO-8. During construction, the Environmental Coordinator
shall submit quarterly monitoring reports to the City to ensure compliance
with the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and applicable laws,
regulations, and policies. The Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist
shall be onsite during all construction activities which take place within 50
feet of sensitive creek, wetland, and riparian habitat areas.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-43
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
MM BIO-4 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require
avoidance of sensitive natural communities outside approved development
footprints such as the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance, Central Coast
Arroyo Willow Scrub Community, Coastal and Central Valley Freshwater
Marsh, and wetland areas to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation for
impacted sensitive natural communities that cannot be avoided shall be
achieved through one or more of the following options, subject to City
approval:
a) Onsite restoration, enhancement, or creation of suitable replacement
habitat, if feasible onsite restoration opportunities exist and at ratios
consistent with those identified in MM BIO-5;
b) Offsite restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted
species at the minimum replacement ratio of 2:1 for sensitive natural
communities, native grasslands, and riparian habitat;
c) Financial contribution to an in-lieu fee program that results in
restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted natural
communities and/or species; and/or
d) Purchase of mitigation credits at a USFWS- and/or CDFW-approved
mitigation bank.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to be submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the BMMP and HMMP to
ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures have been included.
The Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring,
inspection, and reporting of restoration activities pursuant to the approved
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP. The City shall ensure
compliance with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan and HMMP through receipt and review of monitoring reports, and site
inspections.
MM BIO-5 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require all
temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands, grasslands, and riparian
habitat be mitigated, as follows:
ES-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
a) Temporary wetland, native grassland, and riparian habitat impacts
shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (area of restored
habitat to impacted habitat).
b) Permanent impacts to sensitive natural communities, native
grasslands, and riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (area
of restored and enhanced habitat to impacted habitat).
c) Permanent direct impacts to wetlands shall be mitigated at a minimum
3:1 ratio unless otherwise directed by state and federal agencies,
including but not limited to the CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and USFWS.
d) Potential indirect impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetlands affected by the
Froom Creek realignment and changes to site hydrology shall be
mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio and require mitigation of at least
10.24 acres. For the purpose of this mitigation, the area of the Calle
Joaquin wetlands potentially affected by the Project include those
wetlands northwest of Calle Joaquin within the Specific Plan area and
southeast of the proposed Froom Creek low-flow channel.
e) Habitat revegetation or creation shall occur in the fall or winter no
more than 1 year following habitat disturbance. Revegetation shall be
monitored monthly for 7 years with a goal of at least 70-percent
survival of container plants and 70-percent relative cover by vegetation
type at the end of the 7-year period. Irrigation shall be provided during
this period or until otherwise determined necessary by the Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator.
f) Riparian vegetation along Froom Creek shall be maintained in
perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City by the Applicant or a City-
approved designee. Froom Creek conditions shall be monitored
annually following winter storm seasons to assess damage to riparian
vegetation and need for maintenance restoration. Monitoring and
maintenance of riparian vegetation conditions shall be conducted
consistent with the requirements of the Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan outlined in MM BIO-3.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-45
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
mitigation measures have been included. The Environmental Coordinator
shall ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities through routine monitoring, inspection, and reporting of restoration
activities. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through receipt of monitoring
reports and site inspections.
MM BIO-6 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall detail
timing and implementation of required habitat restoration and shall be
submitted to the City’s Natural Resources Manager for review and approval,
including requirements for consultation with CDFW, NMFS, and USACE as
needed. A copy of the final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. The plan shall be implemented by the Project Applicant, under
supervision by the City and the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator, and
shall:
a) Describe replacement of sensitive natural community habitats
removed, lost, or adversely impacted by the Project, including a list of
the soil, plants, and other materials that will be necessary for successful
habitat restoration/ replacement, and a description of planting
methods, location, spacing, erosion protection, and irrigation
measures that will be needed. Restoration and habitat enhancement
shall be limited to use of appropriate native species. Habitat
restoration or enhancement areas shall be designed to facilitate
establishment of appropriate native plants such as willows,
cottonwoods, bunchgrass, and rushes.
b) Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be established within
the Project boundaries, adjacent to and contiguous with existing
habitats to the maximum extent possible.
c) Habitat restoration or enhancement sites shall be placed within
existing or additional necessary deed-restricted area(s) and shall be
maintained and monitored for a minimum of 7 years. If sufficient onsite
mitigation area is not practicable, an offsite mitigation plan shall be
prepared as part of the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and
approved by permitting agencies.
d) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall identify
appropriate restoration and enhancement activities to compensate for
impacts to creek, wetland, native bunch grass and riparian habitat,
including a detailed planting plan and maintenance plans using locally
ES-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
obtained native species, and shall include habitat enhancement to
support native wildlife and plant species.
e) A weed management plan and weed identification list shall be included
in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
f) Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be maintained weekly
for the first three years after Project completion and quarterly
thereafter. Maintenance shall include replacement of unsuccessful
planted specimens and eradication of noxious weeds found on
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Lists A and B.
Noxious weeds on CDFA List C may be eradicated or otherwise
managed.
g) Quarterly and annual reports documenting site inspections and site
recovery status shall be prepared and sent to the City and appropriate
agencies.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to be submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The Environmental Coordinator
shall ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP through receipt of
monitoring reports and site inspections.
MM BIO-7 All utility lines proposed to be installed across the realigned
Froom Creek from LOVR to the Project site shall be installed via horizontal
directional drilling (HDD) to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats. Prior to
installation of utility lines, a site-specific geotechnical investigation and frac-
out clean-up plan shall be completed in areas proposed for HDD. The
geotechnical investigation shall provide recommendations for avoidance of
frac-outs and/or other HDD related impacts and to determine appropriate
HDD methods (i.e., appropriate drilling mud mixtures for specific types of
sediments). The investigation shall include results from at least three borings,
a geologic cross-section, a discussion of drilling conditions, and frac-out
clean-up plan. The frac-out clean-up plan shall identify methods for
minimizing potential for frac-outs and addressing any necessary clean-up or
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-47
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
remediation in case of a frac-out. The boring operation would be stopped
immediately if a frac-out occurs and steps would be taken to contain and
minimize the effects of any spill of drilling mud. The Applicant shall comply
with all recommendations of the geotechnical investigation.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Geotechnical investigations shall be
conducted, and a report of findings submitted to the City for approval. The
findings shall be incorporated into the final Utilities Plan prior to issuance of
grading permits and recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review the findings of the geotechnical
investigations and final Utilities Plan and confirm compliance through review
of grading and improvement plans.
BIO-4. Project 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 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and
operational related avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measures for
impacts to sensitive natural communities. The Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid
or minimize impacts to biological resources, and implementation of on and
offsite habitat replacement as follows:
1) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the
following construction-related measures and BMPs:
a) Construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored at least 100
feet away from existing and proposed drainage features and
adjacent riparian habitat, and all construction vehicle
maintenance shall be performed in a designated offsite vehicle
storage and maintenance area approved by the City.
b) Prior to commencement of construction, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4
and all associated springs, seeps, and wetlands shall be protected
with construction fencing located a minimum of 25 feet from the
edge of the stream channel or top of bank and signed to prohibit
entry of construction equipment and personnel unless authorized
by the City. Fencing shall be maintained throughout the
construction period for each phase of development. Fencing and
signage shall be removed following completion of construction.
c) During any construction activities within 50 feet of the existing
Froom Creek channel, realigned Froom Creek channel, LOVR
ditch, Drainages 1, 2, 3, or 4, or other existing or proposed
Significant and
Unavoidable
ES-48 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
drainage features, a City-approved biological monitor shall be
present and have the authority to stop or redirect work as needed
to protect biological resources.
d) All construction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building
materials) shall be stored at designated construction staging
areas, which shall be located outside of designated sensitive areas.
Should spills occur, materials and/or contaminants shall be
cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction
of the RWQCB.
e) All trash and construction debris shall be properly disposed at the
end of each day and dumpsters shall be covered either with locking
lids or with plastic sheeting at the end of each workday and during
storm events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand
weather conditions.
f) The Applicant shall implement measures designed to minimize
construction-related erosion and retain sediment on the Project
site, including installation of silt fencing, straw waddles, or other
acceptable construction erosion control devices. Such measures
shall be installed along the perimeter of disturbed areas and along
the top of the bank of the existing and proposed Froom Creek
channel and other existing or proposed drainage features and 25
feet from the edge of Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4. All drainage shall
be directed to sediment basins designed to retain all sediment
onsite.
g) Concrete truck and tool washout shall occur in a designated
location such that no runoff will reach the creek, onsite drainages,
or other sensitive areas.
h) All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps
to allow species that fall into a trench to escape. All open trenches
shall be inspected at the beginning of each work day to ensure that
no wildlife species is present. Any sensitive wildlife species found
during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the Project
site by a qualified biologist or otherwise trained and City-
approved personnel. Trenches will remain open for the shortest
period necessary to complete required work.
i) Existing disturbed areas shall be used for construction staging and
storage to the maximum extent possible to minimize disturbance of
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-49
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging
areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and
minimize habitat fragmentation.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to issuance
of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. The plan shall
incorporate any additional measures or requirements identified by state and
federal agencies, including but not limited to CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and
USFWS. The Applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan that
identifies and incorporates all required measures identified in MM BIO-2
through MM BIO-12 below. The plan shall specify all mitigation site
locations, timing of surveys and activities, species composition, habitat
compensation, species avoidance measures, and other required information,
including identification of appropriate onsite construction staging locations.
The plan shall demonstrate compliance with all required measures and any
required permits shall be obtained from state and federal regulatory agencies
prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. A 7-year site mitigation
monitoring plan shall also be prepared by the City-approved biologist and
incorporated into the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prior to
issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM, with annual
reports submitted to the City Natural Resources Manager and Community
Development Department.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures
have been included. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements of
the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through frequent monitoring
and inspection, and receipt of quarterly monitoring reports provided by the
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator required per MM BIO-2. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring,
inspection, and reporting of restoration activities.
MM BIO-2 The Applicant shall retain a qualified Environmental
Coordinator/qualified biologist, subject to review and approval by the City to
oversee compliance with the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all construction
activities, conduct a biological resources education program for all
construction workers prior to the initiation of any clearing or construction
ES-50 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
activities, and provide quarterly reports to the City regarding construction
activities, enforcement issues, and remedial measures. The Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator shall be responsible for conducting inspections
of the work area each work day to ensure that excavation areas and sensitive
or restored habitats do not exhibit construction-related impacts or hazards to
wildlife. If any exposure risk is identified, the Environmental Coordinator
shall implement measures that could include, but not be limited to, hazing,
fencing, and wildlife removals to eliminate the exposure risk.
In addition, the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall monitor and
regulate all construction occurring within 50 feet of the existing and proposed
Froom Creek channel, other existing or proposed drainage features, riparian
habitat, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4, and seasonal or permanent wetlands.
During appropriate flowering, nesting, breeding, migration, and dispersal
seasons, the Environmental Coordinator shall also conduct sensitive species
surveys immediately prior to construction activities and shall monitor
construction activities in the vicinity of habitats to be avoided.
The work area boundaries and other off-limit areas shall be identified by the
biologist and/or Environmental Coordinator on a daily basis. The biologist
and/or Environmental Coordinator shall inspect construction and sediment
control fencing each work day during construction activities. Any vegetation
clearing activities shall be monitored by the biologist and/or Environmental
Coordinator.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The City shall approve the Applicant’s
qualified Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist prior to issuance of
grading and building permits for each phase of construction. The
Environmental Coordinator shall be present onsite to monitor construction
activities pursuant to the approved Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan.
Monitoring. The Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all grading and
construction activities occurring within the vicinity of sensitive habitats or
known location of sensitive species, shall conduct regular site inspections
throughout the entire site, and shall be responsible for compliance of the
construction activities and the above BMPs within MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-
3 through MM BIO-8. During construction, the Environmental Coordinator
shall submit quarterly monitoring reports to the City to ensure compliance
with the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and applicable laws,
regulations, and policies. The Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-51
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
shall be onsite during all construction activities which take place within 50
feet of sensitive creek, wetland, and riparian habitat areas.
MM BIO-4 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require
avoidance of sensitive natural communities outside approved development
footprints such as the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance, Central Coast
Arroyo Willow Scrub Community, Coastal and Central Valley Freshwater
Marsh, and wetland areas to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation for
impacted sensitive natural communities that cannot be avoided shall be
achieved through one or more of the following options, subject to City
approval:
a) Onsite restoration, enhancement, or creation of suitable replacement
habitat, if feasible onsite restoration opportunities exist and at ratios
consistent with those identified in MM BIO-5;
b) Offsite restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted
species at the minimum replacement ratio of 2:1 for sensitive natural
communities, native grasslands, and riparian habitat;
c) Financial contribution to an in-lieu fee program that results in
restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted natural
communities and/or species; and/or
d) Purchase of mitigation credits at a USFWS- and/or CDFW-approved
mitigation bank.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to be submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the BMMP and HMMP to
ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures have been included.
The Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring,
inspection, and reporting of restoration activities pursuant to the approved
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP. The City shall ensure
compliance with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan and HMMP through receipt and review of monitoring reports, and site
inspections.
MM BIO-5 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require all
temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands, grasslands, and riparian
habitat be mitigated, as follows:
ES-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
a) Temporary wetland, native grassland, and riparian habitat impacts
shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (area of restored
habitat to impacted habitat).
b) Permanent impacts to sensitive natural communities, native
grasslands, and riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (area
of restored and enhanced habitat to impacted habitat).
c) Permanent direct impacts to wetlands shall be mitigated at a minimum
3:1 ratio unless otherwise directed by state and federal agencies,
including but not limited to the CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and USFWS.
d) Potential indirect impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetlands affected by the
Froom Creek realignment and changes to site hydrology shall be
mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio and require mitigation of at least
10.24 acres. For the purpose of this mitigation, the area of the Calle
Joaquin wetlands potentially affected by the Project include those
wetlands northwest of Calle Joaquin within the Specific Plan area and
southeast of the proposed Froom Creek low-flow channel.
e) Habitat revegetation or creation shall occur in the fall or winter no
more than 1 year following habitat disturbance. Revegetation shall be
monitored monthly for 7 years with a goal of at least 70-percent
survival of container plants and 70-percent relative cover by vegetation
type at the end of the 7-year period. Irrigation shall be provided during
this period or until otherwise determined necessary by the Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator.
f) Riparian vegetation along Froom Creek shall be maintained in
perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City by the Applicant or a City-
approved designee. Froom Creek conditions shall be monitored
annually following winter storm seasons to assess damage to riparian
vegetation and need for maintenance restoration. Monitoring and
maintenance of riparian vegetation conditions shall be conducted
consistent with the requirements of the Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan outlined in MM BIO-3.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-53
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
mitigation measures have been included. The Environmental Coordinator
shall ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities through routine monitoring, inspection, and reporting of restoration
activities. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through receipt of monitoring
reports and site inspections.
MM BIO-6 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall detail
timing and implementation of required habitat restoration and shall be
submitted to the City’s Natural Resources Manager for review and approval,
including requirements for consultation with CDFW, NMFS, and USACE as
needed. A copy of the final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. The plan shall be implemented by the Project Applicant, under
supervision by the City and the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator, and
shall:
a) Describe replacement of sensitive natural community habitats
removed, lost, or adversely impacted by the Project, including a list of
the soil, plants, and other materials that will be necessary for successful
habitat restoration/ replacement, and a description of planting
methods, location, spacing, erosion protection, and irrigation
measures that will be needed. Restoration and habitat enhancement
shall be limited to use of appropriate native species. Habitat
restoration or enhancement areas shall be designed to facilitate
establishment of appropriate native plants such as willows,
cottonwoods, bunchgrass, and rushes.
b) Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be established within
the Project boundaries, adjacent to and contiguous with existing
habitats to the maximum extent possible.
c) Habitat restoration or enhancement sites shall be placed within
existing or additional necessary deed-restricted area(s) and shall be
maintained and monitored for a minimum of 7 years. If sufficient onsite
mitigation area is not practicable, an offsite mitigation plan shall be
prepared as part of the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and
approved by permitting agencies.
d) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall identify
appropriate restoration and enhancement activities to compensate for
impacts to creek, wetland, native bunch grass and riparian habitat,
including a detailed planting plan and maintenance plans using locally
ES-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
obtained native species, and shall include habitat enhancement to
support native wildlife and plant species.
e) A weed management plan and weed identification list shall be included
in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
f) Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be maintained weekly
for the first three years after Project completion and quarterly
thereafter. Maintenance shall include replacement of unsuccessful
planted specimens and eradication of noxious weeds found on
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Lists A and B.
Noxious weeds on CDFA List C may be eradicated or otherwise
managed.
g) Quarterly and annual reports documenting site inspections and site
recovery status shall be prepared and sent to the City and appropriate
agencies.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to be submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The Environmental Coordinator
shall ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP through receipt of
monitoring reports and site inspections.
MM BIO-9 Construction and grading of the realigned portion of Froom
Creek, including planting of riparian vegetation, watering, and bank
stabilization, shall be conducted prior to removal of the existing creek
segment to ensure a habitat for special-status species within the creek is
maintained through the Project site with no interruption during construction.
Project phasing shall be adjusted as needed to accommodate this sequence of
construction activities.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall demonstrate phasing
and creek restoration within the final VTM, and the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan. The Applicant shall submit the plan to the City for review
and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final
VTM.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-55
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Monitoring. The City shall review the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan, and final VTM for compliance. The Applicant’s Environmental
Coordinator shall monitor creek realignment activities to ensure compliance
with this mitigation measure.
MM BIO-11 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address
special-status wildlife species management. Grading and construction
activities shall avoid the rainy season (typically October 15 to April 15) to the
extent practicable, particularly within 50 feet of the existing and proposed
Froom Creek channel, and other existing or proposed drainage features,
riparian or wetland habitat, and any suitable nesting sites as determined by
the City-approved biologist. Injury, mortality to, or significant disturbance of
onsite sensitive species, including the California red-legged frog, south-
central California coast steelhead, and white-tailed kite, shall be avoided. The
plan shall include the following measures: pre-construction surveys; worker
awareness; cessation of work in occupied areas if individuals are identified;
relocation (if necessary) of frogs and steelhead from the work area by a
professional biologist authorized by the USFWS and/or CDFW; and
monitoring of construction activities within the vicinity of sensitive habitats
by a qualified biologist during construction, consistent with MM BIO-2.
Necessary permits shall be obtained from the state (CDFW) and federal
(USACE and USFWS) regulatory agencies with jurisdiction and/or permitting
authority over a portion of the Project. Any other sensitive species observed
during the pre-construction surveys shall be relocated by the qualified
biologist into the nearest suitable habitat outside the disturbance area as
determined in consultation with the appropriate jurisdictional resource
agency.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance
with requirements in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities.
ES-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
MM BIO-12 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address
the movement of special-status species, as follows:
1. Migratory and Nesting Bird Management. Grading and construction
activities shall avoid the breeding season (typically from February 15
to August 15) to the extent practicable, particularly within 50 feet of
riparian or wetland habitat and mature trees. If Project activities must
be conducted during this period and within the vicinity of riparian or
wetland habitat and/or mature trees, pre-construction nesting bird
surveys shall take place no more than one week prior to habitat
disturbance associated with each phase; if active nests are located
during these surveys, the following measures shall be implemented:
a. Construction activities within 50 feet of active nests shall be
restricted until chicks have fledged, unless the nest belongs to a
raptor, in which case a 500-foot activity restriction buffer shall be
observed.
b. Construction shall be limited to daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00
PM or sunset, whichever is sooner).
c. A pre-construction survey report shall be submitted to the City
immediately upon completion of the survey. The report shall detail
appropriate fencing or flagging of the buffer zone and make
recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map
of the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the
report. If any sensitive species are observed during pre-
construction surveys, the Project biologist shall coordinate with
appropriate resource agencies to determine appropriate
procedure for handling or avoidance of the specimen.
d. The Project biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the
authority to reduce or increase the recommended buffer
depending upon site conditions and the species involved. A report
of findings and recommendations for bird protection shall be
submitted to the City prior to vegetation removal. If sensitive
species are observed during pre-construction surveys, the Project
biologist shall coordinate with appropriate resource agencies to
determine appropriate procedures for handling or avoidance of
the specimen.
2. Bat Colony Management. Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches
diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) or demolition/relocation of existing
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-57
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
onsite structures, a survey shall be conducted by a City and CDFW-
approved biologist to determine if any tree or structure proposed for
removal, trimming, demolition, or relocation harbors sensitive bat
species or maternal bat colonies. Maternal bat colonies shall not be
disturbed, and grading and construction activities shall avoid the bat
breeding season to the extent feasible. If disturbance of structures must
occur during the bat breeding season, buildings must be inspected and
deemed clear of bat colonies/roosts within 7 days of demolition and an
appropriately trained and approved biologist must conduct a daily site-
clearance during demolition. If bats are roosting in a structure or tree
in the Project site during the daytime but are not part of an active
maternity colony, then exclusion measures shall be utilized and must
include one-way valves that allow bats to leave but are designed so that
the bats may not re-enter the structure. For each occupied roost
removed, one bat box shall be installed in similar habitat as determined
by the Project biologist and shall have similar cavities or crevices to
those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions,
height above ground, and thermal conditions. If a bat colony would be
eliminated from the Project site, appropriate alternate bat habitat shall
be installed within the Project site. To the extent practicable, alternate
bat house installation shall occur near onsite drainages.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall include a management plan for migrating and nesting birds and bat
colonies and shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of grading and construction permits and recordation of the final
VTM. Construction shall be conducted between August 16 and February 14
unless pre-construction surveys are completed. Reports summarizing pre-
construction species surveys (i.e., nesting, bat surveys, etc.) shall be submitted
to the City within 10 days of survey completion. Construction work shall not
commence until after the completion of surveys and City review of
corresponding reports. Any required permits shall be obtained from
appropriate state and federal agencies prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits and recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that appropriate requirements have
been included to address potential impacts to bird and bat species. The City
shall ensure compliance with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and
ES-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Monitoring Plan. The Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also
ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration activities.
MM BIO-13 The Applicant shall amend the FRSP to establish a 300-foot
development buffer on the centerline of the confluence of Drainage 1, 2, and
3 and the realigned Froom Creek to maintain natural vegetation, ecological,
hydrologic, and wildlife connectivity between the Irish Hills Natural Reserve
and the Froom Creek corridor. The required buffer shall extend from the point
at which the proposed realigned Froom Creek exits the Specific Plan area,
upstream along the centerlines of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 for 600 linear feet.
The Applicant shall relocate residential uses to areas outside of this buffer
and should not exacerbate biological resource impacts in other areas of the
site.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The above requirements shall be integrated
into the Final FRSP and final VTM prior to recordation. City staff shall ensure
the above measures are incorporated into building plans prior to issuance.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the
Final FRSP prior to Project approval.
MM BIO-14 Proposed roadway/pathway crossings over any drainage shall
be designed to ensure adequate passage for wildlife, consistent with the design
standards and guidelines of the Federal Highway Administration Wildlife
Crossing Structure Handbook.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The above requirements shall be integrated
into the Final FRSP. City staff shall ensure the above measures are
incorporated into the improvement plans prior to approval.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the
Final FRSP prior to Project approval.
BIO-5. Project construction would result in the
potential disturbance, trimming, or removal of up to
75 mature trees.
MM BIO-15 Native Tree Protection. To ensure protection of native protected
trees with respect to the tree trunk, canopy, and root zone, the Applicant shall
hire a City-approved arborist or qualified biologist to conduct a daily, pre-
construction survey of all activities occurring within the protected root zones
of protected trees, and shall make recommendations for avoidance, and for
any necessary remedial work to ensure the health and safety of trees that are
encroached, and any measures necessary to reduce and/or remove potential
safety hazards posed by any of these trees. Following construction, the health
of affected trees shall be monitored by the arborist or qualified biologist for
up to 5 years if necessary and as determined at the discretion of the City.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-59
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Should Project activities result in the compromised health of native trees
resulting from encroachment, the Applicant shall submit a native tree
replacement planting program, prepared by a qualified biologist, arborist, or
other resource specialist, which specifies replacement tree locations, tree or
seedling size, planting specifications, and a monitoring program to ensure
that the replacement planting program is successful, including performance
standards for determining whether replacement trees are healthy and growing
normally, and procedures for periodic monitoring and implementation of
corrective measures in the event that the health of replacement trees declines.
Where the worsened health of a tree results in the loss of protected tree
species, mitigation measures in the native tree replacement program shall
include the planting of replacement trees on the Project site, if suitable area
exists. Riparian trees 4 inches or greater measured at DBH shall be replaced
in-kind at a minimum ratio of 3:1 (replaced: removed). Trees 24 inches or
greater inches DBH shall be replaced in-kind at a minimum ratio of 10:1.
Willows and cottonwoods may be planted from live stakes following
guidelines provided in the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration
Manual for planting dormant cuttings and container stock (CDFW 2010).
• Tree replacement shall be conducted in accordance with a Natural
Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Plan to be approved by the
City’s Natural Resources Manager.
• The Natural Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Plan shall
prioritize the planting of replacement trees on-site where feasible, but
shall allow that replacement trees may be planted off-site with approval
of the City’s Natural Resources Manager.
• Replacement trees may be planted in the fall or winter of the year in
which trees were removed. All replacement trees will be planted no
more than 1 year following the date upon which the native trees were
removed.
Where onsite mitigation through planting replacement trees is not feasible,
mitigation shall be provided by one of the following methods:
• Off-site mitigation shall be provided by planting no less than 10:1, at a
suitable site that is restricted from development or is public parkland.
The Applicant shall plant seedlings – less than 1-year old – in an area
providing suitable habitat. In the case of oak trees, the seedlings shall
be grown from acorns collected in the area; or
ES-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• An in-lieu fee shall be provided for the unavoidable impacts of the loss
of native tree habitat. The fee shall be based on the type, size and age
of the tree(s) removed.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on final
grading plans. The qualified biologist shall monitor for the health of trees
during and following construction activities, for a period of up to 5 years if
determined necessary by the City.
Monitoring. The qualified biologist shall monitor all construction activities,
and if necessary, periodically monitor the placement and planting program.
City staff shall monitor for the health of affected individuals to determine
compliance and potential need for further mitigation.
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Resources Impacts
CR-1. Project 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 A Phase 2 – Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation
(SARE) investigation shall be conducted prior to any grading or development
proposed within 200 feet of the recorded P-40-000783 and P-40-001195 sites,
or the unrecorded site comprising three mapped stone isolates, to evaluate the
potential for unknown buried resources within these “archaeologically
sensitive” areas, including but not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics,
fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural
remains, or historic dumpsites, consistent with City Archeological Resource
Preservation Program Guidelines. If discovery of unknown buried
archaeological resources occurs through the SARE, a City-approved
archaeologist shall evaluate the significance of the discovery pursuant to City
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines and CEQA. If the
discovery is found to be a significant cultural resource, Project design shall
be modified to avoid modification, disturbance, or destruction of the
archeological resource. If the Phase 2 SARE investigations do not discover
unknown buried archaeological resources but conclude there is a possibility
that cultural resources exist within the archaeologically sensitive areas that
were evaluated, the Community Development Department Director shall
require that the Applicant retain a City-approved archaeologist and local
Native American observer to monitor construction activities to identify and
protect archaeological resources in accordance with the Archaeological
Monitoring Plan described in MM CR-3.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-61
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. Any required Phase 2 SARE investigations
shall be conducted by a City-approved archaeologist prior to approval of the
VTM or Project entitlements.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the Phase 2 SARE investigations are
completed by a City-approved archaeologist and consistent with City
Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Any potential
modifications to the Project design shall be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to approval of any subdivision map or other entitlement.
MM CR-2 If any ground disturbing activities are proposed within 100 feet of
the recorded sites P-40-000783, P-40-0011195, or the unrecorded site
comprising three mapped stone isolates, on preparation of construction plans,
the plans shall delineate a 50-foot buffer surrounding the boundaries of the
recorded sites. The area shall be labeled as an “Environmentally Sensitive
Area”. Highly visible temporary construction fencing shall be installed along
the boundary of the 50-foot buffer and shall remain in place until the
archaeological monitor recommends removal. If feasible, no ground
disturbance, construction worker foot traffic, storage of materials, or storage
or use of equipment shall occur within the “Environmentally Sensitive Area”.
Archaeological monitoring shall occur during all construction activities
occurring within 50 feet of the delineated boundary. Upon completion of
archaeological monitoring, an archaeological monitoring report shall be
prepared and submitted to the City Community Development Department and
the Central Coast Information Center at the University of California Santa
Barbara.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to recordation of the final VTM and
issuance of grading permits, plans shall incorporate the delineation of the
“Environmentally Sensitive Area” and associated protection measures.
Monitoring. The City shall verity that required elements are shown on the
final VTM and grading permits. Compliance shall be verified pursuant to the
approved Archaeological Monitoring Plan.
MM CR-3 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, and recordation
of the final map, an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) shall be
prepared. The AMP should include, but not be limited to, the following:
• A list of personnel involved in the monitoring activities;
• Description of Native American involvement;
• Description of how the monitoring shall occur;
ES-62 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• Description of location and frequency of monitoring (e.g., full time,
part time, spot checking);
• Description of what resources are expected to be encountered;
• Description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work
at the project site;
• Description of procedures for halting work on the site and notification
procedures;
• Description of monitoring reporting procedures; and
• Provide specific, detailed protocols for what to do in the event of the
discovery of human remains.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The AMP shall be prepared by a City-
approved archaeologist prior to issuance of grading or building permits and
recordation of the final map.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the AMP is prepared by a City-approved
archaeologist and consistent with City Archeological Resource Preservation
Program Guidelines.
MM CR-4 The Applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist and local
Native American observer to monitor Project-related ground-disturbing
activities that have the potential to encounter previously unidentified
archaeological resources, as outlined in the AMP prepared to satisfy MM CR-
1. Archaeological and tribal monitoring may cease only if the City-approved
archaeologist determines in coordination with the Applicant, Community
Development Director, and the Native American monitor that Project
activities do not have the potential to encounter and/or disturb unknown
resources.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The conditions for monitoring and
treatment of discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans.
Prior to issuance of building and grading permits for each phase of the Project,
the Applicant shall submit to the City a contract or Letter of Commitment with
a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. The City shall review
and approve the selected archaeologist to ensure they meet appropriate
professional qualification standards, consistent with the City’s Archeological
Resource Preservation Guidelines.
Monitoring. City permit compliance staff shall confirm monitoring by the
archaeologist and tribal representative and City grading inspectors shall spot
check fieldwork. The Native American monitor and Project archaeologist
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-63
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
shall ensure that actions consistent with this mitigation measure are
implemented in the event of any inadvertent discovery.
MM CR-5 In the event of any inadvertent discovery of prehistoric
archaeological resources, including but not limited to stone, bone, glass,
ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or historic-period archaeological
resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall immediately cease
(or greater or lesser distance as needed to protect the discovery and
determined in the field by the City-approved archaeologist). The Applicant
and/or contractor shall immediately notify the City Community Development
Department. The City-approved archaeologist shall evaluate the significance
of the discovery pursuant to City Archaeological Resource Preservation
Program Guidelines prior to resuming any activities that could impact the
site/discovery. If the City-approved archaeologist or Native American
monitor determine that the find may qualify for listing in the CRHR or as a
tribal cultural resource, the site shall be avoided or shall be subject to a Phase
II or III mitigation program consistent with City Archeological Resource
Preservation Program Guidelines and funded by the Applicant. Work shall
not resume until authorization is received from the City.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The conditions for monitoring and
treatment of discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans.
Prior to issuance of building and grading permits for each phase of the Project,
the Applicant shall submit to the City a contract or Letter of Commitment with
identified Project archaeologist and Native American monitor. The City shall
review and approve the selected archaeologist to ensure they meet appropriate
professional qualification standards, consistent with the Archeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
Monitoring. City permit compliance staff shall confirm monitoring by the
archaeologist and tribal representative and City grading inspectors shall spot
check fieldwork. The Native American monitor and Project archaeologist
shall ensure that actions consistent with this mitigation measure are
implemented in the event of any inadvertent discovery.
MM CR-6 Prior to construction of each phase, workers shall receive
education regarding the recognition of possible buried cultural remains and
protection of all cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic
resources, during construction. Such training shall provide construction
personnel with direction regarding the procedures to be followed in the
unlikely event that previously unidentified archaeological materials,
ES-64 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
including Native American burials, are discovered during construction.
Training shall also inform construction personnel that unauthorized
collection or disturbance of artifacts or other cultural materials is not
allowed. The training shall be prepared by a City-approved archaeologist and
shall provide a description of the cultural resources that may be encountered
in the Project site, specify areas of known sensitivity, outline steps to follow
in the event that a discovery is made, and provide contact information for the
City-approved archaeologist, Native American monitor, and appropriate City
personnel. The training shall be conducted concurrent with other
environmental or safety awareness and education programs for the Project,
provided that the program elements pertaining to archaeological resources is
provided by a qualified instructor meeting applicable professional standards.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to ground disturbance for each phase,
construction workers shall participate in an educational program that will
enable them to recognize and report possible buried cultural remains and
protect all cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic resources. The
educational program shall be outlined within the Archaeological Monitoring
Plan and submitted to the City for approval prior to issuance of grading
permits for each phase.
Monitoring. The City-approved archaeologist shall verify the training has
been completed by all construction workers and shall ensure construction
workers follow cultural resource discovery protocols.
MM CR-7 If human remains are exposed during construction, the City
Community Development Department shall be notified immediately. The
Applicant and City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5, which states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has been notified and can make the necessary findings as to origin
and disposition of the remains pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.
Construction shall halt around the discovery of human remains, the area shall
be protected, and consultation and treatment shall occur as prescribed by law.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The conditions for monitoring and
treatment of discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans and
reflected in the AMP.
Monitoring. City permit compliance staff shall confirm monitoring by the
City-approved archaeologist and tribal representative and City grading
inspectors shall spot check fieldwork. The Native American monitor and City-
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-65
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
approved archaeologist shall ensure that actions consistent with this
mitigation measure are implemented in the event of any inadvertent discovery.
CR-2. Future resident recreational activities could
impact archaeological resources located within
proposed open space.
MM CR-8 No designated recreational areas, facilities, pedestrian paths, or
roadways shall be located with 50 feet of a known prehistoric or tribal
cultural resource site. All archaeological site soils within 100 feet of a known
prehistoric or tribal cultural site shall be seeded with shallow rooted
vegetation unless existing natural vegetation (i.e., existing grasslands) can
screen the cultural resource from view.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Draft FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate these measures as they apply to P-40-000783 or P-40-001195 and
the unrecorded site, prior to adoption of the Final FRSP.
Monitoring. A City-qualified archaeologist shall review and approve the
established buffer between Project development and known cultural resource
sites and review vegetation seeding covering the archaeological site
boundaries prior to issuance of occupancy.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation.
CR-3. The Project 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 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional historic
architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards (36 CFR Part 61) to review and comment on design and
construction drawings and monitor construction to ensure conformance with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The role of the historic architect
shall include collaboration on a range of items relating to materials selection,
construction methods, design of exterior and interior alterations, and
monitoring of construction activities. The historic architect and Applicant
shall resolve any unforeseen circumstance in a manner that conforms with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
a) The qualified professional historic architect shall work with the
Applicant team to ensure:
b) Deteriorated historic features would be repaired to the greatest extent
feasible. Where features are deteriorated beyond repair, they would be
replaced to exactly match the old.
c) All character-defining features are retained.
d) Physical treatments to historic material would use the gentlest means
possible and would not damage material.
e) Reconstruction would be clearly identified as a contemporary re-
creation.
f) Interpretative signage would clearly provide information regarding the
history of the buildings and their reconstruction.
Significant and
Unavoidable
ES-66 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Artifacts, features, and other materials recovered through this process shall
be described, illustrated, and analyzed fully in a technical report of findings;
the analysis shall include comparative research with other sites of similar age.
In addition to the technical report, the findings from this research shall be
published in an appropriate scientific journal. The Applicant shall fund all
technical reporting and subsequent publication.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The historic architect shall submit a report
documenting conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to
the City for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits for
the Project. Artifacts, features, and other materials recovered through this
process shall be described, illustrated, and analyzed fully in a technical report
of findings; the analysis shall include comparative research with other sites of
similar age. In addition to the technical report, the findings from this research
shall be published in an appropriate scientific journal. The Applicant shall
fund all technical reporting and subsequent publication. The historic architect
shall notify the Applicant if any unforeseen circumstance arises during
construction that could potentially result in nonconformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the report is reviewed and approved prior
to issuance of grading permits for Phase 3. The historic architect shall
participate in a pre-construction meeting with the general contractor and
subcontractors and periodically monitor construction to completion of
construction.
MM CR-10 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional photographer
to prepare Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II
documentation. This documentation shall record the existing appearance of
all seven contributing buildings in large and medium format HABS
photographs. All documentation components shall be completed in
accordance with the Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering
Documentation (HABS standards). The photographs shall consist primarily
of large format, 4-inch by 5-inch, black and white negatives (one set), contact
prints (one set) and 8-inch by 10-inch prints (two sets), archivally processed
and printed on fiber-based paper. The set of original negatives shall be made
at the time the photographs are taken. The original, archivally-sound
negatives and prints shall be and distributed as follows: (1) the Library of
Congress in Washington, DC through the National Park Service (one set of
negatives and contact prints).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-67
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. The draft documentation shall be
assembled and submitted to the qualified professional historic architect and
the City for review and approval prior to submittal to the repository. The
HABS documentation shall be completed prior to the issuance of grading
permits for Phase 1.
Monitoring. A digital copy of the HABS documentation shall be reviewed by
the City and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits.
MM CR-11 The Applicant shall work with the City to develop an interpretive
project that documents the potential historic district and its cultural and
architectural heritage by means of a pamphlet. This pamphlet will highlight
the former Froom Ranch Dairy, both primary and secondary contributors, in
a social (Froom family) and industrial (dairy industry) context, with an
emphasis on how these buildings were used on the dairy farm, and how this
property relates to the larger dairy farm context in San Luis Obispo, the
Central Coast, and California. Five hundred copies of the pamphlet shall be
published. These professionally researched, written and printed materials
shall be offered at no cost through the local museums and heritage
organizations, and at the trailhead park. After the initial distribution of
printed brochures, digital copies shall be available. Throughout the park,
interpretive signs that provide information on building history and function
(extant and demolished) shall also be incorporated.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit
draft documentation to the City and Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for
review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase 3.
Monitoring. The pamphlet and interpretive signage shall be reviewed by the
CHC and approved by the Community Development Director. The Parks and
Recreation Commission shall review any interpretive signage proposed to be
located within the park. The City Community Development Department shall
ensure park designs incorporate interpretive signage consistent with approved
documentation.
MM CR-12 The Applicant shall reuse original material to the greatest extent
feasible in the proposed work on the contributing structures to be relocated
and/or reconstructed within the proposed public park (main residence, dairy
barn, creamery/house, and granary). The Applicant and historic architect
shall work with the City to prepare a marketing plan to offer to the public any
salvaged historic materials not used during rehabilitation and reconstruction
of the primary contributors, and demolition of the secondary contributors. As
ES-68 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
appropriate, unused or unretained historic materials will be offered to local
historical societies and museums, then offered to architectural recycling
before being disposed.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit
draft documentation to the City for review and approval by the Community
Development Director prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase 3.
Monitoring. The marketing plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director.
MM CR-13 The Applicant and historic architect shall prepare design
guidelines and a review process for new construction proximate to the main
residence. New construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that the
essential form and integrity of the main residence and its setting would be
unimpaired. The design guidelines and review by City Community
Development Director shall ensure new construction is compatible with main
residence in material, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit
draft design guidelines to the City and CHC for review and approval prior to
approval of entitlements and the issuance of grading permits for Phase 1.
Monitoring. The design guidelines shall be reviewed by the CHC and
approved by the Community Development Director.
MM CR-14 Prior to commencement of Phase 1 construction, a City-approved
qualified structural engineer and historical architect shall survey the existing
foundations and other structural aspects of the main residence, creamery,
dairy barn, and granary, and develop a preservation plan to protect the
historic buildings from potential damage during construction activities.
The qualified structural engineer shall identify any necessary temporary
structural bracing for the historic structures to avoid damage to these
resources during the duration of construction. The qualified structural
engineer shall prepare a temporary historic structure stabilization plan
identifying these techniques as necessary.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit the
preservation plan and temporary historic structure stabilization plan to the
City for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map and issuance
of grading and building permits for Phase 1 of construction. Prior to the
issuance of Phase 4 building and grading permits, the Applicant shall submit
the final Historic Structures Plan and temporary historic structure stabilization
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-69
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
plan, with incorporation of any additional recommendations for repair, to the
City for review and approval.
Monitoring. The City engineer shall review and approve the preservation
plan prior to recordation of the final map and issuance of grading permits for
Phase 1. The City-approved structural engineer shall periodically monitor
vibration during vibration-causing construction activities to ensure excessive
vibration does not occur and that temporary historic structure stabilization
plan strategies are effective at avoiding vibration damage. The structural
engineer shall halt construction activity if he/she deems construction activity
may harm historical resources and shall modify or augment the temporary
historic structure stabilization plan strategies accordingly.
3.6 Geology and Soils
GEO-1. The Project would expose people or
structures to adverse effects from earthquakes and
seismically induced hazards.
None required Less than Significant
GEO-2. The Project has the potential to exacerbate
potential soils hazards, including expansive soils,
differential settlement, and subsidence.
None required Less than Significant
GEO-3. The Project would potentially cause erosion,
landslides, and rockfall.
None required Less than Significant
GEO-4. The Project would include subterranean
parking in Villaggio and may require groundwater
dewatering in areas with high groundwater.
None required Less than Significant
GEO-5. Project construction could uncover
paleontological resources in geologic deposits during
earthwork activities. If improperly handled, such
resources could be adversely impacted.
MM GEO-1 Prior to construction of each phase, workers shall receive
education regarding the recognition of possible paleontological resources,
during grading and excavation. Such training shall provide construction
personnel with direction regarding the procedures to be followed in the
unlikely event that previously unidentified paleontological materials are
discovered during construction. Training shall also inform construction
personnel that unauthorized collection or disturbance of paleontological
resources is not allowed. The training shall be prepared by a City-approved
paleontologist and shall provide a description of paleontological resources
that may be encountered in the Project site, outline steps to follow in the event
that a discovery is made, and provide contact information for the Project
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
ES-70 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
paleontologist and appropriate City personnel. The training shall be
conducted concurrent with other environmental or safety awareness and
education programs for the Project, provided that the program elements
pertaining to paleontological resources is provided by a qualified instructor
meeting applicable professional qualifications standards. In order to prevent
inadvertent potential significant impacts to paleontological resources that
may be encountered during ground disturbance or construction activities, in
the event of any inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources during
construction, all work within the vicinity of the resource established by the
City-approved paleontologist shall temporarily cease. If a paleontological
resource is discovered, the City-approved paleontologist shall be notified to
assess the significance of the find and provide recommendations as necessary
for its proper disposition.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to ground disturbance for each phase,
construction workers shall participate in an educational program that will
enable them to recognize and report possible paleontological resources. The
conditions for treatment of discoveries shall be printed on all grading plans.
The City shall be notified immediately after the unanticipated discovery of a
paleontological resource. Paleontological reports shall be reviewed and
approved prior to issuance of occupancy. In the event that any potentially
significant paleontological resources are uncovered during ground
disturbance or construction activities:
a) Temporarily cease grading in the vicinity of the resource established by
the City-approved paleontologist and redirect activity elsewhere to
ensure the preservation of the resource in which the discovery was
made;
b) Immediately notify the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department regarding the resource and redirected
grading activity;
c) Obtain the services of a City-approved professional paleontologist who
shall assess the significance of the find and provide recommendations
as necessary for its proper disposition for review and approval by City
of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department.
d) Complete all significance assessment and mitigation of impacts to the
paleontological resource and verification reviewed and approved by
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department prior to
resuming grading in the area of the find.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-71
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Monitoring. Paleontological reports prepared for the Project site in response
to an unanticipated discovery shall be maintained by the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Development Department.
3.7 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
HAZ-1. The Project would exacerbate wildfire risks,
thereby exposing occupants to wildfire hazards, and
impair emergency response, and would require
wildfire fuel management in the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve.
MM HAZ-1 The Applicant shall prepare and submit a Construction Impact
Management Plan to the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD)
prior to the issuance of grading permits. The Plan shall list measures taken
during construction to reduce the potential for brush or grass fires from use
of heavy equipment, welding, vehicles with catalytic converters, and other
potential activities. The Plan shall include SLOFD recommended measures
including, but not limited to the following:
• All equipment with the potential to work off-road shall be equipped with
appropriate mufflers and have extinguishers mounted on each vehicle;
• In coordination with SLOFD, personnel shall be briefed on the dangers
of wildfire and be able to respond accordingly should the need arise;
• Onsite supervisor(s) shall have a cell phone or other means of initiating
a 911 response time in a timely manner in the event of a medical
emergency and/or fire;
• All dead and decadent vegetation immediately surrounding the
development area shall be removed to a minimum perimeter of 30 feet;
• Smoking shall only occur in a designated area;
• A water tender will be available on each construction site during the
entire phase of construction; and
• A water tender operator shall be available onsite during all
construction and remain onsite a minimum of 30 minutes after all
construction has finished for the day.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare a Construction
Impact Management Plan in coordination with SLOFD, the San Luis Obispo
County Fire Department, and the City, and submit the Plan to the SLOFD for
approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Provisions for fire protection
shall be restated on all grading and building plans. Fire protection measures
shall be implemented throughout construction and draw upon the CALFIRE
and San Luis Obispo County Fire Department Strategic Fire Plan. The name
and telephone number of an onsite supervisor shall be provided to SLOFD
prior to commencement of construction or grading activities.
Significant and
Unavoidable
ES-72 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Monitoring. The SLOFD shall review the Construction Impact Management
Plan and provide recommended measures as necessary. The City permit
processing planner shall ensure measures are integrated into the final grading
and building plans prior to permit approval. City monitoring staff shall spot
check for compliance during construction for each phase of development.
MM HAZ-2 In accordance with PRC Section 4291, the Applicant shall hire
a City-qualified team that consists of appropriate specialists (i.e., fire
management professionals, biologists) to prepare a Community Fire
Protection Plan to design the creation and maintenance of required fire
buffers and fuel management zones around developable areas and detail
methods for achieving fire safety around new buildings while preserving the
integrity and function of affected native plant communities to the maximum
extent feasible, and that ensures that consistent fire fuel management
practices are applied throughout the City. The Plan shall incorporate
management strategies in coordination with adjacent property owners,
including Mountainbrook Church and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The
Plan shall outline the removal and control of invasive, non-native vegetation,
and conservation of sensitive habitats and rare species, while developing fire
fuel management practices that will discourage or prevent non-native grasses
and other non-native invasive species from dominating surrounding areas.
Landscaping shall be maintained by the Applicant and periodically inspected
by the SLOFD during fire inspections in each of the fuel management zones
to avoid the buildup of deadwood and leaf litter, which, if left to accumulate,
would reduce the mitigating effect of the Plan. Specifically, the Plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
• Vegetation coverage and type;
• Setbacks between structures, sensitive wildlife species, and access
routes;
• Development plan landscaping and planting standards within the
setback areas;
• Native trees and shrubs, such as coast live oak, coastal scrub, and
grassland shall be thinned and limbed up but left in place;
• All allowable weed abatement techniques, qualifications, and
requirements for weed abatement contractors, as well as measures and
techniques that ensure the required fuel management and vegetation
clearance, shall be designed and implemented to provide adequate
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-73
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
structure protection and avoid degradation of sensitive biological
habitat; and
• Invasive species shall be removed and controlled.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to approval of the final development
plan, the Community Fire Protection Plan shall be prepared and submitted to
the City Natural Resources Manager and SLOFD for review and approval,
with coordination from the San Luis Obispo County Fire Department. The
Plan shall be implemented consistent with the approved maintenance
schedule.
Monitoring. The City-qualified biologist shall submit a monitoring report to
the City Natural Resources Manager and SLOFD at the end of the first year
following Project occupancy documenting the fuel management activities that
took place. Conformance with the Community Fire Protection Plan shall be
demonstrated through the submittal of annual photo documentation by the
Applicant or site visits as necessary at the discretion of the Compliance
monitoring staff.
MM HAZ-3 The Froom Ranch Specific Plan (FRSP) shall designate smoking
areas, located away from onsite fire hazards areas and within acceptable
locations consistent with Chapter 8.16, Smoking Prohibition and Secondhand
Smoke Control, of the City Municipal Code. Otherwise, smoking shall be
prohibited onsite. The Applicant shall amend the FRSP to include policies to
requiring the allowed use of fire resistant landscaping and hardscaping in
areas to reduce mulch/gorilla hair, which is the receptive embers, if
determined appropriate by SLOFD.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to adoption of the Final FRSP, the
Applicant shall amend the Final FRSP to include these policies. The Applicant
shall coordinate with SLOFD to identify appropriate locations for designated
smoking areas and appropriate fire resistant landscaping and hardscaping
features within the Project site.
Monitoring. The Final FRSP shall be reviewed by the SLOFD and City for
inclusion of the above measure.
MM HAZ-4 The Applicant shall prepare and implement an Evacuation Plan,
which shall address both Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch areas. The
Evacuation Plan shall be subject to review by the City and SLOFD, and shall
include, but not be limited to:
• Accommodation for assisted living and special care individuals;
• Shelter-in-place accommodations;
ES-74 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• Specified quantity and capacity of vehicles required to accommodate
residents and employees of Villaggio, and maintenance of those
vehicles;
• Signage that clearly indicates evacuation routes and meeting areas;
• Specified egress points for transportation vehicles;
• A relocation plan from the Project site to a secondary facility, with
associated transportation;
• Contingency plans for changes to the construction schedule or phasing
plan that would affect the primary evacuation plan and routes;
• Periodic updates that would consider potential redevelopment
activities or other roadway alterations; and
• Regular practice drills (e.g., one per year) for implementation of the
Evacuation Plan.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The above Evacuation Plan shall be
prepared in coordination with the SLOFD and the San Luis Obispo County
Fire Department and submitted for approval to the City and SLOFD prior to
adoption of the Final VTTM. The Applicant shall resubmit the Plan to the City
and SLOFD prior to the construction of each phase of development. Prior to
occupancy of the first residential unit, the Applicant shall implement measures
within the Evacuation Plan.
Monitoring. The City and SLOFD shall review the Evacuation Plan and
ensure all recommendations are incorporated. The City Fire Marshall shall
inspect the Project site for compliance prior to the occupancy of the first
residential unit for each phase.
MM HAZ-5 The Froom Ranch Specific Plan (FRSP) shall designate fire
access routes in at least two locations from the Project site to the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve on at least 12-foot wide paths, one extending from Villaggio
and one from Madonna Froom Ranch. Fire access routes shall be designed
to allow emergency response to wildland area in the Irish Hills to support
direct access for firefighting personnel and equipment.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to adoption of the Final FRSP, the
Applicant shall amend the Final FRSP to include the required accessway, in
coordination with SLOFD to identify appropriate locations within the Project
site.
Monitoring. The Final FRSP shall be reviewed by the SLOFD and City for
inclusion of the above measure.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-75
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
HAZ-2. The Project 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
HAZ-3. The Project 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
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1. Project construction activities would result
in impacts to water quality due to polluted runoff and
increased erosion or siltation.
MM HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or
the commencement of any clearing, grading, or excavation, the Applicant
shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the Project site to the
California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The NOI shall be submitted for review and
approval to the SWRCB. The City will verify that a Waste Discharge
Identification (WDID) number is assigned by the Board prior to the issuance
of grading permits for construction activities. The NOI shall address discharge
during all phases of development of the site until all disturbed areas are
permanently stabilized.
Monitoring. The City will confirm WDID number assignment prior to
approval of the grading permit(s). City monitoring staff will periodically
inspect the site during construction to ensure compliance.
MM HYD-2 For each phase of construction, the Applicant shall require the
building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45 days prior to the start of work for
approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General
Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site
construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and
implemented for all construction activity on the Project site in excess of 1
acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than 1 acre but is part of the
Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs 1 or more acres. The
SWPPP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality
of discharges to stormwater and shall include specific BMPs to control the
discharge of material from the site, including, but not limited to:
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
ES-76 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• Temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching,
erosion control blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers shall be used.
• Sufficient physical protection and pollution prevention measures to
prevent sedimentation, siltation, and/or debris from entering the Calle
Joaquin wetlands.
• Soil stockpiles and graded slopes shall be covered after 14 days of
inactivity and 24 hours prior to and during inclement weather
conditions.
• Fiber rolls shall be placed along the top of exposed slopes and at the
toes of graded areas to reduce surface soil movement, as necessary.
• A routine monitoring plan shall be implemented to ensure success of
all onsite erosion and sedimentation control measures.
• Dust control measures shall be implemented to ensure success of all
onsite activities to control fugitive dust.
• Streets surrounding the Project site shall be cleaned daily or as
necessary.
• BMPs shall be strictly followed to prevent spills and discharges of
pollutants onsite (material and container storage, proper trash
disposal, construction entrances, etc.).
• Sandbags, or other equivalent techniques, shall be utilized along
graded areas to prevent siltation transport to the surrounding areas.
• Additional BMPs shall be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel
handling that could occur onsite during construction. The SWPPP must
be prepared in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the SWRCB.
The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City along with
grading/development plans for review and approval. The Applicant
shall file a Notice of Completion for construction of the development,
identifying that pollution sources were controlled during the
construction of the Project and implementing a closure SWPPP for the
site.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that
includes the above and any additional required BMPs addressing each phase
of construction and timing. The SWPPP and notices shall be submitted to the
SWRCB under their Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking
System (SMARTS). The SWPPP shall be designed to address erosion and
sediment control during all phases of development of the site until all
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-77
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. The development plans submitted
to the City shall include and reflect the erosion control plan and BMPs
submitted to the State.
Monitoring. City monitoring staff shall periodically inspect the site for
compliance with the SWPPP during grading to monitor runoff and after
conclusion of grading activities. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) will
be retained by the developer for overall management and reporting
responsibility regarding the SWPPP and documentation under SMARTS in
accordance with their permitting requirement. The Applicant will keep a copy
of the SWPPP on the Project site during grading and construction activities.
MM HYD-3 Installation of the stormwater management system shall occur
during the dry season (May through October), including realignment and
restoration of Froom Creek, installation of hydrological connections for the
stormwater detention basin, construction of onsite retention basins, and the
installation of the Home Depot and LOVR ditches. Stormwater management
system features shall be fully installed and restored to ensure soil stabilization
and adequate stormwater conveyance capacity prior to the storm season
(October through April).
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall demonstrate
compliance within grading and construction phasing plans subject to City
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits for each Project
phase.
Monitoring. The City shall review grading and construction plans for all
phases to ensure compliance. City grading monitors shall spot check for
compliance.
HYD-2. The Project would potentially exacerbate
flooding and erosion hazards onsite and in areas
downstream, particularly related to the proposed
realignment and design of Froom Creek and
developed areas of the site.
MM HYD-4 The Applicant shall submit final Froom Creek Realignment plans
and supporting technical studies that provide a refined bio-engineering
approach to ensure creek bank and channel bottom stability and avoidance
or reduction of further erosion. Final creek design plans and a supporting
engineering study shall address appropriate boulder sizes and bank
protection measures necessary to prevent dislodgement or remobilization of
in-channel or toe-slope protection rock. Natural methods (e.g., additional
rock) shall be employed as needed to maintain the proposed creek alignment
and downslope bank location between the channel and LOVR and the Calle
Joaquin wetlands, and to protect mid- to upper-bank areas and top-of-bank
from erosion from flood flows and aid in maintenance of riparian vegetation.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
ES-78 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit revised plans
and additional supporting technical studies to the City for review and approval
prior to recordation of the final VTM. The final VTM shall depict all
necessary revisions or improvements identified in the revised Froom Creek
Realignment plans and supporting studies.
Monitoring. City staff shall inspect Froom Creek realignment improvements
and ensure compliance throughout all construction phases. Permit compliance
monitoring staff shall perform periodic site inspections to verify compliance
with planned improvements.
HYD-3. Operation of the Project 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
HYD-4. The Project would involve development of
new impervious surfaces and potentially interfere
with groundwater recharge.
None Required. Less than Significant
3.9 Land Use
LU-1. The Project 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 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and
operational related avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measures for
impacts to sensitive natural communities. The Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid
or minimize impacts to biological resources, and implementation of on and
offsite habitat replacement as follows:
1) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the
following construction-related measures and BMPs:
a) Construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored at least 100
feet away from existing and proposed drainage features and
adjacent riparian habitat, and all construction vehicle
maintenance shall be performed in a designated offsite vehicle
storage and maintenance area approved by the City.
b) Prior to commencement of construction, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4
and all associated springs, seeps, and wetlands shall be protected
with construction fencing located a minimum of 25 feet from the
edge of the stream channel or top of bank and signed to prohibit
Significant and
Unavoidable
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-79
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
entry of construction equipment and personnel unless authorized
by the City. Fencing shall be maintained throughout the
construction period for each phase of development. Fencing and
signage shall be removed following completion of construction.
c) During any construction activities within 50 feet of the existing
Froom Creek channel, realigned Froom Creek channel, LOVR
ditch, Drainages 1, 2, 3, or 4, or other existing or proposed
drainage features, a City-approved biological monitor shall be
present and have the authority to stop or redirect work as needed
to protect biological resources.
d) All construction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building
materials) shall be stored at designated construction staging
areas, which shall be located outside of designated sensitive areas.
Should spills occur, materials and/or contaminants shall be
cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction
of the RWQCB.
e) All trash and construction debris shall be properly disposed at the
end of each day and dumpsters shall be covered either with locking
lids or with plastic sheeting at the end of each workday and during
storm events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand
weather conditions.
f) The Applicant shall implement measures designed to minimize
construction-related erosion and retain sediment on the Project
site, including installation of silt fencing, straw waddles, or other
acceptable construction erosion control devices. Such measures
shall be installed along the perimeter of disturbed areas and along
the top of the bank of the existing and proposed Froom Creek
channel and other existing or proposed drainage features and 25
feet from the edge of Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4. All drainage shall
be directed to sediment basins designed to retain all sediment
onsite.
g) Concrete truck and tool washout shall occur in a designated
location such that no runoff will reach the creek, onsite drainages,
or other sensitive areas.
h) All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps
to allow species that fall into a trench to escape. All open trenches
shall be inspected at the beginning of each work day to ensure that
ES-80 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
no wildlife species is present. Any sensitive wildlife species found
during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the Project
site by a qualified biologist or otherwise trained and City-
approved personnel. Trenches will remain open for the shortest
period necessary to complete required work.
i) Existing disturbed areas shall be used for construction staging and
storage to the maximum extent possible to minimize disturbance of
undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging
areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and
minimize habitat fragmentation.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to issuance
of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. The plan shall
incorporate any additional measures or requirements identified by state and
federal agencies, including but not limited to CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and
USFWS. The Applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan that
identifies and incorporates all required measures identified in MM BIO-2
through MM BIO-12 below. The plan shall specify all mitigation site
locations, timing of surveys and activities, species composition, habitat
compensation, species avoidance measures, and other required information,
including identification of appropriate onsite construction staging locations.
The plan shall demonstrate compliance with all required measures and any
required permits shall be obtained from state and federal regulatory agencies
prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. A 7-year site mitigation
monitoring plan shall also be prepared by the City-approved biologist and
incorporated into the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prior to
issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM, with annual
reports submitted to the City Natural Resources Manager and Community
Development Department.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures
have been included. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements of
the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through frequent monitoring
and inspection, and receipt of quarterly monitoring reports provided by the
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator required per MM BIO-2. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-81
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring,
inspection, and reporting of restoration activities.
MM BIO-2 The Applicant shall retain a qualified Environmental
Coordinator/qualified biologist, subject to review and approval by the City to
oversee compliance with the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all construction
activities, conduct a biological resources education program for all
construction workers prior to the initiation of any clearing or construction
activities, and provide quarterly reports to the City regarding construction
activities, enforcement issues, and remedial measures. The Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator shall be responsible for conducting inspections
of the work area each work day to ensure that excavation areas and sensitive
or restored habitats do not exhibit construction-related impacts or hazards to
wildlife. If any exposure risk is identified, the Environmental Coordinator
shall implement measures that could include, but not be limited to, hazing,
fencing, and wildlife removals to eliminate the exposure risk.
In addition, the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall monitor and
regulate all construction occurring within 50 feet of the existing and proposed
Froom Creek channel, other existing or proposed drainage features, riparian
habitat, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4, and seasonal or permanent wetlands.
During appropriate flowering, nesting, breeding, migration, and dispersal
seasons, the Environmental Coordinator shall also conduct sensitive species
surveys immediately prior to construction activities and shall monitor
construction activities in the vicinity of habitats to be avoided.
The work area boundaries and other off-limit areas shall be identified by the
biologist and/or Environmental Coordinator on a daily basis. The biologist
and/or Environmental Coordinator shall inspect construction and sediment
control fencing each work day during construction activities. Any vegetation
clearing activities shall be monitored by the biologist and/or Environmental
Coordinator.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The City shall approve the Applicant’s
qualified Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist prior to issuance of
grading and building permits for each phase of construction. The
Environmental Coordinator shall be present onsite to monitor construction
activities pursuant to the approved Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan.
ES-82 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Monitoring. The Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all grading and
construction activities occurring within the vicinity of sensitive habitats or
known location of sensitive species, shall conduct regular site inspections
throughout the entire site, and shall be responsible for compliance of the
construction activities and the above BMPs within MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-
3 through MM BIO-8. During construction, the Environmental Coordinator
shall submit quarterly monitoring reports to the City to ensure compliance
with the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and applicable laws,
regulations, and policies. The Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist
shall be onsite during all construction activities which take place within 50
feet of sensitive creek, wetland, and riparian habitat areas.
MM BIO-3 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include a
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) with details on timing and
implementation of required habitat restoration, enhancement, or creation
measures. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP shall
be prepared under the direction of, and approved by, the City’s Natural
Resources Manager in conjunction with regulatory agencies with permitting
authority over the Project. The HMMP shall contain, at a minimum, the
following components (or as otherwise modified by regulatory agency
permitting conditions):
a) Pre-construction surveys and delineation of vegetation communities,
habitat, and wetland features, including clear maps and a summary of
onsite habitats to be protected and acreage, design, and locations of
required habitat mitigation sites.
b) A description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and
description of existing site conditions.
c) A description of measures to be undertaken to enhance the mitigation
site for the target species and to protect sensitive resources.
d) Record necessary replacement of disturbed, altered, and/or lost area
of habitat.
e) A binding long-term agreement with the Applicant to implement and
maintain protected and restored sensitive habitats, including native
bunch grassland, wetlands, springs, seeps, tributary drainages, and
other sensitive or restored native habitats. These measures shall
identify typical performance and success criteria deemed acceptable by
the City and CDFW based on measurable goals and objectives. Said
criteria for restored habitats shall be, at a minimum, at least 70-percent
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-83
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
survival of container plants and 70-percent relative cover by vegetation
type.
f) A description of habitat and species restoration and monitoring
measures, including specific and objective performance criteria,
monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, and
monitoring schedule. (At a minimum, success criteria shall be at least
70-percent survival of container plants and 70-percent relative cover
by vegetation type and will include a replacement ratio of 2:1 and
determination by a City-approved biologist that the mitigation site
provides ecological functions and values for the focal species equal to
or exceeding the impacted habitat.)
g) Plan requirements that ensure mitigation elements that do not meet
performance or final success criteria within 5 years are completed
through an extension of the plan for an additional 2 years or at the
discretion of the City Natural Resources Manager with the goal of
completing all mitigation requirements prior to the HMMP end date.
h) Monitoring of the mitigation and maintenance areas shall occur for the
period established in the HMMP, or until success criteria are met; an
endowment may be required in some cases as determined by the City.
If success criteria cannot be met through the HMMP, the City Natural
Resources Manager shall specify appropriate commensurate measures
(e.g., onsite or offsite restoration, endowment, or bond to the City for
completion of necessary mitigation).
i) A binding long-term agreement with the Villaggio Life Plan
Community to fund and retain a qualified biologist to train all
landscaping crew staff hired over the life of the development on
sensitive plant species and habitat within the vicinity of the
development, including the identification and avoidance of sensitive
plants and habitat. The qualified biologist shall conduct annual
monitoring of vegetation surrounding the development and prepare a
report summarizing the avoidance or disturbance of sensitive resources
from operational activities of the Villaggio development, and
identifying necessary replacement or restoration of affected resources.
Necessary mitigation shall be subject to the same standards for
performance, monitoring, and success identified in subitems b through
h, above. The report shall be submitted to the City annually for review
and approval.
ES-84 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
j) A plan for fencing and/or signage around the Upper Terrace of the
Villaggio development, prohibiting residents, guests, and employees
from accessing and disturbing the surrounding sensitive resources.
k) Requirements for payment of annual fees to the City to fund City review
and inspection of the site and Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan and HMMP requirements.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance
with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through
frequent monitoring and inspection. The Environmental Coordinator shall
also ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities through routine monitoring and inspection of restoration activities.
MM BIO-4 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require
avoidance of sensitive natural communities outside approved development
footprints such as the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance, Central Coast
Arroyo Willow Scrub Community, Coastal and Central Valley Freshwater
Marsh, and wetland areas to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation for
impacted sensitive natural communities that cannot be avoided shall be
achieved through one or more of the following options, subject to City
approval:
a) Onsite restoration, enhancement, or creation of suitable replacement
habitat, if feasible onsite restoration opportunities exist and at ratios
consistent with those identified in MM BIO-5;
b) Offsite restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted
species at the minimum replacement ratio of 2:1 for sensitive natural
communities, native grasslands, and riparian habitat;
c) Financial contribution to an in-lieu fee program that results in
restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted natural
communities and/or species; and/or
d) Purchase of mitigation credits at a USFWS- and/or CDFW-approved
mitigation bank.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-85
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to be submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the BMMP and HMMP to
ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures have been included.
The Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring,
inspection, and reporting of restoration activities pursuant to the approved
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP. The City shall ensure
compliance with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan and HMMP through receipt and review of monitoring reports, and site
inspections.
MM BIO-5 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require all
temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands, grasslands, and riparian
habitat be mitigated, as follows:
a) Temporary wetland, native grassland, and riparian habitat impacts
shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (area of restored
habitat to impacted habitat).
b) Permanent impacts to sensitive natural communities, native
grasslands, and riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (area
of restored and enhanced habitat to impacted habitat).
c) Permanent direct impacts to wetlands shall be mitigated at a minimum
3:1 ratio unless otherwise directed by state and federal agencies,
including but not limited to the CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and USFWS.
d) Potential indirect impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetlands affected by the
Froom Creek realignment and changes to site hydrology shall be
mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio and require mitigation of at least
10.24 acres. For the purpose of this mitigation, the area of the Calle
Joaquin wetlands potentially affected by the Project include those
wetlands northwest of Calle Joaquin within the Specific Plan area and
southeast of the proposed Froom Creek low-flow channel.
e) Habitat revegetation or creation shall occur in the fall or winter no
more than 1 year following habitat disturbance. Revegetation shall be
monitored monthly for 7 years with a goal of at least 70-percent
survival of container plants and 70-percent relative cover by vegetation
type at the end of the 7-year period. Irrigation shall be provided during
ES-86 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
this period or until otherwise determined necessary by the Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator.
f) Riparian vegetation along Froom Creek shall be maintained in
perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City by the Applicant or a City-
approved designee. Froom Creek conditions shall be monitored
annually following winter storm seasons to assess damage to riparian
vegetation and need for maintenance restoration. Monitoring and
maintenance of riparian vegetation conditions shall be conducted
consistent with the requirements of the Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan outlined in MM BIO-3.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The Environmental Coordinator
shall ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities through routine monitoring, inspection, and reporting of restoration
activities. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through receipt of monitoring
reports and site inspections.
MM BIO-6 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall detail
timing and implementation of required habitat restoration and shall be
submitted to the City’s Natural Resources Manager for review and approval,
including requirements for consultation with CDFW, NMFS, and USACE as
needed. A copy of the final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. The plan shall be implemented by the Project Applicant, under
supervision by the City and the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator, and
shall:
a) Describe replacement of sensitive natural community habitats
removed, lost, or adversely impacted by the Project, including a list of
the soil, plants, and other materials that will be necessary for successful
habitat restoration/ replacement, and a description of planting
methods, location, spacing, erosion protection, and irrigation
measures that will be needed. Restoration and habitat enhancement
shall be limited to use of appropriate native species. Habitat
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-87
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
restoration or enhancement areas shall be designed to facilitate
establishment of appropriate native plants such as willows,
cottonwoods, bunchgrass, and rushes.
b) Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be established within
the Project boundaries, adjacent to and contiguous with existing
habitats to the maximum extent possible.
c) Habitat restoration or enhancement sites shall be placed within
existing or additional necessary deed-restricted area(s) and shall be
maintained and monitored for a minimum of 7 years. If sufficient onsite
mitigation area is not practicable, an offsite mitigation plan shall be
prepared as part of the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and
approved by permitting agencies.
d) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall identify
appropriate restoration and enhancement activities to compensate for
impacts to creek, wetland, native bunch grass and riparian habitat,
including a detailed planting plan and maintenance plans using locally
obtained native species, and shall include habitat enhancement to
support native wildlife and plant species.
e) A weed management plan and weed identification list shall be included
in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
f) Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be maintained weekly
for the first three years after Project completion and quarterly
thereafter. Maintenance shall include replacement of unsuccessful
planted specimens and eradication of noxious weeds found on
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Lists A and B.
Noxious weeds on CDFA List C may be eradicated or otherwise
managed.
g) Quarterly and annual reports documenting site inspections and site
recovery status shall be prepared and sent to the City and appropriate
agencies.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to be submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The Environmental Coordinator
ES-88 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
shall ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP through receipt of
monitoring reports and site inspections.
MM BIO-9 Construction and grading of the realigned portion of Froom
Creek, including planting of riparian vegetation, watering, and bank
stabilization, shall be conducted prior to removal of the existing creek
segment to ensure a habitat for special-status species within the creek is
maintained through the Project site with no interruption during construction.
Project phasing shall be adjusted as needed to accommodate this sequence of
construction activities.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall demonstrate phasing
and creek restoration within the final VTM, and the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan. The Applicant shall submit the plan to the City for review
and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final
VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan, and final VTM for compliance. The Applicant’s Environmental
Coordinator shall monitor creek realignment activities to ensure compliance
with this mitigation measure.
MM BIO-10 Chorro Creek Bog Thistle Management. Prior to issuance of
grading and building permits, the Applicant shall submit or fund a site survey
for Chorro Creek bog thistle, and:
1. All individual locations of Chorro Creek bog thistle shall be mapped
using GPS coordinates. No construction activities or disturbance shall
occur within 50 feet of mapped Chorro Creek bog thistle. This setback
shall be delineated and maintained with construction fencing and clear
signage for the duration of grading and construction. If the site survey
results identify Chorro Creek bog thistle that may be disturbed or lost
from Project construction, the Project shall be redesigned to ensure a
minimum 50 foot buffer from mapped Chorro Creek bog thistle
occurrences.
2. Development adjacent to Drainages 1, 2, and 3 shall be set back a
minimum of 50 feet from the top of the bank of these drainages and the
edge of delineated associated wetlands.
3. Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and associated wetlands shall be fenced a
minimum of 50 feet from the top of the bank or edge of delineated
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-89
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
wetland. The Applicant shall ensure and demonstrate to the City
through frequent reporting requirements approved by the City that
these areas are managed and maintained in perpetuity to maintain
wetland and Chorro Creek bog thistle habitat values.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance
with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities.
MM BIO-11 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address
special-status wildlife species management. Grading and construction
activities shall avoid the rainy season (typically October 15 to April 15) to the
extent practicable, particularly within 50 feet of the existing and proposed
Froom Creek channel, and other existing or proposed drainage features,
riparian or wetland habitat, and any suitable nesting sites as determined by
the City-approved biologist. Injury, mortality to, or significant disturbance of
onsite sensitive species, including the California red-legged frog, south-
central California coast steelhead, and white-tailed kite, shall be avoided. The
plan shall include the following measures: pre-construction surveys; worker
awareness; cessation of work in occupied areas if individuals are identified;
relocation (if necessary) of frogs and steelhead from the work area by a
professional biologist authorized by the USFWS and/or CDFW; and
monitoring of construction activities within the vicinity of sensitive habitats
by a qualified biologist during construction, consistent with MM BIO-2.
Necessary permits shall be obtained from the state (CDFW) and federal
(USACE and USFWS) regulatory agencies with jurisdiction and/or permitting
authority over a portion of the Project. Any other sensitive species observed
during the pre-construction surveys shall be relocated by the qualified
biologist into the nearest suitable habitat outside the disturbance area as
determined in consultation with the appropriate jurisdictional resource
agency.
ES-90 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance
with requirements in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities.
MM BIO-12 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address
the movement of special-status species, as follows:
1. Migratory and Nesting Bird Management. Grading and construction
activities shall avoid the breeding season (typically from February 15
to August 15) to the extent practicable, particularly within 50 feet of
riparian or wetland habitat and mature trees. If Project activities must
be conducted during this period and within the vicinity of riparian or
wetland habitat and/or mature trees, pre-construction nesting bird
surveys shall take place no more than one week prior to habitat
disturbance associated with each phase; if active nests are located
during these surveys, the following measures shall be implemented:
a. Construction activities within 50 feet of active nests shall be
restricted until chicks have fledged, unless the nest belongs to a
raptor, in which case a 500-foot activity restriction buffer shall be
observed.
b. Construction shall be limited to daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00
PM or sunset, whichever is sooner).
c. A pre-construction survey report shall be submitted to the City
immediately upon completion of the survey. The report shall detail
appropriate fencing or flagging of the buffer zone and make
recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map
of the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the
report. If any sensitive species are observed during pre-
construction surveys, the Project biologist shall coordinate with
appropriate resource agencies to determine appropriate
procedure for handling or avoidance of the specimen.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-91
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
d. The Project biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the
authority to reduce or increase the recommended buffer
depending upon site conditions and the species involved. A report
of findings and recommendations for bird protection shall be
submitted to the City prior to vegetation removal. If sensitive
species are observed during pre-construction surveys, the Project
biologist shall coordinate with appropriate resource agencies to
determine appropriate procedures for handling or avoidance of
the specimen.
2. Bat Colony Management. Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches
diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) or demolition/relocation of existing
onsite structures, a survey shall be conducted by a City and CDFW-
approved biologist to determine if any tree or structure proposed for
removal, trimming, demolition, or relocation harbors sensitive bat
species or maternal bat colonies. Maternal bat colonies shall not be
disturbed, and grading and construction activities shall avoid the bat
breeding season to the extent feasible. If disturbance of structures must
occur during the bat breeding season, buildings must be inspected and
deemed clear of bat colonies/roosts within 7 days of demolition and an
appropriately trained and approved biologist must conduct a daily site-
clearance during demolition. If bats are roosting in a structure or tree
in the Project site during the daytime but are not part of an active
maternity colony, then exclusion measures shall be utilized and must
include one-way valves that allow bats to leave but are designed so that
the bats may not re-enter the structure. For each occupied roost
removed, one bat box shall be installed in similar habitat as determined
by the Project biologist and shall have similar cavities or crevices to
those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions,
height above ground, and thermal conditions. If a bat colony would be
eliminated from the Project site, appropriate alternate bat habitat shall
be installed within the Project site. To the extent practicable, alternate
bat house installation shall occur near onsite drainages.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall include a management plan for migrating and nesting birds and bat
colonies and shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of grading and construction permits and recordation of the final
VTM. Construction shall be conducted between August 16 and February 14
ES-92 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
unless pre-construction surveys are completed. Reports summarizing pre-
construction species surveys (i.e., nesting, bat surveys, etc.) shall be submitted
to the City within 10 days of survey completion. Construction work shall not
commence until after the completion of surveys and City review of
corresponding reports. Any required permits shall be obtained from
appropriate state and federal agencies prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits and recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that appropriate requirements
have been included to address potential impacts to bird and bat species. The
City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the Biological Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan. The Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also
ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration activities.
MM CR-9 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional historic
architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards (36 CFR Part 61) to review and comment on design and
construction drawings and monitor construction to ensure conformance with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The role of the historic architect
shall include collaboration on a range of items relating to materials selection,
construction methods, design of exterior and interior alterations, and
monitoring of construction activities. The historic architect and Applicant
shall resolve any unforeseen circumstance in a manner that conforms with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
a) The qualified professional historic architect shall work with the
Applicant team to ensure:
b) Deteriorated historic features would be repaired to the greatest extent
feasible. Where features are deteriorated beyond repair, they would be
replaced to exactly match the old.
c) All character-defining features are retained.
d) Physical treatments to historic material would use the gentlest means
possible and would not damage material.
e) Reconstruction would be clearly identified as a contemporary re-
creation.
f) Interpretative signage would clearly provide information regarding the
history of the buildings and their reconstruction.
Artifacts, features, and other materials recovered through this process shall
be described, illustrated, and analyzed fully in a technical report of findings;
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-93
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
the analysis shall include comparative research with other sites of similar age.
In addition to the technical report, the findings from this research shall be
published in an appropriate scientific journal. The Applicant shall fund all
technical reporting and subsequent publication.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The historic architect shall submit a report
documenting conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to
the City for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits for
the Project. Artifacts, features, and other materials recovered through this
process shall be described, illustrated, and analyzed fully in a technical report
of findings; the analysis shall include comparative research with other sites of
similar age. In addition to the technical report, the findings from this research
shall be published in an appropriate scientific journal. The Applicant shall
fund all technical reporting and subsequent publication. The historic architect
shall notify the Applicant if any unforeseen circumstance arises during
construction that could potentially result in nonconformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the report is reviewed and approved prior
to issuance of grading permits for Phase 3. The historic architect shall
participate in a pre-construction meeting with the general contractor and
subcontractors and periodically monitor construction to completion of
construction.
MM CR-10 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional photographer
to prepare Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II
documentation. This documentation shall record the existing appearance of
all seven contributing buildings in large and medium format HABS
photographs. All documentation components shall be completed in
accordance with the Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering
Documentation (HABS standards). The photographs shall consist primarily
of large format, 4-inch by 5-inch, black and white negatives (one set), contact
prints (one set) and 8-inch by 10-inch prints (two sets), archivally processed
and printed on fiber-based paper. The set of original negatives shall be made
at the time the photographs are taken. The original, archivally-sound
negatives and prints shall be and distributed as follows: (1) the Library of
Congress in Washington, DC through the National Park Service (one set of
negatives and contact prints).
Plan Requirements and Timing. The draft documentation shall be
assembled and submitted to the qualified professional historic architect and
ES-94 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
the City for review and approval prior to submittal to the repository. The
HABS documentation shall be completed prior to the issuance of grading
permits for Phase 1.
Monitoring. A digital copy of the HABS documentation shall be reviewed by
the City and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits.
MM CR-11 The Applicant shall work with the City to develop an interpretive
project that documents the potential historic district and its cultural and
architectural heritage by means of a pamphlet. This pamphlet will highlight
the former Froom Ranch Dairy, both primary and secondary contributors, in
a social (Froom family) and industrial (dairy industry) context, with an
emphasis on how these buildings were used on the dairy farm, and how this
property relates to the larger dairy farm context in San Luis Obispo, the
Central Coast, and California. Five hundred copies of the pamphlet shall be
published. These professionally researched, written and printed materials
shall be offered at no cost through the local museums and heritage
organizations, and at the trailhead park. After the initial distribution of
printed brochures, digital copies shall be available. Throughout the park,
interpretive signs that provide information on building history and function
(extant and demolished) shall also be incorporated.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit
draft documentation to the City and Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for
review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase 3.
Monitoring. The pamphlet and interpretive signage shall be reviewed by the
CHC and approved by the Community Development Director. The Parks and
Recreation Commission shall review any interpretive signage proposed to be
located within the park. The City Community Development Department shall
ensure park designs incorporate interpretive signage consistent with approved
documentation.
MM CR-12 The Applicant shall reuse original material to the greatest extent
feasible in the proposed work on the contributing structures to be relocated
and/or reconstructed within the proposed public park (main residence, dairy
barn, creamery/house, and granary). The Applicant and historic architect
shall work with the City to prepare a marketing plan to offer to the public any
salvaged historic materials not used during rehabilitation and reconstruction
of the primary contributors, and demolition of the secondary contributors. As
appropriate, unused or unretained historic materials will be offered to local
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-95
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
historical societies and museums, then offered to architectural recycling
before being disposed.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit
draft documentation to the City for review and approval by the Community
Development Director prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase 3.
Monitoring. The marketing plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director.
MM CR-13 The Applicant and historic architect shall prepare design
guidelines and a review process for new construction proximate to the main
residence. New construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that the
essential form and integrity of the main residence and its setting would be
unimpaired. The design guidelines and review by City Community
Development Director shall ensure new construction is compatible with main
residence in material, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit
draft design guidelines to the City and CHC for review and approval prior to
approval of entitlements and the issuance of grading permits for Phase 1.
Monitoring. The design guidelines shall be reviewed by the CHC and
approved by the Community Development Director.
MM CR-14 Prior to commencement of Phase 1 construction, a City-approved
qualified structural engineer and historical architect shall survey the existing
foundations and other structural aspects of the main residence, creamery,
dairy barn, and granary, and develop a preservation plan to protect the
historic buildings from potential damage during construction activities.
The qualified structural engineer shall identify any necessary temporary
structural bracing for the historic structures to avoid damage to these
resources during the duration of construction. The qualified structural
engineer shall prepare a temporary historic structure stabilization plan
identifying these techniques as necessary.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit the
preservation plan and temporary historic structure stabilization plan to the
City for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map and issuance
of grading and building permits for Phase 1 of construction. Prior to the
issuance of Phase 4 building and grading permits, the Applicant shall submit
the final Historic Structures Plan and temporary historic structure stabilization
plan, with incorporation of any additional recommendations for repair, to the
City for review and approval.
ES-96 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Monitoring. The City engineer shall review and approve the preservation
plan prior to recordation of the final map and issuance of grading permits for
Phase 1. The City-approved structural engineer shall periodically monitor
vibration during vibration-causing construction activities to ensure excessive
vibration does not occur and that temporary historic structure stabilization
plan strategies are effective at avoiding vibration damage. The structural
engineer shall halt construction activity if he/she deems construction activity
may harm historical resources and shall modify or augment the temporary
historic structure stabilization plan strategies accordingly.
MM HAZ-2 In accordance with PRC Section 4291, the Applicant shall hire
a City-qualified team that consists of appropriate specialists (i.e., fire
management professionals, biologists) to prepare a Community Fire
Protection Plan to design the creation and maintenance of required fire
buffers and fuel management zones around developable areas and detail
methods for achieving fire safety around new buildings while preserving the
integrity and function of affected native plant communities to the maximum
extent feasible, and that ensures that consistent fire fuel management
practices are applied throughout the City. The Plan shall incorporate
management strategies in coordination with adjacent property owners,
including Mountainbrook Church and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The
Plan shall outline the removal and control of invasive, non-native vegetation,
and conservation of sensitive habitats and rare species, while developing fire
fuel management practices that will discourage or prevent non-native grasses
and other non-native invasive species from dominating surrounding areas.
Landscaping shall be maintained by the Applicant and periodically inspected
by the SLOFD during fire inspections in each of the fuel management zones
to avoid the buildup of deadwood and leaf litter, which, if left to accumulate,
would reduce the mitigating effect of the Plan. Specifically, the Plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
• Vegetation coverage and type;
• Setbacks between structures, sensitive wildlife species, and access
routes;
• Development plan landscaping and planting standards within the
setback areas;
• Native trees and shrubs, such as coast live oak, coastal scrub, and
grassland shall be thinned and limbed up but left in place;
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-97
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• All allowable weed abatement techniques, qualifications, and
requirements for weed abatement contractors, as well as measures and
techniques that ensure the required fuel management and vegetation
clearance, shall be designed and implemented to provide adequate
structure protection and avoid degradation of sensitive biological
habitat; and
• Invasive species shall be removed and controlled.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to approval of the final development
plan, the Community Fire Protection Plan shall be prepared and submitted to
the City Natural Resources Manager and SLOFD for review and approval,
with coordination from the San Luis Obispo County Fire Department. The
Plan shall be implemented consistent with the approved maintenance
schedule.
Monitoring. The City-qualified biologist shall submit a monitoring report to
the City Natural Resources Manager and SLOFD at the end of the first year
following Project occupancy documenting the fuel management activities that
took place. Conformance with the Community Fire Protection Plan shall be
demonstrated through the submittal of annual photo documentation by the
Applicant or site visits as necessary at the discretion of the Compliance
monitoring staff.
MM HAZ-3 The Froom Ranch Specific Plan (FRSP) shall designate smoking
areas, located away from onsite fire hazards areas and within acceptable
locations consistent with Chapter 8.16, Smoking Prohibition and Secondhand
Smoke Control, of the City Municipal Code. Otherwise, smoking shall be
prohibited onsite. The Applicant shall amend the FRSP to include policies to
requiring the allowed use of fire resistant landscaping and hardscaping in
areas to reduce mulch/gorilla hair, which is the receptive embers, if
determined appropriate by SLOFD.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to adoption of the Final FRSP, the
Applicant shall amend the Final FRSP to include these policies. The Applicant
shall coordinate with SLOFD to identify appropriate locations for designated
smoking areas and appropriate fire resistant landscaping and hardscaping
features within the Project site.
Monitoring. The Final FRSP shall be reviewed by the SLOFD and City for
inclusion of the above measure.
MM HAZ-4 The Applicant shall prepare and implement an Evacuation Plan,
which shall address both Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch areas. The
ES-98 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Evacuation Plan shall be subject to review by the City and SLOFD, and shall
include, but not be limited to:
• Accommodation for assisted living and special care individuals;
• Shelter-in-place accommodations;
• Specified quantity and capacity of vehicles required to accommodate
residents and employees of Villaggio, and maintenance of those
vehicles;
• Signage that clearly indicates evacuation routes and meeting areas;
• Specified egress points for transportation vehicles;
• A relocation plan from the Project site to a secondary facility, with
associated transportation;
• Contingency plans for changes to the construction schedule or phasing
plan that would affect the primary evacuation plan and routes;
• Periodic updates that would consider potential redevelopment
activities or other roadway alterations; and
• Regular practice drills (e.g., one per year) for implementation of the
Evacuation Plan.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The above Evacuation Plan shall be
prepared in coordination with the SLOFD and the San Luis Obispo County
Fire Department and submitted for approval to the City and SLOFD prior to
adoption of the Final VTTM. The Applicant shall resubmit the Plan to the City
and SLOFD prior to the construction of each phase of development. Prior to
occupancy of the first residential unit, the Applicant shall implement measures
within the Evacuation Plan.
Monitoring. The City and SLOFD shall review the Evacuation Plan and
ensure all recommendations are incorporated. The City Fire Marshall shall
inspect the Project site for compliance prior to the occupancy of the first
residential unit for each phase.
MM HAZ-5 The Froom Ranch Specific Plan (FRSP) shall designate fire
access routes in at least two locations from the Project site to the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve on at least 12-foot wide paths, one extending from Villaggio
and one from Madonna Froom Ranch. Fire access routes shall be designed
to allow emergency response to wildland area in the Irish Hills to support
direct access for firefighting personnel and equipment.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to adoption of the Final FRSP, the
Applicant shall amend the Final FRSP to include the required accessway, in
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-99
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
coordination with SLOFD to identify appropriate locations within the Project
site.
Monitoring. The Final FRSP shall be reviewed by the SLOFD and City for
inclusion of the above measure.
MM TRANS-21 The Project shall include a landscaped median along LOVR
from the terminus of the existing median at northern Project frontage to Calle
Joaquin. Project is responsible for construction of median improvements
prior to occupancy of the Lower Area of Villaggio, or fair-share contribution
if constructed by others sooner.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above median improvement prior to adoption and submitted
to the City for review and approval. The median shall be integrated to the final
VTM prior to approval of development plans.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the
final FRSP prior to Project approval.
MM TRANS-22 The Project shall include an emergency access point from
Villaggio’s Lower Area to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to provide access
to the existing dirt road network to fight fires in Irish Hills, specifically to Neil
Havlik Way which connects to the four utility power line structures at the top
of the ridgeline. This access point may be gated to ensure site security in
consultation with SLOFD.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above emergency access connection prior to adoption and
submitted to the City and SLOFD for review and approval. The above access
road shall be integrated to the final VTM prior to approval of development
plans.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the
final FRSP prior to Project approval.
MM TRANS-23 The Project shall integrate access to the Project site
perimeters for defending the Project site development. Specifically, these
measures should address access to the wildland area immediately abutting
the western boundary of Villaggio’s Lower Area. This measure shall include
access from the proposed Local Road “C” to the Irish Hills, which may
include use of space between proposed buildings for firefighting vehicle
access, ramps up proposed retaining walls, and similar vehicle infrastructure
to maintain access to the base of the Irish Hills.
ES-100 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above emergency access connection along the Irish Hills prior
to adoption, and submitted to the City and SLOFD for review and approval.
The above access road shall be integrated to the final VTM prior to approval
of development plans.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into
the final FRSP prior to Project approval.
LU-2. The Project would potentially be inconsistent
with existing easements and setback requirements
onsite.
None Required. Less than Significant
3.10 Noise
NO-1. Project construction, including site grading
and heavy truck trips, would generate noise levels
that exceed thresholds established in the City’s
General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook
resulting in potentially significant impacts to
proximate sensitive receptors.
MM NO-1 Except for emergency repair of public service utilities, or where
an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no
operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair,
alteration, or demolition work shall occur between the hours of 7:00 PM and
7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, such that the
sound creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single-family
residential uses, 80 dBA for multi-family residential uses, and 85 dBA for
mixed residential/commercial land uses, as shown in Table 3.10-9 and Table
3.10-10, across a residential or commercial property line.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Plans submitted for grading and building
permits shall clearly indicate construction hours and shall be submitted to the
City for approval prior to grading and building permit issuance for each
Project phase. To ensure response to and resolution of potential public noise
nuisance complaints, plans submitted for grading and building permits shall
clearly identify the Project’s construction manager (or similar) and 24-hour
contact information. At the pre-construction meeting required for all phases
of grading and development, all construction workers shall be briefed on
restricted construction hour limitations. A workday schedule shall be adhered
to for the duration of construction for all phases.
Monitoring. The Applicant’s permit compliance monitoring staff shall
perform periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity schedules
and respond to complaints.
MM NO-2 For all construction activity at the Project site, noise attenuation
techniques shall be employed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-101
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
levels allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9,
Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include:
• Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65
dBA at the Project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier that
meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers
attenuate sound) of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and
shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction
sites and affected uses.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall designate the proposed
area of operation of stationary construction equipment and depict acoustic
shielding around these areas on building and grading plans. Equipment and
shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated
location throughout construction activities. Construction plans shall identify
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction.
All construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on
how, why, and where BMP measures are to be implemented. BMPs shall be
identified and described for submittal to the City for review and approval prior
to building or grading permit issuance. BMPs shall be adhered to for the
duration of the Project. Construction plans shall include truck routes and shall
be submitted to the City prior to grading and building permit issuance for each
Project phase.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout all construction
phases. The Applicant’s permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform
periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity schedules.
MM NO-3 The Applicant shall inform landowners and business operators at
properties within 300 feet of the Project site of proposed construction
timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance or
nuisance complaints related to construction noise no less than 10 days prior
to initiation of any grading and construction activity for any Phase. The notice
shall include the name and contact information of the Project’s construction
manager and contact information for the City’s Community Development
Department.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall provide and post signs
stating these restrictions and the Project’s construction manager’s name and
ES-102 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
contact information at construction site entries. Signs shall be posted prior to
commencement of construction and maintained throughout construction of
any Phase. The construction schedule and mailing list shall be submitted to
the City Community Development Department 10 days prior to initiation of
any earth movement.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout all construction
phases. The Applicant’s permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform
periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity schedules and
respond to complaints.
NO-2. Project 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
with Mitigation
NO-3. Long-term operational noise impacts would
include higher roadway noise levels from increased
vehicle traffic generated by the Project, Project
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
NO-4. Future residents and occupants of the Project
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 Prior to approval of park and residential development within the
Madonna Froom Ranch area of the Specific Plan, the Applicant shall submit
a project-specific noise study that evaluates the potential for noise exposure
from adjacent commercial uses and identifies project-specific design
measures to attenuate exterior and interior noise consistent with the City’s
Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. If necessary to reduce noise within
acceptable levels, noise reduction measures may include a planted earthen
berm, sound wall, or similar noise attenuating feature along the site boundary
with Irish Hills Plaza, consistent with Policy 1.8.2 of the Noise Element.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall incorporate the above
mitigation within the final FRSP prior to adoption.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance with required site design and
noise reduction measures within the final FRSP prior to adoption and shall
confirm any required noise attenuation measures are shown on construction
plans prior to issuance of building permits.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-103
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
3.11 Population and Housing
PH-1. Residential and commercial development
associated with the Project would induce population
growth.
None Required. Less than Significant
PH-2. The Project would provide additional housing
for the City, assisting the jobs-to-housing ratio.
None Required. Less than Significant
PH-3. The Project would provide additional
affordable housing for the City
None Required. Less than Significant
3.12 Public Services and Recreation
PS-1. The Project would increase demand on the
SLOPD for police protection services.
None Required. Less than Significant
PS-2. The Project would increase the demand on
SLOFD and CALFIRE for fire protection services
and create potential declines in firefighter-to-
population ratios; however, the Project would be
located within the accepted response time
performance area. Development of senior residential
uses, which are associated with higher than average
calls for emergency medical service, would increase
emergency calls for service
None Required. Less than Significant
PS-3. The Project would generate increases in
enrollment at public schools (especially C.L.
Elementary and Laguna Middle Schools).
None Required. Less than Significant
PS-4. The Project would increase the demand for
public parkland and neighborhood parks from
increased residential population.
MM PS-1 Public Parkland Requirements for Villaggio. Mitigation shall be
calculated based on actual buildout populations within Madonna Froom
Ranch. At the discretion of the Community Development Department and City
of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department, and to ensure that
parkland would satisfy the needs of the proposed population of Villaggio, the
Applicant shall either:
a) Identify, purchase, and develop up to 7.32 acres of parkland, including
2.79 acres of neighborhood park, within the City’s Sphere of Influence,
consistent with City General Plan PRE Policies 3.13.1, 3.15.1, 5.0.1,
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
ES-104 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
and 5.0.2. If feasible, land for development of neighborhood park space
should be identified within interior areas of the City Sphere of Influence
to maximize use and access; or
b) Provide a contribution of fees in-lieu of dedication of parkland,
restricted solely for parkland acquisition and improvement.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The development of parkland and/or
dedication of fees shall be completed by the Applicant prior to issuance of
building permits. While coordinating with the City Parks and Recreation
Department, the Applicant shall modify the FRSP to demonstrate the
provision of recreational facilities to meet the demand of Villaggio residents
if an onsite option is selected.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with General Plan PRE
Policies 3.13.1, 3.15.1, 5.0.1, and 5.0.2, and shall ensure the above measure is
implemented prior issuance of building permits.
MM PS-2 Public Parkland Requirements for Madonna Froom Ranch. The
Applicant shall identify, designate, dedicate, and/or develop up to 1.16 acres
of public parkland into the Froom Ranch Specific Plan to be operational at
the time of buildout of the Project. Mitigation shall be calculated based on
actual buildout populations within Madonna Froom Ranch and may be
implemented using one of the following options, at the discretion of the
Community Development Department and City Parks and Recreation
Department:
a) The Applicant shall designate an additional area of up to 1.16 acres of
public facilities land use with the intention of providing parkland,
within the Specific Plan area, consistent with City General Plan PRE
Policies 3.13.1, 3.15.1, 5.0.1, and 5.0.2, or
b) The Applicant shall identify and purchase or dedicate up to 1.16 acres
of parkland within the City’s Sphere of Influence, or
c) The Applicant shall provide a contribution of fees in-lieu of dedication
of up to 1.16 acres of parkland, restricted solely for parkland
acquisition and improvement.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The development of parkland and/or
dedication of fees shall be completed by the Applicant prior to issuance of
building permits. While coordinating with the City Parks and Recreation
Department, the Applicant shall modify the FRSP to demonstrate the
provision of recreational facilities to meet the demand of Madonna Froom
Ranch residents if an onsite option is selected.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-105
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with General Plan PRE
Policies 3.13.1, 3.13.1, 5.0.1, and 5.0.2, and shall ensure the above measure is
implemented prior to issuance of building permits.
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
TRANS-1. Project 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 The Applicant shall prepare a Construction Transportation
Management Plan for all phases of the Project for review and approval by the
City prior to issuance of grading or building permits to address and manage
traffic during construction. The Plan shall be designed to:
• Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network;
• Restrict construction staging to within the Project site;
• Minimize parking impacts both to public parking and access to private
parking to the greatest extent practicable;
• Ensure safety for both those construction vehicles and works and the
surrounding community; and
• Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoods.
The Construction Transportation Management Plan shall be subject to review
and approval by the Public Works Director to ensure that the Plan has been
designed in accordance with this mitigation measure. This review shall occur
prior to issuance of grading or building permits. It shall, at a minimum,
include the following:
• Ongoing Requirements throughout the Duration of Construction:
• A detailed Construction Transportation Management Plan for work
zones shall be maintained. At a minimum, this shall include parking
and travel lane configurations; warning, regulatory, guide, and
directional signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and parking
lanes. The Plan shall include specific information regarding the
Project’s construction activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian
and traffic flow and the measures to address these disruptions. Such
Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Department and implemented in accordance with this approval.
• Heavy haul construction vehicles and cement trucks shall not pass
through Villaggio’s Lower Area access roads once any of the Lower
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
ES-106 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Area residences become occupied, and must utilize access from Calle
Joaquin to access the Upper Terrace after that time.
• Work within the public right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by
the City on a case-by-case basis based on the magnitude and type of
construction activity. Work shall generally be performed between 8:30
AM and 4:00 PM. This work includes dirt hauling and construction
material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way outside of these
hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an after-hours
construction permit administered by the Building and Safety Division.
Additional restrictions may be put in place by Public Works
Department depending on particular construction activities and
conditions.
• Streets and equipment shall be cleaned in accordance with established
Public Works requirements.
• Trucks shall only travel on a City-approved construction route. Limited
queuing may occur on the construction site itself.
• Materials and equipment shall be minimally visible to the public; the
preferred location for materials is to be onsite, with a minimum amount
of materials within a work area in the public right-of-way, subject to a
current Use of Public Property Permit.
• Provision of off-street parking for construction workers, which may
include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if
determined necessary by the City.
Project Coordination Elements That Shall Be Implemented Prior to
Commencement of Construction:
• The traveling public shall be advised of impending construction
activities that may substantially affect key roadways or other facilities
(e.g., information signs, portable message signs, media
listing/notification, and implementation of an approved Construction
Impact Mitigation Plan).
• A Use of Public Property Permit, Excavation Permit, Sewer Permit, or
Oversize Load Permit, as well as any Caltrans permits required for any
construction work requiring encroachment into public rights-of-way,
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-107
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
detours, or any other work within the public right-of-way shall be
obtained.
• Timely notification of construction schedules shall be provided to all
affected agencies (e.g., Police Department, Fire Department, Public
Works Department, and Community Development Department) and to
all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property within
a radius of 0.25 mile.
• Construction work shall be coordinated with affected agencies in
advance of start of work. Approvals may take up to two weeks per each
submittal.
• Public Works Department approval of any haul routes for construction
materials and equipment deliveries shall be obtained.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit the
Construction Transportation Management Plan to the City for review and
approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The Construction
Transportation Management Plan shall be updated as needed to reflect
changing conditions over the Project’s five-year construction schedule. The
Applicant shall conduct necessary construction employee training prior to the
commencement of construction. The City Public Works Department,
Community Development Department, Police Department, and Fire
Department, and nearby residences and businesses shall be notified of the
construction schedule prior to initiation of construction. The Applicant shall
submit individual traffic control plans and part of encroachment permits for
work within the public right-of-way.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with the Construction
Transportation Management Plan with periodic inspections of the Project site
during construction. Complaints related to construction traffic at the site shall
be directed to the City Public Works Department.
TRANS-2. Under Existing plus Project conditions,
the addition of Project 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 The Applicant shall revise the FRSP to include measures necessary
to reduce the Project’s operational, mobile-source emissions, and VMT to the
maximum extent feasible, including, but not limited to the following:
• Rideshare and Employee Ridership Programs: The FRSP shall be
amended to include measures for encouraging and incentivizing
residents and employees of the proposed development participate in the
San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare program.
Significant and
Unavoidable
ES-108 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• Senior Shuttle Service: Villaggio shall provide clean fuel shuttle
services or coordinate with existing shuttle services such as Dial-A-
Ride and the Senior Go! Shuttle to provide curb-to-curb shuttle service
for residents of the Villaggio Life Community Plan.
• All Electric Small Vehicles: The FRSP shall require all personal small
vehicles (e.g., golf carts) be 100 percent electric powered.
• Car Share: Provide car-sharing opportunities within the Villaggio Life
Community Plan and Madonna Froom Ranch areas.
• Promote Carpools, Vanpools, and Electric Vehicle (EV) Vehicles:
Provide dedicated parking for carpools, vanpools, and high-efficiency
vehicles in exceedance of Cal Green Tier 2 standards.
• Offsite EV Improvements: Work with SLO County APCD to expand or
fund the expansion of EV charging stations throughout the City.
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall include all feasible Best
Management Strategies as part of the final FRSP and final VTM. For the
selected Best Management Strategies, the Applicant shall work with City and
SLO County APCD staff to calculate estimated mobile-source emissions to
ensure emissions are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. City and SLO
County APCD staff shall ensure the above measures are incorporated into the
FRSP and final VTM prior to recordation.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are listed on the final VTM
submitted for review and approval by the City. City and SLO County APCD
staff shall work with the Applicant to ensure that these strategies are
implemented. The City shall verify compliance in consultation with the SLO
County APCD.
MM TRANS-2 The Project Applicant shall design and construct the extension
of the westbound left-turn pocket at the LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
intersection to provide a storage length of 320 feet, and design and construct
the extension of the southbound right-turn pocket at the LOVR/U.S. 101
southbound ramps intersection to provide a storage length of 140 feet. In
coordination with the Applicant, the City and Caltrans shall also optimize
traffic signal timings and coordination between LOVR/Calle Joaquin and
LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps. If improvements are constructed sooner
by others, the Applicant may be responsible for a fair share contribution
towards improvement costs. This mitigation measure requires Caltrans
approval and coordination.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-109
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for roadway improvements and a Traffic
Engineering Study for signal timing recommendations for review and
approval by the City. Implementation of improvements shall be completed
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or building permits for the
Madonna Froom Ranch development. If improvements are completed sooner
by others, the Applicant shall make a fair share contribution prior to issuance
of building permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-3 The Project Applicant shall design and install measures to
restrict left turns at the South Higuera Street/Vachell Lane intersection,
extend Buckley Road from Vachell Lane to South Higuera Street, and install
a traffic signal at Buckley Road/South Higuera Street intersection. If
improvements are constructed sooner by others, the Applicant may be
responsible for a fair share contribution towards improvement costs. This
mitigation measure requires County approval and coordination.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development.
If improvements are completed sooner by others, the Applicant shall make a
fair share contribution prior to issuance of building permits for the Madonna
Froom Ranch development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-4 The Project Applicant shall design and install the restriping
of the westbound approach of the South Higuera Street/Suburban Road
intersection to extend the left- and right-turn pocket storage to 250 feet. If
improvements are constructed sooner by others, the Applicant may be
responsible for a fair share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
ES-110 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Madonna Froom Ranch development. If
improvements are completed sooner by others, the Applicant may be
responsible for making a fair share contribution prior to issuance of building
permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-5 The Project Applicant shall extend the westbound bike lane
on Tank Farm Road approaching the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection to the intersection and install a bike box to facilitate bicycle left-
turn movements. If improvements are constructed sooner by others, the
Applicant may be responsible for a fair share contribution towards
improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development. If
improvements are completed sooner by others, the Applicant may be
responsible for a fair share contribution prior to issuance of building permits
for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-6 The Project Applicant shall design and install a second
southbound left-turn lane at the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection. The Project Applicant shall also pay fair share costs for
construction of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project. If intersection
improvements are constructed sooner by others, the Applicant will be
responsible for a fair share contribution towards improvement costs through
participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City for the
South Higuera/Tank Farm intersection improvements. Implementation of
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-111
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
intersection improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or building permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch
development. Intersection improvement costs exceeding the Project’s
proportional share may be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements.
Participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill
the Project’s fair share financial obligation towards the Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project and the South Higuera/Tank Farm Road
intersection improvements, if constructed sooner by others. Payment of City
Transportation Impact Fees shall be required prior to issuance of building
permits for each development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant pays fair share costs in
accordance to the approved phase and design plans.
MM TRANS-7 The Project Applicant shall design and install a second
northbound left-turn lane at the South Higuera Street/Prado Road
intersection, which requires the replacement of the Prado Road Bridge just
west of South Higuera. Project is responsible for implementation prior to
development of Madonna Froom Ranch, or fair share contribution through
participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program if
improvements are constructed sooner by others.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development.
Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible
for fee credits or reimbursements. If improvements are completed sooner by
others, the Applicant shall make a fair share contribution through participation
in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program prior to issuance of
building permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-8 The Project Applicant shall design and install Class IV
bikeways (protected bike lanes) along LOVR to provide a physical buffer
between the sidewalk and vehicular traffic lanes. Improvement extents shall
occur in the northbound direction between Laguna Lane and Diablo Drive,
ES-112 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
and in the southbound direction between Diablo Drive and Madonna Road.
Project is responsible for fair share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible
for fee credits or reimbursements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-9 The Project Applicant shall design and install ADA-compliant
curb, gutter and sidewalk along the west side of LOVR to complete the
sidewalk connection between the Irish Hills Plaza and Calle Joaquin. The
Project Applicant shall also design and install Class IV bikeways (protected
bike lanes) along LOVR to provide a physical buffer between the sidewalk and
vehicular traffic lanes in the northbound and southbound directions between
Madonna Road and South Higuera Street. The Project is responsible for all
costs related to construction of sidewalks, curb and gutter, and a fair share
contribution towards Class IV bikeway improvements. This mitigation
measure requires Caltrans approval and coordination for improvements near
LOVR/U.S. 101 interchange.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Bikeway improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may
be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-10 The Project Applicant shall design and install a Class I
Multi-Use Path parallel to Madonna Road between Oceanaire Drive and the
U.S. 101 southbound ramps intersection. The Project is responsible for a fair
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-113
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
share contribution towards improvements through payment of City Traffic
Impact Fees.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible
for fee credits or reimbursements. If improvements are completed sooner by
others, the Applicant shall make a fair share contribution through participation
in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program prior to issuance of
building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-11 The Project is responsible for incorporating traffic calming
measures (e.g., speed humps, bulb-outs, chicanes, etc.) into the design of
Local Road “A” prior to development of Villaggio’s Lower Area.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans.
TRANS-3. Under Near-Term plus Project (Scenario
2) conditions, the addition of Project traffic would
exacerbate existing queuing and peak hour traffic for
automobiles and poor levels of service for
pedestrians and bike modes of transportation,
causing transportation deficiencies in the Project
vicinity.
MM TRANS-2 The Project Applicant shall design and construct the extension
of the westbound left-turn pocket at the LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
intersection to provide a storage length of 320 feet, and design and construct
the extension of the southbound right-turn pocket at the LOVR/U.S. 101
southbound ramps intersection to provide a storage length of 140 feet. In
coordination with the Applicant, the City and Caltrans shall also optimize
traffic signal timings and coordination between LOVR/Calle Joaquin and
LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps. If improvements are constructed sooner
by others, the Applicant may be responsible for a fair share contribution
towards improvement costs. This mitigation measure requires Caltrans
approval and coordination.
Significant and
Unavoidable
ES-114 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for roadway improvements and a Traffic
Engineering Study for signal timing recommendations for review and
approval by the City. Implementation of improvements shall be completed
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or building permits for the
Madonna Froom Ranch development. If improvements are completed sooner
by others, the Applicant shall make a fair share contribution prior to issuance
of building permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-5 The Project Applicant shall extend the westbound bike lane
on Tank Farm Road approaching the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection to the intersection and install a bike box to facilitate bicycle left-
turn movements. If improvements are constructed sooner by others, the
Applicant may be responsible for a fair share contribution towards
improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development. If
improvements are completed sooner by others, the Applicant may be
responsible for a fair share contribution prior to issuance of building permits
for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-6 The Project Applicant shall design and install a second
southbound left-turn lane at the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection. The Project Applicant shall also pay fair share costs for
construction of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project. If intersection
improvements are constructed sooner by others, the Applicant will be
responsible for a fair share contribution towards improvement costs through
participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-115
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City for the
South Higuera/Tank Farm intersection improvements. Implementation of
intersection improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or building permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch
development. Intersection improvement costs exceeding the Project’s
proportional share may be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements.
Participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill
the Project’s fair share financial obligation towards the Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project and the South Higuera/Tank Farm Road
intersection improvements, if constructed sooner by others. Payment of City
Transportation Impact Fees shall be required prior to issuance of building
permits for each development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant pays fair share costs in
accordance to the approved phase and design plans.
MM TRANS-8 The Project Applicant shall design and install Class IV
bikeways (protected bike lanes) along LOVR to provide a physical buffer
between the sidewalk and vehicular traffic lanes. Improvement extents shall
occur in the northbound direction between Laguna Lane and Diablo Drive,
and in the southbound direction between Diablo Drive and Madonna Road.
Project is responsible for fair share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible
for fee credits or reimbursements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-9 The Project Applicant shall design and install ADA-compliant
curb, gutter and sidewalk along the west side of LOVR to complete the
sidewalk connection between the Irish Hills Plaza and Calle Joaquin. The
Project Applicant shall also design and install Class IV bikeways (protected
bike lanes) along LOVR to provide a physical buffer between the sidewalk and
ES-116 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
vehicular traffic lanes in the northbound and southbound directions between
Madonna Road and South Higuera Street. The Project is responsible for all
costs related to construction of sidewalks, curb and gutter, and a fair share
contribution towards Class IV bikeway improvements. This mitigation
measure requires Caltrans approval and coordination for improvements near
LOVR/U.S. 101 interchange.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Bikeway improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may
be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-12 In coordination with the County, the Project Applicant shall
coordinate and fund any costs required to optimize the traffic signal timing at
the County intersection of LOVR/Foothill Boulevard to reduce queues for the
southbound left-turn movement. This mitigation measure requires County
approval and coordination.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Traffic Engineering Study identifying recommended signal timing
modifications for review and approval by the County. Signal optimization
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County prior to City issuance of
a certificate of occupancy or building permits for development of Villaggio’s
Lower Area.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant implements the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share to the satisfaction of the County.
MM TRANS-13 In coordination with the City, the Project Applicant shall
fund any costs required to implement Lead Pedestrian Intervals for each
pedestrian crossing phase at the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Traffic Engineering Study identifying recommended signal timing
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-117
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
modifications for review and approval by the City. The proposed Lead
Pedestrian Intervals shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-14 The Project Applicant shall pay fair share costs for
construction of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project and
northbound U.S. 101 ramps through participation in the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee program.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Participation in the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill the Project’s fair share
financial obligation towards the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project.
Payment of City Transportation Impact Fees shall be required prior to
issuance of building permits for each development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an
appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-15 In coordination with the City, the Project Applicant shall
fund any costs required to implement Lead Pedestrian Intervals for each
pedestrian crossing phase at the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Traffic Engineering Study identifying recommended signal timing
modifications for review and approval by the City. The proposed Lead
Pedestrian Intervals shall be installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-16 The Project Applicant shall design and install improvements
to extend the northbound right-turn pocket storage at the South Higuera
Street/Tank Farm Road intersection to 230 feet. If improvements are
constructed sooner by others, the Applicant may be responsible for a fair
share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
ES-118 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City. The
proposed improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of an
occupancy or building permit for Madonna Froom Ranch development.
Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible
for fee credits or reimbursements. If constructed sooner by others,
participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill
the Project’s fair share financial obligation. Payment of City Transportation
Impact Fees shall be required prior to issuance of building permits for each
development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-17 The Project Applicant shall design and install restriping
modifications at the South Higuera Street/Prado Road intersection to
accommodate a second southbound left-turn lane and second eastbound
through lane. This requires striping modifications, potential street parking
removal on the eastern leg of the intersection, and potential traffic signal
modifications to accommodate the modified intersection configuration. If
intersection improvements are constructed sooner by others, the Applicant
will be responsible for a fair share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for the Madonna Froom Ranch development. Improvement
costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible for fee credits
or reimbursements. If constructed sooner by others, participation in the
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill the Project’s fair
share financial obligation. Payment of City Transportation Impact Fees shall
be required prior to issuance of building permits for each development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-18 In coordination with the City and Caltrans, the Project
Applicant shall fund any costs required to optimize traffic signal timings at
three intersections along LOVR between Calle Joaquin and the U.S. 101
northbound ramps to improve traffic coordination and operations along this
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-119
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
roadway segment. These intersections include LOVR/Calle Joaquin,
LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps, and LOVR/U.S. 101 northbound ramps.
This requires coordination with Caltrans.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Traffic Engineering Study identifying recommended signal timing
modifications for review and approval by the City and Caltrans. Signal
optimization shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City and Caltrans
prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy or building permits for
Madonna Froom Ranch development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-19 The Project Applicant shall design and install restriping
modifications at the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection to increase turn
pocket storage to 365 feet and optimize signal timings to improve operations
and reduce queuing at the SB left-turn lane. If intersection improvements are
constructed sooner by others, the Applicant will be responsible for a fair share
contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for the Madonna Froom Ranch development. Improvement
costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible for fee credits
or reimbursements. If constructed sooner by others, participation in the
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill the Project’s fair
share financial obligation. Payment of City Transportation Impact Fees shall
be required prior to issuance of building permits for each development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-20 The Project Applicant shall modify the traffic signal at the
Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive intersection to provide EB right-turn overlap
phase concurrent with NB left-turn phase. If intersection improvements are
constructed sooner by others, the Applicant will be responsible for a fair share
contribution towards improvement costs.
ES-120 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for the Madonna Froom Ranch development. Improvement
costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible for fee credits
or reimbursements. If constructed sooner by others, participation in the
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill the Project’s fair
share financial obligation. Payment of City Transportation Impact Fees shall
be required prior to issuance of building permits for each development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
TRANS-4. The Project 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 The Applicant shall prepare and implement an Evacuation Plan,
which shall address both Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch areas. The
Evacuation Plan shall be subject to review by the City and SLOFD, and shall
include, but not be limited to:
• Accommodation for assisted living and special care individuals;
• Shelter-in-place accommodations;
• Specified quantity and capacity of vehicles required to accommodate
residents and employees of Villaggio, and maintenance of those
vehicles;
• Signage that clearly indicates evacuation routes and meeting areas;
• Specified egress points for transportation vehicles;
• A relocation plan from the Project site to a secondary facility, with
associated transportation;
• Contingency plans for changes to the construction schedule or phasing
plan that would affect the primary evacuation plan and routes;
• Periodic updates that would consider potential redevelopment
activities or other roadway alterations; and
• Regular practice drills (e.g., one per year) for implementation of the
Evacuation Plan.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The above Evacuation Plan shall be
prepared in coordination with the SLOFD and the San Luis Obispo County
Fire Department and submitted for approval to the City and SLOFD prior to
adoption of the Final VTTM. The Applicant shall resubmit the Plan to the City
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-121
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
and SLOFD prior to the construction of each phase of development. Prior to
occupancy of the first residential unit, the Applicant shall implement measures
within the Evacuation Plan.
Monitoring. The City and SLOFD shall review the Evacuation Plan and
ensure all recommendations are incorporated. The City Fire Marshall shall
inspect the Project site for compliance prior to the occupancy of the first
residential unit for each phase.
MM TRANS-21 The Project shall include a landscaped median along LOVR
from the terminus of the existing median at northern Project frontage to Calle
Joaquin. Project is responsible for construction of median improvements
prior to occupancy of the Lower Area of Villaggio, or fair-share contribution
if constructed by others sooner.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above median improvement prior to adoption and submitted
to the City for review and approval. The median shall be integrated to the final
VTM prior to approval of development plans.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the
final FRSP prior to Project approval.
MM TRANS-22 The Project shall include an emergency access point from
Villaggio’s Lower Area to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to provide access
to the existing dirt road network to fight fires in Irish Hills, specifically to Neil
Havlik Way which connects to the four utility power line structures at the top
of the ridgeline. This access point may be gated to ensure site security in
consultation with SLOFD.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above emergency access connection prior to adoption and
submitted to the City and SLOFD for review and approval. The above access
road shall be integrated to the final VTM prior to approval of development
plans.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the
final FRSP prior to Project approval.
MM TRANS-23 The Project shall integrate access to the Project site
perimeters for defending the Project site development. Specifically, these
measures should address access to the wildland area immediately abutting
the western boundary of Villaggio’s Lower Area. This measure shall include
access from the proposed Local Road “C” to the Irish Hills, which may
include use of space between proposed buildings for firefighting vehicle
ES-122 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
access, ramps up proposed retaining walls, and similar vehicle infrastructure
to maintain access to the base of the Irish Hills.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above emergency access connection along the Irish Hills prior
to adoption, and submitted to the City and SLOFD for review and approval.
The above access road shall be integrated to the final VTM prior to approval
of development plans.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into
the final FRSP prior to Project approval.
TRANS-5. Onsite circulation would result in safety
impacts to pedestrian and bicycle access.
MM TRANS-24 To address pedestrian and bicycle circulation safety issues,
the following modifications to the preliminary Project concept designs
throughout the Project site are recommended based on design guidance
published by National Association of City Transportation Officials and the
Federal Highway Administration:
• Install pedestrian refuges within center medians at north and south legs
of the LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection;
• Install a single northbound left-turn lane at the LOVR/Auto Park Way
intersection in lieu of dual left-turn lanes, as currently proposed, to
shorten pedestrian crossing distance at the south leg of the intersection.
• Install a bulb-out at the southwest corner of the intersection to shorten
pedestrian crossing distance at the south leg of the LOVR/Auto Park
Way intersection;
• Install Lead Pedestrian Intervals at all pedestrian crossings at the
LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection;
• Install protected bicycle intersection features as part of signalization
and intersection improvements at the LOVR/Auto Park Way
intersection, consistent with planned improvements at the nearby
LOVR/Froom Ranch Way and Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive
intersections;
• Provide physically protected bicycle lanes (Class IV bikeway) along
LOVR approaching/departing the Auto Park Way intersection and
along Commercial Collector “A”. The Class IV bikeways shall be
installed on-street with a physical barrier between cyclists and
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-123
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
vehicular traffic or by constructing raised bicycle facilities at the
sidewalk level adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks;
• Sidewalks shall be provided within the Madonna Froom Ranch
development area of the Project site as per City standards; and
• Sidewalk design shall meet ADA requirements for a comfortable
walking environment.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above improvements prior to adoption and submitted to the
City and SLOFD for review and approval. The above improvements shall be
integrated to the final VTM prior to approval of development plans.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the
final FRSP prior to Project approval.
TRANS-6. Under long-term Cumulative plus Project
conditions, Project-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 The Project Applicant shall design and install Class IV
bikeways (protected bike lanes) along LOVR to provide a physical buffer
between the sidewalk and vehicular traffic lanes. Improvement extents shall
occur in the northbound direction between Laguna Lane and Diablo Drive,
and in the southbound direction between Diablo Drive and Madonna Road.
Project is responsible for fair share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible
for fee credits or reimbursements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-9 The Project Applicant shall design and install ADA-compliant
curb, gutter and sidewalk along the west side of LOVR to complete the
sidewalk connection between the Irish Hills Plaza and Calle Joaquin. The
Project Applicant shall also design and install Class IV bikeways (protected
bike lanes) along LOVR to provide a physical buffer between the sidewalk and
vehicular traffic lanes in the northbound and southbound directions between
Madonna Road and South Higuera Street. The Project is responsible for all
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
ES-124 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
costs related to construction of sidewalks, curb and gutter, and a fair share
contribution towards Class IV bikeway improvements. This mitigation
measure requires Caltrans approval and coordination for improvements near
LOVR/U.S. 101 interchange.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City.
Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Bikeway improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional share may
be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-13 In coordination with the City, the Project Applicant shall
fund any costs required to implement Lead Pedestrian Intervals for each
pedestrian crossing phase at the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant shall submit
a Traffic Engineering Study identifying recommended signal timing
modifications for review and approval by the City. The proposed Lead
Pedestrian Intervals shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-25 In coordination with the County, the Project Applicant shall
pay its fair share fees to fund modifications to the northbound approach at the
LOVR/Foothill Boulevard intersection to provide one left-turn, two through,
and one right-turn lane, or similar operational improvements to the
satisfaction of the County Public Works Director. Additional minor traffic
signal, striping, and signage modifications may be required for
implementation of these improvements. This mitigation measure requires
County approval and coordination.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan and Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-125
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
for review and approval by the County. The Applicant shall pay its fair share
fees to the County prior to the issuance of an occupancy or building permit
for Madonna Froom Ranch development to fund implementation of the future
intersection improvements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant provides the required
design plans and contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the
County in accordance to the approved development phase.
MM TRANS-26 The Project Applicant shall pay its fair share fees to fund
striping modifications to extend the northbound left-turn pocket at the
LOVR/Royal Way intersection to 150 feet, and to optimize the traffic signal
timings along the LOVR corridor between Descanso Street and South Higuera
Street. This mitigation measure requires Caltrans approval and coordination.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its fair
share fees to the City.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an
appropriate fair share as approved by the City and that adequate funding is
collected to implement these improvements.
MM TRANS-27 In coordination with the City, the Project Applicant shall pay
its fair share fees to fund the implementation of Lead Pedestrian Intervals for
each pedestrian crossing phase at the LOVR/Calle Joaquin intersection.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its fair
share fees to the City.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an
appropriate fair share as approved by the City and that adequate funding is
collected to implement these improvements.
MM TRANS-28 The Project Applicant shall pay its fair share fees to fund the
extension of the southbound left-turn pocket storage at the South Higuera
Street/Tank Farm Road intersection to 300 feet.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its fair
share fees to the City.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an
appropriate fair share as approved by the City and that adequate funding is
collected to implement these improvements.
ES-126 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
MM TRANS-29 The Project Applicant shall pay its fair share fee to the City
to fund the extension of the westbound right-turn pocket storage at the
Madonna Road/Oceanaire Drive intersection to 200 feet. This may require
replacement of the existing culvert on Madonna Road east of Oceanaire
Drive.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its fair
share fees to the City.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an
appropriate fair share as approved by the City and that adequate funding is
collected to implement these improvements.
MM TRANS-30 The Project Applicant shall coordinate and fund the City to
modify the traffic signal phasing and timing plans at the Madonna
Road/Dalidio Drive intersection to provide an eastbound right-turn overlap
phase concurrent with the northbound left-turn phase. The Applicant shall be
responsible for implementation prior to development of Madonna Froom
Ranch or fair share contribution if constructed sooner by others.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the final
VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall submit
a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by the City. The
proposed improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit for Madonna Froom Ranch development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
3.14 Utilities and Energy Conservation
UT-1. The Project 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 A Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP) shall be
included as part of Project grading and building plans and shall be submitted
to SLO County APCD and to the City for review and approval prior to the
start of construction. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following
elements:
1. A Dust Control Management Plan that encompasses the following dust
control measures:
• Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible;
• Water trucks or sprinkler trucks shall be used during construction
to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-127
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20
percent opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute
period. At a minimum, this would require twice-daily applications.
Increased watering frequency would be required when wind
speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph). Reclaimed water or the
onsite water well (non-potable) shall be used when possible. The
contractor or builder shall consider the use of a SLO County
APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the
amount of water used for dust control;
• All dirt stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
• Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved
Project revegetation and landscape plans of any development
within the Specific Plan area should be implemented as soon as
possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
• Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates
greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a
fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established;
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be
stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or
other methods approved in advance by SLO County APCD;
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be
completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should
be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used;
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph
on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to
be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114;
• Designate access points and require all employees,
subconsultants, and others to use them. Install and operate a
“track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention device
can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at
preventing track-out, located at the point of intersection of any
ES-128 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
unpaved area and a paved road. If utilized, rumble strips or steel
plate devices shall be cleaned periodically. If paved roadways
accumulate tracked-out soils, the track-out prevention device shall
be modified or replaced to prevent track-out;
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed
water should be used where feasible;
• All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans; and
• The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to
monitor the fugitive dust control emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and
to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include
holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided
to SLO County APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of
any grading, earthwork or demolition.
2. Implementation of the following BACT for diesel-fueled construction
equipment. The BACT measures shall include:
• Use of at least Tier 3 off-road equipment and 2010 on-road
compliant engines;
• Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
• Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies.
3. Implementation of the following standard air quality measures to
minimize diesel emissions:
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to
manufacturer’s specifications;
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with
CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version
suitable for use off-road).
• Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or
cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
• Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have
engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-129
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets)
may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;
• On- and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for
more than five minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated
queuing areas to remind drivers and operators of the five-minute
idling limit;
• Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not
permitted;
• Staging and queing areas shall not be loated within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors;
• Electrify equipment when feasible;
• Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered
equipment, where feasible; and,
• Use alternatively fueled construction equipment onsite where
feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural
gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
4. Tabulation of on- and off-road construction equipment (age, horse-
power, and miles and/or hours of operation);
5. Schedule construction truck trips during non-peak hours (as
determined by the Public Works Director) to reduce peak hour
emissions; and
6. Limit the length of the construction work-day period to 8 hours max.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The CAMP shall be submitted to SLO
County APCD and to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of
grading and construction permits and recordation of the final VTM. All
required fugitive dust and emissions control measures shall be noted on all
grading and building plans and all construction activities shall adhere to
measures throughout all grading, hauling, and construction activities. The
contractor or builder shall provide the City Community Development Director
and SLO County APCD with the name and contact information for an
assigned onsite dust and emissions control monitor(s) who has the
responsibility to: a) assure all dust control requirements are complied with
including those covering weekends and holidays, b) order increased watering
as necessary to prevent transport of dust offsite, and c) attend the pre-
construction meeting. The dust monitor shall be designated prior to grading
permit issuance for each Project phase. The dust control components apply
ES-130 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
from the beginning of any grading or construction throughout all development
activities until occupancy is issued and landscaping is successfully installed.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are depicted on the CAMP and
all submitted grading and construction plans for each Project phase. The
Applicant shall be responsible for compliance during construction activities,
including holidays or weekends when work may not be in progress. City
grading and building inspectors shall spot check and ensure compliance
onsite.
MM BIO-1 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and
operational related avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measures for
impacts to sensitive natural communities. The Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid
or minimize impacts to biological resources, and implementation of on and
offsite habitat replacement as follows:
1) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the
following construction-related measures and BMPs:
a) Construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored at least 100
feet away from existing and proposed drainage features and
adjacent riparian habitat, and all construction vehicle
maintenance shall be performed in a designated offsite vehicle
storage and maintenance area approved by the City.
b) Prior to commencement of construction, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4
and all associated springs, seeps, and wetlands shall be protected
with construction fencing located a minimum of 25 feet from the
edge of the stream channel or top of bank and signed to prohibit
entry of construction equipment and personnel unless authorized
by the City. Fencing shall be maintained throughout the
construction period for each phase of development. Fencing and
signage shall be removed following completion of construction.
c) During any construction activities within 50 feet of the existing
Froom Creek channel, realigned Froom Creek channel, LOVR
ditch, Drainages 1, 2, 3, or 4, or other existing or proposed
drainage features, a City-approved biological monitor shall be
present and have the authority to stop or redirect work as needed
to protect biological resources.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-131
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
d) All construction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building
materials) shall be stored at designated construction staging
areas, which shall be located outside of designated sensitive areas.
Should spills occur, materials and/or contaminants shall be
cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction
of the RWQCB.
e) All trash and construction debris shall be properly disposed at the
end of each day and dumpsters shall be covered either with locking
lids or with plastic sheeting at the end of each workday and during
storm events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand
weather conditions.
f) The Applicant shall implement measures designed to minimize
construction-related erosion and retain sediment on the Project
site, including installation of silt fencing, straw waddles, or other
acceptable construction erosion control devices. Such measures
shall be installed along the perimeter of disturbed areas and along
the top of the bank of the existing and proposed Froom Creek
channel and other existing or proposed drainage features and 25
feet from the edge of Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4. All drainage shall
be directed to sediment basins designed to retain all sediment
onsite.
g) Concrete truck and tool washout shall occur in a designated
location such that no runoff will reach the creek, onsite drainages,
or other sensitive areas.
h) All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps
to allow species that fall into a trench to escape. All open trenches
shall be inspected at the beginning of each work day to ensure that
no wildlife species is present. Any sensitive wildlife species found
during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the Project
site by a qualified biologist or otherwise trained and City-
approved personnel. Trenches will remain open for the shortest
period necessary to complete required work.
i) Existing disturbed areas shall be used for construction staging and
storage to the maximum extent possible to minimize disturbance of
undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging
areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and
minimize habitat fragmentation.
ES-132 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to issuance
of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. The plan shall
incorporate any additional measures or requirements identified by state and
federal agencies, including but not limited to CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and
USFWS. The Applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan that
identifies and incorporates all required measures identified in MM BIO-2
through MM BIO-12 below. The plan shall specify all mitigation site
locations, timing of surveys and activities, species composition, habitat
compensation, species avoidance measures, and other required information,
including identification of appropriate onsite construction staging locations.
The plan shall demonstrate compliance with all required measures and any
required permits shall be obtained from state and federal regulatory agencies
prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. A 7-year site mitigation
monitoring plan shall also be prepared by the City-approved biologist and
incorporated into the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prior to
issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM, with annual
reports submitted to the City Natural Resources Manager and Community
Development Department.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures
have been included. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements of
the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through frequent monitoring
and inspection, and receipt of quarterly monitoring reports provided by the
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator required per MM BIO-2. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during
habitat compensation and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring,
inspection, and reporting of restoration activities.
MM CR-3 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, and recordation
of the final map, an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) shall be
prepared. The AMP should include, but not be limited to, the following:
• A list of personnel involved in the monitoring activities;
• Description of Native American involvement;
• Description of how the monitoring shall occur;
• Description of location and frequency of monitoring (e.g., full time,
part time, spot checking);
• Description of what resources are expected to be encountered;
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-133
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• Description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work
at the project site;
• Description of procedures for halting work on the site and notification
procedures;
• Description of monitoring reporting procedures; and
• Provide specific, detailed protocols for what to do in the event of the
discovery of human remains.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The AMP shall be prepared by a City-
approved archaeologist prior to issuance of grading or building permits and
recordation of the final map.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the AMP is prepared by a City-approved
archaeologist and consistent with City Archeological Resource Preservation
Program Guidelines.
MM CR-4 The Applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist and local
Native American observer to monitor Project-related ground-disturbing
activities that have the potential to encounter previously unidentified
archaeological resources, as outlined in the AMP prepared to satisfy MM CR-
1. Archaeological and tribal monitoring may cease only if the City-approved
archaeologist determines in coordination with the Applicant, Community
Development Director, and the Native American monitor that Project
activities do not have the potential to encounter and/or disturb unknown
resources.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The conditions for monitoring and
treatment of discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans.
Prior to issuance of building and grading permits for each phase of the Project,
the Applicant shall submit to the City a contract or Letter of Commitment with
a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. The City shall review
and approve the selected archaeologist to ensure they meet appropriate
professional qualification standards, consistent with the City’s Archeological
Resource Preservation Guidelines.
Monitoring. City permit compliance staff shall confirm monitoring by the
archaeologist and tribal representative and City grading inspectors shall spot
check fieldwork. The Native American monitor and Project archaeologist
shall ensure that actions consistent with this mitigation measure are
implemented in the event of any inadvertent discovery.
MM CR-5 In the event of any inadvertent discovery of prehistoric
archaeological resources, including but not limited to stone, bone, glass,
ES-134 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or historic-period archaeological
resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall immediately cease
(or greater or lesser distance as needed to protect the discovery and
determined in the field by the City-approved archaeologist). The Applicant
and/or contractor shall immediately notify the City Community Development
Department. The City-approved archaeologist shall evaluate the significance
of the discovery pursuant to City Archaeological Resource Preservation
Program Guidelines prior to resuming any activities that could impact the
site/discovery. If the City-approved archaeologist or Native American
monitor determine that the find may qualify for listing in the CRHR or as a
tribal cultural resource, the site shall be avoided or shall be subject to a Phase
II or III mitigation program consistent with City Archeological Resource
Preservation Program Guidelines and funded by the Applicant. Work shall
not resume until authorization is received from the City.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The conditions for monitoring and
treatment of discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans.
Prior to issuance of building and grading permits for each phase of the Project,
the Applicant shall submit to the City a contract or Letter of Commitment with
identified Project archaeologist and Native American monitor. The City shall
review and approve the selected archaeologist to ensure they meet appropriate
professional qualification standards, consistent with the Archeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
Monitoring. City permit compliance staff shall confirm monitoring by the
archaeologist and tribal representative and City grading inspectors shall spot
check fieldwork. The Native American monitor and Project archaeologist
shall ensure that actions consistent with this mitigation measure are
implemented in the event of any inadvertent discovery.
MM HAZ-1 The Applicant shall prepare and submit a Construction Impact
Management Plan to the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD)
prior to the issuance of grading permits. The Plan shall list measures taken
during construction to reduce the potential for brush or grass fires from use
of heavy equipment, welding, vehicles with catalytic converters, and other
potential activities. The Plan shall include SLOFD recommended measures
including, but not limited to the following:
• All equipment with the potential to work off-road shall be equipped with
appropriate mufflers and have extinguishers mounted on each vehicle;
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-135
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• In coordination with SLOFD, personnel shall be briefed on the dangers
of wildfire and be able to respond accordingly should the need arise;
• Onsite supervisor(s) shall have a cell phone or other means of initiating
a 911 response time in a timely manner in the event of a medical
emergency and/or fire;
• All dead and decadent vegetation immediately surrounding the
development area shall be removed to a minimum perimeter of 30 feet;
• Smoking shall only occur in a designated area;
• A water tender will be available on each construction site during the
entire phase of construction; and
• A water tender operator shall be available onsite during all
construction and remain onsite a minimum of 30 minutes after all
construction has finished for the day.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare a Construction
Impact Management Plan in coordination with SLOFD, the San Luis Obispo
County Fire Department, and the City, and submit the Plan to the SLOFD for
approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Provisions for fire protection
shall be restated on all grading and building plans. Fire protection measures
shall be implemented throughout construction and draw upon the CALFIRE
and San Luis Obispo County Fire Department Strategic Fire Plan. The name
and telephone number of an onsite supervisor shall be provided to SLOFD
prior to commencement of construction or grading activities.
Monitoring. The SLOFD shall review the Construction Impact Management
Plan and provide recommended measures as necessary. The City permit
processing planner shall ensure measures are integrated into the final
grading and building plans prior to permit approval. City monitoring staff
shall spot check for compliance during construction for each phase of
development.
MM HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or
the commencement of any clearing, grading, or excavation, the Applicant
shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the Project site to the
California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The NOI shall be submitted for review and
approval to the SWRCB. The City will verify that a Waste Discharge
Identification (WDID) number is assigned by the Board prior to the issuance
of grading permits for construction activities. The NOI shall address discharge
ES-136 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
during all phases of development of the site until all disturbed areas are
permanently stabilized.
Monitoring. The City will confirm WDID number assignment prior to
approval of the grading permit(s). City monitoring staff will periodically
inspect the site during construction to ensure compliance.
MM HYD-2 For each phase of construction, the Applicant shall require the
building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45 days prior to the start of work for
approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General
Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site
construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and
implemented for all construction activity on the Project site in excess of 1
acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than 1 acre but is part of the
Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs 1 or more acres. The
SWPPP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality
of discharges to stormwater and shall include specific BMPs to control the
discharge of material from the site, including, but not limited to:
• Temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching,
erosion control blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers shall be used.
• Sufficient physical protection and pollution prevention measures to
prevent sedimentation, siltation, and/or debris from entering the Calle
Joaquin wetlands.
• Soil stockpiles and graded slopes shall be covered after 14 days of
inactivity and 24 hours prior to and during inclement weather
conditions.
• Fiber rolls shall be placed along the top of exposed slopes and at the
toes of graded areas to reduce surface soil movement, as necessary.
• A routine monitoring plan shall be implemented to ensure success of
all onsite erosion and sedimentation control measures.
• Dust control measures shall be implemented to ensure success of all
onsite activities to control fugitive dust.
• Streets surrounding the Project site shall be cleaned daily or as
necessary.
• BMPs shall be strictly followed to prevent spills and discharges of
pollutants onsite (material and container storage, proper trash
disposal, construction entrances, etc.).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-137
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• Sandbags, or other equivalent techniques, shall be utilized along
graded areas to prevent siltation transport to the surrounding areas.
• Additional BMPs shall be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel
handling that could occur onsite during construction. The SWPPP must
be prepared in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the SWRCB.
The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City along with
grading/development plans for review and approval. The Applicant
shall file a Notice of Completion for construction of the development,
identifying that pollution sources were controlled during the
construction of the Project and implementing a closure SWPPP for the
site.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that
includes the above and any additional required BMPs addressing each phase
of construction and timing. The SWPPP and notices shall be submitted to the
SWRCB under their Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking
System (SMARTS). The SWPPP shall be designed to address erosion and
sediment control during all phases of development of the site until all
disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. The development plans submitted
to the City shall include and reflect the erosion control plan and BMPs
submitted to the State.
Monitoring. City monitoring staff shall periodically inspect the site for
compliance with the SWPPP during grading to monitor runoff and after
conclusion of grading activities. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) will
be retained by the developer for overall management and reporting
responsibility regarding the SWPPP and documentation under SMARTS in
accordance with their permitting requirement. The Applicant will keep a copy
of the SWPPP on the Project site during grading and construction activities.
MM NO-1 Except for emergency repair of public service utilities, or where
an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no
operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair,
alteration, or demolition work shall occur between the hours of 7:00 PM and
7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, such that the
sound creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single-family
residential uses, 80 dBA for multi-family residential uses, and 85 dBA for
mixed residential/commercial land uses, as shown in Table 3.10-9 and Table
3.10-10, across a residential or commercial property line.
ES-138 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Plan Requirements and Timing. Plans submitted for grading and building
permits shall clearly indicate construction hours and shall be submitted to the
City for approval prior to grading and building permit issuance for each
Project phase. To ensure response to and resolution of potential public noise
nuisance complaints, plans submitted for grading and building permits shall
clearly identify the Project’s construction manager (or similar) and 24-hour
contact information. At the pre-construction meeting required for all phases
of grading and development, all construction workers shall be briefed on
restricted construction hour limitations. A workday schedule shall be adhered
to for the duration of construction for all phases.
Monitoring. The Applicant’s permit compliance monitoring staff shall
perform periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity schedules
and respond to complaints.
MM NO-2 For all construction activity at the Project site, noise attenuation
techniques shall be employed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within
levels allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9,
Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include:
• Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65
dBA at the Project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier that
meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers
attenuate sound) of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and
shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction
sites and affected uses.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall designate the proposed
area of operation of stationary construction equipment and depict acoustic
shielding around these areas on building and grading plans. Equipment and
shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated
location throughout construction activities. Construction plans shall identify
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction.
All construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on
how, why, and where BMP measures are to be implemented. BMPs shall be
identified and described for submittal to the City for review and approval prior
to building or grading permit issuance. BMPs shall be adhered to for the
duration of the Project. Construction plans shall include truck routes and shall
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-139
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
be submitted to the City prior to grading and building permit issuance for each
Project phase.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout all construction
phases. The Applicant’s permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform
periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity schedules.
MM NO-3 The Applicant shall inform landowners and business operators at
properties within 300 feet of the Project site of proposed construction
timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance or
nuisance complaints related to construction noise no less than 10 days prior
to initiation of any grading and construction activity for any Phase. The notice
shall include the name and contact information of the Project’s construction
manager and contact information for the City’s Community Development
Department.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall provide and post signs
stating these restrictions and the Project’s construction manager’s name and
contact information at construction site entries. Signs shall be posted prior to
commencement of construction and maintained throughout construction of
any Phase. The construction schedule and mailing list shall be submitted to
the City Community Development Department 10 days prior to initiation of
any earth movement.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout all construction
phases. The Applicant’s permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform
periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity schedules and
respond to complaints.
MM NO-4 Prior to approval of park and residential development within the
Madonna Froom Ranch area of the Specific Plan, the Applicant shall submit
a project-specific noise study that evaluates the potential for noise exposure
from adjacent commercial uses and identifies project-specific design
measures to attenuate exterior and interior noise consistent with the City’s
Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. If necessary to reduce noise within
acceptable levels, noise reduction measures may include a planted earthen
berm, sound wall, or similar noise attenuating feature along the site boundary
with Irish Hills Plaza, consistent with Policy 1.8.2 of the Noise Element.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall incorporate the above
mitigation within the final FRSP prior to adoption.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance with required site design and
noise reduction measures within the final FRSP prior to adoption and shall
ES-140 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
confirm any required noise attenuation measures are shown on construction
plans prior to issuance of building permits.
MM TRANS-1 The Applicant shall prepare a Construction Transportation
Management Plan for all phases of the Project for review and approval by the
City prior to issuance of grading or building permits to address and manage
traffic during construction. The Plan shall be designed to:
• Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network;
• Restrict construction staging to within the Project site;
• Minimize parking impacts both to public parking and access to private
parking to the greatest extent practicable;
• Ensure safety for both those construction vehicles and works and the
surrounding community; and
• Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoods.
The Construction Transportation Management Plan shall be subject to review
and approval by the Public Works Director to ensure that the Plan has been
designed in accordance with this mitigation measure. This review shall occur
prior to issuance of grading or building permits. It shall, at a minimum,
include the following:
• Ongoing Requirements throughout the Duration of Construction:
• A detailed Construction Transportation Management Plan for work
zones shall be maintained. At a minimum, this shall include parking
and travel lane configurations; warning, regulatory, guide, and
directional signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and parking
lanes. The Plan shall include specific information regarding the
Project’s construction activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian
and traffic flow and the measures to address these disruptions. Such
Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Department and implemented in accordance with this approval.
• Heavy haul construction vehicles and cement trucks shall not pass
through Villaggio’s Lower Area access roads once any of the Lower
Area residences become occupied, and must utilize access from Calle
Joaquin to access the Upper Terrace after that time.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-141
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• Work within the public right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by
the City on a case-by-case basis based on the magnitude and type of
construction activity. Work shall generally be performed between 8:30
AM and 4:00 PM. This work includes dirt hauling and construction
material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way outside of these
hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an after-hours
construction permit administered by the Building and Safety Division.
Additional restrictions may be put in place by Public Works
Department depending on particular construction activities and
conditions.
• Streets and equipment shall be cleaned in accordance with established
Public Works requirements.
• Trucks shall only travel on a City-approved construction route. Limited
queuing may occur on the construction site itself.
• Materials and equipment shall be minimally visible to the public; the
preferred location for materials is to be onsite, with a minimum amount
of materials within a work area in the public right-of-way, subject to a
current Use of Public Property Permit.
• Provision of off-street parking for construction workers, which may
include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if
determined necessary by the City.
Project Coordination Elements That Shall Be Implemented Prior to
Commencement of Construction:
• The traveling public shall be advised of impending construction
activities that may substantially affect key roadways or other facilities
(e.g., information signs, portable message signs, media
listing/notification, and implementation of an approved Construction
Impact Mitigation Plan).
• A Use of Public Property Permit, Excavation Permit, Sewer Permit, or
Oversize Load Permit, as well as any Caltrans permits required for any
construction work requiring encroachment into public rights-of-way,
detours, or any other work within the public right-of-way shall be
obtained.
ES-142 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
• Timely notification of construction schedules shall be provided to all
affected agencies (e.g., Police Department, Fire Department, Public
Works Department, and Community Development Department) and to
all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property within
a radius of 0.25 mile.
• Construction work shall be coordinated with affected agencies in
advance of start of work. Approvals may take up to two weeks per each
submittal.
• Public Works Department approval of any haul routes for construction
materials and equipment deliveries shall be obtained.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit the
Construction Transportation Management Plan to the City for review and
approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The Construction
Transportation Management Plan shall be updated as needed to reflect
changing conditions over the Project’s five-year construction schedule. The
Applicant shall conduct necessary construction employee training prior to the
commencement of construction. The City Public Works Department,
Community Development Department, Police Department, and Fire
Department, and nearby residences and businesses shall be notified of the
construction schedule prior to initiation of construction. The Applicant shall
submit individual traffic control plans and part of encroachment permits for
work within the public right-of-way.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with the Construction
Transportation Management Plan with periodic inspections of the Project site
during construction. Complaints related to construction traffic at the site shall
be directed to the City Public Works Department.
MM UT-1 The Applicant shall amend the FRSP to require that the size,
location, and alignment of all on- and offsite water supply, recycled water,
wastewater, and energy infrastructure shall be subject to review and approval
by the City’s Public Works and Utilities Departments. The Applicant shall be
responsible for constructing all required onsite and offsite utility
improvements, as well as for repaving of damaged roadways.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant is required to implement the
above standard mitigation measures prior to approval of grading and the final
VTM. City staff shall ensure the above measures are incorporated into the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-143
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Final FRSP and building plans prior grading and recordation of the final
VTM.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are on all Project plans. City
staff shall work with the Applicant to ensure that these requirements are
implemented.
UT-2. Project-related increases in water use would
increase demand for the City’s potable water supply.
None Required. Less than Significant
UT-3. Project-generated wastewater would
contribute to demand for wastewater collection
facilities and remaining available and planned
capacity of the City’s WRRF.
MM UT-2 The Applicant shall pay fair share costs for replacement of the
Laguna lift station or construction of capacity improvements through
negotiation of a private reimbursement agreement with the City.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Negotiation of a private reimbursement
agreement with the City will fulfil the Project’s fair share financial obligation
towards construction of necessary capacity improvements or replacement of
the Laguna lift station. Appropriate fees shall be negotiated with the City.
Payment of fees shall be required prior to issuance of building permits for
each development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall approve the private reimbursement agreement and
verify that the Applicant contributes appropriate fair share fees as approved
by the City.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
UT-4. The Project would generate additional solid
waste for disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill.
None Required. Less than Significant
UT-5. The Project would result in an increase of
energy consumption and requirement for additional
energy resources.
None Required. Less than Significant
3.15 Mineral Resources
MN-1. Project implementation would result in the
loss of the existing onsite red rock quarry (Froom
Ranch Pit).
None Required. Less than Significant
ES-144 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The CEQA Guidelines state that an “EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives
to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the
basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (Section
15126.6). Several alternatives to the proposed Project, including the No Project Alternative
and Minimum LUE-Compliant Project Alternative, were considered. Each alternative
considers the ability of a particular alternative to substantially reduce or eliminate the
Project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting basic Project objectives.
This EIR discusses alternatives to the proposed Project, including the No Project
Alternative, Alternative 1 – Clustered Development Below the 150-foot Elevation
Alternative (the Actionable Alternative), Alternative 2 – Residential Development Project
Alternative, Alternative 3 – Minimum LUE-Compliant Project Alternative, and
alternatives that were considered and discarded. Each of these considers the ability of a
particular alternative to substantially reduce or eliminate the Project’s significant
environmental impacts, while still meeting basic Project objectives. Consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), a range of alternatives that do not provide any
environmental advantages compared to the proposed Project, meet key Project objectives,
nor achieve overall agency policy goals were eliminated from further consideration,
including retention of agricultural uses on site, increasing housing development, majorly
reducing the Project, and developing a business park.
The alternatives analyzed in the EIR include:
No Project Alternative:
Under the No Project Alternative, no development or annexation of the site to the
City would occur, and the site would remain designated for agricultural and
commercial uses by the County. The site would continue to be designated as SP-3
of the City General Plan and remain within the City’s Sphere of Influence, and all
General Plan LUE requirements for SP-3 for potential future development would
remain applicable. No new development or construction would occur under this
alternative and the site would continue to be used as grazing land and as a staging
and operations site for the existing construction company. Froom Creek would not
be realigned or enhanced and no changes to existing stormwater conveyance and
management systems would occur. The existing wetlands and onsite stormwater
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-145
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
detention basin would remain. All structures associated with the Froom Ranch
Dairy complex would remain in place, would not be rebuilt or restored, and would
continue to be utilized for construction business operations (offices, equipment
storage, etc.). Daily vehicle trips would remain low/negligible associated with
limited employee trips from the existing construction business onsite.
Alternative 1 – Clustered Development Below the 150-foot Elevation Line (the
Actionable Alterative):
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 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) consistency with the 2014 General Plan LUE
policies for restricting urban development below the 150-foot elevation line; 2)
clustered development within the Lower Area of Villaggio and Madonna Froom
Ranch with increases in building density and height; and 3) increased emergency
access.
Alternative 2 – Residential Development Project Alternative:
Alternative 2 would include a major reconfiguration of the proposed land use plan
and redesign of key Project elements similar to Alternative 1, including
substantially increased clustering of development within Madonna Froom Ranch
and the Lower Area of Villaggio to reduce environmental impacts identified in the
EIR. This alternative would continue to provide a Life Plan Community and new
multi-family neighborhood; however, unlike the Project and Alternative 1,
Alternative 2 would eliminate commercial uses on site. Instead, Alternative 2 would
support 178 multi-family residential units (four more than proposed under the
Project or Alternative 1), 404 senior independent living units, 51 beds in residential
health care facilities, and 3.3 acres of public parkland. Four primary features of this
alternative are intended to substantially reduce identified Project impacts: 1) no
commercial development within Madonna Froom Ranch; 2) consistency with the
ES-146 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2014 General Plan LUE policies for restricting urban development below the 150-
foot elevation line; 3) clustered development within the Lower Area of Villaggio
and Madonna Froom Ranch with increases in building density and height; and 4)
increased emergency access.
Alternative 3 – Minimum LUE-Compliant Project Alternative:
Alternative 3 would be a low-build alternative with the most restricted area for
development and a major redesign of key Project elements. Alternative 3 would
substantially reduce the development capacity of the Project site to the minimum
development allowed by the General Plan LUE. This alternative would be most
closely aligned with the existing General Plan LUE performance standards and
minimum development policy framework for the Project site with regard to the land
use mix and allowable development levels. Alternative 3 would support 200
multiple family residential units, 50,000 sf of commercial uses and 3.0 acres of
public facilities, but would not support development of a Life Plan Community.
This development would be clustered in already-disturbed areas of the Project site
on the northern side and below the 150-foot elevation line, which would avoid or
minimize a range of environmental impacts identified in this EIR. Alternative 3
would reduce or change Project impacts through: 1) reducing residential
development to 200 units consistent with the minimum development performance
standards of the LUE SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area; 2) reducing
commercial development to 50,000 sf consistent with the minimum development
performance standards of the LUE SP-3; 3) no development of the Villaggio Life
Plan Community; 4) retention of the existing Froom Creek channel; 5) consistency
with the 2014 General Plan LUE policies for restricting urban development below
the 150-foot elevation line; and 6) increased emergency access.
Impacts associated with each of these alternatives is summarized in Table ES-2.
ES-7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Table ES-2 summarizes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project
and the analyzed alternatives. The No Project Alternative would involve no development
on site and, as a result, would have the fewest impacts and would be environmentally
superior to the Project. However, the No Project Alternative would not achieve the Project
objectives. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 states that if the environmentally
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-147
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.
Alternative 1 is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative since impacts
would be reduced for many issue areas and all Project objectives would be met, as
described below. Alternative 1 would substantially reduce impacts as compared to the
Project in the following resource areas: aesthetics and visual resources; biological
resources; cultural and tribal cultural resources; hazards, hazardous materials, and
wildfires; and land use and planning. For instance, avoidance of development within the
Upper Terrace area of Villaggio would greatly eliminate impacts to biological resources,
including serpentine native bunchgrass grassland habitats, and would minimize impacts to
springs, seeps, and wetland habitats along Drainages 1, 2, and 3, as well as associated
impacts to 12 special status plant species. Despite substantial reductions to many impacts
under Alternative 1 as compared to the Project, Alternative 1 would continue to result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and greenhouse gases; biological
resources; historic resources; hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfires; land use and
planning; noise; and transportation and traffic.
ES-148 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-2. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Issue Area No Project
Alternative 1 –
Clustered
Development
Below the 150-
Foot Elevation
Alternative
(Actionable
Alternative)
Alternative 2 –
Residential
Development
Project
Alternative
Alternative 3 –
Minimum LUE-
Compliant Project
Alternative
Aesthetics and
Visual Resources Less Less Less Less
Agricultural
Resources Less Similar Similar Less
Air Quality and
GHG Emissions Less Similar Similar Less
Biological
Resources Less Less Less Less
Cultural and
Tribal Resources Greater Less Less Less
Geology and
Soils Less Similar Similar Similar
Hazards,
Hazardous
Materials, and
Wildfires
Less Less Less Less
Hydrology and
Water Quality Less Similar Similar Less
Land Use and
Planning Less Less Less Less
Noise Less Less Less Less
Population and
Housing Greater Similar Similar Less
Public Services Less Similar Similar Less
Transportation
and Traffic Less Similar Similar Less
Utilities and
Energy
Conservation
Less Similar Similar Less
Mineral
Resources Less Similar Similar Similar
Project
Objectives Met? No Yes Partially Partially
Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-149
Draft EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... XIV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES .............................................. 1-2
1.3 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY .................................................................. 1-3
1.4 EIR PREPARATION .......................................................................................... 1-5
1.5 SCOPE OF THE EIR .......................................................................................... 1-6
1.5.1 Areas of Known Public Controversy ................................................. 1-8
1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR ............................................................................ 1-9
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Overview of Proposed FRSP ............................................................. 2-1
2.1.2 Project Applicant Team ..................................................................... 2-3
2.2 EXISTING SETTING .......................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.1 Project Site Boundaries ...................................................................... 2-3
2.2.2 Project Vicinity .................................................................................. 2-6
2.2.3 Existing Project Site Characteristics .................................................. 2-8
2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 2-11
2.4 PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 2-12
2.4.1 Proposed Land Use Plan .................................................................. 2-14
2.4.1.1 Villaggio Life Plan Community........................................ 2-17
2.4.1.2 Madonna Froom Ranch ..................................................... 2-22
2.4.1.3 Proposed Open Space ....................................................... 2-23
2.4.2 Project Design .................................................................................. 2-24
2.4.2.1 Architectural Design ......................................................... 2-24
2.4.2.2 Sustainability Initiatives.................................................... 2-25
2.4.2.3 Retaining Walls ................................................................. 2-26
2.4.2.4 Relocation and Reconstruction of Historic Structures ...... 2-27
2.4.2.5 Security Features ............................................................... 2-28
2.4.3 Circulation........................................................................................ 2-28
2.4.3.1 Los Osos Valley Road Improvements .............................. 2-32
2.4.3.2 Primary Access ................................................................. 2-32
2.4.3.3 Project Roadway Network ................................................ 2-33
2.4.3.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ...................................... 2-37
2.4.3.5 Parking .............................................................................. 2-38
2.4.3.6 Transit Improvements ....................................................... 2-39
2.4.4 Utilities and Services ....................................................................... 2-39
2.4.4.1 Water Supply Infrastructure .............................................. 2-39
2.4.4.2 Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure ........................................... 2-42
Froom Ranch Specific Plan i
Draft EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2.4.4.3 Electricity, Gas, Telephone, Cable, and Solid Waste
Facilities ............................................................................ 2-42
2.4.4.4 Stormwater Management System and Froom Creek
Realignment ...................................................................... 2-44
2.4.4.5 Froom Creek Realignment and Reconstruction ................ 2-45
2.4.4.6 Stormwater Detention Features ......................................... 2-48
2.4.4.7 Point- and Non-Point Source Water Quality
Treatment .......................................................................... 2-49
2.4.4.8 Headwalls and Culverts for Drainage Crossings .............. 2-51
2.5 REQUIRED APPROVALS ................................................................................. 2-52
2.6 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 2-54
2.6.1 Construction Phasing and Implementation ...................................... 2-54
2.6.2 Construction Activities .................................................................... 2-56
2.6.2.1 Site Preparation, Demolition and Grading ........................ 2-56
2.6.2.2 Infrastructure Improvements ............................................. 2-58
2.6.2.3 Building Construction ....................................................... 2-58
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES .......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.0.1 Impact Classification ......................................................................... 3-1
3.0.2 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 3-2
3.0.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis .............................................................. 3-2
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ......................................................... 3.1-1
3.1.1 Existing Setting ............................................................................... 3.1-1
3.1.1.1 General Visual Character ................................................. 3.1-1
3.1.1.2 Visual Character of the Project Vicinity .......................... 3.1-2
3.1.1.3 Visual Condition of the Project Site ................................ 3.1-4
3.1.1.4 Scenic Resources ............................................................. 3.1-6
3.1.1.5 Light and Glare .............................................................. 3.1-11
3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.1-11
3.1.2.1 State................................................................................ 3.1-11
3.1.2.2 Local .............................................................................. 3.1-12
3.1.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................... 3.1-18
3.1.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3.1-18
3.1.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................. 3.1-19
3.1.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................... 3.1-24
3.1.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................... 3.1-39
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................ 3.2-1
3.2.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................... 3.2-1
3.2.1.1 Regional Setting ............................................................... 3.2-1
3.2.1.2 Project Site ....................................................................... 3.2-2
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................... 3.2-6
3.2.2.1 State.................................................................................. 3.2-6
3.2.2.2 Local ................................................................................ 3.2-8
3.2.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................... 3.2-12
3.2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3.2-12
ii Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3.2.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................. 3.2-13
3.2.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................... 3.2-14
3.2.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................... 3.2-19
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ....................................... 3.3-1
3.3.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................... 3.3-1
3.3.1.1 Regional Climate and Meteorology ................................. 3.3-1
3.3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change .............. 3.3-2
3.3.1.3 Regional Air Quality ........................................................ 3.3-3
3.3.1.4 Regional Emissions .......................................................... 3.3-4
3.3.1.5 Emissions in the Vicinity of the Project Site ................... 3.3-6
3.3.1.6 Sensitive Receptors .......................................................... 3.3-8
3.3.1.7 Odors/Nuisance Emissions .............................................. 3.3-9
3.3.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................... 3.3-9
3.3.2.1 Federal.............................................................................. 3.3-9
3.3.2.2 State................................................................................ 3.3-10
3.3.2.3 Local .............................................................................. 3.3-15
3.3.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................... 3.3-17
3.3.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3.3-17
3.3.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................. 3.3-22
3.3.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................... 3.3-26
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 3.4-1
3.4.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................... 3.4-1
3.4.1.1 Regional Biological Resources Setting ............................ 3.4-1
3.4.1.2 Project Site Overview ...................................................... 3.4-2
3.4.1.3 Vegetation and Habitat Types/Communities ................... 3.4-7
3.4.1.4 Critical Habitat ............................................................... 3.4-14
3.4.1.5 Special Status Species .................................................... 3.4-15
3.4.1.6 Additional Common Wildlife Species ........................... 3.4-25
3.4.1.7 Tree Inventory ................................................................ 3.4-26
3.4.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.4-27
3.4.2.1 Federal............................................................................ 3.4-27
3.4.2.2 State................................................................................ 3.4-29
3.4.2.3 Local .............................................................................. 3.4-29
3.4.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................... 3.4-34
3.4.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3.4-34
3.4.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................. 3.4-35
3.4.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................... 3.4-37
3.4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................... 3.4-86
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................... 3.5-1
3.5.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................... 3.5-1
3.5.1.1 Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric Setting............................... 3.5-1
3.5.1.2 Historical Setting ............................................................. 3.5-2
3.5.1.3 Project Site History .......................................................... 3.5-3
3.5.1.4 Documented Archaeological and Historical Resources ... 3.5-4
3.5.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.5-14
3.5.2.1 Federal............................................................................ 3.5-14
Froom Ranch Specific Plan iii
Draft EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3.5.2.2 State................................................................................ 3.5-14
3.5.2.3 Local .............................................................................. 3.5-16
3.5.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................... 3.5-19
3.5.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3.5-19
3.5.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................. 3.5-19
3.5.3.3 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual
Impacts ........................................................................... 3.5-23
3.5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................... 3.5-39
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................... 3.6-1
3.6.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................... 3.6-1
3.6.1.1 Regional Setting ............................................................... 3.6-1
3.6.1.2 Site Topography ............................................................... 3.6-2
3.6.1.3 Project Site Soils and Formational Units ......................... 3.6-2
3.6.1.4 Geologic Hazards ............................................................. 3.6-3
3.6.1.5 Paleontological Resources ............................................. 3.6-10
3.6.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.6-12
3.6.2.1 Federal............................................................................ 3.6-12
3.6.2.2 State................................................................................ 3.6-13
3.6.2.3 Local .............................................................................. 3.6-14
3.6.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................... 3.6-16
3.6.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3.6-16
3.6.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................. 3.6-17
3.6.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................... 3.6-18
3.6.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................... 3.6-29
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE .................................. 3.7-1
3.7.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................... 3.7-1
3.7.1.1 Regional Setting ............................................................... 3.7-1
3.7.1.2 Project Site ....................................................................... 3.7-1
3.7.1.3 Wildfire Risk .................................................................... 3.7-2
3.7.1.4 Hazardous Materials ........................................................ 3.7-8
3.7.1.5 Airport Safety Hazards .................................................... 3.7-9
3.7.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.7-12
3.7.2.1 Federal............................................................................ 3.7-12
3.7.2.2 State................................................................................ 3.7-13
3.7.2.3 Local .............................................................................. 3.7-16
3.7.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................... 3.7-20
3.7.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3.7-20
3.7.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................. 3.7-22
3.7.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................... 3.7-23
3.7.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................... 3.7-39
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................ 3.8-1
3.8.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................... 3.8-1
3.8.1.1 Regional Hydrology ......................................................... 3.8-1
3.8.1.2 Project Site Hydrology ..................................................... 3.8-6
3.8.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.8-13
3.8.2.1 Federal............................................................................ 3.8-13
iv Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3.8.2.2 State................................................................................ 3.8-14
3.8.2.3 Local .............................................................................. 3.8-16
3.8.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................... 3.8-21
3.8.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3.8-21
3.8.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................. 3.8-22
3.8.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................... 3.8-24
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................... 3.9-1
3.9.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................... 3.9-1
3.9.1.1 Regional Land Use and Planning ..................................... 3.9-1
3.9.1.2 Project Site Land Uses and Planning ............................... 3.9-4
3.9.1.3 Easements within Project Site .......................................... 3.9-5
3.9.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................... 3.9-7
3.9.2.1 State.................................................................................. 3.9-7
3.9.2.2 Regional ........................................................................... 3.9-8
3.9.2.3 Local .............................................................................. 3.9-11
3.9.3 Consistency with Plans and Policies ............................................. 3.9-15
3.9.4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................... 3.9-58
3.9.4.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3.9-58
3.9.4.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................. 3.9-58
3.9.4.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................... 3.9-59
3.9.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................... 3.9-65
3.10 NOISE ......................................................................................................... 3.10-1
3.10.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.10-1
3.10.1.1 Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise ........ 3.10-1
3.10.1.2 Existing Noise Environment .......................................... 3.10-5
3.10.1.3 Sensitive Receptors ...................................................... 3.10-11
3.10.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.10-12
3.10.2.1 Federal.......................................................................... 3.10-12
3.10.2.2 State.............................................................................. 3.10-12
3.10.2.3 Local ............................................................................ 3.10-13
3.10.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................. 3.10-18
3.10.3.1 Thresholds of Significance .......................................... 3.10-18
3.10.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ................................ 3.10-18
3.10.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................... 3.10-24
3.10.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................... 3.10-37
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING ....................................................................... 3.11-1
3.11.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.11-1
3.11.1.1 Population ...................................................................... 3.11-1
3.11.1.2 Employment ................................................................... 3.11-3
3.11.1.3 Housing .......................................................................... 3.11-6
3.11.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.11-13
3.11.2.1 State.............................................................................. 3.11-13
3.11.2.2 Local ............................................................................ 3.11-14
3.11.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................. 3.11-18
3.11.3.1 Thresholds of Significance .......................................... 3.11-18
3.11.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ................................ 3.11-18
Froom Ranch Specific Plan v
Draft EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3.11.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................... 3.11-19
3.11.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................... 3.11-24
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION .......................................................... 3.12-1
3.12.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.12-1
3.12.1.1 Police Services ............................................................... 3.12-3
3.12.1.2 Fire Protection Services ................................................. 3.12-4
3.12.1.3 Schools ........................................................................... 3.12-7
3.12.1.4 Recreation and Parks ...................................................... 3.12-8
3.12.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.12-9
3.12.2.1 Federal............................................................................ 3.12-9
3.12.2.2 State................................................................................ 3.12-9
3.12.2.3 Local ............................................................................ 3.12-10
3.12.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................. 3.12-12
3.12.3.1 Thresholds of Significance .......................................... 3.12-12
3.12.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ................................ 3.12-13
3.12.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................... 3.12-15
3.12.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................... 3.12-25
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 3.13-1
3.13.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.13-1
3.13.1.1 Existing Roadway Network ........................................... 3.13-2
3.13.1.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ......................................... 3.13-6
3.13.1.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................. 3.13-6
3.13.1.4 Existing Transit Facilities .............................................. 3.13-7
3.13.1.5 Existing Collision History.............................................. 3.13-7
3.13.1.6 Multi-Modal Transportation System Operations ........... 3.13-8
3.13.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.13-51
3.13.2.1 Federal.......................................................................... 3.13-51
3.13.2.2 State.............................................................................. 3.13-51
3.13.2.3 Local ............................................................................ 3.13-53
3.13.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................. 3.13-57
3.13.3.1 Thresholds of Significance .......................................... 3.13-57
3.13.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ................................ 3.13-62
3.13.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................... 3.13-70
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION ................................................... 3.14-1
3.14.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.14-1
3.14.1.1 Wastewater Treatment ................................................... 3.14-2
3.14.1.2 Water Supply ................................................................. 3.14-4
3.14.1.3 Solid Waste Disposal ................................................... 3.14-11
3.14.1.4 Energy Services ........................................................... 3.14-12
3.14.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.14-15
3.14.2.1 State.............................................................................. 3.14-15
3.14.2.2 Local ............................................................................ 3.14-17
3.14.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................. 3.14-26
3.14.3.1 Thresholds for Determining Significance .................... 3.14-26
3.14.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ................................ 3.14-27
3.14.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................... 3.14-28
vi Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3.14.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................... 3.14-45
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 3.15-1
3.15.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.15-1
3.15.1.1 Regional Setting ............................................................. 3.15-1
3.15.1.2 Local Setting .................................................................. 3.15-2
3.15.1.3 Project Site ..................................................................... 3.15-2
3.15.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.15-3
3.15.2.1 State................................................................................ 3.15-4
3.15.2.2 Local .............................................................................. 3.15-5
3.15.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................... 3.15-7
3.15.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3.15-7
3.15.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................. 3.15-7
3.15.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................... 3.15-7
3.15.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................... 3.15-9
4.0 OTHER CEQA ISSUES ....................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..................................................... 4-1
4.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ......................................................................... 4-2
4.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ...................................................... 4-5
4.3.1 Forestry Resources ............................................................................. 4-5
4.4 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................... 4-5
5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 6-1
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS
CONTACTED ....................................................................................................... 7-1
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Initial Study
B Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
C Froom Ranch Specific Plan
D Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
E Biological Resources
F Historic and Cultural Resources Studies
G Geologic Resources Studies
H Hydrologic Resources Studies
I Acoustics Assessment
J Multimodal Transportation Impact Analysis Report
K Water Supply Assessment
L Agricultural Resources
Froom Ranch Specific Plan vii
Draft EIR
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2-1. Key View Locations along Cole Grade Road .................................... 2.1-5
Figure 2-1. Regional Location ................................................................................. 2-4
Figure 2-2. Project Site Existing Setting ................................................................. 2-5
Figure 2-3. Villaggio Life Plan Community and Madonna Froom Ranch ............ 2-13
Figure 2-4. Proposed Land Use Plan ..................................................................... 2-15
Figure 2-5. Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................... 2-19
Figure 2-6. Villaggio Life Plan Community Conceptual Cross Sections .............. 2-21
Figure 2-7. Proposed Plan for Historic Froom Ranch Structures .......................... 2-29
Figure 2-8. Fencing Plan........................................................................................ 2-30
Figure 2-9. Proposed Circulation Plan ................................................................... 2-31
Figure 2-10. LOVR Improvements .......................................................................... 2-32
Figure 2-11. Public Roads Cross Sections ............................................................... 2-35
Figure 2-12. Private Road Cross Sections ............................................................... 2-36
Figure 2-13. Water Supply System .......................................................................... 2-41
Figure 2-14. Wastewater Collection System ........................................................... 2-43
Figure 2-15. Conceptual Creek Cross Sections ....................................................... 2-47
Figure 2-16. Stormwater Control Plan..................................................................... 2-50
Figure 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects ............................................................................ 3-10
Figure 3.1-1. KVA Location Map ......................................................................... 3.1-21
Figure 3.2-1. Agricultural Resource within the Project Site ................................... 3.2-3
Figure 3.2-2. Agricultural Soils within the Project Site .......................................... 3.2-6
Figure 3.4-1. Existing Biological Setting ................................................................ 3.4-6
Figure 3.4-2. Project Site Biological Constraints .................................................... 3.4-8
Figure 3.6-1. Active Fault Lines at the Project Site ................................................ 3.6-5
Figure 3.6-2. Active Faults and Recommended Setback at the Project Site ......... 3.6-21
Figure 3.7-1. Fire Hazard Severity Zones ............................................................... 3.7-4
Figure 3.7-2. Conceptual Defensible Space Area .................................................. 3.7-28
Figure 3.7-3. Illustrative Defensible Space Setback Cross Section ....................... 3.7-29
Figure 3.8-1. Existing Drainage Conditions on the Project Site .............................. 3.8-5
Figure 3.9-1. Land Use Designations ...................................................................... 3.9-2
Figure 3.10-1. Noise Environment .......................................................................... 3.10-8
Figure 3.12-1. Public Services ................................................................................. 3.12-2
Figure 3.13-1. Existing Traffic Conditions.............................................................. 3.13-3
Figure 3.13-2. Existing Plus Project Traffic Impacts ............................................ 3.13-78
Figure 3.13-3. Applicant Funded City Improvements to Transportation Network 3.13-89
viii Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts .............ES-7
Table ES-2. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project ..........ES-149
Table 2-1. Proposed Development Standards for Residential Zones ................... 2-14
Table 2-2. Summary of Proposed Zoning and Land Uses ................................... 2-16
Table 2-3. Types of Senior Housing within Villaggio ......................................... 2-18
Table 2-4. Summary of Proposed Open Space ..................................................... 2-24
Table 2-5. Proposal for Existing Structures Onsite .............................................. 2-27
Table 2-6. Pipe Sizes at Drainage Crossings ........................................................ 2-52
Table 2-7. Project Construction Phases ................................................................ 2-55
Table 2-8. List of Construction Equipment .......................................................... 2-56
Table 2-9. Project Grading Estimates ................................................................... 2-57
Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List ....................................................................... 3-4
Table 3.1-1. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................ 3.1-24
Table 3.2-1. Project Site FMMP Resources ........................................................... 3.2-3
Table 3.2-2. Specific Plan Area Soil Capabilities .................................................. 3.2-5
Table 3.2-3. Proposed Stormwater Detention Basin Area Soil Capabilities .......... 3.2-5
Table 3.2-4. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................ 3.2-15
Table 3.2-5. Final LESA Score Sheet .................................................................. 3.2-16
Table 3.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards and County Attainment Status
(2019) ................................................................................................. 3.3-5
Table 3.3-2. Ambient Air Quality Data at San Luis Obispo - Higuera Street
Station ................................................................................................ 3.3-8
Table 3.3-3. Thresholds of Significance for Construction Operations ................. 3.3-19
Table 3.3-4. Thresholds of Significance for Operational Operations .................. 3.3-20
Table 3.3-5. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................ 3.3-27
Table 3.3-6. Short-term Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) ......................... 3.3-29
Table 3.3-7. Short-Term Construction Emissions (Mitigated) ............................. 3.3-35
Table 3.3-8. Long-Term Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) .......................... 3.3-36
Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook ... 3.3-37
Table 3.3-10. Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated) ................. 3.3-50
Table 3.3-11. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Unmitigated) ................... 3.3-50
Table 3.4-1. Habitat Types Located within the Project Site .................................. 3.4-9
Table 3.4-2. Special-Status Plants with High Potential to Occur in the Project
Site ................................................................................................... 3.4-16
Table 3.4-3. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project
Site ................................................................................................... 3.4-18
Table 3.4-4. Species of Local Concern Within Vicinity of the Project ................ 3.4-20
Table 3.4-5. Inventory of Mature Trees within the Project Site ........................... 3.4-27
Table 3.4-6. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................ 3.4-37
Table 3.4-7. Impacts to Sensitive Habitat Types Located within the Project
Site ................................................................................................... 3.4-38
Table 3.4-8. Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Features ....................................... 3.4-75
Table 3.5-1. Cultural Resources Recorded within the Project Site ........................ 3.5-4
Table 3.5-2. Cultural Resources Recorded within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site ..... 3.5-5
ix Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
Table 3.5-3. Structures Associated with the Historic Froom Ranch Dairy ............ 3.5-8
Table 3.5-4. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................ 3.5-25
Table 3.6-1. Project Site Soils Characterization ..................................................... 3.6-3
Table 3.6-2. Seismic Parameters for Active Faults near the Project Site ............... 3.6-4
Table 3.6-3. Geologic Units and Paleontological Potential Within Project
Vicinity ............................................................................................ 3.6-11
Table 3.6-4. Non-UCMP Pleistocene Localities of San Luis Obispo County ..... 3.6-12
Table 3.6-5. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................ 3.6-19
Table 3.7-1. Potential for Firefighting Success and Tactics on Steep Slopes ........ 3.7-6
Table 3.7-2. USTs and Cleanup Sites within a 0.5 mile-Radius of the Project
Site ................................................................................................... 3.7-10
Table 3.7-3. Fatal Aircraft Accidents within the Vicinity of San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport.................................................................. 3.7-12
Table 3.7-4. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................ 3.7-23
Table 3.8-1. Existing Peak Flows in Froom Creek .............................................. 3.8-10
Table 3.8-2. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................ 3.8-24
Table 3.8-3. Projected Peak Flow in Realigned Froom Creek ............................. 3.8-31
Table 3.8-4. Required Onsite Runoff Retention................................................... 3.8-34
Table 3.8-5. Required Offsite Runoff Retention .................................................. 3.8-34
Table 3.9-1. Existing City and County Zoning Districts within Project
Vicinity .............................................................................................. 3.9-1
Table 3.9-2. LUCE Performance Standards for Madonna at LOVR Specific
Plan Area ............................................................................................ 3.9-5
Table 3.9-3. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis .............................. 3.9-16
Table 3.9-4. County General Plan Policy Consistency Summary ........................ 3.9-52
Table 3.9-5. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................ 3.9-55
Table 3.10-1. Representative Noise Levels ............................................................ 3.10-3
Table 3.10-2. Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ... 3.10-4
Table 3.10-3. LUCE Update EIR Projected Roadway Noise Levels within
Project Site ....................................................................................... 3.10-6
Table 3.10-4. Measured Noise Levels within the Project Site1 ............................. 3.10-9
Table 3.10-5. City Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use
Areas Due to Transportation Noise Sources .................................. 3.10-14
Table 3.10-6. City Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use
Areas Due to Stationary Noise Sources ......................................... 3.10-16
Table 3.10-7. City of San Luis Obispo Exterior Noise Limits ............................. 3.10-17
Table 3.10-8. Maximum Time Periods for Increased Noise Levels .................... 3.10-17
Table 3.10-9. Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-
Term Operation (Less than 10 Days) of Mobile Equipment at
Residential Properties .................................................................... 3.10-17
Table 3.10-10. Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled, Relatively
Long-Term Operation (10 Days or More) of Stationary
Equipment at Residential Properties .............................................. 3.10-18
Table 3.10-11. Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment ........................ 3.10-21
Table 3.10-12. Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria .......................... 3.10-22
Table 3.10-13. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................... 3.10-22
x Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.10-14. Noise Ranges of Typical Commercial Equipment ......................... 3.10-24
Table 3.10-15. Summary of Project Impacts .......................................................... 3.10-25
Table 3.10-16. Maximum Estimated Outdoor Construction Peak Noise Levels at
Sensitive Receptors (Unmitigated) ................................................ 3.10-28
Table 3.10-17. Projected Traffic and Noise Level Increases along Adjacent
Roadways ....................................................................................... 3.10-32
Table 3.10-18. Maximum Noise Level Estimates and Thresholds Resulting from
Nearby Commercial Activities ...................................................... 3.10-36
Table 3.11-1. Population Growth between 1990 and 2019 .................................... 3.11-1
Table 3.11-2. SLOCOG Medium Growth Population Projections ........................ 3.11-2
Table 3.11-3. Population Growth, 2005-2019, San Luis Obispo City, County,
and State of California ..................................................................... 3.11-3
Table 3.11-4. Division of Labor by Industry within the City and County (2017) . 3.11-4
Table 3.11-5. City of San Luis Obispo Labor Force and Unemployment 2000-
2017.................................................................................................. 3.11-5
Table 3.11-6. SLOCOG Medium Employment Projections .................................. 3.11-6
Table 3.11-7. 1.0 Percent City Population Growth Projection ............................... 3.11-7
Table 3.11-8. Affordable Rent and Purchase Prices for All Income Categories .... 3.11-9
Table 3.11-9. Remaining RHNA Need Based on Dwelling Units Approved,
Under Construction, or Built, 2014 to 2019 .................................. 3.11-10
Table 3.11-10. City and Regional Jobs-to-Housing Ratio ..................................... 3.11-11
Table 3.11-11. SLOCOG Projections vs. LUCE Buildout Capacity for 2035 ....... 3.11-12
Table 3.11-12a. Inclusionary Housing Requirements .............................................. 3.11-17
Table 3.11-12b. Inclusionary Housing Adjustment Factors..................................... 3.11-17
Table 3.11-13. Summary of Project Impacts .......................................................... 3.11-19
Table 3.11-14. Summary of Estimated Population Generated by the Project ....... 3.11-21
Table 3.11-15. City and Countywide Population and Housing Projections, 2010-
2035................................................................................................ 3.11-24
Table 3.12-1. Public Services Serving the Project Vicinity ................................... 3.12-1
Table 3.12-2. Existing Capacity and Enrollment at SLCUSD Schools (2016-
2017) ................................................................................................ 3.12-7
Table 3.12-3. Summary of Project Impacts .......................................................... 3.12-15
Table 3.12-4. Project Student Generation ............................................................ 3.12-19
Table 3.12-5. Student Accommodation by Nearest Schools ................................ 3.12-20
Table 3.13-1. LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ......... 3.13-10
Table 3.13-2. Automobile Segment LOS Methodology ...................................... 3.13-10
Table 3.13-3. Freeway Segments LOS Methodology .......................................... 3.13-10
Table 3.13-4. LOS Criteria for Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit
Facilities/Services .......................................................................... 3.13-11
Table 3.13-5. Pedestrian Segment LOS Methodology ......................................... 3.13-12
Table 3.13-6. Bicycle and Transit Segment LOS Methodology .......................... 3.13-12
Table 3.13-7. Existing Intersection LOS - Automobile ....................................... 3.13-15
Table 3.13-8. Existing Intersection LOS - Pedestrian .......................................... 3.13-16
Table 3.13-9. Existing Intersection LOS - Bicycle .............................................. 3.13-19
Table 3.13-10. Existing Conditions - 95th-Percentile Queuing ............................. 3.13-21
Table 3.13-11. Existing Segment LOS - Automobile ............................................ 3.13-27
Froom Ranch Specific Plan xi
Draft EIR
Table 3.13-12. Existing Segment LOS - Pedestrian ............................................... 3.13-28
Table 3.13-13. Existing Segment LOS - Bicycle ................................................... 3.13-29
Table 3.13-14. Existing Segment LOS - Transit .................................................... 3.13-30
Table 3.13-15. Existing Segment LOS - Freeway Mainline, Ramps and Weaving
Sections .......................................................................................... 3.13-31
Table 3.13-16. Near-Term Transportation Project List .......................................... 3.13-32
Table 3.13-17. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Automobile ................. 3.13-33
Table 3.13-18. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Pedestrian ................... 3.13-35
Table 3.13-19. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Bicycle ........................ 3.13-37
Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95th-Percentile
Queuing .......................................................................................... 3.13-40
Table 3.13-21. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment Level of Service - Automobile ... 3.13-46
Table 3.13-22. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment Level of Service - Pedestrian ..... 3.13-47
Table 3.13-23. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS - Bicycle ............................. 3.13-48
Table 3.13-24. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS - Transit .............................. 3.13-49
Table 3.13-25. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS - Freeway Mainline, Ramps
and Weaving Sections .................................................................... 3.13-50
Table 3.13-26. LOS Objective and Minimum Standard for Each Transportation
Mode .............................................................................................. 3.13-58
Table 3.13-27. City LOS Modal Priority Ranking by Area ................................... 3.13-60
Table 3.13-28. Project Person Trips by Mode of Travel ........................................ 3.13-65
Table 3.13-29. Net External Vehicle Trip Generation Forecast ............................. 3.13-66
Table 3.13-30. Project Operational Vehicle Trip Generation by Phase ................. 3.13-66
Table 3.13-31. Average Estimated Year 2035 VMT for the City, County and
Project ............................................................................................ 3.13-69
Table 3.13-32. Summary of Project Impacts .......................................................... 3.13-71
Table 3.13-33. Existing Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary ................. 3.13-90
Table 3.13-34. Near-Term Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary .......... 3.13-100
Table 3.13-35. Cumulative Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary ......... 3.13-116
Table 3.14-1. Utilities Serving the Project Site ...................................................... 3.14-1
Table 3.14-2. City of San Luis Obispo's Water Resource Annual Availability
(2018) ............................................................................................... 3.14-8
Table 3.14-3. Water Demand and Water Availability in the City of San Luis
Obispo Based on WWME Policies .................................................. 3.14-9
Table 3.14-4. 2018 City Potable Water Supply Accounting .................................. 3.14-9
Table 3.14-5. 2018 County and State Energy Demands ...................................... 3.14-14
Table 3.14-6. Summary of Project Impacts .......................................................... 3.14-29
Table 3.14-7. Estimated Water Demand from Project WSA based on City
Water Use Factors .......................................................................... 3.14-34
Table 3.14-8. City Water Supply Availability and Froom Ranch Water Usage .. 3.14-34
Table 3.14-9. Wastewater Projections Resulting from the Project. ..................... 3.14-35
Table 3.14-10. Estimated Solid Waste Production ................................................. 3.14-39
Table 3.14-11. Estimated Project Electricity and Natural Gas Demands .............. 3.14-40
Table 3.14-12. Estimated Project Construction Fuel Consumption ....................... 3.14-41
Table 3.14-13. Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled ................................................ 3.14-42
Table 3.14-14. Estimated Operational Fuel Consumption ..................................... 3.14-42
xii Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.14-15. Comparison of Total and Per Capita Electricity and Natural Gas
Demands ........................................................................................ 3.14-43
Table 3.15-1. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................ 3.15-7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan xiii
Draft EIR
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/m3 microgram per cubic meter
AARP American Association of Retired Persons
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos-containing material
ADT average daily trips
AEP Association of Environmental Professionals
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AG Agriculture
Airport San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
ALUC San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission
ALUP Airport Land Use Plan
ALUPA Airport Land Use Planning Area
AMP Archaeological Monitoring Plan
AOZ Airport Overlay Zone
APCD Air Pollution Control District
Applicant JM Development Group, Inc.
APS Alternative Planning Strategy
ARC Architectural Review Commission
ARI Archaeological Resource Inventory
ARIM Archaeological Resource Impact Mitigation
AST aboveground storage tank
AT&T American Telephone and Telegraph Company
ATCM Air Toxics Control Measure
BACT Best Available Control Technology
bgs below ground surface
BMP best management practices
BTP Bicycle Transportation Plan
BTU British Thermal Unit
C&D construction and demolition
C/OS Conservation/Open Space
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAC Certified Asbestos Consultant
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CAL-OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAMP Construction Activity Management Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCIC Central Coast Information Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
Froom Ranch Specific Plan xiv
Draft EIR
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CE Circulation Element
CEC California Energy Commission
CED California Energy Demand
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 methane
CHC Cultural Heritage Commission
City City of San Luis Obispo
CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNG compressed natural gas
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COSE Conservation and Open Space Element
County County of San Luis Obispo
County Sheriff San Luis Obispo County Sheriff
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CR Commercial Retail
C-R retail-commercial
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
C-R-SP retail-commercial (Specific Plan)
CSA-7A County Service Area No. 7A
C-S-PD Commercial-Service-Planned Development
C-S-S Commercial-Service-Special Considerations
CSU California State University
C-T Commercial-Tourist
CVC California Vehicle Code
CWA Clean Water Act
cy cubic yard
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DBH diameter-at-breast-height
DCDA double detector check assembly
DDM Drainage Design Manual
DHS Department of Health Services
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances
du/ac dwelling units per acre
Froom Ranch Specific Plan xv
Draft EIR
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
du/ac dwelling units per acre
EB eastbound
EBL eastbound thru-lane
EBR eastbound right-turn lane
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
ESA Endangered Species Act
EV Electric Vehicle
EX Energy and Extraction Area
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
fps feet per second
FRSP Froom Ranch Specific Plan
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FWHA Federal Highway Administration
g/L gram per liter
gal/hp/hr gallons per horsepower per hour
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS Geographic Information System
Golden State Highway State Route 277
GPAR General Plan Annual Report
gpcd gallons per capita per day
GPM gallons per minute
GWh gigawatt hours
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HABS Historic American Building Survey
HAER Historic American Engineering Record
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCD California Department of Housing and Community
Development
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HDD horizontal directional drilling
HE Housing Element
HEC Hydraulic Engineering Circular
HMMP Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
HRE Historic Resource Evaluation
HTL high tidal line
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IBC International Building Code
in/sec inches per second
IS Initial Study
xvi Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
KMA Kevin Merk Associates, LLC
KVA Key Viewing Area
LAFCO San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission
LBP lead-based paint
lbs/day pounds per day
LCC land compatibility classification
Ldn day-night average noise level
LED light-emitting diodes
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent energy noise level
LID low impact development
Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level
Lmin minimum instantaneous noise level
LNG liquified natural gas
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
LOS Level of Service
LOVR Los Osos Valley Road
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LUCE Land Use and Circulation Element
LUE Land Use Element
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBCP Monterey Bay Community Power
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDZ Mining Disclosure Zone
mg/m3 milligram per cubic meter
MGD million gallons per day
MMLOS Multi-Modal Level of Service
MMT CO2e million metric tons CO2 equivalent
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
mpg miles per gallon
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
msl mean sea level
MT CO2e metric tons CO2 equivalent
MUN Municipal and Domestic Water Supply
MWh megawatt hours
MWh/yr megawatt hours per year
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NB northbound
NBL northbound thru-lane
Froom Ranch Specific Plan xvii
Draft EIR
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
NBR northbound right-turn lane
NBT northbound trap
NCTC Northern Chumash Tribal Council
NE Noise Element
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO2 nitrous oxide
NOA Naturally Occurring Asbestos
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA Fisheries NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 ozone
OHWM ordinary high water mark
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
pc/mi/h passenger cars per mile per hour
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PCR Post Construction Requirement
PF public facilities
PF-SP public facilities (Specific Plan)
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PM10 10-micron particulate matter
PM2.5 2.5-micron particulate matter
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPM Pollution Prevention Methods
PPVRef reference Peak Particle Velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PRE Parks and Recreation Element
Project Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project
PV photovoltaic
R-3 medium-high density residential
R-3-SP medium-high density residential (Specific Plan)
R-4 high density residential
R-4-SP high density residential (Specific Plan)
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
xviii Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
RL Rural Lands
ROG reactive organic gas
RPZ Runway Protection Zone
RRP Resource Recovery Park
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SA Special Animal
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SARE Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation
SB Senate Bill
SB southbound
SBL southbound thru-lane
SBR southbound right-turn lane
SBT southbound trap
SCCAB South Central Coast Air Basin
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SE Safety Element
sf square feet
sf/p square feet per person
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLCUSD San Luis Coastal Unified School District
SLO County APCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
SLO Transit City Transit Division
SLOCOG San Luis Obispo County Association of Goverments
SLOFD City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department
SLOPD City of San Luis Obispo Police Department
SLORTA San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMARTS Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking System
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCal Gas Southern California Gas Company
SOI Secretary of Interior
SP service population
SP-3 Special Focus Area
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRO school resource officer
SSC Species of Special Concern
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWMP Stormwater Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TAZ traffic analysis zone
therms/yr therms per year
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
Froom Ranch Specific Plan xix
Draft EIR
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
TIS Transportation Impact Study
TMDL total maximum daily load
ton/qtr tons per quarter
TSO Time Schedule Order
U.S. 101 U.S. Highway 101
U.S. EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
URL Urban Reserve Line
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC U.S. Code
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB vibration decibel
VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
Villaggio Villaggio Life Plan Community
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
vpd vehicles per day
VTTM Vesting Tentative Tract Map
WB westbound
WBL westbound thru-lane
WBR westbound right-turn lane
WDID Waste Discharge Identification
WMP Waterways Management Plan
WMZ Watershed Management Zone
Wood Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
WRRF Waste Resources Recovery Facility
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSE water surface elevation
WWME Water and Wastewater Management Element
xx Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Project) in the City of San Luis Obispo (City),
California. This EIR discloses the potential environmental impacts of adoption and
implementation of the Project. The City prepared this EIR with assistance from its
environmental planning consultant, Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
(Wood).
JM Development Group, Inc. (Applicant) proposes the Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan
(FRSP) dated July 28, 2017 for adoption by the City, including an amendment to the City’s
General Plan, pre-zoning, annexation to the City, and related actions to allow for
development of a 116.8-acre Project site with several offsite infrastructure improvements,
as further described in Chapter 2, Project Description. The Project 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
Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan 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 8.1.5 of the LUE.
The Project would allow for the development of senior housing and multi-family residential units, a public
park, and commercial development along LOVR at the southwestern edge of the City. To accommodate
proposed development, the Project includes realignment of Froom Creek, which flows across the Project
site.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 1-1
Draft EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
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.
The proposed Project would allow for
a mix of residential uses (39.1 acres),
open space (59.0 acres), a public park
(2.9 acres), and retail commercial uses
(3.1 acres) within the approximately
109.7-acre Specific Plan area. The
Project would allow for eventual
construction of up to 578 residential
units, including 174 multi-family
housing units and 404 senior housing
units within a Life Plan Community known as Villaggio that includes assisted living and
health care facilities. The Project would also allow for up to 100,000 square feet (sf) of
commercial retail space, including approximately 70,000 sf of hotel use with up to 120
rooms and 30,000 sf of proposed retail and restaurant uses. The Project would retain
approximately 54 percent of the Project site as open space and include a 2.9-acre public
park that would connect to the existing trail network within the adjacent Irish Hills Natural
Reserve. The Project would include an internal network of public and private roads with
some bicycle and pedestrian access. The Project would also implement a complex
stormwater management system, including realignment of Froom Creek 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.
1.2 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
Per Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Sections
15367 and 15050 through 15053 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead
Agency under whose authority this document has been prepared. The City has primary
discretionary authority to determine whether to approve the Project.
The Project site is largely undeveloped but supports the
historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex, construction
company office and material storage within an existing
quarry, and horse grazing.
1-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Responsible and trustee agencies are public agencies responsible for certain discretionary
Project approvals or implementing specific onsite and/or offsite components of the Project.
For the purposes of CEQA, a “responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than
the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the Project (CEQA
Section 15381). A “trustee agency” is defined as a state agency having jurisdiction over
certain resources held in trust for the people of California but do not have legal authority
for approval of the Project (CEQA Section 15386). Responsible and trustee agencies for
the Project include the following, as more fully described in Section 2.5, Required
Approvals of the EIR:
• San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
• County of San Luis Obispo
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
• San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
• Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
• San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)
1.3 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY
This EIR is prepared in accordance with CEQA (Division 13, California Public Resources
Code 21000 et. seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines, published by the Natural Resources
Agency of the State of California (Title 14, California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.).
It is intended to provide information to public agencies, decision-makers, and the general
public regarding the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the
Project. Under the provisions of CEQA, “the purpose of the environmental impact report
is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives
to the project, and to indicate the manner in which significant effects can be mitigated or
avoided” (Public Resources Code 21002.1[a]). The CEQA process was established to
enable public agencies to evaluate a project in terms of its environmental consequences, to
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 1-3
Draft EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse
impacts, and to consider alternatives to the project. CEQA Section 15021(a) requires that
major consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage.
In a practical sense, this EIR functions as a tool for fact-finding, allowing the public, the
City, and other responsible agencies, through a full disclosure process, an opportunity to
collectively review and evaluate baseline existing conditions and the Project’s potential to
result in environmental impacts. Additionally, this EIR provides the primary source of
environmental information for agencies to consider when exercising any permitting or
approval authority directly related to the Project. Nevertheless, the Lead Agency and other
responsible public agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other
public objectives, taking into account economic, legal, social, and technological factors.
Although the Project takes the form of a Specific Plan and General Plan amendment, this
EIR contains an environmental review that fulfills the requirement of a Project-level EIR.
As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, a Project-level EIR examines the
environmental impacts of a specific development project and focuses primarily on the
changes in the environment that would result from the project. This EIR examines all
phases of the Project including construction and operation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15182, where a public agency prepares an EIR on a specific plan, future residential
projects that conform to the specific plan would not require further environmental review
in accordance with Government Code Section 65457, as long as the residential
development is within the scope of the EIR, no new environmental effects are anticipated
to occur, and no new mitigation measures are required for the residential development.
Where relevant to the analysis of impacts, this EIR also incorporates by reference, the
findings and/or mitigation measures of the City’s previously certified 2014 Land Use and
Circulation Elements Update EIR (LUCE Update EIR). The LUCE Update EIR evaluated
the impacts associated with future development occurring under the LUCE at a Program-
level, including those associated with development of the Project site within SP-3. The
LUCE Update EIR is available for public review at:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/planning-zoning/general-plan.
1-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.4 EIR PREPARATION
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. Pursuant to
Section 21080(d) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15064(f)(1) of the CEQA
Guidelines, if there is 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. 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).
Consequently, the City has determined that the preparation of an EIR is required to analyze
potential environmental impacts of the Project.
In compliance with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City completed 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 local agencies, as well
as key stakeholders, interested parties, 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, the City received 12 comment letters.
Comments received during the NOP comment period were considered during EIR
preparation and are included in Appendix B.
This Draft EIR has been distributed to federal, state, regional, and local agencies, key
stakeholders, interested parties, neighborhood groups, and NOP commenters. The Draft
EIR is available for review online at the City’s Community Development Department
website at:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 1-5
Draft EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
Hardcopies of the Draft EIR are available for review at City Hall, as well as local libraries.
The Draft EIR public review period runs from November 8th, 2019 to December 23rd, 2019.
Comments on the Draft EIR may be sent to:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Comments on the Draft EIR may also be emailed to Shawna Scott, Senior Planner, at
sscott@slocity.org. Comments received during this period will be responded to in writing
and addressed in the Final EIR.
1.5 SCOPE OF THE EIR
This EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of
implementation of the Project. The scope of the EIR includes evaluation of potentially
significant environmental issues identified in the IS and raised in response to the NOP and
during scoping discussions. The IS and NOP scoping process determined that the Project
may result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the following issue areas,
which are addressed in detail in this EIR:
• Aesthetics and Visual Resources
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Energy Conservation
1.0 INTRODUCTION
• Mineral Resources
Since preparation of the IS, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated to include resource
areas that are addressed specifically in this EIR, as follows. Issues related to Energy and
Energy Conservation as required by CEQA are discussed within Section 3.14, Utilities and
Energy Conservation, and issues related to Wildfire are discussed in Section 3.7, Hazards,
Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire. This EIR addresses the issues referenced above and
identifies potential environmental impacts, including Project-specific and cumulative
effects of the Project, in accordance with the provisions set forth in the State CEQA
Guidelines. In addition, this EIR recommends feasible mitigation measures, where
necessary, that would reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects. In accordance
with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 (Effects Not Found to Be Significant),
environmental impacts related to Forestry Resources were not considered significant, and
are discussed in Chapter 4, Other CEQA Sections.
A summary of cumulative impacts, which gives consideration to other projects or plans in
the vicinity, are described in each resource section within Chapter 3, Environmental Impact
Analysis and Mitigation Measures. Cumulative project analyses represent a comprehensive
assessment of potential impacts on City resources using a list of past, present, and probable
future projects capable of producing related or compounded impacts.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), this EIR includes an assessment of
a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that could feasibly attain the Project
objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant effects of the
Project. The alternatives analysis includes alternatives that were considered but discarded
from further analysis, and four alternatives fully analyzed per the CEQA Statute and
Guidelines. Please refer to Chapter 5, Alternatives. The four alternatives fully analyzed in
Chapter 5, Alternatives include:
• CEQA “No Project” Alternative;
• Alternative 1 – Clustered Development Below the 150-foot Elevation Alternative
(the Actionable Alternative)
• Alternative 2 – Residential Development Project Alternative
• Alternative 3 – Minimum LUCE-Compliant Alternative
Alternative 1 is developed and analyzed based on an alternate land use plan and conceptual
site design provided by the Project Applicant (Appendix C) and, therefore, has been
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 1-7
Draft EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
evaluated at a Project-level of detailed to allow for detailed comparison of impacts relative
to the Project, including visual impact analysis and air emissions estimates. The other three
alternatives are evaluated programmatically relative to the Project since land use and
conceptual design plans are not available for these alternatives.
1.5.1 Areas of Known Public Controversy
Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR shall identify areas of
controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by the agency and the
public. Based on comments received during the public hearing and NOP comment period,
the following issues are known to be of concern and may be controversial. Each issue is
further evaluated in the EIR:
• Land use policy consistency related to onsite development and uses above 150-feet
in elevation;
• Visual impacts to public views within the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve;
• Loss of agricultural land, including the offset and/or preservation of onsite
agricultural easement area;
• Potential impacts to rare plant species with known occurrences onsite, particularly
within the higher elevations and rocky outcrops;
• Potential impacts to sensitive biological resources along Froom Creek connecting
into San Luis Obispo Creek, and along natural drainages from the Irish Hills;
• Loss of wildlife corridors and ecotones along drainages and in the Irish Hills;
• Potential impacts from proposed realignment and restoration of Froom Creek and
associated impacts on high-quality wetlands located adjacent to LOVR and Calle
Joaquin;
• Onsite and offsite flooding and water quality effects;
• Increased traffic congestion and impacts to circulation, especially on LOVR,
Madonna Road, and associated interchanges;
• Adequacy of utility infrastructure and dependent resources, including the existing
water system and available water supply;
• Housing supply and relationship to City population;
• Construction-related impacts, such as interference with pedestrian and vehicle
traffic circulation, dust, and other emissions; and
• Potential impacts to historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex onsite.
1-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR
This EIR is organized into the following chapters:
• Chapter 1, Introduction, summarizes the background of the Project and explains the
environmental review process.
• Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a detailed description of the Project site,
Project objectives, and all proposed Project components.
• Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures, provides
analysis of existing environmental conditions, applicable federal, state, and local
regulations, specific direct and indirect Project impacts, cumulative impacts,
mitigation measures, secondary impacts, and residual impacts.
• Chapter 4, Other CEQA Sections, identifies significant and irreversible, growth-
inducing, and unavoidable effects, and a brief discussion of resource areas that
would not be significantly affected by the Project.
• Chapter 5, Alternatives, describes alternatives to the Project, and identifies the
Environmentally Superior Alternative.
• Chapter 6, List of Preparers, identifies the EIR Project team.
• Chapter 7, References, provides information about resources used in preparation of
the EIR.
• Appendices to the EIR include the IS/NOP, NOP comment letters, the Draft FRSP,
and supporting technical studies used as a basis of information and analyses in
preparation of the EIR.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 1-9
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
JM Development Group, Inc.
(Applicant) proposes adoption of the
Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan
(FRSP; see Appendix C) by the City of
San Luis Obispo (City). The proposed
FRSP includes a request for a General
Plan Amendment to allow
development above the 150-foot
elevation, which is currently prohibited by Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 6.4.7(H),
Hillside Planning Areas. The City Council authorized initiation of the proposed FRSP on
April 5, 2016. However, as part of that approval, the City Council required that this EIR
also evaluate an actionable alternative that locates all proposed development below the
150-foot elevation. The proposed FRSP is described in this section and evaluated in Section
3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. The actionable alternative (Alternative 1) is described
in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the EIR.
2.1.1 Overview of Proposed FRSP
The proposed FRSP (Project) provides a land use and development program with
associated goals, policies, and development standards to guide future development within
the 109.7-acre Specific Plan area located off Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) and Calle
Joaquin.
The Project would result in development of two main components: Villaggio Life Plan
Community (Villaggio) and Madonna Froom Ranch.
• Villaggio would provide up to 404 units of senior housing that would include
independent and assisted living units, as well as health care facilities with 51 beds
for memory care and skilled nursing.
• Madonna Froom Ranch would provide up to 174 multi-family housing units and up
to 100,000 square feet (sf) of mixed commercial uses, including a potential 70,000-
sf hotel and 30,000 sf of retail commercial uses.
The Project would include roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation improvements,
including a new signalized intersection at LOVR and Auto Park Way, and would extend
urban infrastructure improvements (e.g., water lines, sewer service) to serve the site. The
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-1
3rd Round Administrative Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project would also include 2.9 acres for a new public park within Madonna Froom Ranch
and dedication of 59.0 acres within the Specific Plan area to open space. The Project would
realign Froom Creek within the Specific Plan area and develop stormwater management
facilities both within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area, including overflow to the
existing Calle Joaquin wetlands and a proposed 7.1-acre stormwater detention basin, both
within the Project site.
Project entitlements to support
adoption of the FRSP would include
General Plan amendments, prezoning,
annexation of the Specific Plan area
into the City, and a Vesting Tentative
Tract Map (VTTM). Amendments to
the General Plan would include a
change in the land uses to include a
senior residential community and to
allow development above 150 feet in
elevation, since hillside development
is regulated by several General Plan
policies and programs, including
Policy 6.4.7(H), which specifies that
no building sites should be allowed above the 150-foot elevation line in the Irish Hills area
(see also, Section 2.5, Required Approvals and Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning).
The City’s LUE identifies the Specific Plan area as the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan
Area (SP-3). The LUE requires adoption of a Specific Plan for SP-3 prior to development
to comprehensively address appropriate development of the site while protecting sensitive
environmental resources. LUE Section 8.1.5 identifies the following land use and design
goals related to SP-3:
• development of a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints, including
wetland protection, slope protection, historic structures, and open space protection;
• maintenance of viewsheds of surrounding mountains, and securing steeper hillsides
as protected open space areas;
• varying height limits to protect views of adjacent hills;
• providing access to trails;
The FRSP would guide development of residential,
commercial, and recreation uses on the former Froom
Ranch Dairy Farm property, along with proposed
General Plan amendments and annexation to the City.
2-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
3rd Round Administrative Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• providing a plan for adequate and safe infrastructure, including appropriate points
of access to LOVR;
• addressing neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhoods; and
• providing connectivity to adjacent development.
2.1.2 Project Applicant Team
Applicant:
JM Development Group, Inc.
John Madonna
PO Box 5310
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Project Design:
RRM Design Group
Victor Montgomery, AIA
Tim Walters
Pam Ricci, AICP
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
2.2 EXISTING SETTING
2.2.1 Project Site Boundaries
The Specific Plan area includes 109.7
acres located immediately southwest of
the City limits (Figure 2-1). The
Specific Plan area is generally bounded
by LOVR to the east, Calle Joaquin and
Mountainbrook Church to the south,
Irish Hills Plaza to the north, and the
City-owned Irish Hills Natural Reserve
to the west. The Specific Plan area
consists of two parcels, located at
12165 and 12193 LOVR (APNs 067-241-030 and 067-241-031), that are owned by the
Applicant. The Specific Plan area is currently unincorporated in the County but lies within
the City’s adopted Sphere of Influence (Figure 2-2).
The 116.8-acre Project site is located southwest of the
City at the base of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-3
3rd Round Administrative Draft EIR
HIGUERA STREETHIGUERA STREETBUCKLEY ROADBUCKLEY ROAD
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
AUTOAUTO
PARKWAYPARKWAY
MADO
N
N
A
R
O
A
D
MADO
N
N
A
R
O
A
D
JESPERSON ROADJESPERSON ROADBUCKLEY ROADHIGUERA STREETSUBURBAN
ROAD
AUTO
PARKWAY
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
CALLE JOAQUINMADO
N
N
A
R
O
A
D
VACHELL LANEJESPERSON ROADTANK FARM ROADPrefumo CreekSter
ling Creek
Froom C r e e k
E a st Fork San Luis Obispo Cre ek
D a venport C reekFroom C r e e k Prefumo CreekSan Lu isObispo CreekTank Fa rm CreekSter
ling Creek
Duveneck C r e e kSycamore Creek
E ast F ork San Luis Obispo C reek
LagunaLaguna
LakeLake
Laguna
Lake
CHEVRON
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
TANK FARM
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
IRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
NATURAL RESERVENATURAL RESERVE
IRISH HILLS
NATURAL RESERVE
101
101
101
101
101
227
227
1
1
Laguna
Lake
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORTSOUTH HIGUERA STREETORCUTT ROADORCUTT ROADORCUTT ROADTANK FARM
ROADFOOTHILLBOULEVARDSOUTH HIGUERA STREETLOS OSOS
VALLEY
ROAD
PROJECT
SITE
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
0 6,000
FEET
NStenner Cr
e
ek Sa n Luis Obi s p o Cr eek LEGEND
Project Site
Froom Ranch Specific
Plan Area
Irish Hills Natural Reserve
City of San Luis Obispo
Sphere of Influence
City of San Luis Obispo
County of San Luis Obispo 0 0.5
SCALE IN MILES
N
Regional Location 2-1
FIGURE
2-4
NEIL HAVLIK W AYOCEAN V I E WFROOM CREEK CONNECTOR
FROOM C R E E K
OCEAN VIEWWEDN ES D AYPH Y LISS’LO O KOUT
OCEAN VIEW
San Luis Obispo CreekDrainage 3Drainage 3
Drainage 2Drainage 2
Drainage 4Drainage 4
Drainage 1Drainage 1
Froom
C
reekPrefumo Creek101CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYROSEROSE
GARDENGARDEN
INNINN
AUTOAUTO
DEALERSHIPSDEALERSHIPS
IRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
MOTEL 6MOTEL 6
MARRIOTTMARRIOTT
HAMPTONHAMPTON
INNINN
WHOLEWHOLE
FOODSFOODS
TJ MAXXTJ MAXXHOMEHOME
DEPOTDEPOT
MOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYROSE
GARDEN
INN
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
AUTO
DEALERSHIPS
MARRIOTT
MOTEL 6
HAMPTON
INN
WHOLE
FOODS
TJ MAXXHOME
DEPOT
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH San Luis Obispo CreekFroom
C
reekDrainage 3
Drainage 2
Drainage 4
Drainage 1 Prefumo CreekIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
NATURALNATURAL
RESERVERESERVE
IRISH HILLS
NATURAL
RESERVE
CITY OFCITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY OFCITY OF
SAN LUISSAN LUIS
OBISPOOBISPO
UNINCORPORATEDUNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTYCOUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY
CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY OF
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
NEIL HAVLIK W AYOCEAN V I E WFROOM CREEK CONNECTOR
FROOM C R E E K
OCEAN VIEWWEDN ES D AYPH Y LISS’LO O KOUT
OCEAN VIEW
3
4
5
1
2
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
LEGEND
Project Site
Froom Ranch
Specific Plan Area
Irish Hills Natural
Reserve
Public Trail
Federal and State
Wetlands and Riparian
Habitat
150-Foot Elevation
Contour from Site
Survey
City of San Luis Obispo
3.2-Acre Existing Detention
Basin for Irish Hills Plaza
7.1-Acre Existing Open Space
and Agricultural Conservation
Easement
Quarry and Construction
Materials Storage
Historic Froom Ranch Dairy
Complex
Paved Site Access Road
3
1 4
5
2
Project Site Existing Setting 2-2
FIGURE
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
2-5
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site encompasses both the Specific Plan area and 7.1 acres outside the Specific
Plan area that would provide a new stormwater detention basin to serve the Project. The
proposed stormwater detention basin area is located immediately south of the Specific Plan
area on land owned by Mountainbrook Church. The proposed stormwater detention basin
would overlie both incorporated and unincorporated land within APNs 067-241-021
(County) and 053-161-010 (City). Together with the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area, the
Project site includes 116.8 acres (refer to Figure 2-2). The Project would also require offsite
improvements to support the Project, including a new signalized intersection at
LOVR/Auto Park Way at the proposed site entrance, sidewalk improvements along the
western side of LOVR fronting the site, and a new emergency access road connection at
the site’s southern boundary with Mountainbrook Church property. The EIR has evaluated
the potential environmental impacts of Project-related disturbances and operations both
within the Project site and at all offsite improvement areas.
2.2.2 Project Vicinity
The Project site is located on the southwestern side of the Los Osos Valley at the base of the
Irish Hills. The Irish Hills are a low mountain range that are part of the outer California Coast
Ranges in the Central Coast region. Froom Creek and four local drainages flow from the
Irish Hills through the Project site to San Luis Obispo Creek. The Irish Hills provide
expansive open space and are highly visible from surrounding areas reaching a maximum
elevation of 1,300 feet in the area west of the Project site. The western boundary of the
Specific Plan area is adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which contains 14.9 miles
of public trails. Access to the Froom Creek Trail and the Neil Havlik Trail is currently
provided immediately west of the Project site (Figure 2-2).
2-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Existing development in the Project vicinity includes primarily commercial land uses. To
the north, the approximately 45-acre Irish Hills Plaza is a retail shopping center developed
with approximately 500,000 sf of primarily one-story commercial and big-box retail uses,
including Home Depot, T.J. Maxx, and Whole Foods Market immediately adjacent to the
Project site. To the east across LOVR, commercial development primarily includes
automobile dealerships and service centers, such as BMW, Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen,
Toyota, and Honda, which are generally developed with one-story offices, showrooms, and
service facilities. Visitor-serving uses are present to the south of the Project site adjacent to
U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) and Calle Joaquin. Commercial uses include a gas station,
restaurant, and several hotels, including the Hampton Inn, Marriott, and Motel 6. The Project
site is bordered to the south by the Mountainbrook Church property and one-story building,
which is situated on the top of the hill south of the Specific Plan area. The Mountainbrook
Church property extends from the church’s hilltop location down to Calle Joaquin. Farther
south, the KSBY television broadcasting studio, including a one-story building, surface
parking lot, and several telecommunications structures are located on a hill adjacent to U.S.
101. There are no existing residential developments adjacent to the Project site; the closest
residential neighborhoods are located 0.3 mile north, beyond Irish Hills Plaza, and 0.3 mile
southeast across U.S. 101.
Roads immediately adjacent to the Project site include LOVR and Calle Joaquin. LOVR is a
four-lane roadway with a center median turning lane and provides Class II bicycle lanes in
both directions. The northbound side of LOVR is striped for parallel parking and provides a
10-foot-wide sidewalk. The southbound side of LOVR along the Project site frontage does
not provide parking or a sidewalk and is curbed adjacent to an open vegetated drainage ditch
running the length of the Project site. Calle Joaquin is a two-lane roadway that extends south
The Project site is bordered to the west by the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (left), which contains a public
trail system with hiking and biking opportunities. Irish Hills Plaza (right) located north of the Specific
Plan area contains retail and commercial businesses.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-7
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
of the Specific Plan area from LOVR to KSBY within the City limits. From LOVR and along
the segment adjacent to the hotels, Calle Joaquin is bordered with sidewalks and planter strips
on both sides. From the hotels to KSBY, Calle Joaquin is a two-lane road with unimproved
shoulders along either side of the road. Calle Joaquin does not provide access to the Project
site, but is the main road to Mountainbrook Church, KSBY, and Filipponi Ranch. U.S. 101
is located approximately 0.15 mile east of the Specific Plan area and provides regional
access to the Project vicinity via LOVR.
2.2.3 Existing Project Site Characteristics
The Project site encompasses highly
varied topography. The southwest
portion of the site is approximately
100 to 120 feet higher in elevation
than the eastern portion of the site
along lower Froom Creek adjacent to
LOVR. Upper elevations of the site
have steeper slopes and drainages
that transition to the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve in the hills above.
Relatively flat grassland, disturbed
areas, the Froom Creek channel, and
wetlands occur in lower elevations
of the Project site.
The Project site has highly varied topography ranging from
low-lying wetlands along LOVR to the steep hillsides at the
base of the Irish Hills. Froom Creek and four local
drainages flow through the site.
2-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Froom Creek watershed flows from
the Irish Hills and the creek channel
traverses the Specific Plan area from
north to south. Three small tributaries
also flow through the southwestern
portion of the Specific Plan area to
connect to Froom Creek and feed several
wetlands onsite; a fourth drainage flows
through the proposed stormwater
detention basin area adjacent to Calle
Joaquin to connect to Froom Creek and
San Luis Obispo Creek (referred to as
Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4; Figure 2-2).
These drainages are generally seasonally
dry, but carry substantial flows during storm events and are the source of perennial fresh
water seeps/springs at the base of the hillside and near the confluence with Froom Creek
(see also, Section 3.4, Biological Resources and Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality).
The Project site includes a wide variety of habitats, including annual and native grasslands,
coast live oak/California bay woodland, and coastal scrub/chaparral habitats, primarily
within the higher elevations of the Specific Plan area. About 5.8 acres of wetland habitat
occurs in low-lying areas adjacent to LOVR and Calle Joaquin, referred to as the Calle
The Project site was historically used for agriculture and contains seven historic dairy farm structures
within the northwestern portion of the site (left) and is currently used for periodic grazing. A 7.1-acre
agricultural easement is located at the southeast corner of the Specific Plan area, adjacent to Calle Joaquin
(right).
The Specific Plan area is largely undeveloped and
used for grazing. However, the northwestern portion
of the site is developed with historic dairy ranch
buildings and a permitted quarry used for storage of
construction materials.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-9
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Joaquin wetlands. The Calle Joaquin wetlands lie within an area protected by an existing
7.1-acre open space and agricultural conservation easement recorded in 2010 on the Project
site as a mitigation measure and development condition for the Prefumo Creek Commons
project, which was located adjacent to the northeast corner of the Project site across LOVR
to the north.
The Project site is largely undeveloped and is currently used as grazing land for horses.
However, the northern side of the Project site is developed with buildings from the historic
former Froom Ranch Dairy Farm. The Specific Plan area was used as a dairy farm from
the 1850s to 1977 and an assemblage of remaining historical ranch and dairy structures
occupy about 3 acres along the northern edge of the Specific Plan area adjacent to Irish
Hills Plaza. These buildings include a round-nose dairy barn (dairy barn), creamery,
granary, four-bedroom house (main residence), bunkhouse, shed, and an “old” barn,
referred to as the Froom Ranch Dairy Farm complex. The Applicant currently uses the
main residence building as an office and some of the historic structures for storage in
support of a construction business. A portion of the northwestern corner of the Project site
also contains an approximately 4-acre active permitted red rock quarry currently used for
aggregate storage and operating under a Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA)
permit.
The Specific Plan area is accessed
primarily from LOVR via an existing
paved driveway located
approximately 200 feet south of Irish
Hills Plaza. The Specific Plan area
includes this paved driveway and
several internal unpaved/dirt access
roads. A manmade earthen berm
extends along the south side of Froom
Creek, confining the existing creek
channel to a perched elevation along the western edge of the Specific Plan area at the base
of the Irish Hills. The site also includes stormwater detention facilities that capture runoff
from a portion of Irish Hills Plaza. An approximately 3.2-acre detention basin located in
the southeastern portion of the site receives surface runoff from the eastern side of Irish
Hills Plaza via subsurface pipes traversing the Specific Plan area. Additionally, an existing
drainage ditch extends from Irish Hills Plaza parallel to LOVR that collects and conveys
surface runoff from the roadway and Irish Hills Plaza to culverts near Calle Joaquin. The
An existing paved driveway off LOVR provides primary
access to the Specific Plan area approximately 200 feet
south of Irish Hills Plaza.
2-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
drainage ditch has established riparian vegetation and includes state and federal
jurisdictional riparian areas.
2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires
a statement of a project’s objectives that includes the underlying purpose of the Project.
Major objectives of the Project include:
1. Development of a mix of uses while protecting sensitive environmental resources
and maintaining public views of the Irish Hills.
2. Provision of a range of housing options, including workforce housing, senior
housing, and inclusionary housing.
3. Development of an economically feasible, healthy, safe, and secure Life Plan
Community that will serve residents 60 years of age and over.
4. Development of multi-family housing, including housing consistent with the
adopted City Inclusionary Housing Requirements in effect at the time of the
Specific Plan adoption.
5. Provision of commercial retail uses that complement residential uses and facilitate
pedestrian and bicycle access.
6. Provide site hydrology design to improve stormwater conveyance and
management, provide a restored riparian creek corridor, and enhance fishery habitat
and biological resource value.
7. Development of a public park that includes access and connection to existing trails
in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and proposed trails within the Specific Plan area.
8. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of architecturally significant
historic structures within a public park, in a setting and configuration that retains
historic integrity, while avoiding seismic impacts.
9. Establishment of a cohesive transportation and circulation network of collector and
residential roads, bicycle lanes, transit opportunities, and pedestrian sidewalks that
is integrated with and enhances the regional transportation system.
10. Incorporation of sustainability measures that exceed the requirements of the
California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and California Energy Code (Part 6)
in effect at the time of construction, as well as provide onsite renewable energy
facilities and Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in all land use types.
11. Avoidance of impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species, such as the state and
federally-endangered Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-11
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.4 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project would guide future land use and development within the Specific Plan area in
conformance with the requirements of California Planning and Zoning Law (Government
Code sections 65450 through 65457). The Project proposes a mix of residential, retail
commercial, public facilities, and open space land uses along with onsite roadway, bicycle,
and pedestrian circulation improvements (see Appendix C, Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning,
and Development Standards). Project development includes two major components within
the Specific Plan area (Figure 2-3):
• Villaggio Life Plan Community (Villaggio) – a 70.4-acre gated senior residential
community (residents must be 60+ years of age) in the central and southern portions
of the Specific Plan area, providing up to 404 units of senior housing that would
include independent and assisted living units, as well as health care facilities with
51 beds for memory care and skilled nursing. Villaggio includes two subareas. The
Upper Terrace includes Villaggio areas above 150 feet in elevation. The Lower
Area include Villaggio areas below 150 feet in elevation (refer to Figure 2-3).
• Madonna Froom Ranch – multi-family residential, retail commercial uses, and a
public park within 39.3 acres of the northern and eastern portions of the Specific
Plan area, providing up to 174 multi-family units and up to 100,000 sf of mixed
commercial uses, including a potential 70,000-sf hotel and 30,000 sf of retail
commercial. Madonna Froom Ranch includes areas outside Villaggio, including the
proposed 2.9-acre public park and the Calle Joaquin wetlands, but does not include
the proposed stormwater detention basin area.
The Project would develop 2.9 acres as a new public park within the Madonna Froom
Ranch portion of the Project and would dedicate a total of 59.0 acres of open space within
the Specific Plan area, as further described below.
2-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-3. Villaggio Life Plan Community and Madonna Froom Ranch
The Project would also include development of supporting infrastructure and adjustments
to existing site features, including:
•Realignment and reconstruction of Froom Creek, including channel and bank
improvements within the Project site and immediately downstream of the Project
site;
•Development of a new stormwater detention basin with capacity to hold 22 acre-
feet of stormwater within an existing 7.1-acre easement on the Mountainbrook
Church property;
•Reconfiguration of an existing 7.1-acre agricultural conservation easement adjacent
to Calle Joaquin;
•Installation of a new signalized intersection and transit stop at LOVR and Auto
Park Way;
•Installation of sidewalks along a portion of LOVR to connect to Irish Hills Plaza;
•Development of an onsite circulation system with new collector and residential
roads, bicycle facilities, transit improvements, and emergency access extending to
Mountainbrook Church; and
•Extension of utility lines and infrastructure.
The following sections provide detailed descriptions of the Project components.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-13
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.4.1 Proposed Land Use Plan
The Project involves a land use plan with a development program and guidelines for
residential and commercial land uses along with public park and conservation/open space
(C/OS) uses in the Specific Plan area (Figure 2-4). The Project would adopt specific zoning
standards to govern development within the Specific Plan area. The Project’s proposed
land use plan is based on the City’s zoning standards for medium-high residential (R-3),
high density residential (R-4), retail-commercial (C-R), public facilities (PF), and C/OS
uses, but proposed modifications are included to uniquely apply within the Specific Plan
area for residential and commercial uses. Modified development standards for residential
uses that deviate from the City’s Municipal Code are proposed within the Specific Plan
area for R-3 (R-3-SP) and R-4 (R-4-SP) zone districts, as described in Table 2-1.
Modifications would accommodate envisioned conceptual development depicted in
Figure 2-5.
Table 2-1. Proposed Development Standards for Residential Zones
Standard Existing
R-3 Standards
Proposed
R-3-SP
Standards
Existing
R-4 Standards
Proposed
R-4-SP
Standards
Maximum Density
(units/acre)
18 du/ac6 20 du/ac 24 du/ac 24 du/ac
Maximum Building
Coverage
60% 60% 60% 60%
Maximum Building
Height1,2,3
35 feet 35 feet for
Madonna Froom
Ranch; 45 feet
for Villaggio
35 feet 35 feet
Minimum Street
Yard Setback4
15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Minimum Other
Yard Setback4
10 feet 0-5 feet 10 feet 0-5 feet
Minimum Lot Size5 5,000 sf 1,000 sf 5,000 sf 1,000 sf
Minimum Lot
Width5
50 feet 20 feet 50 feet 20 feet
Minimum Lot Depth5 80 feet 50 feet 80 feet 50 feet
Note: du/ac = dwelling units per acre
1 Building heights are measured from finished grades established at the time of completion of subdivision grading.
2 Structures above the 150-foot elevation line would be limited to a maximum roof height of 238 feet above mean sea
level.
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.
6 Density of 18 du/ac for properties within an Airport Safety Zone; 20 du/ac for all other properties.
2-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
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 2
Drainage 1
Drainage 4
150-FOOT E L EVATION CONTO
UR LIN
EUPPER
TERRACE
LOWER
AREA
LEGEND
Proposed Specific Plan
Land Use
Project Site
Villaggio (Private)
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Public Site Access
Roadways: 5.6 acres
Private Site Access Roadways
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: 59 acres
PF-SP – Public Facilities:
2.9 acres
R-3-SP – Medium-High Density
Residential: 37.3 acres
R-4-SP – High Density Residential:
1.8 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.
Proposed Land Use Plan 2-4
FIGURE
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
2-15
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development within the proposed C-R zone district would be consistent with the City’s
Municipal Code for the C-R zone, except that several commercial uses would be prohibited
due to potential land use conflicts or incompatible scale and intensity of development, such
as service stations, warehouses, and automobile-related businesses. Otherwise,
development standards would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Regulations for the C-
R zone, including a maximum building height limit of 45 feet, maximum site coverage of
100 percent, and a maximum floor-to-area ratio of 3.0. Further, the maximum individual
building size would not exceed 60,000 sf. No modifications to development standards are
proposed for PF zones and C/OS zones compared to the City’s Municipal Code standards.
Table 2-2. Summary of Proposed Zoning and Land Uses
Proposed Zones Acreage Housing Units/ sf
VILLAGGIO
R-3-SP Medium-High Density Residential 31.6 404 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.)
84,078 sf
MADONNA FROOM RANCH
R-3-SP Medium-High Density Residential 5.7 130 multi-family units
R-4-SP High Density Residential 1.8 44 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 2.9 N/A
ADDITIONAL USES
C/OS-SP Conservation/ Open Space 59.0 N/A
Designated Open Space 51.9 N/A
Reconfigured Agricultural Easement 7.1 N/A
Roadways 5.6 N/A
TOTAL 109.7 578 units/51 beds
100,000 sf commercial
Under the proposed land use plan, the Project would allow for the development 404
independent and assisted senior living units and 51 health care facility beds in Villaggio,
and 174 multi-family units in Madonna Froom Ranch. Proposed senior living and
residential uses would only be within medium-high and high density residential zones. The
Project also proposes up to 100,000 sf of retail commercial uses (including a potential
70,000-sf hotel and 30,000 sf of commercial retail) within a retail-commercial zone, 59.0
2-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
acres of dedicated open space within a conservation/open space zone, and 2.9 acres of
public park within a public facilities zone (Table 2-2 and Figure 2-4).
The design, layout, and function of Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch would be
substantially different from one another. While Madonna Froom Ranch is proposed as a
multi-family residential neighborhood with adjacent retail commercial uses and a public
park, Villaggio is proposed as a private, gated senior residential community that provides
different levels of accommodations and care depending on the needs of the residents, along
with supporting private recreational uses and facilities. Residential units within Villaggio
would not be independently owned; therefore, there would not be subdivisions within the
Villaggio development area to create individual lots for residents to purchase. As such, the
types of housing and other facilities differ greatly between Villaggio and Madonna Froom
Ranch, as further described below.
2.4.1.1 Villaggio Life Plan Community
Villaggio is proposed as a private,
gated, and age-restricted senior
housing community for residents
aged 60 years old or older. Villaggio
would provide a variety of senior
housing choices for independent or
assisted living and would include
private amenities for residents, such
as indoor and outdoor recreational
facilities, health care services,
restaurants, a movie theater, and a
network of private onsite trails.
Development of Villaggio is
proposed within two separate areas of the Specific Plan area, referred to as the “Lower
Area” and “Upper Terrace,” which would be connected by a private road. The development
proposed in the Upper Terrace would be above the 150-foot elevation line (Figures 2-3 and
2-5).
Villaggio Residential Development
The Project would designate 31.6 acres of R-3-SP zoning within Villaggio for planned
senior residential use with independent living units and specialized residential facilities for
Villaggio would include a 3-story community area with
common area providing resident-serving amenities, such
as retail uses, restaurants and a theater, designed as a
Mediterranean promenade.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-17
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
assisted living, skilled nursing, and memory care (Table 2-3). The independent living units
would include:
• Piazza Apartments and Village Suites – 197 total units within the upper floors of
three-story multi-use buildings up to 45 feet in height;
• Garden Terrace Apartments – two- to three-story apartment buildings, containing a
total of 108 two-bedroom units; and
• Villas – 61 detached one-story single-family homes with two bedrooms, up to 20
feet in height.
In addition, Villaggio would include a proposed Health Care Administration Building that
would contain 38 assisted living units, 17 memory care beds, and 34 skilled nursing beds,
along with supporting health care facilities available to Villaggio residents. The proposed
density of units within the R-3-SP zone would allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre
(du/acre) within the developed portions of the Lower Area and Upper Terrace, but as
proposed, the effective density of the development would be approximately 13 to 15
du/acre within the R-3-SP zone in Villaggio. Building heights are proposed up to a
maximum of 45 feet with allowance for certain appurtenances, towers, and utilities
consistent with the City’s Zoning Regulations, which allow an additional 10 feet for multi-
story buildings (i.e., 55 feet in total height).
Table 2-3. Types of Senior Housing within Villaggio
Type of Senior Housing Units Size (sf)
Independent Living Units1 366 units 700-2,000 sf
Piazza Apartments 150 units 700-1,900 sf
Village Suites 47 units 700-1,900 sf
Garden Terrace Apartments 108 units 1,300-1,800 sf
Villas 61 units 1,700-2,000 sf
Assisted Living Units2 38 units 310-620 sf
Memory Care 17 beds N/A
Skilled Nursing 34 beds N/A
1 Independent Living Units would be limited to dual occupancy.
2 Assisted Living Units would be designed to be single occupancy, though a total of two units would be designed for
dual occupancy.
2-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
C-CC-C
E-EE-E
A-AA-A
B-BB-B
D-DD-D
C-C
E-E
A-A
B-B
D-D
EMERGENCYEMERGENCY
ACCESS ROADACCESS ROAD
150-Foot Elevation C
ontourLOS OSOS VALLEY
ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY
ROADAUTO PARK WAY
AUTO PARK WAY
CALLE JOAQUINCALLE JOAQUINCALLE JOAQUINCALLE JOAQUINMOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH LOS OSOS VALLEY
ROADAUTO PARK WAY
CALLE JOAQUINCALLE JOAQUINMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH
6
1
3
4
5
14
11
1121
21
22
22
22
22
13
13
20
8
7
17
18
19
16
15
9
10
12
2
Realig n e d Froom CreekRELOCATEDRELOCATED
BASINBASIN
RELOCATED
BASIN
150-Foot Elevation C
ontourIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
101
EMERGENCY
ACCESS ROAD
LEGEND KEY
Proposed Building Heights
Project Site
1- to 2-Foot Berm
Cross Section Location
(refer to Figures 2-6
and 2-15)
1 Story – 18’-20’ High
2 Story – 24’-30’ High
3 Story – 36’-45’ High
Tower – 45’-55’ High
Trailhead Park Boundary
Relocated Historic Structures
Retail/Office – 30,000 sf
Commercial/Hotel – 70,000 sf
High-Density Multi-Family Housing –
44 units including 27 affordable units
Medium-High Density Attached
Multi-Family Housing – 130 units
LOVR/Auto Park Way Signalized
Intersection
Trail Access
Madonna Froom Ranch Villaggio
Commons
Upper Commons
Garden Terraces –
108 total units
Piazza Apartments and
VillageSuites – 197 total units
Villas – 61 total units
Health Center Support
Buildings
Reconfigured Open Space
and Agricultural Conservation
Easement
Wellness Center
Security Gatehouse
Health Care Administration
Building – 51 beds
Assisted Living – 38 units
Trail Access
Recreational Facility
Recreational Area
E-EE-EE-E
1 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Conceptual Site Plan 2-5
LOWER AREALOWER AREA
UPPERUPPER
TERRACETERRACE
LOWER AREA
UPPER
TERRACE
FIGURE
0 550
SCALE IN FEET
N
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
2-19
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Non-Residential Development
The Project 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 Area near the Villaggio entrance gate. This building includes the assisted
living units, as well as 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 Area. This
building would provide fitness facilities, including an outdoor swimming pool,
restrooms, lockers, yoga area, exercise equipment, and physical therapy services.
• Recreation Facilities – approximately eight locations within the Villaggio area
would provide private recreational areas, facilities, and/or community gathering
areas, including an outdoor swimming pool, spa pool, gym, pickle ball and bocce
ball courts, community gardens, resident gardening plots, and craft rooms. Private
trails and connections to public trails within and adjacent to the Project site would
also be provided.
• Commons –a three-story mixed-use building, known as “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.
Commons would contain a central paseo with plaza areas and a pedestrian
orientation.
• Assembly Room – a 5,688-sf room would accommodate a variety of functions and
gatherings for residents.
• Tower – a 55-foot-tall tower is proposed within the Lower Area 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.
2-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
200180160150140ELEVATION120100ElevatorElevator
Subterranean Parking28’18’18’LocalRoad “C”Mixed-Use Commericaland ResidentialResidentialCommercial Uses (i.e.,restaurants, recreationrooms, movie theater)Mixed-Use Commericaland ResidentialResidentialResidentialElevator
ResidentialResidential2nd Level SkybridgeResidentialResidentialResidentialCommercial Uses (i.e.,restaurants, recreationrooms, movie theater)PathPath45’ HighThe Commons45’ HighPiazza Apartments55’ HighTower150-FootElevationProjectGradeExistingGradeElevatorElevator
Subterranean ParkingResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialElevator
Residential28’Local Road “C”3.5’ HighRetaining Wall5’ HighFence18’Path45’ HighPiazza Apartments20’ HighVillaIrish HillsNaturalReserve200180160150140ELEVATION120100150-FootElevationProjectGradeExistingGrade2-6FIGUREVillaggio Life Plan Community Conceptual Cross SectionsCross Section B-B – Villaggio CenterCross Section A-A – Irish Hills Natural Reserve to Villaggio Center2-21
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.4.1.2 Madonna Froom Ranch
The Madonna Froom Ranch portion of the Specific Plan area would support a mix of uses,
including multi-family housing, retail commercial development, a public park, designated
open space, and non-restricted public access to roadways, recreational facilities, and
commercial establishments. Adoption of the Specific Plan would result in adoption of the
proposed land use plan; however, final design of the Madonna Froom Ranch development
may change site layout while maintaining consistency with the proposed standards
described below.
Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-SP)
Madonna Froom Ranch would contain 5.7 acres of medium-high density residential zoned
land to allow up to 130 multi-family housing units. R-3-SP development within Madonna
Froom Ranch would be developed at up to 20 du/acre in density, would have a minimum
lot size of 1,000 sf, and a maximum building height of 35 feet (refer to Table 2-3).
Minimum street setbacks would be 15 feet, while other yard setbacks would range from 0
feet to 5 feet.
High Density Residential (R-4-SP)
Madonna Froom Ranch would contain 1.8 acres of high density residential zoned land to
allow up to 44 multi-family housing units. R-4-SP development would be up to 24 du/acre
in density, would have a minimum lot size of 1,000 sf, and a maximum building height of
35 feet (refer to Table 2-3). Minimum street setbacks would be 15 feet, while other yard
setbacks would range from 0 to 5 feet.
Approximately 27 deed-restricted affordable housing units would be provided within the
R-4-SP zone. These units would be subject to resale and rental restrictions to meet the
housing needs of low- and moderate-income households. Consistency of the Project with
City Housing Element (HE) policies are discussed in detail in Section 3.11, Population and
Housing.
Retail Commercial (C-R-SP)
Madonna Froom Ranch would include 3.1 acres zoned for retail and commercial uses
located in the northeast portion of the Specific Plan area, adjacent to the Irish Hills Plaza
and near the proposed entrance to the Specific Plan area from LOVR. The Project currently
anticipates development of a three-story, 70,000-sf hotel up to 45 feet in height with ground
2-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
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
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
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Site design would include elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such
as courtyards and entryways facing public walkways.
• Residential developments would provide small private outdoor use areas, such as
patios, decks, and balconies.
• Varied roof designs would be encouraged, with earth-toned colors and details to
minimize reflective glare and blend visually with the natural setting.
• Perimeter fencing would be an open picket or wire style in a dark or recessive color
that does not wall-off the community from adjacent open space areas.
• Glare and light pollution would be controlled with outdoor lighting standards
included in the FRSP’s proposed design guidelines, consistent with the City’s Night
Sky Preservation Ordinance and Community Design Guidelines.
Commercial retail area design features within Madonna Froom Ranch would include the
following:
• Site design would be oriented toward streets and enhance the pedestrian network
with amenities, such as benches and shade trees.
• Architectural details would be used to add color, shadows, patterns, and interesting
forms, such as wall surfaces constructed with varying patterns and changes in
materials, and building pop-outs, columns, and recessed areas to create shadow
patterns and depth on the wall surfaces.
• Roof design would be varied to minimize bulk and scale, including the screening
of roof-mounted equipment from view from the base of adjacent properties.
• Wall signs would utilize raised, backlit metal letters, halo lighting, or external
lighting.
2.4.2.2 Sustainability Initiatives
The Project would incorporate sustainability measures that exceed the requirements of the
California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and California Energy Code (Part 6) in effect
at the time of construction. A series of goals, policies, and regulations developed based on
the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) and Climate Action Plan are
required for development of the Specific Plan area, including:
• Building design shall maximize solar exposure to improve daylighting and energy
efficiency, including compliance with the General Plan Solar Access Standards and
conformance with the California Building Code (CBC) to be at Net Zero in 2020.
• Building placement shall provide opportunities for passive heating, cooling, and
lighting systems, such as using sunlight for direct heating and illumination.
• Development of the Project site shall comply with the Cal Green mandatory
requirements checklist for non-residential development (Major Commercial
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-25
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Measures Green Building Code) administered by the City’s Building and Safety
Division.
• Photovoltaic solar collectors, wind, and/or geothermal systems shall be utilized
where feasible to offset new energy demand.
• Garages shall be pre-wired to accept EV charging stations, if installed by future
occupant, and commercial and hotel uses would provide EV charging stations for
customers and guests.
• New development shall incorporate high-efficiency Energy Star compliant
appliances and efficient types of lighting, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs).
• The use of recycled building materials in new construction, including the harvesting
of wood and other buildings from demolished or refurbished buildings for potential
use elsewhere on the site would be encouraged.
• Landscaping plans shall use native and non-invasive drought tolerant plant
materials to conserve water and would be designed to prevent runoff with low
impact development (LID), such as using permeable pavers and other materials that
maximize water infiltration.
• Recycled water shall be used to irrigate planting areas, the public park, landscaped
parkways, and common outdoor areas in residential and retail commercial zones.
• The use of bioswales, rain gardens, and retention and detention basins shall be used
in landscape design to manage stormwater onsite to the maximum extent possible
(see also, Section 2.4.5, Stormwater Management System and Froom Creek
Realignment).
2.4.2.3 Retaining Walls
The Project site would require at least five retaining walls. Up to three retaining walls
would be located within the Upper Terrace. These retaining walls would be located on
slopes above the 150-foot elevation line and would range from 300 to 500 feet in length.
An additional retaining wall would be located along the border of the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve and the Specific Plan area on the west side of the Lower Area, and would be
approximately 300 feet long (refer to Cross Section A-A on Figure 2-6). Another 75-foot-
long retaining wall would be located near the relocated historic dairy barn structure to
support the eastern corner of the building in its new location. The footing depths for
proposed retaining walls with sloping grade behind would be approximately one-third of
the exposed height of the retaining wall. For instance, a 6-foot-tall retaining wall would
require at least 2 feet of subsurface structural support. In areas where the grade behind the
wall is level, the footing depth may be slightly lower. This general rule for estimating
footing depth may vary based upon the actual soil conditions at the location of the retaining
wall (i.e., more clay, less clay, presence of rock, etc.).
2-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.4.2.4 Relocation and Reconstruction of Historic Structures
The Specific Plan area currently includes seven historic structures constructed in the late
1800s to early 1900s as part of the former Froom Ranch Dairy Farm. These structures
collectively contain features that contribute to an eligible historic district under the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR), as further described in Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources. The Project would relocate and adaptively reuse four of these structures within
the proposed public park, including the main residence, creamery, dairy barn, and granary.
The shed, bunkhouse, and old barn would be documented consistent with Secretary of
Interior (SOI) standards, then demolished and removed.
In addition, there are three other existing structures that were determined to be non-
contributing (non-historic) structures within the potential historic district, including a
modern telecommunications tower that is camouflaged to look like a water tower. The
telecommunications tower would remain in place while the other two structures would be
removed (Table 2-5).
Table 2-5. Proposal for Existing Structures Onsite
# Name Year Built Proposal
1 Main Residence 1915 Rehabilitate as building for public park:1
Structurally reinforce
Provide new foundation and relocate
Install utilities to building
2 Old Barn Unknown, est.
125 years old
Remove and document per SOI standards
3 Bunkhouse 1915 Remove and document per SOI standards
4 Round-nose Dairy
Barn
1913 Reconstruct and relocate building out of fault setback
consistent with SOI standards for adaptive reuse in public
park
5 Creamery House Unknown, est.
prior to 1900
Relocate and reconstruct western portion of the building as
public park restrooms. Repurpose eastern portion for use as
covered area for picnics and events
6 Granary 1913 Relocate and reconstruct in public park
7 Shed Building 1913 Remove and document per SOI standards
8 Cell Tower 2013 Retain in place
9 Storage Building 2010 Remove
10 Outhouse 2000 Remove
1 It is unknown at this time whether the City, Applicant, or future owner/association for Madonna Froom Ranch would
maintain rehabilitated historic structures. See also, Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources.
Source: Appendix H
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-27
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project would relocate and/or reconstruct four key contributing historic structures
roughly 100 feet east of their current locations. A portion of the dairy barn is currently
located on top of the Los Osos earthquake fault and, therefore, cannot be utilized for
habitable purposes. The Project would relocate this structure to a new location outside of
the required 50-foot setback of the fault line so that it could be reconstructed and used for
public park purposes. In addition, the main residence, creamery, and granary structures
would be relocated eastward and reconstructed on graded terrain to maintain the historic
configuration and proportional relationship of the buildings to one another (Figure 2-7).
2.4.2.5 Security Features
The Project would include 5-foot-tall security fencing to enclose the Upper Terrace and the
Lower Area of Villaggio and would surround R-3-SP zoned residential areas within
Madonna Froom Ranch (Figure 2-8). Since Villaggio would be a private gated community,
there would be six pedestrian access points controlled by coded gates in the perimeter
fencing to allow resident access from Villaggio to the proposed Froom Creek Trail,
Mountainbrook Church, and the public trail system within the Irish Hills Natural Preserve.
Fencing around Madonna Froom Ranch would not be locked or gated. In addition, the
Project would include new 5-foot-tall agricultural fencing along the Specific Plan area
boundary to separate Madonna Froom Ranch from the Irish Hills in the northern portion
of the Project site to expand existing agricultural fencing that currently surrounds the
southwestern site boundary.
2.4.3 Circulation
The Project’s proposed internal circulation system would connect to LOVR and existing
sidewalks and bicycle facilities adjacent to the Project site. The proposed circulation
system would include new roads, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities within Madonna Froom
Ranch.1 In addition, private roadways and pedestrian paths are proposed in Villaggio
(Figure 2-9). Major components of the proposed circulation system are summarized below:
1. Proposed internal roadway network consisting of public and private roads;
2. Proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the Specific Plan area;
3. Parking facilities to accommodate residents, employees, and visitors within the
Specific Plan area;
4. Widening of LOVR along a portion of the Project site’s frontage;
1 At this time, it is unknown whether the developer or City would own/maintain the proposed public roads
within Madonna Froom Ranch.
2-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
97'-0"97'-0"132'-6"132'-6"EXISTING FAULT LINEEXISTING FAULT LINEAND SETBACKAND SETBACKHOME DEPOTHOME DEPOTEXISTING FAULT LINEAND SETBACKHOME DEPOT1258347090SCALE IN FEETNKEYExisting StructuresRelocated Structures1234Main ResidenceCreameryDairy BarnGranary56678Main ResidenceCreameryDairy BarnGranaryLEGENDTrailhead Park (2.9 acresdedicated to the City ofSan Luis Obispo)Removable BollardsBenches2-7FIGUREProposed Plan for Historic Froom Ranch Structures2-29
Proposed Froom Creek Realignment101
CALL
E JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADCALLE JOAQUINAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
NATURALNATURAL
RESERVERESERVE
CALLE JOAQUINCALL
E JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLS
NATURAL
RESERVE
UNINCORPORATEDUNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTYCOUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY Proposed Froom Creek RealignmentMOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH
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
IRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
LEGEND
Project Site
Existing Agricultural
Fence
Proposed Agricultural Fence
Proposed Security Fencing/
Yard Fencing
Fencing Plan 2-8
FIGURE
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
2-30
Primary Villaggio GatePrimary Villaggio Gate
EmergencyEmergency
Access GateAccess Gate
PrimaryPrimary
AccessAccess
RoadwayRoadway
Connection toConnection to
Existing TrailsExisting Trails
Proposed Froom Creek Realignment101
CALL
E JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADCALLE JOAQUINAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
NATURALNATURAL
RESERVERESERVE
CALLE JOAQUINCALL
E JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLS
NATURAL
RESERVE
UNINCORPORATEDUNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTYCOUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY Proposed Froom Creek RealignmentNEIL HAVLIK W AYOCEAN V I E WFROOM CREEK CONNECTOR
FROOM C R E E K
OCEAN VIEWWEDN ES D AYPH Y LISS’LO O KOUT
OCEAN VIEW
NEIL HAVLIK W AYOCEAN V I E WFROOM CREEK CONNECTOR
FROOM C R E E K
OCEAN VIEWWEDN ES D AYPH Y LISS’LO O KOUT
OCEAN VIEW
Primary Villaggio Gate
Emergency
Access Gate
Primary
Access
Roadway
Connection to
Existing Trails
b
R
R
R
R
MOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH
★
★
★
★★
★
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
IRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
LEGEND
Project Site
Trail
Existing Class II
Bike Lanes
Bus Routes 4b
and 5a
Project Circulation Elements
LOVR Improvements
Commercial Collector “A”
(Public)
Commercial Collector “B”
(Public)
Local Road “A” (Public)
Local Road “B” (Private)
Local Road “C” (Private)
Signalized Intersection
Refer to Figures 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11
for representative cross sections.
Gated Pedestrian Access
Points
Proposed Transit Stop
Emergency Access
Roadway
Removable Bollards
Public Pedestrian
Trail
Private Pedestrian
Trail
Rest Area
★
R
b
Proposed Circulation Plan 2-9
FIGURE
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
2-31
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
5.A new bus stop that would be integrated into the regional public transportation
system;
6.Installation of sidewalks along an approximate 550-foot-long portion of LOVR
from the new transit stop location north to Irish Hills Plaza; and
7.A proposed signalized intersection at LOVR and Auto Park Way to serve as the
primary entrance to the Specific Plan area.
2.4.3.1 Los Osos Valley Road Improvements
The Project would include improvements to an approximately 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 2-10). The Project would restripe existing travel
lanes, Class II bicycle lanes, and a center turn lane along this segment. A new sidewalk and
parkway would also be installed along approximately 550 feet on the west side of LOVR
to extend the existing sidewalk along Irish Hills Plaza to the Project site entrance.
Figure 2-10. LOVR Improvements
2.4.3.2 Primary Access
Primary access to the Specific Plan area would be via a new two-lane road Commercial
Collector “A”, which would intersect with LOVR at Auto Park Way. The new intersection
would be located approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of LOVR and Froom
Ranch Way. The proposed LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection would be signalized and
would provide pedestrian crossings at each leg.
2-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.4.3.3 Project Roadway Network
The Project would include a roadway network comprising larger Commercial Collectors
“A” and “B”, smaller Local Roads “A”, “B”, and “C”, and three emergency vehicle access
points.
Public Roadways within Madonna Froom Ranch
All roadways within Madonna Froom Ranch would be open to the public and accessible
by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians from LOVR. The Project would include two public
Commercial Collector roadways, “A” and “B” and one public Local Road “A” (Figure 2-
11).
Commercial Collector “A” would connect LOVR to residential and commercial areas
within Madonna Froom Ranch. Commercial Collector “A” would be a 73-foot-wide
roadway with one 12-foot-wide travel lane in each direction, a planted median divider, 6-
foot-wide Class II bicycle lanes, 8-foot-wide parkways, and 6-foot-wide sidewalks.
Commercial Collector “B” would connect the main entrance to Villaggio and terminate at
the Project site’s boundary with Irish Hills Plaza to the north. Commercial Collector “B”
would be 44 feet wide with one 12-foot-wide travel lane in each direction, 5-foot-wide
parkways, and 5-foot-wide sidewalks. Only pedestrian and bicycle access would be
allowed to the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza using bollards or similar devices to restrict
vehicular travel. This connection would allow for access by emergency vehicles.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-33
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Local Road “A” would be a public roadway that extends from the proposed roundabout to
residential areas within Madonna Froom
Ranch and to the proposed public park.
Local Road “A” would be a 44-foot-wide
roadway with 5-foot-wide parkways and
5-foot-wide sidewalks.
A roundabout intersection of Commercial
Collectors “A” and “B” and Local Road
“A” is proposed with one travel lane and a
central island within landscaping, signage,
and decorative features. The roundabout
intersection would include designated
pedestrian crossings.
The proposed roundabout would consist of a single
lane roundabout with a 66-foot radius and
landscaped center median with sidewalk and
crosswalk facilities.
2-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
44’ Minimum Roadway Right-of-Way5’Sidewalk5’SidewalkHigh DensityResidential orPublic FacilitiesMedium-HighDensityResidential5’Parkway5’Parkway12’Travel Lane withClass III Bike Route12’Travel Lane withClass III Bike RouteCommercial Collector “B”/Public Local Road “A”Commercial Collector “A”73’ Minimum Roadway Right-of-Way6’SidewalkRetail/GeneralCommercial6’SidewalkHigh DensityResidential8’Parkway8’Parkway6’Class IIBike Lane6’Class IIBike Lane2’Buffer2’Buffer5’ Median(width varies)12’ Travel Lane(additional at LOVR)12’ Travel Lane(additional at LOVR)2-11FIGUREPublic Roads Cross Sections2-35
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Private Roadways within Villaggio Life Plan Community
Local Roads “B” and “C” would be private roads within Villaggio (Figure 2-12). Local
Road “B” would serve as the primary ingress/egress to Villaggio from Commercial
Collector “B” past the Villaggio entrance gate to a central location in the Lower Area of
Villaggio near the Commons. Local Road “B” would include one 12-foot-wide travel lane
in each direction, a 10-foot-wide landscaped median, 5-foot-wide landscaped parkways,
and 5-foot-wide sidewalks. Local Road “C” would provide private access throughout
Villaggio and would connect the Upper Terrace and Lower Area. Local Road “C” would
include two 12-foot-wide vehicle travel lanes with 2-foot-wide shoulders and no sidewalks.
Figure 2-12. Private Road Cross Sections
2-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Emergency Vehicle Access
Emergency access roads would be 20 feet wide with 2-foot-wide shoulders, constructed of
an all-weather surface, and built to approval of the City of San Luis Obispo Fire
Department (SLOFD). Three emergency access points are proposed within the Specific
Plan area (Figure 2-9), as follows:
• Upper Terrace Emergency Access. Emergency vehicle access to the Specific Plan
area would be provided via a gated emergency access road extending from the
Specific Plan area boundary to the Mountainbrook Church on the Upper Terrace.
Emergency access is proposed as a paved at-grade surface road with a private gated
entry that would connect to an existing decomposed granite road and parking area
on the Mountainbrook Church property. The gate would be equipped with fire
access security for emergency vehicle access, and a pedestrian gate with a key pad
for Villaggio residents. This emergency access road would also provide pedestrian
and bicycle access for Villaggio residents to Mountainbrook Church. Limited golf
cart parking would be allowed within the Upper Terrace near the gated entry,
though golf carts would not be permitted to pass through to Mountainbrook Church.
• Trailhead Park Emergency Access. A paved emergency access road would
connect Commercial Collector “B” to the cul-de-sac of the proposed public park’s
parking lot and driveway, providing an alternate accessway to the park and the
upper portions of Madonna Froom Ranch. Removable bollards at the park’s cul-
de-sac and the connection to Commercial Collector “B” would be installed to
restrict vehicular access into the park via the emergency access road. The
emergency access road would also provide a pedestrian connection, paved with
colored and scored concrete, or drivable pavers (see also, Figure 2-7).
• Irish Hills Plaza Emergency Access. The northern terminus of Commercial
Collector “B” at the Project site boundary would provide a paved connection
meeting SLOFD requirements for passage of emergency vehicles and personnel via
the parking lot of Irish Hills Plaza with removal of proposed bollards.
2.4.3.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle Network
The Project includes a proposed bicycle network within the Specific Plan area that would
connect with existing bicycle lanes along LOVR. Proposed 6-foot-wide Class II striped
bicycle lanes would be included along Commercial Collector “A”. Class III bicycle routes
are also proposed along Commercial Collector “B” and Local Road “A” to connect the
proposed public park and residential areas within Madonna Froom Ranch (Figure 2-11).
These roadways would be designed with shared lane markings (“sharrows”) with on-street
painted bicycle symbols to demarcate a preferred route for shared vehicular and bicycle
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-37
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
travel. Bicycle parking would be provided at commercial, recreational, and residential uses
within Madonna Froom Ranch, consistent with City zoning requirements.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are proposed along an approximate 550-foot-long portion of LOVR from the
new transit stop location north to Irish Hills Plaza, along Commercial Collectors “A” and
“B” and Local Roads “A” and “B”. Sidewalks would range between 5 and 10 feet in width.
Proposed sidewalks would facilitate pedestrian circulation between proposed residential
neighborhoods, commercial, and recreational areas. The sidewalks would include lighting,
paving, bulb-outs at intersections, and landscaping. Local Road “C” within Villaggio
would not include sidewalks; however, a network of private walking trails separated from
vehicle roadways would be provided for Villaggio residents (see Figures 2-9 and 2-12).
Pedestrian Trail System
The Project includes a public pedestrian trail that would generally follow the proposed
realigned Froom Creek corridor through the Specific Plan area. The Froom Creek Trail
would extend approximately 2,500 linear feet from the existing Froom Creek Connector
Trail within the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve and would terminate at a public
viewing/rest area adjacent to onsite wetlands and the reconfigured agriculture and open
space easement. The terminus of the trail would connect to a private Villaggio gated
pedestrian access point (Figure 2-9). The proposed Froom Creek Trail would be accessible
from Madonna Froom Ranch, Villaggio, and the existing Irish Hills Natural Reserve trails
system. Froom Creek Trail would also be accessible via 6-foot-wide pedestrian trails that
would extend through the Madonna Froom Ranch residential areas and the proposed public
park. The proposed public Froom Creek Trail would be a 6-foot-wide, decomposed granite
(or other stabilized natural surface) pedestrian trail and would not provide lighting.
Potential trail amenities would include benches, signage, trash cans, landscaping, and dog
waste stations. Portions of the trail would be located within the 35-foot-wide riparian
setback of realigned Froom Creek.
2.4.3.5 Parking
Parking would be provided in accordance with City development standards consistent with
the requirements of Chapter 17.16 of the City Municipal Code. No on-street parking is
proposed along Commercial Collectors or Local Roads. Villaggio would provide an
estimated 834 parking spaces. Subsurface parking garages would provide approximately
457 parking spaces located within the Lower Area and Upper Terrace of Villaggio.
2-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Subterranean parking garages would descend up to 10 feet below finished ground surface
within the Upper Terrace and would vary between 2 to 10 feet below finished ground
surface within the Lower Area. Parking for detached villas would be provided in two car
garages. Within Madonna Froom Ranch, residential and commercial areas would contain
parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms proposed for development and the size
of development. A public surface parking lot containing 30 spaces would be located within
the public park.
2.4.3.6 Transit Improvements
A single new bus stop is proposed in the southbound direction of LOVR, just south of the
proposed intersection of Commercial Collector “A” and LOVR at the Project’s primary
access. The Applicant would coordinate with the City Transit Division (SLO Transit) to
integrate with existing SLO Transit routes 2A and 2B. Refer to Section 3.13,
Transportation, for a more complete description of proposed transit operations.
2.4.4 Utilities and Services
Project development would require major extensions of several utilities to serve future
development within the Specific Plan area, which is located at the edge of the existing
urban area and supporting utility infrastructure within the City. Proposed utilities and
services include potable and recycled water, wastewater, electrical, natural gas,
telecommunications, solid waste, and recycling. All utility lines within the Specific Plan
area would be installed underground. Water and sewer services would be provided by the
City. Natural gas service would be provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal
Gas). Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) would provide electrical service. Charter
Communications would provide cable and television services. American Telephone and
Telegraph Company (AT&T) would provide telephone services. The San Luis Garbage
Company would provide solid waste and recycling hauling service within the Specific Plan
area.
2.4.4.1 Water Supply Infrastructure
Potable Water
Potable water for the Project would be supplied from existing City infrastructure, which
would be extended throughout the Specific Plan area to serve proposed development
(Figure 2-13). Within Villaggio, private 8-inch water main lines would be installed beneath
Local Roads “B” and “C” and the pedestrian trail linking the Upper Terrace and Lower
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-39
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Area that would distribute potable water throughout the development. A 6-inch private
water meter is proposed for Villaggio at the point of connection to the public main under
Local Road “B” (Figure 2-13). Service connections to the various facilities and senior
residential units would connect to the private 8-inch domestic main lines. The fire
suppression water system would share the 8-inch water main line routed throughout
Villaggio and connect to the proposed public mains within Madonna Froom Ranch and the
public main along LOVR. Villaggio’s private water main system would be protected at
each connection to the public system with a double detector check assembly (DCDA).2
Similar to Madonna Froom Ranch, fire hydrants would be located adjacent to private
roadways and spacing would be no greater than 500 feet. Within Madonna Froom Ranch,
an 8-inch public domestic water main line would extend under Commercial Collectors “A”
and “B”, and Local Road “A”. From the main line, water lines would be routed to
residences and commercial uses which would utilize standard City water services and
meters. These 8-inch public water main lines would also provide fire suppression to
Madonna Froom Ranch, including the installation of hydrants spaced no greater than 500
feet apart.
Recycled Water
Non-potable recycled water for landscaping would be provided through the City’s Water
Reuse Project. The point of connection to the City’s recycled system would be at the
Project’s primary access with LOVR at Commercial Collector “A”. Within Madonna
Froom Ranch, a 6-inch recycled water main would run along proposed Commercial
Collectors “A” and “B”, and Local Road “A” to convey irrigation water to landscaped
areas. Within Villaggio, a 6-inch private water meter would be located at the entrance to
service the entire Villaggio development (Figure 2-13).
2 A DCDA is primarily utilized in fire line installations. Its purpose is to protect the potable water supply line
from possible contamination or pollution from the fire system, backpressure from fire line pumps, stagnant
water that sits in fire lines over extended periods of time, the addition of non-potable water, and the detection
of unauthorized use of water or leaks in the fire line system.
2-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
Proposed Froom Creek Realignment101
CALL
E JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADCALLE JOAQUINAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
NATURALNATURAL
RESERVERESERVE
CALLE JOAQUINCALL
E JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLS
NATURAL
RESERVE
UNINCORPORATEDUNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTYCOUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY Proposed Froom Creek RealignmentMOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH
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
RD
C
C
IRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
LEGEND Proposed Water Supply Elements
Project
Site
8” Public Potable Water
Main Line
8” Private Potable Water
Main Line
8” Public Recycled
Water Main
8” Private Recycled
Water Main
6” Private Domestic
Water Meter
6” Private Recycled
Water Meter
Connection to Existing
Infrastructure
R
D C
Water Supply System 2-13
FIGURE
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
2-41
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.4.4.2 Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
Wastewater generated within the Specific Plan area would be conveyed to an existing City
sewer main along LOVR. Site topography would allow for gravity flow of wastewater to
the northeast, downhill from the Irish Hills towards LOVR. Within Madonna Froom
Ranch, 8-inch public sewer mains would run along the proposed Commercial Collectors
“A” and “B” to LOVR. Within Villaggio, 8-inch public sewer mains would run along
proposed Local Road “C”, the pedestrian trail linking the Upper Terrace and Lower Area,
and within developed areas to connect to LOVR. These two sewer systems would be
separate and would connect to the existing City sewer line along LOVR independently
(Figure 2-14).
2.4.4.3 Electricity, Gas, Telephone, Cable, and Solid Waste Facilities
All new cable and telephone lines within the Specific Plan area would be placed
underground along proposed roadways. Other broadcast or telecommunications services,
including satellite, would be provided to the Project to the extent they are available.
Within Madonna Froom Ranch, enclosures for trash, recycling, and food waste materials
would be installed to serve residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Villaggio would
have a centralized trash compactor and would manage trash and recycling generated by the
independent living housing units, assisted units, and other ancillary facilities within the
development. Solid waste would be collected from the centralized facility at Villaggio and
the shared enclosed facilities at Madonna Froom Ranch at minimum once per week.
2-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
Proposed Froom Creek Realignment101
CALL
E JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADCALLE JOAQUINAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
NATURALNATURAL
RESERVERESERVE
CALLE JOAQUINCALL
E JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLS
NATURAL
RESERVE
UNINCORPORATEDUNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTYCOUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY Proposed Froom Creek RealignmentMOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH
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
C
C
IRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
Proposed Wastewater Collection System ElementsLEGEND
Project
Site
8” Private Sanitary Sewer
Main Gravity Line showing
Flow Direction
8” Public Sanitary Sewer
Main Gravity Line showing
Flow Direction
Connection to Existing
InfrastructureC
Wastewater Collection System 2-14
FIGURE
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
2-43
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.4.4.4 Stormwater Management System and Froom Creek Realignment
The Project proposes a comprehensive onsite stormwater management system to control
surface runoff within the Project site. Project development would realign Froom Creek
through the Specific Plan area, reconstruct the drainage ditch onsite along LOVR, install a
new drainage ditch along the northern site boundary adjacent to Irish Hills Plaza, replace
the existing onsite detention basin with the proposed stormwater detention basin on
Mountainbrook Church property, and fill the lower elevations of the site to raise site
elevation to achieve a finished floor elevation of 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation.
Surface runoff flowing through the site would continue to originate from the Froom Creek
watershed upstream within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, from the impermeable
developed areas of the Irish Hills Plaza, and from sheet flows from LOVR. Impervious
surfaces proposed within the Specific Plan area would generate new runoff sources flowing
to Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek.
A key feature of the Project involves the relocation of Froom Creek from its existing
perched location following the western edge of the Project site to a lower elevation to allow
for development of Villaggio in areas outside of lower-elevation flood hazard areas. The
proposed realigned Froom Creek would convey stormwater through the Project site to the
southeast corner where it would reconnect to the segment of Froom Creek that conveys
flows under U.S. 101. During storm events larger than two-year events, the proposed
Froom Creek low-flow channel would convey a portion of the stormwater to San Luis
Obispo Creek while excess stormwater would overflow the creek banks to the existing
Calle Joaquin wetland area and a proposed stormwater detention basin on the adjacent
Mountainbrook Church property. Detained stormwater would percolate, evaporate, and
flow offsite at a controlled rate, as further described herein.
The Project would be subject to the LID standards of the Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB’s) Post Construction Requirements (PCRs) and the
design and stage-storage requirements of the City’s Drainage Design Manual (DDM) and
the Waterways Management Plan (WMP), which sets forth criteria for drainage design for
tributaries to San Luis Obispo Creek, including Froom Creek (see Section 3.8, Hydrology
and Water Quality).
The Project’s stormwater management system would have four primary components:
1. Realignment and modification of the Froom Creek channel to convey all
stormwater sources through the Project site;
2-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2. Point and non-point source water quality treatment (e.g., retention/treatment
features);
3. Installation of headwalls and culverts for drainage crossings, unless free-span
bridges are required; and
4. Development of a new stormwater detention basin downstream of the Specific Plan
area on adjacent property owned by Mountainbrook Church.
2.4.4.5 Froom Creek Realignment and Reconstruction
The Project includes the removal of 2,145 linear feet of Froom Creek and relocation and
reconstruction of a 3,745-foot-long realigned channel within lower elevations of the Project
site, increasing the creek’s length by approximately 1,600 feet. The realigned Froom Creek
would flow east from the northwestern boundary of the Project site for approximately 775
feet in a channel of 44 to 80 feet in width, then turn in a southerly direction where the
channel width would range from 80 to 330 feet for a length of approximately 2,970 feet
generally parallel to Calle Joaquin and the adjacent Calle Joaquin wetlands. On average,
the Froom Creek channel would be 65 feet in width and the bottom of the channel would
be approximately 8 feet deep. The realigned creek would have 35-foot minimum setbacks
between the top of bank and proposed development; however, portions of the proposed
Froom Creek Trail would fall within the minimum riparian setback. The Project would also
improve the offsite portions of the Froom Creek channel to provide a low-flow channel to
the box culvert at U.S. 101 while maintaining existing flow capacity of this portion of the
creek.
The realigned and improved Froom Creek would convey runoff and stormwater to an
existing box culvert that conveys flows under U.S. 101 to San Luis Obispo Creek. The box
culvert below U.S. 101 has limited capacity for 10-year storm events to flow through to
San Luis Obispo Creek; therefore, stormwater flows exceeding a 10-year storm event
would backup within the widened Froom Creek channel. In addition to increased channel
capacity, two proposed onsite detention features would provide storage of excess
stormwater, including the existing Calle Joaquin wetlands and a proposed stormwater
detention basin located adjacent to the Specific Plan area on Mountainbrook Church
property. During storm events larger than two-year events, the proposed Froom Creek
channel would convey a portion of the stormwater to San Luis Obispo Creek while excess
stormwater would flow to the proposed detention features (see also, Section 2.4.5.2,
Stormwater Detention Features).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-45
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The realigned Froom Creek would be designed with a “low-flow” channel to convey runoff
generated during any flow conditions below a two-year storm event through the Project
site to the existing box culvert below U.S. 101. Stormwater would begin to flow through
the channel’s wider overbank area and to the Calle Joaquin wetlands and the proposed
stormwater detention basin when flows exceed two-year storm events (see Cross Section
C-C on Figure 2-15). The low-flow channel would be constructed to meander and to aid
and control fish migration passage through a series of constructed stepped pools and
terraces throughout the realigned segment.
The realigned Froom Creek would be designed to manage flow velocities throughout the
Project site by:
• Varying creek corridor meanders and is between approximately 45 to 65 feet wide
on average, with a maximum width of 330 feet through the Calle Joaquin wetlands
(include the width of the creek corridor and Calle Joaquin wetlands);
• Installing gradient controls with more level narrower segments and steeper wider
segments;
• Varying the steepness of creek bank slopes from primarily 3:1 or less to a maximum
slope of 2:1 to promote vegetative rooting along the creek banks;
• Installing boulders and vegetation that promote a riparian environment to reduce
potential erosion; and
• Installing constructed ponds and terraces to create pooling areas where water would
be slowed down to pond, provide habitat, and prevent erosion, scouring, and
sediment transport.
With proposed site hydrologic modifications, the Project aims to remove the proposed
development areas from the Zone A floodplain designated onsite by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The Project would relocate Froom Creek and reconstruct
the creek channel to convey and store stormwater flows, which would potentially remove
existing FEMA flood hazards areas within the Project site. Further, the Project proposes to
increase site elevation of proposed development with import and grading of soils to remove
proposed developed areas from potential FEMA flood hazard areas. As a result, the Project
would formalize the amendment of the FEMA floodplain through FEMA’s formal map
revision process.
2-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
Realigned Froom Creek40’±Flow to ProposedStormwater Basin35’±Flow to U.S. 101Box Culverts106.5’±Project GradeExisting Grade103.5’±FenceExisting HotelParking 109.3’±Top of BankElevation 111.4’±High WaterLine 110.4’±7’Realigned Froom CreekCreek Setback6’Trail5’ High FenceElevation 121.5’±Creek Setback65’35’35’200180160150140ELEVATION120ElevatorElevator5’ HighFenceHigh Water Line – 109.8’±110.9’±Sidewalk andParkwayProjectGradeExisting Wetland and Overbank AreaSubterranean Parking6’65’35’86’ResidentialElevator
ResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialTrailRealigned Froom CreekCreek SetbackCalle Joaquin – Existing Roadway45’ HighPiazza Apartments150-FootElevationExistingGrade2-15FIGUREConceptual Creek Cross SectionsCross Section D-D – Upper Creek Bridge CrossingCross Section E-E – Lower CreekCross Section C-C – Mid-Creek2-47
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.4.4.6 Stormwater Detention Features
The Project would remove an existing 3.2-acre onsite detention basin that currently
receives runoff from a portion of Irish Hills Plaza; a 1.08-acre retention basin was removed
in 2017 and no longer controls runoff from Irish Hills Plaza. Via realigned Froom Creek,
the Project would redirect stormwater flows either to the Calle Joaquin wetlands or to a
new approximately 4.5-acre basin within a dedicated easement located outside the Specific
Plan area on the adjacent Mountainbrook Church property. The Calle Joaquin wetland area
and detention basin would store excess stormwater generated from the Froom Creek
watershed, Irish Hills Plaza, LOVR, and the Project site; the detention basin would also
capture a limited amount of runoff from Mountainbrook Church property. The new
stormwater detention basin would assist in metering flows to the box culverts beneath U.S.
101, while expanding controlled storage volume within the Project site. The Calle Joaquin
wetlands would be capable of storing approximately 11 acre-feet of stormwater and
stormwater would percolate or evaporate.
The proposed stormwater detention basin would include construction of an approximate
4.5-acre infiltration basin located approximately 515 feet downstream from the Specific
Plan area just north of Calle Joaquin with connections to the existing Froom Creek corridor.
Construction of the basin would include excavation and removal of material to create
storage capacity for up to 22 acre-feet of stormwater along with discharge controls to
regulate the rate of outflow to the U.S. 101 box culvert.
The existing Froom Creek corridor downstream from the Specific Plan area would remain
in place. Froom Creek adjacent to the proposed stormwater detention basin would be
approximately 2 feet in depth beneath an overflow berm that would empty into the
proposed basin. The basin would be
approximately 7 feet deep from the top of
the creek overflow berm and would be 8
feet beneath the anticipated 100-year
water surface elevation (WSE). The
proposed basin would include infiltration
wells to enable groundwater recharge and
subsurface drainage.
All stormwater detention basin
components would be constructed and
maintained by the Applicant. Access to
The proposed stormwater detention basin would be
constructed downstream from the Specific Plan
area within Mountainbrook Church property,
2-48 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
the basin would be provided via an unpaved, existing access road from Calle Joaquin. An
access easement would be established to allow the City and Applicant access to the basin
and road as needed. A basin access ramp would be provided into the bottom of the basin
and a walkable graded bench at the top of the basin embankment would be provided to
allow access around the perimeter of the basin.
2.4.4.7 Point- and Non-Point Source Water Quality Treatment
Development areas within the Project site would provide point-source water quality
treatment of stormwater prior to discharge into the realigned Froom Creek corridor. Surface
runoff from streets, parking lots, and sidewalks within the Specific Plan area would be
conveyed via street gutters that connect to proposed water quality treatment areas. Water
quality treatment areas would flow into Froom Creek via outlets of various pipe sizes.
Runoff entering the Project site from Irish Hills Plaza would be conveyed through
vegetated channels, including the “LOVR ditch” located along LOVR and the “Home
Depot ditch” located along the northern Project site boundary, to treat runoff through
biofiltration prior to discharge into Froom Creek (Figure 2-16). The existing LOVR ditch
would be removed and replaced with a relocated LOVR ditch within the Specific Plan area
along the widened LOVR corridor. The LOVR ditch would consist of an average depth of
approximately 4 feet beneath the 100-year WSE with swales and banks at least 1 foot
higher than the 100-year WSE. Edges of the drainage would consist of a maximum 3:1
slope. Similarly, a new Home Depot ditch would be designed with an average 4 feet
beneath the 100-year WSE with swales and banks at least 1 foot higher than the 100-year
WSE and have a maximum slope of 3:1 around the edges.
Within proposed developed areas of Villaggio, five additional water quality treatment areas
would capture and treat surface runoff using biofiltration with outlets to Froom Creek (see
Figure 2-16). In total, water quality treatment areas within the Specific Plan area would
comprise approximately 2.1 acres. The water quality treatment areas would be bordered
with cobble or splash block and have a maximum slope of 3:1 around the edges. The bottom
would be flat with varying depths. The bottom would contain a 24-inch-thick soil mixture
covered by approximately 3 inches of mulch. This bioretention soil mixture would overlie
a gravel storage component that would vary in thickness. Any overflow from these water
quality treatment areas would be conveyed to Froom Creek through an overflow/outlet
structure with a minimum 4-inch riser.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-49
Draft EIR
Proposed Froom Creek Realignment101HOME DEPOT DITCHHOME DEPOT DITCHLOVR DITCHLOVR DITCHCALL
E JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADCALLE JOAQUINAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
NATURALNATURAL
RESERVERESERVE
CALLE JOAQUINCALL
E JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLS
NATURAL
RESERVE HOME DEPOT DITCHLOVR DITCHUNINCORPORATEDUNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTYCOUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY Proposed Froom Creek RealignmentMOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH
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
IRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
LEGEND Proposed Stormwater Control Elements
Project Site Stormwater
Treatment Area
Proposed Stormwater
Detention Basin
Proposed Treated
Stormwater Outlet
Linear Water Quality
Treatment Area
Headwall and Arch-
Culvert Crossing
Headwall and Four
24-Inch Storm Drains
Headwall and
Pipe Culverts
Stormwater Control Plan 2-16
FIGURE
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
2-50
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.4.4.8 Headwalls and Culverts for Drainage Crossings
The Project would include a total of seven roadway crossings over realigned Froom Creek
and associated tributary drainages (see Table 2-6). This would include four natural bottom
culverts beneath Local Road “C” to convey flows from existing tributary drainages that
traverse the Upper Terrace of the Project site, and three crossings of realigned portions of
Froom Creek. All crossings would comply with the City’s DDM. Culverted crossings
would be designed to accommodate 100-year storm events and may be reinforced at both
the inlets and outlets to prevent erosion (Table 2-6).
Below are descriptions of the key proposed drainage crossings within the Specific Plan
area:
• LOVR and Home Depot Ditch Crossings. The primary entrance road to the
Specific Plan area would cross the approximately 30-foot-wide LOVR ditch. Two
45-foot-long headwalls would be constructed on both the upstream and downstream
sides of proposed Commercial Collector “A”. Four 24-inch storm drains would be
constructed beneath the roadway to convey stormwater southeast towards the Calle
Joaquin wetland area and realigned Froom Creek corridor. The Home Depot ditch
crossing to the Irish Hills Plaza via Commercial Collector “B” would be similarly
constructed, with three 24-inch storm drains routed beneath the roadway with
similar headwalls.
• Froom Creek Channel Crossing. A proposed pre-fabricated natural bottom
culvert with a bridge crossing is proposed for Commercial Collector “B” to cross
Froom Creek. This crossing would involve a proposed arch culvert and headwalls
between the roundabout and Villaggio along Commercial Collector “B”. Rock
energy dissipaters at the inlet and outlet are proposed. Portions of the headwall
would extend beneath the 100-year WSE; however, the arch culvert bridge surface
would be constructed at least 3 feet above the 100-year WSE (see Cross Section D-
D on Figure 2-15).
• Upper Terrace Drainage Crossings. Four crossings of drainages to support Local
Road “C” within the Upper Terrace of Villaggio are proposed, including headwalls
and natural bottom culverts.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-51
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 2-6. Pipe Sizes at Drainage Crossings
Crossing Location Design Storm Pipe Size (inches) Pipe Quantity Apron Size
(cubic feet)
Auto Park Way Intersection
(LOVR ditch)
100-year 24 4 200
Irish Hills Plaza (Home Depot
ditch)
100-year 24 3 200
Realigned Froom Creek 100-year natural bottom
(arched)
1 400
Upper Villaggio (4) 100-year natural bottom
(arched)
2 (each) 400
Note: Apron dimensions based on methods in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hydraulic Engineering
Circular (HEC). No 14.
2.5 REQUIRED APPROVALS
The following entitlements and approvals would be required to implement the Project:
• General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zoning. Approval of the Project would
require a General Plan amendment to amend LUCE SP-3 performance standards to
ensure consistency with the Specific Plan. Because the site is currently
unincorporated, it would be pre-zoned based on the approved Project before
annexation to the City could be approved. Specific amendments to the General Plan
include:
• Amend Section 6.4.7 Hillside Planning Areas of the City of San Luis Obispo
General Plan to allow limited development above the 150-foot elevation within
the Specific Plan area.
• Amend LUE Section 8.1.5 – Performance Standards to allow a Life Plan
Community senior housing land use and up to 404 senior housing residential
units with 51 beds in health care facilities within the Specific Plan area.
• Specific Plan. The City’s LUCE 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 FRSP would require adoption by the City prior to
implementation, including Planning Commission and City Council discretionary
review proceedings.
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The Project would require a 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 and utilities.
• Architectural Review. Final architectural review of housing, commercial
buildings, and some site facilities by the City’s Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) would be required. The ARC has conducted conceptual review of the
Villaggio component of the Project and preliminary review of the design guidelines
in the Draft FRSP and provided comments.
2-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• 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 key issues to
LAFCO, including the ability to provide public services to the site (including water)
and the nature of a tax-sharing arrangement with the County.
Other advisory bodies that would review the Project include the City’s Parks & Recreation
Commission reviewing park proposals, Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) regarding the
proposed use/treatment of historic structures, and the Active Transportation Committee
advising on the proposed circulation improvements. In addition, the Project would need to
be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency with the
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).
Other permits and required approvals or participation agreements from public agencies
required to implement the Project include, but may not be limited to:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide or Individual Permit
(depending on acreage of total disturbance within jurisdictional areas);
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration
Agreement;
• RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) consultation, Biological Opinion,
possible incidental take permit(s), and protocol surveys;
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries)
consultation and possible incidental take permit(s);
• FEMA – Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)/Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR);
• San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) – construction
and/or operational permits, grading permits, and fugitive dust regulation
compliance; and
• Encroachment permits, and approval of improvement plans by the County for
portions of the Project’s infrastructure to be developed outside of the City limits,
namely the proposed stormwater detention basin and associated adjacent streambed
alterations.
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for any needed improvements
within the Caltrans right of way;
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-53
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.6 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
2.6.1 Construction Phasing and Implementation
The Project would be constructed in four phases. For the purposes of this analysis, the EIR
assumes Project construction between 2020 and 2024 and full occupancy in 2025. Phases
would be timed and ordered to provide services within the Project site to support
development and eventual occupation. These phases would overlap periodically. For
example, Phase 1 would include grading of areas for Phase 2 and Phase 3 to borrow soil
needed for fill in Phases 2 and 3 (Table 2-7).
At the time of construction, each phase would be subject to permit review to ensure
conformity with the approved FRSP and consistency with applicable regulations. Each
phase would include specifications to address the development activities to be performed
during the phase and define specific mitigation measures and best management practices
(BMPs) that would apply.
2-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 2-7. Project Construction Phases
Phase Project Components
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 cubic yards [cy] stockpiled onsite).
• 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 bridge across Froom Creek from Commercial Collector “B”.
• Realign Froom Creek and reconstruct creek corridor.
• Modify Irish Hills Plaza drainage, including construction of the vegetated channels of the
Home Depot ditch and the LOVR ditch prior to connection with the realigned Froom
Creek.
• Install stormwater management system, including removal of existing culverts and onsite
stormwater basin, berm construction along Calle Joaquin, and development of the new
stormwater detention basin with creek channel improvements.
• Installation of Froom Creek Trail.
• Begin site clearing of Lower Area in preparation for Phase 3.
2
Development of Villaggio Lower Area.
• Grading of the Lower Area of Villaggio and import fill materials (158,000 cy import).
• Install onsite private roads (Local Roads “B” and part of “C”) within the Lower Area.
• Install emergency access road and gate between Villaggio and Mountainbrook Church
(Upper Terrace).
• Extend utility lines throughout the Lower Area.
• Construct water quality treatment areas within Phase 2.
• Install fencing and pedestrian access gates around the Lower Area.
• Construct 150 piazza apartments, 84 garden terraces, 30 villas, and 47 village suites in
Lower Area of Villaggio.
• Construct the Villaggio Health Administration Building.
• Construct the “Commons” buildings within the community village of the Lower Area.
• Construct the Wellness Center.
• Begin site clearing of Upper Terrace in preparation for Phase 3.
3
Development of Villaggio Upper Terrace.
• Grading of the Upper Terrace of Villaggio and import fill materials (93,000 cy)
• Install onsite public road (Local Road “A”) and private roads (Local Roads “C”).
• Extend utility lines throughout the Upper Terrace and along Local Road “A” (in Madonna
Froom Ranch).
• Construct remaining water quality treatment areas in Specific Plan area.
• Install fencing and pedestrian access gates around the Upper Terrace.
• Construct 24 garden terraces and 31 villas in the Upper Terrace of Villaggio.
• Construct non-residential ancillary uses within the village center of the Upper Terrace.
• Relocate and reconstruct the historic Froom Ranch buildings at the public park.
• Install the public park.
• Construct emergency access road through the public park.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-55
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 2-7. Project Construction Phases (Continued)
Phase Project Components
4
Development of Madonna Froom Ranch.
• Extend utility lines throughout Madonna Froom Ranch.
• Construct 174 multi-family units within Madonna Froom Ranch.
• Construct commercial retail buildings, including hotel, within Madonna Froom Ranch.
2.6.2 Construction Activities
Each phase of the Project would generally entail the following stages: pre-construction
design and permitting; site preparation, demolition and grading; construction; architectural
coatings/finishing; and final landscaping. Building construction, paving, and architectural
coating activities would occur within each phase sequentially. A list of equipment
anticipated to be used during these activities can be found in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8. List of Construction Equipment
Typical Construction Equipment
Backhoe Grader
Boom Lift Loader
Compactor (Roller) Miscellaneous Small Tools
Concrete Pump (Tow) Office Trailers
Concrete Truck Paving Machine
Crane Scaffolding
Dozer Scissor Lift
Dump Truck Scraper
Electric Man Lift Sheepsfoot
Excavator Skip Loader
Flatbed Truck Tractor
Forklift Water truck
2.6.2.1 Site Preparation, Demolition and Grading
Site preparation for each phase would be performed through grading along proposed
roadways, building pads, and installation of onsite utilities. Mobilization and staging of
earth moving equipment would be required to bring the site and building pads to engineered
elevations. During grading operations, standard dust control and construction runoff BMPs
would be implemented. During mass grading activities, erosion control, sediment barriers
and temporary sediment basins would be constructed to minimize the extent of construction
site impacts to the Froom Creek corridor. Additional requirements would be specified in
detail during the design of final engineered drawings prior to issuance of grading permits.
2-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Cut and fill estimates for each phase are provided in Table 2-9. Activities would include
but not be limited to:
•Removal of underground culverts and stormwater conveyance facilities;
•Full mobilization and set up of onsite construction temporary facilities;
•Movement, placement, and compaction of stockpiled soils;
•Over-excavation and recompaction of soils at building pads;
•Coordination of loading and trucking activities, truck routes, and import/export
sites;
•Delivery, staging, and storing of materials;
•Trenching and installation of utilities (water, sewer, storm drain, natural gas,
electric, telephone, cable television, and irrigation lines);
•Demolition of structures to be removed (i.e., outhouse, storage shed, etc.);
•Deconstruction and reconstruction of historic structures to be relocated within
proposed public park (dairy barn, creamery, and granary);
•Relocation and restoration of main residence;
•Environmental monitoring, including fugitive dust control and implementation and
monitoring of construction stormwater runoff; and
•Monitoring and recording of BMPs.
Approximately 220,000 cubic yards (cy) of imported fill would be needed for the Project
to increase the elevation of portions of the Project site sufficiently to remove FEMA flood
hazard areas (see Section 2.4.5, Stormwater Management System and Froom Creek
Realignment). Therefore, stockpiling of soils would occur onsite. Further, import of 2,300
cy of rock and aggregate materials for reconstruction of the realigned Froom Creek would
be required during the first phase of construction.
Table 2-9. Project Grading Estimates
Phase Cut (cy) Fill (cy) Export/Import (cy)
1 65,800 34,000 31,000 (export)
2 27,500 185,000 158,000 (import)
3 66,700 159,700 93,000 (import)
4 0 0 0
GRADING TOTAL 160,000 378,700 220,000 (net)
+ Rock/Aggregate Import for Froom Creek Reconstruction 2,300
Total Imported Material 222,300
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-57
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.6.2.2 Infrastructure Improvements
The construction of infrastructure would include installation of underground site utilities,
precise site grading, and the paving of roads. Infrastructure improvements would occur
along roadways fronting the Specific Plan area and within the proposed stormwater
detention basin easement area. Adjacent roadway segments may experience partial closures
during construction phases (e.g., LOVR and Calle Joaquin). All work would be subject to
traffic control, pedestrian protection, and notification plans. Project traffic control and
pedestrian re-routing plans would be revised to reflect the changing conditions during
construction.
Underground site utilities would be connected to the existing utility infrastructure and
precise grading, concrete, underground utility work, and paving would be performed
offsite. Work would take place primarily along LOVR, with limited construction along
Calle Joaquin. Activities would include, but not be limited to:
•Trenching for underground wet and dry utilities;
•Precise grading and compaction of soils for roadways;
•Precise grading for curb and gutter installation;
•Installation of concrete features (e.g., curbs, gutters);
•Installation of base and asphalt paving of interior streets, parking areas, and LOVR
frontage;
•Trenching, installation, and roadway repair for underground wet and dry utilities
along LOVR;
•Lighting and landscaping of roadways and medians;
•LOVR widening at the intersection of Auto Park Way;
•Traffic control and lane closures on an intermittent basis;
•Road striping and signage work;
•Intersection installation with signal; and
•Installation of the proposed stormwater detention basin southeast of the Specific
Plan area adjacent to Calle Joaquin with associated improvement to the Froom
Creek channel.
2.6.2.3 Building Construction
Project construction would occur in Phases 2, 3, and 4, including residential and non-
residential uses. Construction would occur concurrently at multiple locations within the
2-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Specific Plan area based on Project phasing (Table 2-7). Building construction would
involve foundation, framing, roofing, interior and exterior finishes, architectural coatings,
and landscaping. In addition, construction of the proposed public park, including relocation
of historic buildings, would occur during Phase 3 with the Upper Terrace of Villaggio (note
that for purposes of this EIR analysis, Phase 4 is also expected to occur concurrent with
Phase 3).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 2-59
Draft EIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This chapter discusses the environmental impacts of implementing the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan (Project) and identifies mitigation measures for impacts found to be
potentially significant.
Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA
Guidelines, the Initial Study (IS), along with agency and public input received during the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period, and 2018 updates to the State CEQA
Guidelines were used to determine the scope of the analysis for this Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). Through this process, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) determined that the
EIR analysis would focus on the following resource areas:
• Aesthetics and Visual Resources
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards, Hazardous Materials,
and Wildfire
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Energy Conservation
• Mineral Resources
This chapter of the EIR addresses the potentially significant environmental impacts of the
Project for the resources listed above. Since preparation of the IS, the State CEQA
Guidelines have been updated to include resource areas that are addressed specifically in
this EIR, as follows. Issues related to Energy and Energy Conservation as required by
CEQA are discussed within Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation, and issues
related to Wildfire are discussed in Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and
Wildfire. Analysis of related CEQA issues is provided in Chapter 4, Other CEQA Sections,
and analysis of Project alternatives is provided in Chapter 5, Alternatives.
3.0.1 Impact Classification
For each impact identified in this EIR, a statement of the level of significance of the impact
is provided. Impacts are categorized into one of the following categories:
• A beneficial impact would result when the proposed project would have a positive
effect on the natural or human environment and no mitigation would be required.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3-1
Draft EIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
• No impact would result when no change in the environment would occur; no
mitigation would be required.
• A less than significant impact is an adverse impact that does not meet or exceed the
applicable significance criteria thresholds for a particular resource. Generally, no
mitigation measures are required for less than significant impacts; only compliance
with standard regulatory conditions would be required. However, mitigation may
still be recommended should the lead or responsible agency deem it appropriate to
reduce the impact to the maximum extent feasible, as long as there is rough
proportionality between the environmental impacts caused by the project and the
mitigation measures imposed on the project.
• A less than significant impact with mitigation is an adverse impact that would cause
a substantial adverse effect that meets or exceeds the applicable significance criteria
thresholds for a particular resource, but which can be reduced to a less than
significant level through successful implementation of identified mitigation
measures.
• A significant and unavoidable impact would cause a substantial adverse effect on
the environment that meets or exceeds the applicable significance criteria
thresholds for a particular resource, and no feasible mitigation measures would be
available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Determinations of significance levels in the EIR are made based on impact significance
criteria and State CEQA Guidelines for each environmental resource. The findings of this
EIR, per Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include a discussion of significant
environmental effects of the Project, significant environmental effects that cannot be
avoided if the Project is implemented, significant irreversible environmental changes that
would occur should the Project be implemented, growth-inducing impacts of the Project,
mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant effects, and alternatives to the
Project.
3.0.2 Mitigation Measures
Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, where potentially significant environmental
impacts have been identified in the EIR, feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or
minimize the severity of those impacts are identified. The mitigation measures are
identified as part of the analysis of each impact topic in Sections 3.1 through 3.15 of this
EIR.
3.0.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “two or more
individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or
increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines
3-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
further states that the individual effects can be various changes related to a single project
or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change
in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added
to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The State
CEQA Guidelines prescribe two different methods to determine the scope of projects for
the cumulative impact analysis:
• List method - A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related
or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of
the agency (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130).
• General Plan projection method - A summary of projections contained in an
adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, which
described or evaluated conditions contributing to the cumulative impact (State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15130, the scope of projects for cumulative impact analysis can include a
summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning
document, or in a certified prior environmental document for such a plan.
To assess cumulative impacts, this EIR uses a combination of the two approaches that
includes specific projects that are reasonably foreseeable, as well as the General Plan
projection method when applicable, which considers projects and programs included in the
City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update. A list of planned projects is
used to assess cumulative project impacts (Table 3.0-1; Figure 3.0-1). In addition, the
General Plan projection method utilized in this EIR provides updated Citywide cumulative
projections anticipated to occur in the long-term associated with buildout of land uses under
the General Plan, including:
• Existing adopted specific plans identified in the City’s General Plan Land Use
Element (LUE) that contain specific guidelines for future development capacity,
including the Airport Area Specific Plan, Orcutt Area Specific Plan, and the
Margarita Area Specific Plan. Special focus areas identified within the LUCE Update
where planning efforts have been completed are treated as projects included within
Table 3.0-1 (e.g., San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, Avila Ranch Specific Plan, etc.).
• Buildout of areas within existing City boundaries and planning sphere of influence.
• Capital improvements anticipated to occur under the City’s LUCE Update.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3-3
Draft EIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List
Project Description Project Status
CITY PROJECTS
1. Perry Ford &
VW Dealership
Development of an addition to an existing commercial
building consisting of an additional 7,895 square feet (sf).
Approved
2. BMW
Dealership
Development of a car dealership consisting of
approximately 23,945 sf of commercial space.
Recently in
operation
3. Town Place
Suites
Development of a 4-story hotel consisting of 114 rooms. Under
construction
4. San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan
Development of up to 500 residential units, 350,000 sf of
commercial/office space, 200 hotel rooms, and
approximately 5.8 acres of parks, while preserving 50% of
the site for agriculture and open space.
Approved;
portions under
construction
5. Long Bonetti
Public Market
Development of a public market consisting of eight separate
buildings; approximately 47,000 sf of commercial space.
Under
construction;
subject to phasing
6. Tribune
Work/Live
Development of a 3-story project that includes 43
Work/Live Units in conjunction with a remodel of the
existing Tribune Production Building.
Building Review
7. Tank Farm
Commerce
Park
Development of three commercial warehouse buildings
totaling 29,000 sf.
Approved
8. Avila Ranch
Specific Plan
Development Plan consisting of 720 residential units and
approximately 20,000 sf of commercial space. This project
additionally involves construction of a fifth City fire station.
In addition, the Buckley Road Extension would connect
Buckley Road to South Higuera Street.
Approved
9. Water
Resources
Recovery
Facility
(WRRF)
Expansion of the City’s WRRF that includes approximately
17,704 sf of office/industrial space.
Building Review
10. Homeless
Service Center
Development of a homeless services facility consisting of
approximately 20,000 sf of commercial space.
In operation
11. Madonna Plaza Development of a commercial project consisting of
approximately 56,257 sf.
Under
construction
12. Ellsworth Tract Subdivision and development of a property into 35
commercial lots.
Approved
13. Victoria &
Caudill Mixed
Use
Development of two 3-story structures consisting of three
Live/Work Units and five residential units.
Approved
14. Broad St.
Collection
Development of a mixed-use development consisting of 10
Live/Work Units and a small boutique hotel with six rooms
and a caretaker’s quarter.
Building Review
3-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List (Continued)
Project Description Project Status
15. San Luis
Square
Mixed-use development with 48 housing units and 21,000 sf
of commercial space.
Approved
16. Monterey Place Mixed-use project with 23 housing units and 24,000 sf of
office and retail space.
Approved
17. Vesper Hotel at
the Creamery
Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of a
hotel with 47 rooms, and approximately 6,698 sf of
commercial space.
Approved
18. Palm Parking
Garage
Develop of a new public parking garage with approximately
5,000 sf of commercial space.
Planning Review
19. Twin Creeks Mixed-use project that includes 3-story structures with
approximately 4,100 sf of commercial space and 102
residential units.
Approved
20. Taylor Ranch Development of 53 residential units as phase 1 of an
approved subdivision, which in total has been approved for
142 residential units.
Building Review;
subject to phasing
21. Los Padres Inn Development of a hotel consisting of 36 rooms. Approved
22. Fernwood
Apartments
Development of a 3-story structure consisting of five
residential units.
Under
construction
23. Pratt Ranch
Phase 1
Subdivision and development of a property to provide for 30
residential units, four Live/Work Units, and approximately
1,500 sf of commercial space.
Approved
24. 790 Foothill
Mixed Use
Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of 78
residential units and approximately 6,805 sf of commercial
space.
Building Review
25. 950 Orcutt
Mixed Use
Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of 75
residential units and approximately 6,800 sf of commercial
space.
Approved
26. Rockview
Moderns
Subdivision and development of eight residential units. Approved
27. 207 Higuera
Mixed Use
Development of a 2-story mixed-use project consisting of
six residential units and approximately 1,097 sf of
commercial space.
Approved
28. Broad Street
Place
Mixed-use project that includes 40 residential units and
1,250 sf of commercial space.
Planning Review
29. Marsh &
Carmel Mixed
Use
Mixed-use project that consists of a 4-story structure with
approximately 1,100 sf of commercial space and eight
residential units.
Approved
30. 1101 Monterey Mixed-use project that includes a 3-story structure with
approximately 27,079 sf of commercial/office space.
Approved
31. Bridge St.
Project
Development of a mixed-use project that consists of 18
residential units and approximately 10,621 of commercial
space.
Planning Review
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3-5
Draft EIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List (Continued)
Project Description Project Status
32. 71 Palomar
Avenue
Development of a 33-unit multi-family residential project. Approved
33. West Creek
Development
Subdivision and development of a property to provide for
172 residential units.
Approved; subject
to phasing
34. Serra Meadows
Prado Frontage
Development of 31 residential units as part of the Serra
Meadows Development.
Building Review
35. Imel Ranch
Subdivision
Subdivision and development of a property to provide for 18
single-family residential units.
Building Review
36. Olive Mixed
Use
Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of an
extended stay hotel with 17 rooms and approximately 3,500
sf of commercial space.
Approved
37. 1185 Monterey Mixed-use project that includes a 4-story structure with
approximately 2,558 sf of commercial space and 44 hotel
rooms.
Planning Review
38. Righetti Ranch Development of 304 lots including 272 single-family units,
32 inclusionary units, a neighborhood park, and open space.
Building Review
39. Digital West Development of a 77,500-sf storage building. Pending
40. French
Hospital
Development of the expansion of French Hospital in
accordance with the Master Plan for the property.
Portions under
construction;
major expansion
in Planning
Review
41. Motel Inn Development project consisting of 55 hotel rooms, 13
recreational vehicle spaces, and 10 airstream spaces.
Building Review
42. The Junction Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 69
residential units and approximately 3,000 sf of commercial
space.
Approved
43. Jones
Subdivision
Subdivision and development of a property to provide for 65
residential units and approximately 15,000 sf of commercial
space.
Phase 1 Approved;
Phase 2 in
Planning Review
44. Granada Hotel
Expansion
Development of a 4-story addition to the existing hotel to
provide an additional 22 rooms.
Building Review
45. Aerovista Place Development of an office project consisting of
approximately 35,908 sf.
Planning Review
46. South Town 18 Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of 18
residential units and approximately 70 sf of commercial
space.
Planning Review
47. McCarthy Steel Development of an industrial/warehouse project totaling
approximately 9,840 sf.
Pending
48. The Yard Development of 43 residential units throughout eight new
buildings, which includes the expansion of Victoria Avenue.
Approved; subject
to phasing
3-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List (Continued)
Project Description Project Status
49. Victoria
Crossing
Mixed-use project that includes a 4-story structure with
approximately 3,150 sf of retail space and 33 residential
units.
Building Review
50. Laurel Lane
Mixed Use
Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 18
residential units and approximately 2,300 sf of commercial
space that also includes redevelopment of an existing
parking lot.
Building Review
51. Broad St.
Mixed Use
Development of a mixed-use project that consists of 12
residential units and approximately 2,788 sf of commercial
space.
Building Review
52. Shell Station
Development
Development of two commercial buildings totaling 10,000
sf.
Pending
53. The Courtyard
of Serra
Meadows
Development of affordable housing project that includes 36
residential units as part of the Serra Meadows Development
Lot 108.
Approved
54. Bishop Street
Studios
Development of 34 residential units. Under
Construction
55. Ferrini
Apartments
Development of five residential units. Under
Construction
56. Poly
Performance
Development of a 30,000-sf industrial building. Under
Construction
57. 22 North
Chorro
Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 27
residential units and approximately 2,000 sf of commercial
space.
In operation
58. Higuera Brew Reuse of an existing building for a brewery/restaurant use
totaling 15,500 sf of commercial space.
Under
Construction
59. Iron Works Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 46
residential units and approximately 4,400 sf of commercial
space.
Under
Construction
60. Monterey
Hotel
Development of a hotel consisting of 102 rooms. In operation
61. Toscano
Moresco
Subdivision and development of a property to provide for
161 residential units.
Under
Construction
62. 625 Toro Development of 14 attached residential units. Under
Construction
63. Hotel Cerro
(Garden Street
Terraces)
Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of
eight residential units, a hotel of 64 rooms, and
approximately 25,000 sf of commercial space.
Under
Construction
64. Bullock Ranch Development of 192 single family residential units. Planning Review
65. NWC Broad
Street Mixed
Use
Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 111
residential units and approximately 45,269 sf of commercial
space.
Approved
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3-7
Draft EIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List (Continued)
Project Description Project Status
66. 650 Tank Farm Development of 249 residential units and approximately
17,500 sf of commercial space.
Approved
67. Marsh &
Chorro Mixed
Use
Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 50
residential units and approximately 30,000 sf of commercial
space.
Planning Review
68. Orcutt Road
Apartments
Development of approximately 15 residential units. Planning Review
69. Peach Street Development of approximately 5 single-family residential
units.
Planning Review
70. 956 Monterey
Mixed Use
Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 20
residential units and approximately 4,000 sf of commercial
space.
Planning Review
71. Mill Street
Commons
Development of 5 residential units. Planning Review
72. 545 Higuera
Mixed Use
Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 56
residential units and approximately 5,000 sf of commercial
space.
Planning Review
73. Lofts at the
Creamery
Development of 36 residential units and approximately 70 sf
of commercial space.
Planning Review
74. Mail Pouch
South
Development of 10 residential units. Approved
75. Montalban
Mixed Use
Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 15
residential units and approximately 430 sf of commercial
space.
Building Review
76. Fixlini Tract Development of 3 single-family residential units. Building Review
77. Bridge Street
(Terraza)
Development of 26 residential units. Approved; subject
to phasing
78. Chinatown
Hotel (Hotel
SLO)
Development of a 78-room hotel with approximately 5,900
sf of commercial space.
Under
construction
79. HASLO
Headquarters
Development of approximately 13,118 sf of commercial
space.
Planning Review
80. 301 Prado Development of approximately 160,000 sf of
commercial/industrial space.
Planning Review
81. RTA
Maintenance
Facility
Development of approximately 23,270 sf of
commercial/industrial space.
Approved
82. Airport
Business
Center
Development of approximately 6,830 sf of commercial
space.
Approved
83. Madonna Plaza
Remodel
Remodel of approximately 12,508 sf of commercial space. Approved
3-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List (Continued)
Project Description Project Status
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (COUNTY) PROJECTS
84. Animal Shelter
Facility
New animal shelter facility to be constructed at the County
Operations Center off Highway 1.
Tentative
85. Avila Beach
Drive at U.S.
Highway 101
(U.S. 101)
Interchange
Reconfiguration of the U.S. 101 and Avila Beach Drive
Interchange in the community of Avila.
Planning Review
86. Avila Beach
Parking
Management
A Parking Management Plan for Port San Luis, which
includes the Harbor/Pier area, Avila Beach Drive, and the
Town of Avila.
Tentative
87. Los Osos
Wastewater
Project
Evaluation and development of a wastewater treatment
system for Los Osos, California.
Complete
88. Oak Shores
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility
Upgrade
Proposed upgrades and improvements to the County Service
Area No. 7A (CSA-7A) Wastewater Treatment Facility in
the community of Oak Shores.
Approved
89. Price Canyon
Road Widening
Widening of Price Canyon Road between Ormonde Road
and Highway 227 near Edna, California.
Tentative
90. Tefft Street at
U.S. 101
Interchange
Reconfiguration of the U.S. 101 and Tefft Street interchange
to reduce back up on the U.S. 101 off-ramps, improve
capacity on Tefft Street, and improve intersection
operations.
Planning Review
91. Templeton
Main Street at
U.S. 101
Interchange
Reconfiguration of the U.S. 101 and Main Street
Interchange in the community of Templeton.
Planning Review
STATE PROJECTS
92. Cal Poly
Master Plan
Implementation of planned facilities and improvements
phased over a timeline of 20 years.
Planning Review
93. Caltrans
Headquarters
Construction of new Caltrans District 5 Headquarters
building and yard along the Buckley Road Extension.
Planning Review
Note: Cumulative projects 1-83 and 92-93 located within the City and/or the vicinity of the Project site are
shown in Figure 3.0-1. While cumulative projects 84-91 are not located in the vicinity of the Project site,
these projects are identified as having the potential to contribute towards cumulative effects.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3-9
Draft EIR
1
93
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1081
80
11
12
13
14
74
1572
73
16
17
18
19
20
21
2268
23
64
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
75
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 82
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
76
77
55
56
65
66
57
58
83
59
60
61
62
69
71
7078
79
63
67
San Luis
Obispo
Laguna
Lake
HIGUERA STREETHIGUERA STREETHIGUERA STREETHIGUERA STREETBROAD STREETBROAD STREETSANTA ROSA STREETSANTA ROSA STREETORCUTT ROADORCUTT ROAD
FOOTHILL BOULEVARDFOOTHILL BOULEVARD
MADONNA ROADMADONNA ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADSUBURBAN ROADSUBURBAN ROAD
BUCKLEY ROADBUCKLEY ROAD ORCUTT ROADORCUTT ROADBUCKLEY ROAD
TANK FARM ROAD
SANTA FE ROADHIGUERA STREETHIGUERA STREETBROAD STREETSANTA ROSA STREETSUBURBAN ROAD
ORCUTT ROAD
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
ORCUTT ROADMADONNA ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD101
101
101
101
227
227
227
1
Note: Cumulative project numbers correspond
to those presented in Table 3.0-1.
LEGEND
Project Site
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area
Cumulative Project Location
California Polytechnic State University
Park/ Open Space
Incorporated City
San Luis Obispo County
##
0 3,000
SCALE IN FEET
N
Cumulative Projects 3.0-1
FIGURE
3-10
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing aesthetic setting of the Project site and vicinity and
analyzes the potential impacts to aesthetics that could result with development of the
Project. Aesthetic and visual resources are principally defined by how viewers perceive the
visual attractiveness of an area. Based on this subjective perception, the key elements and
features that create or enhance an area’s visual quality are definable. Most communities
recognize scenic resources as important assets, although specific valued scenic resources
may vary depending on the community and context. In general, visual resources are
features of urban (built) or natural environments with a high aesthetic or scenic value. In
the City, regional natural environmental features contribute to the community’s aesthetic
character and visual quality and include views of open space, wildlife habitats/corridors,
and vegetation; natural site features such as landforms, valleys, and creeks; undeveloped
hillsides; and agricultural landscapes. In a suburban setting, like the Project site, aesthetic
and visual resources typically consist of a combination of natural features (e.g., Irish Hills)
and high-valued built features that contribute to a community’s inherent character and
overall identity and can include historic structures, buildings, or landscapes; designated
scenic routes; and scenic public vistas. Public views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point.
3.1.1 Existing Setting
3.1.1.1 General Visual Character
The City is set at the base of several
hills and ridges that visually define
the edges of urban development and
provide a natural backdrop to most
view corridors. The hills, ridges, and
outcroppings, including the Irish
Hills, Cerro San Luis Obispo, and
Bishop Peak, provide recognizable
physical landmarks within the City
and visually frame the City in its
natural context. The topography of
the hillsides has also constrained
development to lower elevations,
creating a defined edge to the City.
Visual resources in the City are derived from its natural
setting against hillsides and open space areas, including
the Irish Hills along the southern edge of the City, as well
as the City’s rich history embodied in historic structures
and settings. Source: hikespeak.com
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-1
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
Outside the urban edge of the City, unincorporated areas are agricultural in nature,
providing grazing land and natural vegetation.
The City’s built environment is defined by its historic downtown with a compact urban
form centered on a street grid that extends out to less dense suburban neighborhoods and
shopping centers on the City edges. Historic structures and districts within the City
demarcate a rich history of habitation and development, including agricultural
development such as the historic Froom Ranch Dairy Farm (see also, Section 3.5, Cultural
and Tribal Cultural Resources). The City maintains a small-town character as a
quintessential Central Coast town while also providing a wide array of neighborhood styles
and designs, from historic bungalows to mid-century ranch neighborhoods. Consistent with
the City’s General Plan, development has focused on infill opportunities and been limited
to low-lying areas of the City to maintain undeveloped hillsides, which has created a
contiguous urbanized area with defined natural edges.
3.1.1.2 Visual Character of the Project Vicinity
The Project site consists of mostly undeveloped land located in the unincorporated County,
directly adjacent to the southwestern City boundary and within the City’s Sphere of
Influence (SOI). The site is surrounded to the north, east, and south with urban
development. To the south, four multi-story hotels and surface parking lots are clustered
amongst sparse ornamental landscaping. To the east, several low-lying automobile
dealerships and service centers are connected by surface parking lots and Los Osos Valley
Road (LOVR). To the north, the Irish Hills Plaza is a regional-serving retail plaza anchored
The Project site (foreground) is characterized by grazing land in the lower elevations against a backdrop
of dramatic hillsides within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
3.1-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
by large retail stores (e.g., Home Depot, Costco, Whole Foods, TJ Maxx) and connected
with surface parking lots. The Project site is effectively surrounded on three sides by urban
development. However, the vicinity to the west and southwest is largely undeveloped.
Development in this area is limited primarily to Mountainbrook Church, a single-story
complex atop a small rise to the southwest of the site. This mixture of developed land and
natural and/or agricultural areas is characteristic of the City’s interface with unincorporated
areas when urban development transitions into rural settings.
The Irish Hills Natural Reserve is located immediately west of the Project site and provides
a dramatic natural backdrop to open space and agricultural lands in the County and urban
development in the City. The Irish Hills rise over 1,000 feet above the Project site to the
north and west. The mountainous topography is covered with extensive chaparral habitat,
oak woodland, and native grasslands and can be seen from area roadways, residential
communities, and other parks and open space within the City and County. The Irish Hills
are highly visible from the Project site and adjacent areas, including from roadways
providing local and regional access.
The Project site is bordered to the east by LOVR and U.S. 101. LOVR in the Project
vicinity is a four-lane road with on-road bike lanes on both sides and sidewalks on the east
side only. LOVR is designated as having medium to high scenic value in the City’s General
Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2006; 2017). The LOVR Overpass interchange extends over
U.S. 101 for approximately 1,000 feet. The City General Plan Circulation Element (CE)
designates this portion of the roadway as having a high scenic value. Substantial views of
the Project site and Irish Hills, as well as surrounding mountains to the north and northwest,
are available from the elevated roadway. The southeastern portion of the site is bordered
Views of the Irish Hills and the undeveloped areas of the Project site are available from the LOVR
Overpass, with foreground views of riparian willow woodland associated with the Calle Joaquin
wetlands and the LOVR ditch. The Project site visually transitions the City’s urban edge to the natural
setting of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and unincorporated agricultural lands.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-3
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
by Calle Joaquin, a two-lane road running generally north-south from LOVR and parallel
to U.S. 101. Calle Joaquin provides sidewalks with median landscaping along both sides
of the roadway, but no bicycle facilities are provided. This roadway is not designated as
having scenic value by the General Plan CE, though views of the Irish Hills and
surrounding undeveloped agricultural land are available across the Project site.
3.1.1.3 Visual Condition of the Project Site
There are several important visual resources that contribute to the scenic quality of the
Project site. The 116.8-acre Project site is largely undeveloped and visually transitions the
urban development of the City to the undeveloped, natural settings in the unincorporated
area and the Irish Hills. The Project site has three distinct visual characters depending on
location, including lower elevations, upper elevations, and the Froom Ranch Dairy
complex.
The site’s lower undeveloped elevations are characterized by low rolling slopes. The site
is gently sloping from the base of the Irish Hills to LOVR. This area provides grazing land
for horses and also contains the 3.2-acre stormwater detention basin, which is a low-lying
earthen structure and frequently vegetated with wetland plants (see also, Section 3.4,
Biological Resources). Otherwise, vegetation onsite is sparse within the lower elevations
and consists primarily of grasslands; however, portions of these grasslands have been
recently graded. Based on visual observations and review of aerial photography in 2018
and 2019 by the EIR consultant, approximately 8 acres of the site is routinely graded and
shaped into a berm on the downslope side of Froom Creek. Grasslands appear to reemerge
Froom Creek flows from the Irish Hills through the Project site. Most of the creek is a seasonally dry
channel lined with rock and cobble with earthen banks and no riparian vegetation. The lower elevations
of the Project site support grassland and the Calle Joaquin wetlands, which provide broad natural views
within the Project site.
3.1-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
when no grading occurs, but these construction activities periodically degrade the natural
visual setting of this portion of the site.
At the site’s southeast corner, the Calle Joaquin wetlands provide rich vegetation and
ponding for surface waters at the site’s lowest elevations. Along LOVR, intermittent
willow woodlands along the LOVR ditch generally screen and block views of the site from
LOVR and the commercial areas to the east. The lower elevations of the site are generally
separated from the upper elevations by Froom Creek, which cuts across the site at the base
of the Irish Hills, forming a natural boundary between the hillside areas to the west and the
lowland grazing areas to the east. Froom Creek is a seasonally dry channel lined with rocks
and cobble with earthen banks and no riparian vegetation within the Specific Plan area.
Outside of the Specific Plan area in the proposed stormwater detention basin area, Froom
Creek transitions into a dense riparian corridor that flows downslope of open grasslands
downslope of Mountainbrook Church.
Approximately 7.5 acres in the northwestern area of the site is developed with the Froom
Ranch Dairy complex (an onsite historic district) and a 5.5-acre permitted quarry with a
construction storage yard. The historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex comprises seven
buildings remaining from the former dairy operations onsite, four of which have been
determined to be individually eligible as significant historic resources. The buildings are
one-story, wooden structures, and only two are painted with neutral tones. Other non-
historic structures associated with the complex include an outhouse, a shed, and a cellular
service tower disguised like a turn-of-the-century water tower (see Section 3.5, Cultural
and Tribal Cultural Resources). The complex is clearly visible from within the Project site,
from the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza parking lots, and from trails within the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve, including the Froom Creek
Connector Trail. The complex is only
partially visible from LOVR near the
entrance to the Project site where
views are less obstructed by riparian
vegetation and development within
the Irish Hills Plaza, and is also
visible from atop the LOVR
Overpass. Immediately behind the
complex, the gravel extraction quarry
and equipment/materials storage
areas lie adjacent to Froom Creek at
The northwestern area of the Project site is developed
with the Froom Ranch Dairy complex and existing quarry
and construction storage area, which is visible from
public trails in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-5
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
the base of the Irish Hills. While there are no permanent structures in the quarry, stockpiles
of soil, gravel, and construction debris/rubble are commonly seen onsite along with
uncovered construction materials (e.g., pipe, conduit). The quarry is set on a level terrace
tucked near Froom Creek and is less visible from within the site and from the Irish Hills
Plaza; however, trail users have clear views of the quarry from the Froom Creek Connector
Trail and the trailhead to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve trail system, which lies
immediately behind the Project site to the west.
The Upper Terrace has varied topography and
rock outcroppings that provide visual interest.
Vegetation in the Upper Terrace is richer and
more varied, providing mature trees, riparian
corridors, natural drainages, and often
wildflower-filled open grasslands. The Upper
Terrace’s visual qualities blend seamlessly with
those of the Irish Hills. The Irish Hills
topographic forms are a dominant background
view to the west. The Upper Terrace is also
highly visible to trail users within the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve trail system, including Neil
Havlik Way and the Johnson Ranch Trail.
3.1.1.4 Scenic Resources
Scenic Vistas
A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-
quality view displaying good aesthetic and
compositional values that can be seen from
public viewpoints. The term “vista” generally
implies an expansive view, usually from an
elevated point or open area. The City General
Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE) has designated a scenic vista
overlooking the Upper Terrace of the Project
site (City of San Luis Obispo 2006).1 This
1 The COSE identifies cones of view in Figure 11: Scenic Roadways and Vistas.
The southwestern area of the Project site
contains diverse natural communities within
drainages and woodland areas in the Upper
Terrace of the Project site. This area is highly
visible to trail users within the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve.
The City’s COSE of the General Plan
designates a scenic vista overlooking the
Project site from the Filipponi Ranch and
Johnson Ranch Trail in the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve. Source: hikespeak.com
3.1-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
designated vista is located 0.35 mile
southwest of the Project site near Filipponi
Ranch, uphill from the Upper Terrace and
behind Mountainbrook Church. This public
vista is accessible from the Froom Ranch-
to-Johnson Ranch Trail Connector Trail and
the Filipponi Ranch Trail in the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve and affords sweeping
views over the City to the east and northeast,
including background views of Cerro San
Luis and Bishop Peak. In the foreground,
the Upper Terrace is visible from this vista
with mid-range views of the lower
elevations of the site, including the
proposed stormwater detention basin area.
The Project site is not visible from any other
City-designated scenic vista.
The Project site is visible from other public
areas and overlooks, including the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve. Over 10 miles of
public trails within the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve offer broad public views across the
Project site to the east. Existing foreground
views from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve
trail system include undeveloped lands of
the Project site as well as adjacent
developed areas (e.g., Irish Hills Plaza,
Mountainbrook Church). Background
views include the hills and mountain ranges
in the greater San Luis Obispo area. The
most clear and persistent views of the
Project site are available along nearly 2
miles of the following public trails; these
trails comprise a popular intermediate
Views from the trails in the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve provide sweeping views across the Project
site to the east. Pictured here, Neil Havlik Way and
the Froom Creek Connector Trail provide a public
scenic vista east toward mountains, hillsides, and
open space intermittently interrupted by low
density development. Source: hikespeak.com
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-7
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
hiking-only loop in the Irish Hills with a trailhead immediately adjacent to the existing
onsite quarry:
• Froom Creek Connector Trail is a 0.5-mile trail that provides clear views of the Project
site’s northwestern corner, including existing views of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex
and quarry in the foreground and lower elevation grazing lands in the background. Mid-
range views include low-lying commercial development along LOVR against a
background of distant mountains and open sky.
• Neil Havlik Way is a 0.5-mile trail that circumvents the hillside above the Project site.
Over 180-degree views are available from this trail segment capturing most of the
Project site in the foreground. Irish Hills Plaza is plainly visible to the northeast. Views
to the east and southeast include a band of commercial development and roadways, but
is otherwise largely undeveloped and natural with background views of mountains and
open sky.
• Ocean View Trail is a 2.9-mile trail that runs above the Upper Terrace of the Project
site and affords users clear views of the upper and lower elevations of the Project site
with views of Mountainbrook Church in the mid-range view. Views from this trail are
largely undeveloped and natural with background views of mountains and open sky.
• Filipponi Ranch Trail is a 1.0-mile trail connecting Calle Joaquin to the Johnson
Ranch Trail in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, providing the southernmost entry point
to the Reserve. This trail also provides access to the City’s designated scenic vista
overlooking the southern area of the City, including the Project site. This trail provides
scenic views of the Project vicinity and surrounding area, including Mountainbrook
Church, the Project site, and ample views of the surrounding mountains and open space
to the east and south. U.S. 101 and commercial and residential areas are also visible
from this trail, although they comprise a minor portion of the viewshed.
Regionally, the Project site is marginally visible from elevated locations, such as upper
elevation trails in Laguna Lake Park Open Space and Bishop Peak, but clear views are
highly limited by distance and intervening topography, vegetation, and development in the
region. Views of the Project site from identified key viewing areas are further described
below in Section 3.1.3.2, Impact Assessment Methodology.
3.1-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Scenic Roadways and Highways
The Project site is visible from local public roads, including clear views from LOVR and
Calle Joaquin adjacent to the site. Distant and intermittent views are also available from
U.S. 101 primarily for southbound travelers. As further described below, U.S. 101 is
eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway in this area and identified as having high
scenic value in the General Plan COSE. LOVR is locally designated as a roadway with
moderate to high scenic value adjacent to the Project site. Calle Joaquin is not designated
as a scenic roadway.
Local Roadways
LOVR is a public roadway that carries vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians along the
eastern edge of the Project site for approximately 2,000 feet. Views of the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve to the west from LOVR are contrasted against urban development,
including commercial land uses and roadway infrastructure to the east. While the Irish Hills
are visible in the background, views toward the Project site from LOVR are mostly
obstructed by thick willow riparian vegetation in the LOVR ditch that runs along the
roadway. Unobstructed views of the Project site from LOVR are available for a 250-foot-
long break in this vegetation from Auto Park Way to the site’s existing driveway. This
view captures a wide expanse of the site, including low-lying grasslands in the foreground,
the Froom Ranch Dairy complex and Froom Creek in the mid-range view, and a
background view of the natural hillsides of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. To the north,
the loading areas of Irish Hills Plaza are also visible. Another 100-foot-long break in the
roadside vegetation exists closer to Calle Joaquin across from the Toyota of San Luis
Obispo dealership. Limited views are available at this point toward the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve, but the scenic quality is limited and obstructed by onsite vegetation (e.g., palm
tree cluster). LOVR is designated by the City as having moderate scenic values along the
2,000 feet of frontage with the Project site. The visual qualities of the Project site are most
visible for southbound travelers looking west toward the site through breaks in roadside
vegetation. High quality views are therefore intermittent and varying along the Project
frontages.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-9
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
Approximately 300 feet south of the Project site, the LOVR Overpass (over U.S. 101)
provides elevated views over the Project site. The LOVR Overpass is designated by the
City as having high scenic value. The visual qualities of the Project site are most available
from the LOVR Overpass for northbound travelers looking west. While most views to the
Project site from the LOVR Overpass are obstructed by existing multi-story hotels on Calle
Joaquin, including the four-story Hampton Suites, a clear view of the Project site, including
the Upper Terrace and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, is available for approximately 300
feet as the LOVR Overpass descends to LOVR. This view captures the Upper Terrace,
lower elevation grasslands, and distant views of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex.
Northbound travelers on this portion of the LOVR Overpass experience panoramic views
of the Project site. Given a speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph) and assuming average
roadway speeds of 20 mph, drivers along this roadway experience views of the Project site
for less than one minute. Pedestrians traveling across the overpass at 3 mph would
experience these views for approximately four minutes.
Calle Joaquin is not a designated scenic roadway, but clear views of the Project site are
available for westbound travelers. Substantially unobstructed foreground views of adjacent
wetlands and grazing lands with a backdrop of natural hillsides and ridgelines are available
from this roadway.
State Highways
The California Scenic Highway Program, maintained by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), protects State Scenic Highway corridors from changes that
would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. According to the
California State Scenic Highway Program, the section of U.S. 101 in the Project vicinity is
eligible for State Scenic Highway designation but is not officially designated (Caltrans
2017). The City’s General Plan CE identifies this segment of U.S. 101 as having high
scenic value (City of San Luis Obispo 2014).
Views along LOVR (southbound) afford a combination of low-lying urban development to the east and
natural open views to the west across the Project site. Source: Google 2019.
3.1-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
U.S. 101 runs northeast-southwest, passing to the south of the Project site before continuing
north into the City and south into the County. Partial views of hillsides within the Project
site and Irish Hills mountainous ridgelines are available in the distance from southbound
U.S. 101 along an approximate 0.5-mile segment. Passing the Project site from the north,
drivers experience broad views of open space near the Project site as they leave the City,
although direct views of the Project site are nominal due to existing development,
vegetation, and surrounding topography.
3.1.1.5 Light and Glare
The Project site does not currently contain sources of light or glare that affect nighttime
views in the area. Existing operations of the construction business operations are not
illuminated at night and onsite lighting is limited to minor interior light sources. The Project
site and Irish Hills to the west do not contribute to nighttime lighting or daytime glare. In
contrast, nighttime lighting from businesses and roadways in the Project vicinity is
substantial and characteristic of the commercial urban area. Nighttime lighting conditions
to the north, east, and south of the Project site including outdoor security lights, lighted
signage, and interior lights that spill outdoors through large commercial windows. The site
is surrounded on three sides by commercial development, including highly illuminated
hotels to the south, Irish Hills Plaza to the north, and automobile dealerships to the east.
LOVR and Calle Joaquin are not illuminated with street lights.
3.1.2 Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations that pertain to aesthetic or visual resources related to the
Project. State and local regulations that are directly relevant to the Project are summarized
below.
3.1.2.1 State
Caltrans Scenic Highway Program
Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-
way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a
State Scenic Highway is based on vividness, intactness, and unity. As discussed previously,
U.S. 101, located approximately 0.45 mile west of the Project site, is eligible for State
Scenic Highway designation; however, it is not currently designated as a State Scenic
Highway. The City’s General Plan CE designates U.S. 101 as having high scenic value.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-11
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
3.1.2.2 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The City’s General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) contains policies to ensure that new
development is compatible with existing surrounding visual character. The General Plan
CE contains policies to ensure new development does not obstruct views from scenic roads
or highways. The COSE includes policies to protect open space and minimize visual
impacts on surrounding natural landscape and to protect views and scenic vistas. Pertinent
policies from these elements are listed below.
Land Use Element
Policy LU 1.4 Urban Edges Character. The City shall maintain a clear boundary between
San Luis Obispo’s urban development and surrounding open land. Development just inside
the boundary shall provide measures to avoid a stark-appearing edge between buildings in
the City and adjacent open land. Such measures may include: using new or existing groves
or windrows of trees, or hills or other landforms, to set the edge of development; increasing
the required side-yard and rear-yard setbacks; and providing open space or agricultural
transition buffers.
Policy LU 1.8.1 Open Space Protection. Within the City’s planning area and outside the
Urban Reserve Line (URL), undeveloped land should be kept open. Prime agricultural
land, productive agricultural land, and potentially productive agricultural land shall be
protected for farming. Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime
agricultural land shall be permanently protected as open space.
Policy LU 2.3.7 Natural Features. The City shall require residential developments to
preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views,
creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants.
Policy LU 2.3.8 Parking. The City shall discourage the development of large parking lots
and require parking lots be screened from street views. In general, parking should not be
located between buildings and public streets.
Policy LU 2.3.10 Site Constraints. The City shall require new residential developments
to respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and
wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, native vegetation, and significant trees.
Policy LU 2.3.11 Residential Project Objectives. Residential projects should provide:
3.1-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
A Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project;
B Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and
oriented to receive light and sunshine;
C Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces
comfortable with minimum mechanical support;
D Pleasant views from and toward the project;
E Security and safety;
F Bicycle facilities consistent with the City’s Bicycle Plan;
G Adequate parking and storage space;
H Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses (Barrier
walls, isolating a project, are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used
only when there is no practicable alternative. Where walls are used, they should
help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting through features such as
setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through
them at regular intervals, and planting.)
I Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches,
front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways;
J Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City
Fire Department.
Policy LU 6.4 Hillside Policies. As noted in the Open Space section of the COSE, San
Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the
lower and less steep hillside areas, however, are seen as suitable for development,
particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space protection of the
more sensitive areas.
Policy LU 6.4.7 Hillside Planning Areas. The City shall urge the County to
implement the following hillside policies. Specific policies to address particular
concerns for the areas as shown in LUE Figure 7 are listed below. For each of these
areas, land above the development limit line should be secured as permanent open
space.
H. The Irish Hills area should be secured permanent open space with no
building sites above the 150-foot elevation, in conjunction with any
subdivision or development of the lower areas.
Policy LU 8.1.1 Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment. The City shall require the
completion and approval of a specific plan and associated General Plan Amendment prior
to annexation (if applicable) and development of land within an area designated as a
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-13
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
Specific Plan Area on LUE Figure 10. The required General Plan Amendment will modify
the General Plan Land Use Diagram to reflect the land use diagram from the approved
specific plan, based on the land uses listed under “Performance Standards” for each site.
The Project site is designated on LUE Figure 10 as a designated Specific Plan site, SP-3
Madonna on LOVR.
Circulation Element
Policy 15.1.2 Development along Scenic Routes. The City will preserve and improve
views of important scenic resources form streets and roads. Development along scenic
roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views.
A Projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered
as “sensitive” and require architectural review.
B Development projects should not wall-off scenic roadways and block views.
C As part of the City’s environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic
roadways should be considered a significant environmental impact.
D Signs along scenic roadways should not clutter vistas or views.
E Street lights should be low scale and focus light at intersections where it is most
needed. Tall light standards should be avoided. Street lighting should be integrated
with other street furniture at locations where views are least disturbed. However,
safety priorities should remain superior to scenic concerns.
F Lighting along scenic roadways should not degrade the nighttime visual
environment and night sky per the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance.
Policy 15.1.3 Public Equipment and Facilities. The City and other agencies should be
encouraged to avoid cluttering scenic roadways with utility and circulation-related
equipment and facilities.
A Whenever possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a
single low-profile standard;
B Public utilities along scenic highways should be installed underground;
C The placement of landscaping and street trees should not block views from Scenic
Routes. Clustering of street trees along scenic roadways should be considered as an
alternative to uniform spacing; and
D Traffic signals with long mast arms should be discouraged along scenic roadways.
3.1-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy COS 8.3.2 Open Space Buffers. Buffers shall be required in the following
situations:
A Between urban development -- including parks and public facilities -- and natural
habitats such as creeks, wetlands, hillsides and ridgelines, Morros, scenic rock
outcrops and other significant geological features, and grassland communities, to
address noise, lighting, storm runoff, spread of invasive, non-native species, and
access by people and pets.
B Between urban development and agricultural operations, to address dust, noise,
odors, chemical use, and access by people and pets.
C Between new development and scenic resources or the greenbelt, to address view
blockage, lighting and noise, and visual transition from urban character to rural
character.
D Urban development or uses located adjacent to the Urban Reserve Line to provide
a transition to open space or greenbelt areas. Transition areas should add to the
preservation of open space lands or resources. At a minimum, a 50-foot transition
area (preserved in essentially a natural state) shall be provided within the project
along the project boundary with the Urban Reserve Line, unless the transition area
is defined elsewhere in this Element.
Policy COS 9.1.1 Preserve Natural and Agricultural Landscapes - B. Any development
that is permitted in natural or agricultural landscapes shall be visually subordinate to and
compatible with the landscape features. Such development shall:
1) Avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20
percent.
2) Avoid unnecessary grading, vegetation removal, and site lighting.
3) Incorporate building forms, architectural materials, and landscaping that respect the
setting, including the historical pattern of development in similar settings, and avoid
stark contrasts with its setting.
4) Preserve scenic or unique landforms, significant trees in terms of size, age, species
or rarity, and rock outcroppings.
Policy COS 9.1.2 Urban Development. Urban development should reflect its
architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires
deliberate design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-15
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
neighboring urban development, and that are compatible with historical and architectural
resources. Plans for sub-areas of the City may require certain architectural styles.
Policy COS 9.1.3 Utilities and Signs. In and near public streets, plazas and parks, features
that clutter, degrade, intrude on, or obstruct views should be avoided. Necessary features,
such as utility and communication equipment, and traffic equipment and signs should be
designed and placed so as to not impinge upon or degrade scenic views of the Morros or
surrounding hillsides, or farmland, consistent with the primary objective of safety. New
billboard signs shall not be allowed, and existing billboard signs shall be removed as soon
as practicable, as provided in the Sign Regulations.
Policy COS 9.1.4 Streetscapes and Major Roadways. In the acquisition, design,
construction or significant modification of major roadways (highways/regional routes and
arterial streets), the City will promote the creation of “streetscapes” and linear scenic
parkways or corridors that promote the City’s visual quality and character, enhance
adjacent uses and integrate roadways with surrounding districts.
Policy COS 9.1.5 View Protection in New Development. The City will include in all
environmental review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets, and road
construction on views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines,
height restrictions, hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, and the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines.
Policy COS 9.2.1 Views To and From Public Places, Including Scenic Roadways. The
City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places and
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the
grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space.
1) Development projects shall not wall-off scenic roadways and block views.
2) Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude on
or clutter views, consistent with safety needs.
3) Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street trees
shall be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features.
4) Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall
be considered “sensitive” and require architectural review.
Policy COS 9.2.2 Views To and From Private Development. Projects should incorporate
as amenities views from and within private development sites. Private development designs
3.1-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
should cause the least view blockage for neighboring property that allows project
objectives to be met.
Policy COS 9.2.3 Outdoor Lighting. Outdoor lighting shall avoid: operating at
unnecessary locations, levels, and times; spillage to areas not needing or wanting
illumination; glare (intense line-of-site contrast); and frequencies (colors) that interfere
with astronomical viewing.
Policy COS 9.3.6 View blockage Along Scenic Highways. Determine that view blockage
along scenic roadways is a significant impact.
City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code was developed in conformance with
the General Plan(City of San Luis Obispo 2019). Zoning is intended to promote and enforce
broad General Plan policies related to land use, physical development, and construction.
The following Zoning Ordinance policies are related to the visual impact of lighting.
17.70.100 Lighting and Night Sky Preservation. Establishes lighting regulations that
encourage lighting practices and systems that will:
a. Permit reasonable uses of outdoor lighting for nighttime safety, utility, security,
and enjoyment while preserving the ambience of night;
b. Curtail and reverse any degradation of the nighttime visual environment and the
night sky;
c. Minimize glare and obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is
misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary;
d. Help protect the natural environment from the damaging effects of night
lighting; and
e. Meet the minimum requirements of the California Code of Regulations for
Outdoor Lighting and Signs (Title 24, Chapter 6).
City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
The City’s Community Design Guidelines were developed to communicate the City’s
expectations relating to the quality and character of site and building design. Many of the
guidelines specifically target the reduction of visual impacts and the promotion of visual
harmony with surrounding context (City of San Luis Obispo 2010). The following subjects
are relevant to this Project analysis.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-17
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
Chapter 3 – Commercial and Industrial Project Designs
Chapter 3 includes guidelines relating to the massing, scale, form, style, and design of
commercial and industrial use buildings to promote the visual and architectural
compatibility of new development with existing and proposed surrounding structures.
Chapter 5 – Residential Project Design
Chapter 5 includes guidelines relating to the goals for residential project design,
subdivision design and general residential project principles, infill development, multi-
family and clustered housing design, and single-family housing design, all of which apply
to this Project. Qualities examined include protection of scenic roadways; visually pleasing
parking design and location; consideration of neighboring development; quality
landscaping and lighting; and site-specific building design.
Chapter 6 – Site Planning and Other Design Details
Chapter 6 details qualities such as energy and resource conservation, lighting, storage,
trash/recycling enclosures, landscaping, parking, and public art, among other items.
Chapter 7 – Special Design Considerations
This section of the City’s Design Guidelines focuses on creekside and hillside
development, as well as preservation of historic resources. Guidelines for creekside
development outline the City’s expectations concerning necessary setbacks from creek
banks and the maintenance of public visual access to scenic creeks and corridors.
Guidelines for hillside development outline the importance of preserving the natural
character of hillsides through expectations concerning the height of buildings, grading and
development on steep slopes, installation of fencing and landscaping, and exterior lighting.
Requirements for the preservation of historic and cultural resources are administered by
the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and the guidelines adopted in the City
Municipal Code for architectural review.
3.1.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.1.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
As specified in the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would result in a significant impact to
aesthetics if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
3.1-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a designated scenic local or
State Scenic Highway;
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings; or
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area.
3.1.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
The City’s General Plan policies provide definitions of physical attributes that are
considered potential important visual resources. These include:
• Open space, (LUE Policy 1.13.8 Open Space);
• Natural site features such as landforms, views, creeks (LUE Policy 2.3.7 Natural
Features;
• Scenic hillside areas and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines,
plant communities, rock outcroppings and steep slope areas that function as
landscape backdrops for the community (LUE Policy 6.4.1 Hillside Policies);
• Hillside planning areas that contribute to the City’s scenic setting (LUE Policy 6.4.2
Development Limits);
• Preserve natural and agricultural landscapes (COSE Policy 9.1.1);
• Preserve nighttime views and prevent light pollution (COSE Policy 9.1.6 Night-sky
preservation)
Adopted City General Plan policies require that the Project must consider potential loss of
open space, minimize aesthetic impacts, and remain compatible with nearby visual
resources.
Analysis of visual impacts of the Project includes fieldwork and visual reconnaissance of
the Project site, notes and photographs of existing visual resources (e.g., trees, buildings,
and view corridors), analysis of the Project site’s relationship to the surrounding
community, and the City’s existing policy framework for protecting visual resources.
Visual reconnaissance of the Project site and surrounding areas was conducted by Wood
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions on December 19, 2017, January 9, 2018, January
18, 2018, and April 25, 2019. Field notes and photographs of existing visual resources of
the Project site and vicinity are used to support this analysis. This information was utilized
to identify important visual resources present on the Project site and in the vicinity.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-19
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources
The view impact assessment depends upon the sensitivity of the resource, as supported by
public testimony, viewer susceptibility, viewing conditions (e.g., angle of view, distance,
and primary viewing directions), degree of change and visual contrasts to surroundings.
These could include a change to existing features that no longer appear characteristic of
the area or development that substantially or entirely blocks public scenic views or removes
key aesthetic features. This analysis focuses on changes to public views. Impacts to private
views are not considered under CEQA (Pub. Res. Code Section 21082.2). Public views
include local- and state-designated scenic roadways or highways and public vantages,
including LOVR, U.S. 101, and the public open space within the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve. This analysis considers the field of view for different viewers; drivers and cyclists
on local roadways are generally forward-facing in the direction of the traffic flow, whereas
pedestrians and hikers are able to perceive views in any direction. This analysis also
considers the different expectations of viewers; drivers and cyclists on roadways may be
occupied with travel mechanics, other vehicles, and the immediate vicinity, whereas
pedestrians, hikers, and mountain bikers may seek aesthetic relief as part of recreational
activity.
Visual Character
The analysis of visual character and quality focuses on whether development of the Project
would substantially degrade the existing visual character of the Project site or vicinity.
Considerations include potential visual contrast and/or the compatibility of scale and
character of future development to existing visual conditions.
Because assessment of aesthetics is inherently subjective, concerns raised by the public
during the scoping process were considered. To evaluate potential Project-related impacts
to visual resources, Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) were identified and factors such as overall
changes to visual character were considered. KVAs were selected based on representative
locations from which the Project would be clearly seen from public locations in the Project
vicinity (Figure 3.1-1). The KVA analysis focuses on changes from existing conditions as
they would be experienced by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians from the public realm.
KVAs are then reviewed in the context of the Draft FRSP, architectural renderings, a 3D
model of the Project and elevations which are used for visual simulations of the Project for
each KVA to determine whether the Project may substantially degrade or conflict with the
existing visual character of the site and Project vicinity. The KVA existing setting
photographs are compared to Project visual simulations prepared by the EIR consultant.
3.1-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
NEIL HAVLIK W AYOCEAN V I E W
FROOM CREEK CONNECTOR
FROOM C R E E K
OCEAN VIEWWEDN ES D AYPH Y LISS’LO O KOUT
OCEAN VIEW
San Luis Obispo CreekDrainage 4Drainage 4
Drainage 3Drainage 3
Drainage 2Drainage 2
Drainage 1Drainage 1
Froom
C
reekPrefumo Creek101
101
CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYROSEROSE
GARDENGARDEN
INNINN
AUTOAUTO
DEALERSHIPSDEALERSHIPS
IRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
MOTEL 6MOTEL 6
MARRIOTTMARRIOTT
HAMPTONHAMPTON
INNINN
WHOLEWHOLE
FOODSFOODS
TJ MAXXTJ MAXXHOMEHOME
DEPOTDEPOT
MOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYROSE
GARDEN
INN
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
AUTO
DEALERSHIPS
MARRIOTT
MOTEL 6
HAMPTON
INN
WHOLE
FOODS
TJ MAXXHOME
DEPOT
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH San Luis Obispo CreekFroom
C
reekDrainage 3
Drainage 4
Drainage 2
Drainage 1 Prefumo CreekIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
NATURALNATURAL
RESERVERESERVE
IRISH HILLS
NATURAL
RESERVE
CITY OFCITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY OFCITY OF
SAN LUISSAN LUIS
OBISPOOBISPO
UNINCORPORATEDUNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTYCOUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY
CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY OF
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
NEIL HAVLIK W AYOCEAN V I E W
FROOM CREEK CONNECTOR
FROOM C R E E K
OCEAN VIEWWEDN ES D AYPH Y LISS’LO O KOUT
OCEAN VIEW
1
2
3
4
KVA
1
KVA
5
KVA
3
KVA
4
KVA
2
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
LEGEND
Project Site
Froom Ranch
Specific Plan Area
Irish Hills Natural Reserve
Public Trail
Quarry
Froom Ranch Dairy Complex
3.2-Acre Existing Detention
Basin for Irish Hills Plaza
Calle Joaquin Wetlands
KVA Viewing Location
and NumberKVA
#
1
2
3
4
KVA Locations 3.1-1
FIGURE
0 600
SCALE IN FEET
N
3.1-21
3.1 AESTHETICS
The KVA visual simulations include topographic changes based on proposed grading
plans, structures location, and parameters based on the Draft FRSP (Appendix C) and the
draft Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM), and landscaping based on conceptual
landscape plans. As detailed architectural design and landscaping details are not available
at this time, the visual simulations are conceptual and subject to change; however, the
depiction of bulk, scale, and size of the Project is considered accurate for the purposes of
impact analysis. Existing KVA visual characteristics are compared to computer-based
visual simulations of the Project in Section 3.1.3.3, Project Impacts and Mitigation
Measures.
The following KVAs were selected for analysis (refer to Figure 3.1-1 for KVA locations).
The analysis focuses on changes from existing conditions as they would be experienced by
viewers from adjacent public locations, including roadways and the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve. To the extent feasible, this assessment quantifies the potential changes to visual
resources (i.e., building heights, setbacks, and distances). However, aesthetic impacts are
also addressed qualitatively where quantification was determined to be unavailable and/or
inaccurate. The changes to visual character are also discussed in the context of major
pending public and private developments within the Project vicinity.
KVA 1: U.S. 101 southbound looking southwest
This KVA represents one of the only views of the Project site looking southwest from a
southbound lane of the U.S. 101. This KVA was selected because it provides a channelized
view of the Project site, including open space located above the 150-foot elevation line.
Additionally, this KVA depicts the natural habitat present on the foothills of the Irish Hills.
Views of the Project site from U.S. 101 are generally blocked by intervening development
and vegetation. This segment of U.S. 101 is identified as having high scenic value in the
General Plan COSE.
The Project site is generally not visible from U.S. 101. Intervening development and vegetation obscure
views toward the site for both southbound (left) and northbound (right) drivers. One channelized view along
Calle Joaquin affords a clear view of the site for southbound drivers looking southwest and this view is the
basis of KVA 1. Source: Google Earth 2019.
3.1-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
KVA 2: LOVR looking west
This KVA represents views of the eastern boundary of the Project site from LOVR. This
KVA was selected because it provides a view of the existing onsite open space and the
Irish Hills to the west of the Project site. This KVA is identified as having high or moderate
scenic value in the General Plan COSE and affords views of the existing roadside
vegetation that currently limits views of the Project site from this location.
KVA 3: LOVR Overpass looking northwest
This KVA represents views of the Project site looking northwest from the LOVR Overpass.
This KVA was selected because it is highly traveled and provides a view of the Project site
and Irish Hills backdrop. The LOVR Overpass is identified as having high scenic value in
the General Plan COSE. Additionally, this KVA depicts screening resulting from existing
roadway vegetation.
KVA 4: Froom Creek Connector Trail looking east
This KVA represents east-facing views of the Project site from the Froom Creek Connector
Trail. This KVA was selected because it provides a clear view of the existing historic
buildings, construction company operations, and open space currently located on the
Project site, along with distant views of mountains and ridgelines.
KVA 5: Mountainbrook Trail looking northeast
This KVA represents views looking northeast from the Irish Hills over the Upper Terrace
toward the lower elevations of the site along LOVR. This KVA was selected because it
provides a view of the existing open space and adjacent land uses experienced from upper
elevation trails in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. This KVA also represents the view from
a location identified in the General Plan COSE as a scenic vista.
Light and Glare
The analysis of light/glare impacts reviews the new light/glare sources that would be
introduced under the Project and determines whether light/glare would substantially affect
views in the Project vicinity. A key element in this assessment methodology involves
consideration of the existing light/glare standards in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-23
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
3.1.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Project would result in the following visual impacts. Table 3.1-1 below provides a
summary of these impacts.
Table 3.1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
VIS-1. Project 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
VIS-2. The Project 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 Significant and
Unavoidable
VIS-3. The Project would introduce a new source of
nighttime light, impacting the quality of the
nighttime sky and increasing ambient light.
None Less than Significant
Impact VIS-1 Project 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 (Less
than Significant with Mitigation).
The Project site is visible from several public roadways in the Project vicinity, including
U.S. 101, LOVR, and Calle Joaquin. There are no designated State Scenic Highways in the
Project vicinity; however, U.S. 101 through the City has been identified as eligible for
designation as a State Scenic Highway. U.S. 101 and LOVR are designated scenic
roadways by the City’s COSE. Development of the Project may change, degrade,
eliminate, or block public views of visual resources onsite and in the Irish Hills, including
hillsides, rock outcroppings, the historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex, and vegetation, for
drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists, as further analyzed below.
U.S. 101
The segment of U.S. 101 in the Project vicinity is eligible for State Scenic Highway
designation, but not currently designated (Caltrans 2017). The City’s COSE identifies this
segment of U.S. 101 as having high scenic value (City of San Luis Obispo 2014). Views
toward the Project site are generally blocked by commercial development, vegetation,
distance, and topography, but the quality of views change depending on the driver’s travel
3.1-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
direction, as described below. The Froom Ranch Dairy complex is not substantially visible
from U.S. 101 (refer to KVA 1).
The Project site is not clearly visible for northbound drivers as U.S. 101 is angled eastward
away from the Project along this segment and northbound views toward the site are blocked
by topography, vegetation, and existing commercial development (e.g., four multi-story
KVA 1: Fleeting distant views of the Project site are available from U.S. 101, including the Upper Terrace
channelized along Calle Joaquin (pictured). This KVA affords direct views to the Irish Hills, including
ridgelines, outcroppings, and natural vegetation, but is obstructed by commercial development and street
trees up to approximately 20 to 30 feet high, as well as telephone poles and wiring. The Project would result
in the loss or obstruction of these scenic resources in the mid-range view with development of multi-story
development, but would not obstruct existing background views of the Irish Hills ridgelines and hillsides
and would be consistent with adjacent multi-story development in the vicinity that is also visible from U.S.
101.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-25
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
hotels on Calle Joaquin, mature eucalyptus trees). Northbound drivers may catch glimpses
of the Upper Terrace for a moment near the LOVR exit ramp, but the view corridor would
pass quickly given high vehicle speeds on U.S. 101 and would be behind the forward-
facing viewers. Therefore, changes to views from northbound U.S. 101 would not be
substantial. The Project would also not eliminate or change northbound views of scenic
resources, such as Irish Hills ridgelines, outcroppings, and vegetation. Therefore,
development of the Project site would not substantially change visible scenic resources for
northbound drivers on U.S. 101.
Views of the Project site for southbound drivers are also largely obstructed by intervening
development, vegetation, and topography; however, the angle of U.S. 101 directs
southbound drivers toward the southern portions of the Project, which increases the
availability of channelized views that would change under the Project. There are no clear,
open, and/or long-lasting views of the Project site for southbound drivers. KVA 1 was
selected for analysis as it is one of the only views of the Project site available from U.S.
101. Otherwise, the Project would not be substantially visible to southbound drivers on
U.S. 101. KVA 1 models the potential change to a channelized view from U.S. 101. This
KVA affords southbound drivers a momentary glimpse of the Upper Terrace of the Project
site from southbound U.S. 101. From this KVA, the Project would result in development
of the Upper Terrace with dense, multi-story development, including a centrally located
building with substantial bulk. This development would be elevated above other existing
proximate development within the City (i.e., above 150 feet in elevation). The Project
would eliminate open space and vegetation within the Upper Terrace and would partially
block existing views of open hillsides in the Irish Hills from KVA 1. However, this visual
change would not be substantial for drivers on U.S. 101 considering the high speed of
traffic and the lower sensitivity of the driver to visual change. Pedestrians and cyclists are
not allowed on U.S. 101 and would not be affected by Project changes to the visual setting
on the site. Since there are no open or long-lasting views that would be affected by the
Project and visible impacts would be limited to momentary glimpses of the Project in the
mid-range along a channelized view lined with trees and existing development and utility
infrastructure, the impact on views from southbound U.S. 101 would not be substantial.
The Project would not eliminate or change southbound views of scenic resources, such as
Irish Hills ridgelines, outcroppings, and vegetation. Therefore, development of the Project
site would not substantially change visible scenic resources for southbound drivers on U.S.
101.
3.1-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Understanding that the U.S. 101 is designated as having a high scenic value, the Project
would not substantially affect scenic resources visible for southbound or northbound
drivers on U.S. 101.
LOVR and LOVR Overpass
As discussed in Section 3.1.1.2, Visual Character of the Project Vicinity, the City’s COSE
designates LOVR as having moderate to high scenic value and the LOVR Overpass as
having high scenic value. The Project would be visible to travelers along LOVR, but the
impact of development onsite would vary along the LOVR corridor.
Views from LOVR along the 2,000-foot-long Project site frontage have moderate visual
resource value due to the developed nature of this corridor. The four-lane-wide roadway is
lined to the east by commercial development, including automobile dealerships and service
KVA 2: The Project site is visually obscured behind dense willow riparian vegetation of 15 to 20 feet in
height along most of the LOVR frontage (see left side of photo). Intermittent breaks in the vegetation
provide brief views of onsite visual resources including open space and grazing lands in the middle
ground and the Irish Hills in the background. Clear views of the site are available at Auto Park Way
(pictured), where the proposed main entrance of the Project would be constructed, and capture distant
views of Irish Hills Plaza and the Froom Ranch Dairy complex. Motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians along
this roadway experience views of scenic resources, though the duration of this view is limited by traffic
speed and volumes that require focusing on roadway activities. While background views of the Irish Hills
would remain following construction, multi-story development would eliminate onsite scenic resources.
However, in context of surrounding commercial development, the Project would be consistent in
character, size, and scale. Further, the Project would remove the thick vegetation in the LOVR ditch
currently providing visual screening of the Project site.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-27
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
centers that include expansive surface parking lots, security lighting, bulky low-lying
buildings, and highly visible signage with little to no landscaping or streetscape. To the
west, views of the Project site capture upper elevations of the Irish Hills, including
ridgelines, outcroppings, and vegetation, as well as distant glimpses of the Froom Ranch
Dairy complex, but most of the foreground and mid-range views of the site are block by
thick willow riparian vegetation along the roadside in the LOVR ditch, as depicted by KVA
2 below. Clear views across the site toward scenic resources are only available through two
limited breaks in this vegetation: a 250-foot-long break at Auto Park Way, and a 100-foot-
long break at the base of the LOVR Overpass. Views of the Upper Terrace are not clearly
available from LOVR. With this segment of LOVR lined by vegetation to the west and
commercial development to the east, views to the north and south are channelized along
the roadway.
Views of the Project site from the LOVR Overpass are available for northbound drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists, as depicted in KVA 3 below. Because the LOVR Overpass is
elevated, views overlook the lower elevations of the Project site, including open grasslands
and the Froom Ranch Dairy complex in the mid-range view. The view has a clear backdrop
of the Irish Hills ridgelines, outcroppings, and vegetation. However, the view is limited to
a view corridor between existing development, including multi-story hotel buildings and
commercial development along LOVR, and is currently obstructed by thick willow riparian
vegetation lining the Project site along Calle Joaquin.
Project implementation would change the view from LOVR and the LOVR Overpass by
developing the Project site, which would be visible during construction and operation.
Construction would occur over a five-year period and involve grading and structural
development. During this time, viewers would see construction equipment, materials, and
activities, as well as loss of onsite vegetation, including the existing willow riparian
vegetation sustained in the LOVR ditch and potentially along Calle Joaquin.2 The loss of
this existing visual shielding would expose viewers to areas of the site not currently visible
from LOVR. As the loss of the vegetation in the LOVR ditch would occur early in the
Project (Phase 1) during site grading and relocation of Froom Creek, construction activities
would be visible for the full construction duration from both LOVR and the LOVR
Overpass.
2 It appears the existing vegetation along the Project site boundary would be removed to facilitate installation
of the proposed stormwater management system. See Section 2.0, Project Description for details. The Draft
FRSP does not include a detailed landscaping plan but this EIR presumes a combination of native and
ornamental plantings along the site boundary.
3.1-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Once occupied, the Project would result in the permanent loss of the open space and
grasslands currently visible from limited portions of LOVR and the LOVR Overpass, as
modeled by KVA 2 and KVA 3. Existing mid-range open space views would be converted
to dense multi-story development that would also extend up to the base of the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve hillside. Project buildout would remove riparian vegetation in the
foreground along LOVR while structures up to 55 feet in height would replace open space
and agricultural grazing land in the mid-range view. The Draft FRSP ([Section 5.7.2[d])
identifies conceptual ornamental landscaping “where practical” and streetscape
landscaping would include street and parkway trees to form “the canopy, provide shade,
introduce seasonal color, and define the street edge (Section 6.7.4[f]). None of these
KVA 3: Views of the Project site from the LOVR Overpass are mostly blocked by vegetation and the
existing multi-story hotels in the foreground. This KVA affords an open view of the Project, including
distant views of the Irish Hills, the Froom Ranch Dairy complex, and Irish Hills Plaza. The Project would
also reduce access to mid-range and distant visual resources, but would not obstruct existing views to the
Irish Hills and would be consistent with multi-story development in the vicinity.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-29
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
conceptual landscaping design standards specifically address screening of proposed
structures to reduce the visual impact of massing as experienced by the viewer on LOVR
and the LOVR Overpass. Further, two-story structures would obstruct background views
of the base of Irish Hills but would maintain views of ridgelines and outcroppings. Distant
views of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex would be blocked by new development, though
these buildings are not highly visible from the KVAs and most public viewing locations.
While views of key scenic resources, including ridgelines, outcroppings, and vegetated
open space, would remain, there would be a permanent loss of views toward the Froom
Ranch Dairy complex both in its current location and in its proposed new location lower in
elevation within the proposed onsite public park. Based on KVA 2 and KVA 3 analysis,
the Project would be a dominant feature within these public views and loss of vegetation
along the Project site boundary would expose viewers to substantial changes to scenic
resources within the site.
As most of the existing views of the Project site from LOVR and the LOVR Overpass are
currently obstructed by multi-story development or thick vegetation, the Project would
only result in a substantial change to existing views from LOVR and the LOVR Overpass
in limited places, including KVA 2 and KVA 3. With the loss of vegetation, mid-range
views of the Project site would become urbanized similar to adjacent development in Irish
Hills Plaza or the existing hotels on Calle Joaquin. However, while mid-range views would
change, views of scenic resources, including the Irish Hills ridgelines and outcroppings,
would remain. Further, considering different travel speeds, drivers along the stretch of
LOVR would experience views of the developed Project site for approximately one minute
and pedestrians traveling across the overpass would experience these views for
approximately four minutes.
The Project would not eliminate or change views of scenic resources, such as Irish Hills
ridgelines, outcroppings, and vegetation, and the loss of views of the Froom Ranch Dairy
complex in the background would not be substantially perceptible. Even though the
Project’s impacts would be limited to development in the mid-range that would not obscure
important scenic resources, the impact on views from LOVR and the LOVR Overpass
would be substantial due to the potential loss of vegetation currently providing visual
shielding for the Project site, as well as the loss of distant views of the Froom Ranch Dairy
complex. Because LOVR and the LOVR Overpass are considered scenic roadways by the
City and the Project would expose viewers to a replacement of open space and vegetation
with urban development, the impact to scenic resources would be potentially significant.
3.1-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Calle Joaquin
The portion of Calle Joaquin extending to the west of LOVR towards the Project site is a
small, two-lane road that leads to adjacent hotels, Mountainbrook Church, a television
broadcasting station, and the Filipponi Ranch. This 1-mile long roadway experiences low
levels of traffic and is visually impeded for a long portion of the roadway by one- to four-
story hotel buildings. While views of scenic resources may be affected by Project
implementation from Calle Joaquin, Calle Joaquin is not a designated scenic roadway and
receives little use compared to LOVR and U.S. 101; therefore, the potential for the Project
to adversely affect a substantial number of public viewers is low and impacts to views of
scenic resources from Calle Joaquin would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM VIS-1 The Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan shall be revised to include the
following Landscape Screening Guidelines to provide effective screening of
proposed structural massing as experienced from public views along LOVR
and the LOVR Overpass. The Project landscape plan shall be prepared by
a qualified landscape architect and include the following:
1. Maximize protection of existing vegetation along the Project site boundary
to provide visual screening during Project construction and operation.
2. Specify a plant palette and landscape plan that ensure a vegetated site
boundary of sufficient height and density to provide visual screening of the
proposed development from public views.
3. Native tree specimens and shrubs capable of reaching or exceeding the
heights of the adjacent proposed structures shall be planted along Project
site boundaries visible from public views.
4. Screening planting specimen selection and location shall emphasize the
ability to interrupt the contiguous massing of structures as experienced
from area roadways and scenic vistas. Spacing shall be sufficient to
minimize views of structures within the Project site.
5. Screening planting specimen selection shall emphasize the ability of
planting species to effectively establish and thrive over the life of the
Project, such that smaller sizes shall be considered rather than exclusively
larger box sizes. Planting establishment rates shall be considered but shall
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-31
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
not preclude the use of slower-growing species, such as coast valley oak
and willows.
6. Native tree specimens capable of reaching or exceeding the heights of
adjacent structures shall be planted adjacent to multi-family and
commercial structures located within the interior of the Specific Plan area
consistent with the specifications above.
7. A bond for screening landscaping and irrigation shall be provided to ensure
establishment of plantings. The bond shall be revoked upon satisfactory
establishment of screen planting vegetation according to the plan.
Requirements and Timing. The Specific Plan Landscape Screening
Guidelines and landscape bond shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Community Development Department prior to vesting tract map
recordation. Landscape plantings, including irrigation, shall be in place
prior to issuance of building permits for each phase of the Project. A
landscape architect approved by the City shall provide verification of
landscaping establishment pursuant to the Screening Plan to the City’s
Community Development Department for review and approval prior to
relinquishment of the bond.
Monitoring. The City Community Development Department shall review
and approve the Specific Plan Landscape Screening Guidelines. The
Applicant shall ensure that all landscape planting and irrigation are in place
and shall prepare a memo verifying condition compliance. The City
Community Development Department shall review and approve the
landscaping establishment bond letter.
Residual Impacts
Implementation of MM VIS-1 would reduce scenic resource impacts caused by the
proposed development’s structural massing as experienced from adjacent public roadways
and ensure that affected views retain vegetation that provides a similar level of screening
to the existing setting. As views of scenic resources would be maintained from adjacent
public roads and the proposed development would be sufficiently shielded by proposed
vegetation, impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
3.1-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Impact VIS-2 The Project 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 (Significant and Unavoidable).
The Project would facilitate development of up to 174multi-family residences, 404 senior
housing units and assisted living facilities and amenities in association with the Villaggio
Life Plan Community, commercial development, developed urban parks, roads, bicycle
paths, and other urban infrastructure. The Project would conserve 59 acres of open space
primarily in the Upper Terrace of the Project site within the Irish Hills and would relocate
and rehabilitate four historic structures in the Froom Ranch Dairy complex. The proposed
development would transition the Project site from predominantly open space and grazing
uses to dense multi-story development creating a continuous swath of urban development
at the base of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. While the scale and style of the Project would
be generally visually compatible with surrounding commercial development to the south,
east, and north, development of the 116.8-acre site would substantially change the visual
character of the area from the loss of open space and vegetation, particularly as viewed
from hillsides in the Irish Hills. The Project would also transition the Froom Ranch Dairy
complex to a public park setting surrounded by multi-family residential development. This
change in character would be substantial and development would be highly visible from
several public trails within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, including the Froom Creek
Connector, Neil Havlik Way, and Ocean View trails, as well as the existing designated
vista located 0.35 mile southwest of the Project site near Filipponi Ranch, uphill from the
Upper Terrace and behind Mountainbrook Church. Development of the Upper Terrace of
Villaggio and upper elevations of Madonna Froom Ranch would cause the most dramatic
change to site character on the Project site’s highly visible hillsides.
The visual character of the Project, including the architectural style, height, bulk, scale,
and landscaping would be generally consistent with architectural styles and scale of
adjacent commercial development in the Irish Hills Plaza to the north, the four multi-story
hotels to the south, and the automobile dealerships and service centers to the east. The Draft
FRSP includes conceptual architectural styles and requires architectural character of future
development to be compatible with the setting of the Project site. The Project design
guidelines establish standards to allow for the modern interpretation of common San Luis
Obispo styles, including Ranch, Craftsman, Mediterranean, and California Mission. Each
area of the Project would have a mix of styles, with one or two dominant, to provide
architectural interest that contributes to the respective community character. The design
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-33
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
guidelines also provide standards for scale, mass, color, and other features to maintain an
appropriate balance between variability and consistency within neighborhoods. Building
facades would be fully articulated, and architecturally compatible treatments would be used
throughout development to ensure transitions between different areas of the Project.
The Project Design Guidelines for residential and commercial architectural design aim to
adhere to the policies in the City’s LUCE Update. Such policies include Policy LU 1.4,
Urban Edges, which requires development to maintain a clear boundary between urban
development and undeveloped open space; and Policy COS 2.3.7, Natural Features, which
requires residential developments to preserve natural site features such as vegetation and
ridgelines, as described in Impact VIS-1. The Lower Area of Villaggio is an infill area
surrounded on three sides by fully developed urban areas and does not extend up the
hillside above 150 feet in elevation. Senior residences, health care facilities, and the
Commons in the Lower Area would be as tall as 45 feet and feature a 55-foot tower
providing for a library, guest rooms, and observation deck. Non-habitable space
appurtenances, towers, and utilities would be allowed to extend an additional 10 feet above
the maximum building height. While development of the Lower Area would eliminate open
grazing lands that are also highly visible from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, the
development would occur in visual context with the Irish Hills Plaza, the four multi-story
hotels, and automobile dealerships and service centers. In this context, development of the
Lower Area would be visually compatible with surrounding development and would not
substantially change the character of the area, including for viewers within the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve. Development within the Lower Area would also be set back from LOVR
and Calle Joaquin by approximately 300 feet to accommodate the Calle Joaquin wetlands
and realigned Froom Creek channel, which would maintain a portion of the site with
existing vegetation and open space as a visual buffer. The proposed architectural and
landscape design guidelines would help ensure Project development integrates with the
natural setting of the site against the Irish Hills, including limiting the height of structures
to 55 feet and providing vegetation to screen new development.
However, the Project’s proposed land use plan and conceptual design (refer to Figures 2-3
and 2-4) indicate that development is not contained wholly within infill areas. The Project
would include substantial development above 150 feet in elevation within the Upper
Terrace and portions of Madonna Froom Ranch and place urban development in visual
context with the undeveloped Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The Upper Terrace would
contain 108 total units within several three-story buildings and up to 31 single-story villas.
Within Madonna Froom Ranch, approximately 3 acres of multi-family residential
3.1-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
development would occur above 150 feet in elevation within the site. These structures
would be built above the 150-foot elevation line and would further extend in height above
150 feet in elevation. While open space maintained in the Upper Terrace would buffer
proposed development from the Project site boundary with the Irish Hills Natural Reserve,
the visual result of this development would intrude into or obstruct views of the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve natural open spaces. The Upper Terrace and the upper elevations of
Madonna Froom Ranch are highly visible from public trails in the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve and the Project would eliminate onsite natural features (e.g., grasslands, trees) that
contribute to the visual quality of these hillsides.
The Project site is highly visible from public trails along the southeastern edge of the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve. This includes Project site visibility along the entirety of Neil Havlik
KVA 4: Views of existing historic structures, business operations, and open space within the Project site
are unobstructed. Adjacent commercial land uses are also clearly visible from this KVA. The Project
would be highly visible from this portion of the Froom Creek Connector Trail, though development would
not directly impede views of surrounding landscapes.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-35
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
Way, the Ocean View Trail and a majority of the Froom Creek Connector Trail. The Irish
Hills Natural Reserve offers premier hiking trails and scenic vistas in the region, as well as
trails for equestrians and mountain bikers. These visitors would be exposed to the Project
for substantial durations, with hikers being exposed for over 20 minutes traversing the
ridgelines above the Project site on foot. Given several popular trail segments would be
exposed to the Project, and that recreationalists are visiting the Reserve for a natural setting,
viewer exposure and sensitivity is high. Project development would substantially change
views experienced by visitors on trails within the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve. High
quality views of visual resources within the Project site, a high level of exposure of viewers
on trails, and high viewer expectations characterize the Project site as highly susceptible to
visual impacts. The visual impacts of the Project from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve are
represented in KVA 4 and KVA 5.
As depicted by KVA 4, the Madonna Froom Ranch development would be highly visible
from the Froom Creek Connector Trail, which is a key multi-use trail to the Froom Creek
Trailhead, which lies directly west of the Project site. Residential and commercial buildings
would replace the existing quarry with dense development and would reach a maximum
height of 35 and 45 feet, respectively. Development would also relocate and encase the
Froom Ranch Dairy complex, which is highly visible from this KVA, in residential
development. The current background of open lands and Froom Creek in its current
location would be replaced with urban development. Froom Creek would also be realigned
to flow east through the proposed development and would not be clearly visible from the
Froom Creek Trail. The proposed buildings would dominate southeastern mid-range views
for approximately 1,700 feet along this trail. Assuming a hiking rate of 2 mph, hikers would
experience sustained views of the Project for at least 10 minutes. The obstruction of view
corridors over the Project site and modification of existing structures would be considered
a significant impact on visual resources.
KVA 5 captures a view of the Upper Terrace of the Project site and, as such, demonstrates
visual impacts of Project development for trail segments overlooking the Upper Terrace,
including the Ocean View Trail, the Mountainbrook Trail, and Neil Havlik Way.
Development of the Upper Terrace would be highly visible to hikers looking northeast
from this KVA. Project buildout would remove extensive open space and natural habitat
area and permanently interrupt the visual continuity of the Irish Hills in this area. Impacts
to these important visual resources as experienced from these trails would be significant.
3.1-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Although adherence to City policies and regulation, as well as the architectural and
landscape design guidelines, would ensure compatibility of the Project with surrounding
commercial development, the Project would be a stark contrast to the agricultural pasture
and historic structures currently onsite. Additionally, the Upper Terrace area and portions
of the Madonna Froom Ranch area would be developed above the 150-foot elevation line
and would be the only development above this line in the vicinity besides Mountainbrook
KVA 5: Views of the open space currently existing onsite are provided from this location, as well as
adjacent land uses. Views also include the Santa Lucia Mountains to the north, South Hills to the east,
as well as expansive views of agricultural developments in the region. Development of the Project would
be highly visible from this KVA, though it would not directly impede views of the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve or surrounding hillsides from this trail.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-37
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
Church. Further, analysis of both visual susceptibility and visual severity of Project impacts
indicates a high potential for substantial impacts to the visual character of the site, including
public perception from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. As depicted by KVA 4 and KVA
5, the Project site would be extremely visible and would replace existing scenic views of
grazing land and riparian habitat. Recreationalists currently expect scenic views of high-
quality natural habitats, and development of the Project would negatively impact these
resources. The Project design and style would be compatible with adjacent development in
the Lower Area, but because the Project would substantially degrade the visual quality of
the site’s hillsides and upper elevations, aesthetic impacts would be considered potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM VIS-1 would apply.
Residual Impacts
MM VIS-1 would interrupt the contiguous massing of proposed multi-family and
commercial structures by requiring onsite native tree screening plantings. No additional
feasible mitigation measures are available to minimize the conversion of the Project site’s
rural setting to a commercial and residential setting. While MM VIS-1 would reduce
aesthetic impacts of the proposed structural massing as experienced from public trails, this
measure would not sufficiently reduce the substantial adverse effect on scenic resources
resulting from loss of open space and natural visual setting as experienced from these trails.
As no other feasible measures are available, impacts to visual resources would be
significant and unavoidable.
Impact VIS-3 The Project would introduce a new source of nighttime light, impacting
the quality of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light (Less than
Significant).
Development of the Project site would alter current lighting conditions by increasing the
amount of exterior lighting fixtures and light produced on the Project site. These new
sources of light may be visible from public areas, including the Irish Hills Natural Reserve
and LOVR. However, light from surrounding land uses already dominates the night sky
and the Project would not substantially contribute to an increase in this existing condition.
Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial impacts to nighttime views of the area
for viewers to the north, south, and east. Nighttime views for recreationalists along the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve trail system could potentially be impacted by the increase in lighting
3.1-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
sources resulting from the Project, though the Reserve closes at sunset each day and,
therefore, effects would be limited. Any views from the Irish Hills that would be affected
by Project night lighting would also be affected by existing commercial and security lights
from adjacent automobile dealerships, the Irish Hills Plaza, and the four multi-story hotels.
Further, light pollution from the Project would be regulated by outdoor lighting standards
consistent with the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance and Community Design
Guidelines (see Section 2.4.2, Project Design).
The Project would also increase non-stationary source lighting resulting from increases in
local vehicle trips and traffic volumes. As discussed in Section 3.13, Transportation and
Traffic, the Project would result in a notable increase in PM trips or traffic, which would
increase the amount of headlight glare along local roadways, particularly along LOVR.
However, LOVR and other local roadways already carry nighttime traffic and Project
contributions would not be substantial from a lighting perspective. Additionally, there are
no immediately adjacent residential uses that may be affected by increased nighttime light
or glare. Commercial uses generally close in the evening and are less sensitive to nighttime
lighting. Existing vegetative screens or physical barriers also exist along many adjacent
arterials that reduce nighttime glare from adjacent roadways, reducing potential adverse
impacts on visual resources from increased headlight glare. Because the Project’s night
lighting would comply with the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance and Community
Design Guidelines and would not affect substantial residential or recreational viewers,
Project impacts would be less than significant.
3.1.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
The Project, in combination with approved, pending, and proposed development in the
City, would contribute toward creating a defined transition from the rural environment
towards the south of the City to the urban environment to the north of the City. Consistent
with long-term buildout under the General Plan, the Project and cumulative projects would
be required to adhere to the design standards of the City General Plan, Community Design
Guidelines, and City Building Standards and would be subject to discretionary review by
the Community Development Director, Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and
Planning Commission. As concluded by the LUCE Update EIR, all development that
adheres to the LUCE policies would result in less than significant impacts. However, the
Project would require development above the 150-foot elevation line and would require a
General Plan Amendment of Policy LU 6.4, Hillside Policies (see also, Section 3.9, Land
Use and Planning), and would obstruct scenic views of open spaces from the City and Irish
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-39
Draft EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
Hills Natural Reserve. The Project, in conjunction with other cumulative development
occurring within the City and URL on or adjacent to undeveloped lands would have
significant cumulative impacts on visual resources and the natural and open space visual
character along the City’s urban-rural fringe. MM VIS-1 would not be sufficient to reduce
the Project’s long-term contribution to cumulative impacts on aesthetic resources;
therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
3.1-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
This section describes agricultural resources
and evaluates the potential impacts of the
Project on site-specific and regional agricultural
resources. Agricultural resources consist of any
farmland with potential for agricultural
productivity based on soil and farmland
characteristics. Prime soils are superior or
unique soils as identified by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). As
identified by the State of California, Important
Farmlands contain soils best suited for
producing food and forage, particularly for
producing high-yield crops as defined by the California Department of Conservation’s
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP classifies Important
Farmland based on agricultural soil quality and current land use into four categories of
important farmlands: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique
Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance.1
Other important agricultural land may be defined and protected by agricultural zoning or
Williamson Act contracts to prevent conversion to non-agricultural use. A Williamson Act
contract is an agreement between private landowners and the government to restrict
specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced
property tax assessments (see also, Section 3.2.2, Regulatory Setting). Further, agricultural
resources can include non-irrigated grazing lands where the prevalence of steep slopes, less
fertile soils, and lack of irrigation source may limit their use for cultivation or other
agricultural product production.
3.2.1 Environmental Setting
3.2.1.1 Regional Setting
Agricultural activity in the region includes mainly rotational row crops, vineyards in level
or gently sloping areas, and livestock grazing in foothill areas. Agriculture is a major
1 The FMMP also assesses the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and monitors the
conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses.
The Project site contains a 7.1-acre open
space and agricultural conservation
easement and supports soils classified as
prime, if irrigated, by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). See page 3.2-
12 for further discussion.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.2-1
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
production industry in the County with a gross production value of $1.035 billion in 2018.
Top crops by value in 2018 included: wine grapes ($276 million), strawberries ($268
million), broccoli ($48 million), avocados ($46 million), cattle and calves ($43 million),
vegetable transplants ($35 million), cauliflower ($30 million), cut flowers ($26 million),
head lettuce ($25 million), and lemons ($24 million) (County of San Luis Obispo 2019).
Agricultural production generates both direct revenues and indirect value through job
creation and economic output in other sectors of the local economy, including tourism,
industrial, retail, and commercial services.
Agricultural areas within the City limits are primarily located northeast of the Project site,
within a large swath of cultivated land adjacent to U.S. 101 (commonly known as Dalidio
Ranch or San Luis Ranch); however, a Specific Plan and proposed development on this
site has been recently approved and is under construction. Following development of the
San Luis Ranch project, 52.7 acres of the existing 131-acre site would remain as
agricultural land (refer also to Section 3.2.3.4, Cumulative Impacts). Additional
agricultural lands in the Project vicinity are located to the southeast in unincorporated areas
of the County, adjacent to the City limit. Several unincorporated parcels southeast of the
City are also subject to Williamson Act contracts. These agricultural lands generally
support rotational row crops, oat fields, and vineyards (City of San Luis Obispo 2014).
There are no lands in active agricultural production or lands under a Williamson Act
contract immediately adjacent to the Project site.
3.2.1.2 Project Site
Farmland within the Project Site
The Specific Plan area is currently used for
grazing horses. Historically, the Specific Plan area
has been used for grazing operations associated
with the former Froom Ranch Dairy since at least
1844 (Appendix F). The proposed stormwater
detention basin area is undeveloped and there is no
record of agricultural operations on this portion of
the Project site.
According to the FMMP, the Project site contains
approximately 67.6 acres of Farmland of Local
Potential, which are lands having prime or
The Project site has historically been used
for grazing, currently for horses. Portions
of the site are also identified as Farmland
of Local Potential by the FMMP. While
the site formerly served as grazing for the
historic Froom Ranch Dairy, there is no
record of cultivation on the site.
3.2-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
statewide farmland characteristics, but that are not cultivated; 46.2 acres of grazing land;
and 2.3 acres of other and urban/built-up land (California Department of Conservation
2016; Figure 3.2-1 and Table 3.2-1). There is no Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance within the Project site.
The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.
Figure 3.2-1. Agricultural Resource within the Project Site
Table 3.2-1. Project Site FMMP Resources
FMMP Designation
Specific
Plan Area
(acres)
Proposed
Stormwater
Detention
Basin Area
(acres)
Project Site
(Total) Percentage1
Farmland of Local Potential 62.4 5.2 67.6 58.3%
Grazing 44.5 1.7 46.2 39.8%
Urban/Built-Up and Other 2.2 0.1 2.3 2.0%
1Totals do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Agricultural Soils within the Project Site
The NRCS assesses the potential agricultural productivity and limitations of different soils
by utilizing both the land capability classification (LCC) system (described in the National
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.2-3
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Soil Survey Handbook Part 622.02) and the Important Farmland Inventory (pursuant to
requirements of Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Chapter 7 Part 657). The LCC
indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops, where groupings are made
according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops, and the risk of damage
to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with
soils having the fewest limitations receiving the highest rating (Class I). The system is
subdivided into capability class and capability sub-class. LCC sub-classes are utilized to
further characterize soils within a specific class by designating the main hazard by which
a particular soil is limited by reference to a letter, including: erosion (e); water (w); shallow,
droughty, or stony (s); and very cold or very dry (c). Class I soils have no sub-classes
because soils of this type have few limitations (California Department of Conservation
1997). The NRCS identifies prime soils as those with an LCC of Class I or II. Many soils
are assigned Class I or II only when irrigated, but otherwise receive a lower rating without
irrigation.
Soils at the Project site consist of approximately 47.6 acres of prime agricultural soils if
irrigated, and approximately 67.2 acres of non-prime soils based on NRCS soil
classifications. The prime if irrigated agricultural soils consists of Cropley clay and Salinas
silty clay loam (NRCS 2018; see Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3, and Figure 3.2-2). Cropley clay
is a very deep, moderately well-drained, nearly level soil with slow permeability and slow
surface runoff. The hazard of water erosion is slight, and the shrink swell potential of this
soil is high. This soil is suited for vegetable crops, dryland farming, and pasture. If used
for urban development, foundations and footings should be designed to compensate for the
high shrink swell potential and low strength. Cropley clay constitutes approximately 43.9
acres of the Project site and is rated with an LCC of Class IIs with irrigation and Class IIIs
without irrigation. Salinas silty clay loam constitutes approximately 3.7 acres of the Project
within the proposed stormwater detention basin area and is rated with an LCC of Class I
with irrigation and Class IIIc without irrigation. Per NRCS designations, these soils are
considered Prime Farmland if irrigated.
3.2-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 3.2-2. Specific Plan Area Soil Capabilities
Map
Symbol Soil Name Acreages in
Project Site
Class Important
Farmland
Designation1
Slope % Surface
Runoff IR NI
127 Cropley clay 43.8 (40.3%) IIs IIIs Prime (if
irrigated) 0 to 2 Medium
130 Diablo and Cibo
clays 16.0 (14.7%) IIIe IIIe Non-prime 9 to 15 Very high
131 Diablo and Cibo
clays 7.3 (6.7%) IVe IVe Non-prime 15 to 30 Very high
162 Los Osos – Diablo
complex 1.8 (1.6%) IIIe IIIe Non-prime 5 to 9 Very high
164 Los Osos – Diablo
complex 14.5 (13.3%) VIe VIe Non-prime 15 to 30 Very high
183 Obispo – Rock
outcrop complex 21.8 (20.0%) VIIe VIIe Non-prime 15 to 75 Very high
221
Xerets – Xerolls –
Urban land
complex
0.7 (0.6%) VIII VIII Non-prime 0 to 15 Very high
300 Corducci – Typic
Xerofluvents 2.9 (2.7%) N/A VIe Non-prime 0 to 5 Very low
Notes: IR = irrigated; NI = non-irrigated.
1 NRCS criteria for prime soils is the same as that used for the Farmland Protection Policy Act, which is dependent on
site-specific irrigation and drainage; however, it is noted that prime soils under Williamson Act criteria only considers
soils with Class I or II capabilities as prime (NCRS 2016).
Source: NRCS 2018.
Table 3.2-3. Proposed Stormwater Detention Basin Area Soil Capabilities
Map
Symbol Soil Name
Acreages
in Project
Site
Class Important
Farmland
Designation1
Slope % Surface
Runoff
Irrigation
Limitation IR NI
127 Cropley clay 0.1 (1.8%) IIs IIIs Prime (if
irrigated) 0 to 2 Medium Water
availability
197 Salinas silty
clay loam
3.7
(62.2%) I IIIc Prime (if
irrigated) 0 to 2 Negligible Water
availability
221
Xerets –
Xerolls –
Urban land
complex
2.2
(36.0%) VIII VIII Non-prime 0 to 15 Very high
Water
availability /
well drained
Notes: IR = irrigated; NI = non-irrigated.
1 NRCS criteria for prime soils is the same as that used for the Farmland Protection Policy Act, which is dependent on
site-specific irrigation and drainage; however, it is noted that prime soils under Williamson Act criteria only considers
soils with Class I or II capabilities as prime (NCRS 2016).
Source: NRCS 2018.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.2-5
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The Cropley clay soils in the Specific Plan area and proposed stormwater detention basin
area, in addition to the Salinas silty clay loam soils of the proposed stormwater detention
basin area, are not currently nor historically irrigated, nor have they been historically
utilized for crop cultivation. However, an agricultural well exists at the Project site, which
could provide a reliable source of water for irrigating these soils. As such, the Cropley clay
and Salinas silty clay loam soils are conservatively considered to be prime soils.
Figure 3.2-2. Agricultural Soils within the Project Site
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting
Agricultural resources are governed primarily by local jurisdictions, consistent with state
law. Regulations that are directly relevant to the Project are summarized below.
3.2.2.1 State
Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)
The California Department of Conservation established the FMMP in 1982 to assess the
location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and analyze the conversion of these
lands throughout California. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21060.1 defines
agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts under the FMMP.
3.2-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The list below provides a description of all categories mapped by the California
Department of Conservation (California Department of Conservation 2016):
• Prime Farmland. Farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical
features and is able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the
soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to sustain high yields.
Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during
the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but
with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture.
Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during
the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Local Importance and Local Potential. Farmland of importance to
the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors
and a local advisory committee. Farmland of Local Importance is either currently
producing crops, has the capability of production, or is used for the production of
confined livestock. Farmland of Local Importance is land other than Prime
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland. In the County,
the local advisory committee has elected to additionally define areas of Local
Potential, which include soils that qualify for Prime Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance, but generally are not cultivated or irrigated. For FMMP
reporting purposes, Local Potential and Farmland of Local Importance are
combined in the acreage tables, but are shown separately on the Important Farmland
Map.
• Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of
livestock. It also does not include heavily brushed, timbered, excessively steep, or
rocky lands that restrict the access and movement of livestock, rural residential
land, or publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing
agricultural use.
• Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of
at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or about six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is
used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, and public administrative
purposes; railroad and other transportation yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses;
sanitary landfills; sewage treatment facilities; water control structures; and other
developed purposes.
• Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples
include low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas
not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture
facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres.
Vacant and non-agricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and
greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.2-7
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson
Act, is located in California Government Code Section 51200-51297.4. The Williamson
Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the
purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in
return for reduced property tax assessments. Specifically, this legislation enables
landowners who voluntarily agree to participate in the Williamson Act program, to receive
assessed property taxes per the income-producing value of their property in agricultural
use, rather than on the property’s assessed market value. Section 51238.1 allows a board
or council to deem compatible any use, without conditions or mitigation that would
otherwise be considered incompatible. However, this may occur only if that use meets the
following conditions:
• The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural
capability of the subject contracted parcel or parcels on other contracted lands in
agricultural preserves.
• The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable
agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels on other
contracted lands in agricultural preserves. Uses that significantly displace
agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed
compatible if they relate directly to the production of commercial agricultural
products on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or neighboring lands, including
activities such as harvesting, processing, or shipping.
• The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land from
agricultural or open space use.
3.2.2.2 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Land Use Element (LUE)
The City’s adopted General Plan LUE outlines multiple policies designed to protect
agricultural resources and prime agricultural land. The City’s General Plan sets forth
specific requirements for the Project vicinity and Project site, as well as overall
requirements for protection of agricultural land and required mitigation standards for loss
of agricultural land. Policies relevant to the Project are listed below:
3.2-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Policy 1.7.3 Interim Uses. Expansion areas should be kept in agriculture, compatible with
agricultural support services, or open space uses until urban development occurs, unless a
City-approved specific plan provides for other interim uses.
Policy 1.8.1 Open Space Protection. Within the City's planning area and outside the urban
reserve line, undeveloped land should be kept open. Prime agricultural land, productive
agricultural land, and potentially productive agricultural land shall be protected for
farming. Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land
shall be permanently protected as open space.
Policy 1.9.2 Prime Agricultural Land. The City may allow development on prime
agricultural land if the development contributes to the protection of agricultural land in the
urban reserve or greenbelt by one or more of the following methods, or an equally effective
method: acting as a receiver site for transfer of development credit from prime agricultural
land of equal quantity; securing for the City or for a suitable land conservation organization
open space or agricultural easements or fee ownership with deed restrictions; helping to
directly fund the acquisition of fee ownership or open space easements by the City or a
suitable land conservation organization. Development of small parcels which are
essentially surrounded by urbanization need not contribute to agricultural land protection.
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
The City’s adopted General Plan COSE also contains policies designed to protect
agricultural resources and prime agricultural land, as well as offset the development of
agricultural areas. Policies relevant to the Project are listed below:
Policy 8.6.3 Required Mitigation. Loss or harm shall be mitigated to the maximum extent
feasible. Mitigation must at least comply with federal and state requirements. Mitigation
shall be implemented and monitored in compliance with state and federal requirements, by
qualified professionals, and shall be funded by the project applicant.
C. For a widespread habitat type or for farmland, mitigation shall consist of
permanently protecting an equal area of equal quality, which does not already have
permanent protection, within the San Luis Obispo Planning Area.
G. Any development that is allowed on a site designated as Open Space or Agriculture,
or containing open space resources, shall be designed to minimize its impacts on
open space values on the site and on neighboring land.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.2-9
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Hillside development shall comply with the standards of the Land Use
Element, including minimization of grading for structures and access, and
use of building forms, colors, and landscaping that are not visually intrusive.
2. Creek corridors, wetlands, grassland communities, other valuable habitat
areas, archaeological resources, agricultural land, and necessary buffers
should be within their own parcel, rather than divided among newly created
parcels. Where creation of a separate parcel is not practical, the resources
shall be within an easement. The easement must clearly establish allowed
uses and maintenance responsibilities in furtherance of resource protection.
3. The City will encourage the County not to create new parcels within the
greenbelt, with the exception of those permitted under the County’s
agriculture cluster incentive. Outside of cluster districts, allowed parcel
sizes within the greenbelt should be no smaller, and the number of dwellings
allowed on a parcel should be no greater than as designated in the September
2002 San Luis Obispo Area Plan and related County codes.
4. The City will encourage the County to adopt and implement a mandatory
cluster district for appropriate areas of the greenbelt under County
jurisdiction to preserve open space qualities, consistent with the
Conservation and Open Space Element. The City will encourage other
agencies to follow these policies.
County of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The County’s General Plan guides land use and planning in unincorporated areas and the
Agriculture Element of the County’s General Plan addresses agricultural resources
specifically. As the Project site is currently unincorporated, the County’s General Plan
currently applies and may be relevant when considering onsite, adjacent, or nearby
agricultural resources.
Agriculture Element
Goal AG-2 – Conserve agricultural resources.
a. Maintain the agricultural land base of the county by clearly defining and identifying
productive agricultural lands for long-term protection.
b. Conserve the soil and water that are the vital components necessary for a successful
agricultural industry in this county.
3.2-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
c. Establish land-use policies in this element that support the needs of agriculture
without impeding its long-term viability.
Goal AG-3 – Protect agricultural lands.
a. Establish criteria in this element for agricultural land divisions that will promote
the long-term viability of agriculture.
b. Maintain and protect agricultural lands from inappropriate conversion to non-
agricultural uses. Establish criteria in this element and corresponding changes in
the Land Use Element and Land Use Ordinance for when it is appropriate to convert
land from agricultural to non-agricultural designations.
c. Maintain and strengthen the county’s agricultural preserve program (Williamson
Act) as an effective means for long-term agricultural land preservation.
d. Provide incentives for landowners to maintain land in productive agricultural uses.
Policy AGP17: Agricultural Buffers – Protect land designated Agriculture and other lands
in production agriculture by using natural or man-made buffers where adjacent to non-
agricultural land uses.
San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
The San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) considers
annexations to cities and special districts, and, as such, would review the Project’s
proposed annexation to the City. LAFCO considers the impact that a proposal may have
on existing agricultural lands with focus on protecting prime agricultural lands. LAFCO
has adopted specific policies regarding the preservation of agricultural resources.
2.9.12 Agricultural Policies. 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:
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.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.2-11
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
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.
2010 Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Easement Agreement
In 2010, as part of the annexation and development of the Prefumo Creek Commons project
located across LOVR from the Project site, an open space and agricultural conservation
easement was established over a 7.1-acre portion of the Project site to satisfy LAFCO
Policy 2.9.12, Agricultural Policies (refer to Figure 2-2). The land within the easement was
found suitable to meet the LAFCO criteria for dedication for the Prefumo Creek Commons
project impacts, as it contains the same type of soils; however, the area was never
cultivated, and now overlays a delineated wetland area, as described in Section 3.4,
Biological Resources. The open space and agricultural conservation easement is intended
to allow the continuation of prior historical agricultural activities on the property, including
grazing and agricultural production, and otherwise restricts the use of the land from
development that would not support agricultural production. Additionally, the easement
agreement states that the area may be used for wetland and biological resource mitigation
banking (e.g., the restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation of wetlands
and/or biological resources) for the purpose of providing compensation mitigation as a
result of impacts to similar resources. The easement is managed by the City and may be
amended with written consent of both Irish Hills Plaza, LLC and the City; LAFCO would
review any proposed amendment to confirm it is in conformance with the conditions of the
easement agreement.
3.2.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
With respect to agricultural resources, applicable sections of Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines state that a project would normally have a significant impact on the environment
if it would:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use;
3.2-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract;
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g));
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use;
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could individually or cumulatively result in the conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural use.
Non-Applicable Thresholds
• Threshold (c) (Zoning for Forest Land, Timberland, or Timberland Production):
The Project site does not contain zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland
zoned Timberland Production, nor does it propose the rezoning of any of these
areas. As such, there would be no potentially significant adverse impacts related to
forest- and timberland-related resources and this issue will not be analyzed further
in this EIR.
• Threshold (d) (Forest Land Conversion): The Project site does not contain any
forest land. As such, there would be no potentially significant adverse impacts
related to the loss or conversion of forest land with implementation of the Project
and this issue will not be analyzed further in this EIR.
3.2.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
Data for this analysis was derived from the review of the City’s General Plan LUCE Update
EIR (2014); General Plan COSE (2006); NRCS soil maps; and the FMMP San Luis Obispo
Important Farmland Map (2016). Potential impacts to agricultural resources are associated
with the conversion of open space lands used for grazing to urban development, including
39.1 acres of residential and 3.1 acres of retail commercial land uses, as further described
below. Though the Project site is currently unincorporated land under the jurisdiction of
the County, the City’s LUCE Update EIR and General Plan have planned for the
annexation of the site. The potential for impacts to agricultural resources are therefore
evaluated in the context of City resources and agricultural conservation policies. The
LUCE Update EIR analyzed the potential for planned development of the Specific Plan
area to convert agricultural resources to developed urban uses, and concluded that impacts
would be less than significant with the incorporation of program-level mitigation measures
and application of LUCE policies, which require conservation of comparable agricultural
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.2-13
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
resources within the San Luis Obispo Planning Area. Such policies include the dedication
of offsite agricultural lands or payment of in-lieu fees to ensure that such land is conserved.
In addition, the analysis below also considers the physical loss of agricultural resources
and prime if irrigated soils.
The analysis for agricultural resources uses Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA)
methodology to determine the potential for significance of impacts, which are assessed in
this section below. LESA Model estimates for the Project site are contained within
Appendix L of this EIR. The following methods were also used to determine the extent
and/or significance of the Project’s impact on agricultural resources:
a) Identify any onsite land classified by the FMMP with an Important Farmland
designation that would be directly converted as a result of the Project.
b) Identify any onsite prime soils that would be impacted based on the NRCS
designation of prime agricultural soils. The NRCS defines prime agricultural soils
as land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain
long-term production of agricultural crops.
c) Identify onsite and offsite areas with a County agriculture land use designation that
would be directly converted or would be affected by other changes in the
environment that would indirectly contribute to the conversion of agricultural land
as a result of the Project.
3.2.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the Project has the potential to result in direct impacts to onsite
agricultural resources, including grazing land and prime soils. The Project also has the
potential to result in impacts to agricultural resources based upon consistency with goals
and policies within the LUE and COSE of the City’s General Plan (refer also to Section
3.9, Land Use and Planning), and the 2010 Open Space and Agricultural Conservation
Easement agreement. These impacts are further discussed below and summarized in Table
3.2-4.
3.2-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 3.2-4. Summary of Project Impacts
Agricultural Resource Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual
Significance
AG-1. The Project would convert onsite Farmland of
Local Potential and prime soils if irrigated to non-
agricultural uses.
None Required Less than
Significant
AG-2. Implementation of the Project would create
potential conflicts with existing agricultural zoning.
None Required Less than
Significant
AG-3. The Project would 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
Impact AG-1 The Project would convert onsite Farmland of Local Potential and
prime soils if irrigated to non-agricultural uses. (Less than Significant).
The Project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Important Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the FMMP of the California Resources Agency (see also, Figure 3.2-1 and City General
Plan COSE, Figure 10). Per the City General Plan COSE Figure 10, Prime Agricultural
Soils, the Project site contains areas mapped as Farmland of Local Potential. Therefore,
the Project would not convert FMMP-designated Important Farmland. The Project site
contains 46.2 acres of FMMP-designated Grazing Land, which has vegetation suited to
grazing livestock, and 67.6 acres of FMMP-designated Farmland of Local Potential, which
are potentially suitable for farmland but are not currently, and have not historically been,
cultivated or irrigated. Implementation of the Project would result in the conversion of
approximately 15.1 acres of Grazing Land (primarily within the Upper Terrace of the
Project site) and 47.0 acres of Farmland of Local Potential (primarily within Lower Area
and Madonna Froom Ranch) to developed urban uses. The loss of Grazing Land and
Farmland of Local Potential is not considered a significant impact under CEQA, nor under
the City’s General Plan LUE.
The Project site contains approximately 43.9 acres of Cropley clay and 3.7 acres of Salinas
silty clay loam soils (total 47.6 acres), which are considered to be prime soils if irrigated.
Though not currently irrigated, available water supplies exist to support irrigation of these
soils, including an existing well onsite. As such, these soils could be considered prime
under NRCS classifications and prime agricultural land under the City’s General Plan if
water sources were used to irrigate the land for crop cultivation. However, no portion of
the Project site is currently irrigated and there is no history of irrigated crop production
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.2-15
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
within the Project site. A California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
(LESA) Model was prepared for the Project, resulting in a scoring decision of less than
significant. LESA is a method used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of
land resources based upon specific measurable features. The California Agricultural LESA
Model is composed of six different factors: two Land Evaluation (LE) factors are based
upon measures of soil resource quality, and four Site Assessment (SA) factors provide
measures of a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural
lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. The factors are then weighted relative to
one another and combined, resulting in a single project score that becomes the basis for
making a determination of a project’s potential significance, based upon a range of
established scoring thresholds.
• If the total LESA score is from 0 to 39 points, the scoring decision is “not
considered significant.”
• If the score is from 40 to 59 points, it is “considered significant only if LE and SA
subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points.”
• If the score is from 60 to 79 points, it is “considered significant unless either LE or
SA subscore is less than 20 points.”
• If the score is from 80 to 100 points, it is “considered significant” (California
Department of Conservation 1997).
LESA scores for the Project site (including the offsite stormwater basin) are summarized
in Table 3.2-5 below.
Table 3.2-5. Final LESA Score Sheet
Factor
Scores
Factor
Weight (%)
Weighted
Factor Scores
Land Evaluation Factors
Land Capability Classification <1> 52.79 25 13.2
Storie Index <2> 51.22 25 12.81
Subtotal 50 26.01
Site Assessment Factors
Project Size <3> 80 15 12
Water Resource Availability <4> 25 15 3.75
Surrounding Agricultural Land <5> 0 15 0
Protected Resource Land <6> 50 5 2.5
Subtotal 50 18.25
Final Score 44.26
Significance Determination Less than Significant
Source: Appendix L.
3.2-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project would also be required to comply with LAFCO Policy 2.9.12, Agricultural
Policies, which provides that 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 Project would not convert Important Farmland (as defined by the FMMP of the
California Resources Agency) or prime agricultural soils (due to lack of historic or current
irrigation), and is not considered a significant conversion of land per the California
Agricultural LESA Model. Therefore, the loss of this resource through development of the
Project is considered less than significant.
Impact AG-2 Implementation of the Project would create potential conflicts with
existing agricultural zoning (Less than Significant).
The Project site currently contains land within the Agriculture and Rural Lands land use
designations within the County and Commercial Retail land use within the City and
supports some limited grazing uses, historic structures utilized to support a construction
business, and an active permitted rock quarry. Currently, the Specific Plan area is leased
for horse grazing; the proposed stormwater detention basin area is vacant and not used for
agricultural activities. Upon Project approval, the Specific Plan area would be designated
for residential, commercial/retail, and parks/open space uses within the City. The proposed
residential, commercial/retail, and public park land uses would convert more rural uses to
urban uses and eliminate existing grazing uses. The Project site is planned for urban
development with a Specific Plan (SP-3) land use designation under the City’s LUE and
the Project would be consistent with Policy 1.7.3, Interim Uses, where grazing uses would
continue until urban development occurs under a Specific Plan.
There are parcels within the Agriculture and Rural Lands designations within the County
adjacent to the Project site to the west and south. However, none of the immediately
adjacent lands currently support agricultural uses, including cultivation or grazing. Instead,
adjacent agricultural parcels contain open space within conservation easements and
Mountainbrook Church. In the vicinity, agriculturally zoned lands exist within 0.25 mile
of the Project site on the east side of U.S. 101, which are currently in active agricultural
production (row crops). Further to the south, some of these agricultural parcels are subject
to Williamson Act contracts. However, agricultural parcels within 0.5 mile of the Project
site are separated from the Project site by the existing urban development, such as the Irish
Hills Plaza, hotels, and Mountainbrook Church, as well as non-agricultural open space
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.2-17
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
areas, such as the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. This substantial distance and developed
buffer would prevent indirect impacts of the Project on existing agriculturally zoned
parcels or existing agricultural operations in the Project vicinity.
Development of the Project site would convert 116.8 acres of Agriculture, Rural Lands,
and Commercial Retail designated land uses to urban uses. This includes 59.0 acres of
Agriculture and Rural Lands designated land use that would be annexed and re-designated
as Open Space under the Project, making these areas not suitable for agricultural uses in
the future. However, the site is planned for urban development, park land, and open space
consistent with the City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be adverse, but less than
significant.
Impact AG-3 The Project would 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 (Less
than Significant).
The 7.1-acre open space and agricultural conservation easement was established onsite in
2010 based on LAFCO Policy 2.9.12 and requires that the land within the easement be
capable of retaining historical onsite agricultural operations, and/or provide open space and
biological resource value, such as wetlands. The easement currently encircles a contiguous
block of land with soils that are prime if irrigated within the southeast area of the Project
site. The Project would adjust the boundary of the 7.1-acre easement (refer to Figure 2-4).
The proposed easement boundary adjustment would retain a total of 7.1 acres of land;
however, the dedicated area would be divided into two isolated areas. Approximately 5.5
acres of the proposed reconfigured easement area would be located west of Calle Joaquin,
while approximately 1.6 acres would be located east of Calle Joaquin.
To comply with LAFCO requirements and the 2010 Open Space and Agricultural
Conservation Easement agreement, the proposed adjusted easement would need to support
historical agricultural operations, including existing grazing uses, or allow for conservation
of biological resources, including wetlands. Adjustment of the existing easement boundary
would effectively reduce the extent of lands dedicated to grazing uses from 7.1 acres to 5.5
acres, as livestock would not have the ability to access or utilize the 1.6-acre portion east
of Calle Joaquin. This effective reduction would also reduce the viability of existing
grazing operations or other agricultural operations to occur within the 5.5-acre portion of
the adjusted easement. However, realignment of the easement would support conservation
of habitat and biological resources, particularly the protection of existing wetlands within
3.2-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
this 1.6-acre portion east of Calle Joaquin, which is consistent with the terms of the
easement. Thus, adjustment of the 7.1-acre easement would continue to meet the objectives
and LAFCO requirements of the 2010 Open Space and Agricultural Conservation
Easement agreement and this impact is considered less than significant.
3.2.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the Project would contribute incrementally to the loss of agricultural
land (Grazing Land and Farmland of Local Potential) to development within the County
and particularly within the City’s Sphere of Influence. Although agricultural resources in
the Project vicinity are predominantly located outside of City limits, agriculture is a major
industry in the County. The County has experienced the trend of conversion of agricultural
resources to developed uses; between 2010 and 2012, the FMMP recorded a net loss of
3,601 acres of Important Farmland, and between 2012 and 2014, the FMMP recorded a net
loss of 10,706 acres of Important Farmland. However, between 2014 and 2016, FMMP
reports indicate that this trend in conversion of agricultural resources to development uses
began to reverse, and approximately 1,758 acres of Important Farmland were gained
(California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection 2012,
2014, 2016). In addition, within the City, projects such as the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
and Avila Ranch Development Plan would result in the conversion of over 200 acres of
agricultural land to urban uses in the Project vicinity.
The Project would not contribute to the loss of Important Farmland. Consistent with the
LUCE Update EIR, the Project would implement mitigation measures to ensure
compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Similar to the Project, other
cumulative development within the City that would result in the conversion of agricultural
resources would be subject to Policy 1.9.2 in the LUE, Prime Agricultural Land, and Policy
8.6.3 in the COSE, Required Mitigation. However, cumulative development would
continue to result in the irreversible loss of agricultural resources. The Project would result
in the incremental loss of agricultural resources within the County, including the loss of
Grazing Lands and loss of Farmland of Local Potential, per the FMMP. The County has
experienced a net gain of 8,117 acres of Grazing Land between 2010 and 2016 (California
Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection 2014; 2012; 2016).
However, the Project site does not contain prime agricultural resources per the FMMP,
current soil classifications, or the California Agricultural LESA Model, nor would it
contribute to the loss of prime agricultural land within the County. Therefore, the Project’s
cumulative contribution to loss of agricultural resources would be less than significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.2-19
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section analyzes air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated
with the Project, including local and regional air quality within the County. Air quality is
evaluated according to the concentration of pollutants in ambient air. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and California Environmental Protection
Agency (CalEPA) have established national and state criteria to protect public health and
welfare for seven criteria pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 10-micron particulate matter (PM10), 2.5-micron
particulate matter (PM2.5) and lead (Pb). The CalEPA has also established state criteria for
sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and visibility reducing particulates. Other air pollutants
of concern include toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), in
diesel particulate matter, generated from the operation of diesel engines (e.g., trains,
equipment, trucks, etc.).
3.3.1 Environmental Setting
3.3.1.1 Regional Climate and Meteorology
The County’s climate is Mediterranean with warm dry summers and cool damp winters.
Inland areas typically experience a wider range of temperatures than on the coast due to
the separation of regions by coastal mountain ranges. The warmest month in the County is
generally September and the coolest month is January. Maximum temperatures in the
summer in coastal areas average about 70 degrees Fahrenheit, while temperatures in the
high 90s are typical in the inland valleys. Average minimum winter temperatures is 48
degrees Fahrenheit, but can drop to the 30s along the coast to the 20s inland (Western
Regional Climate Center 2016).
The County’s meteorology is largely controlled by a persistent high-pressure system over
the eastern Pacific Ocean. The Pacific high-pressure system remains generally fixed
several hundred miles offshore from May through September. Coastal fog and low clouds
often form in the marine layer along the coast, lessening in the warmer interior valleys
(City of San Luis Obispo 2014).
The speed and direction of local winds are influenced by the location and strength of the
Pacific high-pressure system, by topographical features and by circulation patterns
resulting from temperature differences between land and sea. In spring and summer, when
the Pacific high-pressure system is at its strongest, onshore winds from the northwest
generally prevail during the day. In the fall, onshore surface winds decline and the marine
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-1
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
layer grows shallow, allowing an occasional weak offshore wind. Pollutants may
accumulate more during this time of year, remaining over the ocean for a few days and
being carried back onshore. Strong inversions, or a deviation in the typical decrease in
temperature with respect to altitude, can form at this time, trapping pollutants near the
ground surface; this effect is intensified when the Pacific high-pressure system weakens
and moves inland to the east. This may produce a condition known as Santa Ana winds
where air, often pollutant-laden, is transported into the County from the east and southeast.
The break-up of this condition generally occurs within seven days and may then result in
stagnant conditions and a build-up of pollutants offshore. The sea breeze can also bring
these pollutants back onshore, where they combine with local emissions and cause higher
pollutant concentrations.
Local meteorological conditions in the Project vicinity typically consist of average
temperatures varying from 40 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit seasonally, with precipitation
observed 33 percent of the year, mainly from December through March. Wind speeds vary
from 0 to 20 mph throughout the year, and the wind is most often out of the northwest and
west. Approximately 90 percent of the total annual rainfall in the County occurs between
November and April; however, rainfall amounts can vary considerably among different
regions in the County. Annual rainfall averages from 16 to 28 inches in the Coastal Plain,
while the Upper Salinas River Valley receives approximately 12 to 20 inches of rain
annually. The Carrizo Plain is the driest area of the County, receiving an average of less
than 12 inches of rain per year (San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
[SLO County APCD] 2001).
3.3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change
The U.S. EPA defines climate change as “any significant change in the measures of climate
lasting for an extended period of time.” In other words, climate change includes major
changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other conditions, that occur
over several decades or longer. Scientific consensus is that human-caused emissions of
GHGs above natural levels is the primary contributor to global climate change. When GHG
levels increase in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect intensifies on Earth and drives
long-term climate change. GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere and regulate the Earth’s
temperature and include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and O3. The largest anthropogenic source of
emissions comes in the form of CO2, which makes up approximately 82 percent of U.S.
GHG emissions annually (U.S. EPA 2017). Although methane, nitrogen oxides,
3.3-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
chlorofluorocarbons, and hydrocarbons make a smaller portion of GHG volume, they are
powerful greenhouse gases and play an outsized role in climate change.
The primary human activities that emit GHGs include the electric power industry,
transportation, industrial/manufacturing, agricultural, commercial, and residential uses
(U.S. Energy Information Administration [U.S. EIA] 2017). The main sources of GHGs
due to human activity include the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (loss of CO2
sequestration); livestock and rice paddy farming, wetland depletions, and landfill emissions
(CH4); refrigeration systems and fire suppression systems use and manufacturing (CFCs);
and agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers (NOx) (U.S. EPA 2017).
In 2015, the State of California produced approximately 363.5 million metric tons of CO2
equivalent (MMT CO2e) emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Sector sources of these
CO2 emissions are as follows: transportation (56.7 percent), industry (19.6 percent),
electricity generation (12.2 percent), residential (6.4 percent), and commercial (5.1 percent)
(U.S. EIA 2017). In 2016, the City’s emissions amounted to 242,210 metric tons of CO2
equivalent (MT CO2e), an approximately 10 percent reduction compared to the City’s 2005
GHG inventory which amounted to 269,720 MT CO2e. In 2016, GHG emissions in the
City were from transportation (51 percent), commercial and industrial energy (electricity
and natural gas) (22 percent), residential energy (electricity and natural gas) (18 percent),
solid waste (6 percent), wastewater (<1 percent), and off-road sources (6 percent) (City of
San Luis Obispo 2018).
The global climate crisis has already impacted the City and will continue to affect an
increasing range of resource areas, including hydrological and biological resources.
Projected impacts to the region caused by global climate change include rising sea levels,
coastal flooding, increased tsunami hazards, drought, increased fire frequency, size, and
severity, and sediment transportation and deposition-related impacts on aquatic ecosystems
(California Natural Resources Agency 2018).
3.3.1.3 Regional Air Quality
The County is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which also includes
Santa Barbara and Ventura counties to the south. Air quality within the County is
contingent on several factors including the type, amount and dispersion rates of pollutants
being emitted within the region. Major factors affecting pollutant dispersion, as discussed
in the previous paragraphs, are wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability,
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-3
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
temperature, the presence or absence of inversions, and the topographic and geographic
features of the region.
3.3.1.4 Regional Emissions
Under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) of 1963, federal air quality standards, known as
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), were established for the criteria
air pollutants described previously. Similarly, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of
1988 establishes state air quality standards that are more stringent than the NAAQS as part
of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Measurements of ambient
concentrations of criteria air pollutants are used by the U.S. EPA and the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to assess and classify the air quality of each air basin, county, or
in some cases a specific developed area. The classification is determined by comparing
monitoring data with the national and state air quality standards. If a pollutant
concentration in an area is lower than the standard, the area is classified as being in
“attainment.” If the pollutant exceeds the standard, the area is in marginal, moderate,
serious, severe, or extreme “non-attainment,” depending on the magnitude of the air quality
standard exceedance. If there are not enough data available to determine whether the
standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated “unclassified.”
The County has historically been designated as in non-attainment of state standards for 1-
hour and 8-hour O3 (see Table 3.3-1). The national 8-hour O3 standard was lowered from
75 to 70 parts per billion (ppb) on October 1, 2015. The eastern portion of the County is
still designated as in non-attainment for the new standard, while the western portion of the
County is designated as within attainment status (SLO County APCD 2019). O3 is a
secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a specific emission source, but rather
is formed by a reaction between NOx and reactive organic gases (ROGs) in the presence of
sunlight. Primary sources of NOx are motor vehicles (over 50 percent), public utility power
generation, and fuel combustion by various industrial sources. O3 can impact public health
at higher concentrations by causing respiratory irritation and other effects upon the lungs.
It can also affect sensitive plant species by interfering with photosynthesis, and is therefore
a threat to California agriculture and native vegetation (U.S. EPA 2018).
3.3-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards and County Attainment Status (2019)
Pollutant Average
Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Attainment
Status Concentration Attainment
Status
Ozone (O3) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) Non-
Attainment
-- Non-Attainment
Eastern County
– Attainment
Western County
(Project site)
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24 Hour 50 μg/m3 Non-
Attainment
150 μg/m3 Unclassified*/
Attainment Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 --
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hour -- Attainment 35 μg/m3 Unclassified*/
Attainment Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Attainment 35 ppm (40
mg/m3)
Unclassified*
8 Hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10
mg/m3)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) Attainment 100 ppb (188
μg/m3)
Unclassified*
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm
(100 μg/m3)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) Attainment 75 ppb (196
mg/m3)
Unclassified*
3 Hour -- 0.5 ppm (1300
μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
-- 0.030 ppm
Lead (Pb) 30-Day
Average
1.5 μg/m3 Attainment -- No Attainment
Information
Calendar
Quarter
-- 1.5 μg/m3
Rolling 3-
Month
Average
-- 0.15 μg/m3
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-5
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards and County Attainment Status (2019)
(Continued)
Pollutant Average
Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Attainment
Status Concentration Attainment
Status
Visibility
Reducing
Particulates
8 Hour Extinction coefficient of
0.23 per kilometer –
visibility of 10 miles or
more (0.07-30 miles or
more for Lake Tahoe) due
to particulates when relative
humidity is less than 70 %.
Method: Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance through
Filter Tape.
Attainment No Federal Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment
Hydrogen
Sulfide
(H2S)
1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Attainment
Vinyl
Chloride
24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) No
Attainment
Information
Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligram per cubic meter
-- = Not applicable
*Unclassified (U.S. EPA/federal definitions): Any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as
meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for that pollutant.
Attainment (U.S. EPA/federal definitions): Any area that meets the national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard for that pollutant. (CARB definition): State standard was not exceeded during a three-year period.
Non-Attainment (U.S. EPA/federal definitions): Any area that does not meet, or contributes to an area that does not
meet the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for that pollutant. (CARB definitions): State
standard was exceeded at least once during a three-year period.
Source: SLO County APCD 2017b.
The County is in non-attainment for the state PM10 standards; however, the County is within
attainment of national PM10 standards. PM10 is comprised of finely divided solids and
liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Human activities that generate PM10
include agricultural operations, industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, construction
and demolition operations, and entrapment of road dust into the atmosphere. Natural
sources include wind-blown dust, wildfire smoke, and sea spray salt (U.S. EPA 2018).
3.3.1.5 Emissions in the Vicinity of the Project Site
The Project site is composed of grazing land and disturbed/developed area in the
northwestern area of the site that comprises the historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex (see
Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources), a construction storage yard, and
quarry/aggregate mining pit and storage area. Ongoing construction storage yard activities
3.3-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
generate fugitive dust via uncovered stockpiles of various materials such as dirt and rock
and pollutant emissions from operation of heavy construction equipment and trucks.
Information about the daily average operations of equipment at the Project site varies
substantially due to the nature of the existing construction business. However, based on
field observations and aerial imagery, the regular driving of heavy trucks and earthmoving
equipment within the quarry and on the property also contributes to existing onsite fugitive
dust and diesel particulate emissions. The 3.2-acre onsite stormwater detention basin does
not produce emissions besides those associated with infrequent maintenance clearing;
based on aerial imagery, clearing of vegetation within the basin occurred in 2013 and 2018.
The remainder of the site is unimproved, consisting of natural areas that do not currently
produce emissions.
The Project site is surrounded to the north, east, and south by urban development, including
the Irish Hills Plaza shopping center to the north, several automobile dealerships to the
east, and four hotels and Mountainbrook Church to the south. These uses generate traffic
on local roads. LOVR runs immediately east of the Project site and U.S. 101 is located as
close as 400 and 600 feet south of the Specific Plan area. Vehicles in the Project vicinity
contribute to existing emissions in the SCCAB, along with land uses, equipment, and
industrial processes within urban areas, and agricultural uses in rural areas.
The Project site lies within the Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) buffer area per the
SLO County APCD’s NOA map and is therefore subject to CARB’s Air Toxics Control
Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations.
CARB has identified asbestos as a TAC that if inhaled may result in the development of
lung cancer or cause other health hazards. NOA can be found in serpentine rock and can
be released into the air when it is broken or crushed. In the County, serpentine rock is
located in many regions, including the Project site. Work in serpentine areas requires a
SLO County APCD pre-approved dust control plan and may include asbestos air
monitoring. Prior to any grading activities at a site within an area potentially containing
NOA, the Applicant is required to comply with the applicable sections contained in the
NOA ATCM, including the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 17, Section 93105.
The air monitoring station located nearest to the Project site is the San Luis Obispo –
Higuera Street station, located at 3220 S. Higuera Street, approximately 1.0 mile northeast
of the Project site. This station has been active since 2005 and is operated by CARB and
measures O3, PM2.5, and PM10 (CARB 2018). Table 3.3-2 summarizes the annual air
quality emissions data for the local airshed between the years 2016-2018, with values
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-7
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
exceeding state emissions underlined (there were no federal exceedances at this monitoring
station recorded during this period).1 The number of exceedance days for each pollutant
are also shown. This table shows the general air quality trends of the area for pollutants
measured near the Project site.
Table 3.3-2. Ambient Air Quality Data at San Luis Obispo – Higuera Street
Station
O3 ppb PM10 μg/m3 PM2.5 μg/m3
Worst
1-Hour
Worst
8-Hour
O3 Exceedance
Days 1-Hour/
8-Hour
Worst
24-Hour
Exceedance
Days
Worst
24-Hour
Exceedance
Days
2016 69 62 0/0 42 0 21 0
2017 74 66 0/0 62 3 25 0
2018 62 53 0/0 46 0 13 0
Threshold 90 70 50 -
Notes: ppb = parts per billion, μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; underlined values have exceeded state emissions
standards; there are no values at this station that exceed federal emission standards.
Source: CARB 2018; 2019.
3.3.1.6 Sensitive Receptors
The SLO County APCD defines sensitive receptors as people that have an increased
sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations
include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and
residential dwelling unit(s) (SLO County APCD 2012). These uses are considered sensitive
as they are more likely to contain populations of people who have an increased sensitivity
to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Children under the age of 16 are
particularly susceptible to health problems from air emissions exposure for developing
lungs, as well as elderly people over 65, individuals with respiratory and cardiovascular
health problems, and people conducting strenuous work or active exercise.
There are no existing sensitive receptors within or immediately adjacent to the Project site.
The Project site is surrounded by undeveloped land in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and
commercial development, including four hotels, Mountainbrook Church, automobile
dealerships and service centers, and the Irish Hills Plaza shopping center. Mountainbrook
Church lies approximately 75 feet from the southern boundary of the Project site and 580
feet from the Upper Terrace. Mountainbrook Church is open daily and offers religious
services throughout the week, including classes and programs for children and youth, with
1 A local airshed is defined as a geologic area that shares a common air flow or atmosphere that is exposed to the same condition, such
as source of pollutants or dispersion.
3.3-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
most programs offered during evenings and weekends. Four hotels (Rose Garden Inn,
Courtyard by Marriott, Hampton Inn & Suites, and Motel 6) are located 40 to 160 feet east
of the Project site boundary. The closest school is Pacific Beach High School, which is
approximately 0.27 mile northwest of the Project site and is considered the nearest sensitive
receptor. Neither the Mountainbrook Church or the hotels along Calle Joaquin are
considered sensitive receptors to air pollutants, as guests and visitors of these developments
are considered transient and would not be exposed to air pollutant emissions for extended
periods of time. The closest existing residential area is approximately 0.3 mile northeast of
the Project site.
3.3.1.7 Odors/Nuisance Emissions
Common sources of odors and nuisance emissions include wastewater treatment plants,
landfills, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, and chemical manufacturing
facilities. The nearest such source of odor to the Project site is the San Luis Obispo Water
Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) located approximately 0.66 mile east of the Project
site boundary, across U.S. 101. Odors from the WRRF, which are caused from H2S, a gas
that smells like rotten eggs, are not perceptible at the Project site based on field
reconnaissance by the EIR consultant from 2017 through 2019.
3.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Air quality and GHG emissions are governed primarily by federal and state laws, although
local jurisdiction laws would also apply to future development under the Project. Federal,
state, and local regulations that are directly relevant to the Project are summarized below.
3.3.2.1 Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The FCAA was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990, and was the first
comprehensive federal law to regulate air emissions from stationary and mobile sources.
Among other things, the law authorizes the U.S. EPA to establish NAAQS. The NAAQS
help to ensure basic health and environmental protection from air pollution. The FCAA
also gives the U.S. EPA authority to limit emissions of air pollutants coming from sources
like chemical plants, utilities, and steel mills.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-9
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. EPA is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the FCAA of 1970 (as
amended in 1977 and 1990). The U.S. EPA has established NAAQS for O3, CO, NO2, SOx,
PM10, PM2.5, and Pb, as shown in Table 3.3-1. The U.S. EPA also maintains jurisdiction
over emissions sources outside state waters (outer continental shelf) and establishes various
emissions standards for vehicles sold in states other than California (as the CalEPA has
established more stringent emissions standards for vehicles sold in California).
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state that is in non-
attainment for any federal criteria pollutant to prepare and submit a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that identifies the measures necessary to attain the federal standards. The SIP
must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific
measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-
based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. The FCAA allows states to
adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations, provided they are at least as
stringent as the federal standards.
3.3.2.2 State
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA was enacted in 1988 and requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain
the CAAQS by the earliest practicable date. The CAAQS includes more stringent standards
than the NAAQS. The CAAQS were established within the CCAA of 1988 for criteria
pollutants and additional standards for sulfates, H2S, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing
particles (see Table 3.3-1). The CCAA requires each APCD in California to adopt
strategies for achieving the NAAQS and CAAQS by the earliest practicable date. CARB
is responsible establishes emissions standards for vehicles sold and operated within the
state, while the local APCD is responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary
sources.
California Air Resources Board
CARB, a part of CalEPA, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both
federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, CARB
conducts research, sets CAAQS, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested
control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. CARB
establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products
3.3-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
(such as hair spray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of
commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular
emissions.
In April 2005, CARB issued a guidance document on air quality and land use, “Air Quality
and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective”, which recommends that
sensitive land uses not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or other “High Traffic
Roadway” and that a site-specific health risk assessment be performed as a way to more
accurately evaluate the risk. “High Traffic Roadways” are defined as urban roadways with
100,000 vehicles per day (vpd) or more, or rural roads with 50,000 or more vpd. In traffic-
related studies, the additional non-cancer health risk attributable to proximity to high-
volume roadways was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California
freeway studies show about a 70 percent drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet.
The nearest highway or High Traffic Roadway is U.S. 101 located approximately 400 to
800 feet from Project site.
California Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32)
The California State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be
reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “Greenhouse gases” as defined under AB 32
include CO2, CH4, NOx, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. AB
32 states the following:
Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health,
natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of
global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the
quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels
resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage
to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of
infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.
CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMT CO2e on December 6, 2007
(CARB 2007). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be
equal to or less than 427 MMT CO2e.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-11
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
Senate Bill (SB) 32 and AB 197 were both approved by Governor Jerry Brown on
September 8, 2016 and became effective on January 1, 2017. SB 32 sets into law the targets
for GHG emissions reductions at 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030, as mandated under
Governor Jerry Brown’s Executive Order B-30-15. AB 197 is paired with SB 32 and is a
measure that increases legislative oversight over the CARB, in order to ensure strategies
to lower emissions favor those most impacted by climate change.
Executive Order S-13-08
Executive Order S-13-08 indicates that “climate change in California during the next
century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase
temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and
welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the
order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources
Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the “ ...first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific,
and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives
include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies
to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
Executive Order B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15, set into state law by SB 32, establishes a California GHG
reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. California is on track to meet or
exceed the current target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established
in AB 32. California's new emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by
2030 will make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent
under 1990 levels by 2050. This is in line with the scientifically established levels needed
in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius - the warming threshold at
which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super droughts
and rising sea levels. The reduction targets mandated under Executive Order B-30-15 were
set into law under SB 32 in September 2016.
Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Executive Order B-55-18
to establish a new ambitious statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible,
3.3-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative targets of reducing GHG
emissions.
California Air Resources Board: Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Scoping Plan as directed by AB 32 (CARB
2008). The Scoping Plan identifies actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in
California to the levels required by AB 32. Measures applicable to development projects
include those related to energy-efficiency building and appliance standards, the use of
renewable sources for electricity generation, regional transportation targets, and green
building strategies. Relative to transportation, the Scoping Plan includes nine measures or
recommended actions related to reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle GHGs
through fuel and efficiency measures. These measures would be implemented statewide
rather than on a project-by-project basis.
CARB released the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan in May 2014 to
provide information on the development of measure-specific regulations and to adjust
projections in consideration of the economic recession (CARB 2014). In the update, CARB
estimated the AB 32 Baseline 2020 to be 509 MMT CO2e. The Scoping Plan’s current
estimate of the necessary GHG emission reductions is 78 MMT CO2e (CARB 2014). This
represents an approximately 15.32-percent reduction. CARB is forecasting that this would
be achieved through the following reductions by sector: 25 MMT CO2e for energy,
23 MMT CO2e for transportation, 5 MMT CO2e for high-global warming potential (GWP)
GHGs, and 2 MMT CO2e for waste. The remaining 23 MMT CO2e would be achieved
through Cap-and-Trade Program reductions. This reduction is flexible – if CARB receives
new information and changes the other sectors’ reductions to be less than expected, the
agency can increase the Cap-and-Trade Program reduction (and vice versa).
In response to EO B-30-15 and SB 32, all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of
GHG emissions were directed to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG
emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets. CARB was directed to update the Scoping
Plan to reflect the 2030 target, and, and adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan:
The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target on November 30,
2017. The 2030 mid-term target outlined in the Scoping Plan is critical to help frame the
suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean
technologies and infrastructure needed to continue driving down emissions. The Second
Update to the Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 14, 2017.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-13
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Senate Bill 375
Passing the Senate on August 30, 2008, SB 375 was signed into law on September 30,
2008. Per SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions.
SB 375 does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include
sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG
emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified
incentives for the implementation of the strategies.
Senate Bill 743
SB 743, adopted September 27, 2013, encourages land use and transportation planning
decisions and investments that reduce VMT that contribute to GHG emissions. SB 743
eliminated the measurement of automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), as a
metric for determining traffic impacts. SB 743 required the State Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) to develop revisions to the CEQA Guidelines establishing criteria for
determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority
areas that promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multi-modal
transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. For land use projects, OPR identified
VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and net VMT as new metrics for transportation
analysis. Additional provisions of SB 743 include reforming aesthetics and parking CEQA
analysis for urban infill projects and in transit priority areas. Regulatory changes to the
CEQA Guidelines that implement SB 743 were approved on December 28, 2018. July 1,
2020 is the statewide implementation date and agencies may opt-in use of new metrics
prior to that date. OPR released a December 2018 Technical Advisory that contains
recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation
measures.
Air Toxics Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations
Under CARB's NOA ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations, prior to any grading activities at a site identified as having the potential to
contain NOA, the Owner or Operator will be required to comply with the applicable
sections contained in the NOA ATCM. Projects that require grading within an area where
an NOA may be present are required to demonstrate adequate dust control measures with
the SLO County APCD. For example, for projects that require grading of 1 acre or more
3.3-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
in serpentine, a geologic evaluation and Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan must be submitted
to the SLO County APCD.
3.3.2.3 Local
City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan
The City’s Climate Action Plan, adopted by Resolution No. 10388 in 2012, is a strategic
document based on the idea that effective global solutions to climate change will largely
be the result of collective action of local communities and governments. The Climate
Action Plan enables the City to maintain local control of implementing state direction (AB
32 – the California Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce GHG emissions to 1990
levels by 2020. The adjusted GHG emissions forecast shows that implementation of all
strategies in this plan can achieve a 15 percent reduction from baseline levels by 2020,
which will meet required AB 32 state reduction goals. The plan identifies strategies to
guide the development and implementation of GHG reduction measures in the City and
quantifies the emissions reductions that result from these strategies. The Climate Action
Plan proposes strategies to reduce GHG emissions from community-wide activities and
government operations. Community-wide activities are broken down into six focus areas:
buildings, renewable energy, transportation and land use, water, solid waste, and parks and
open space. Corresponding goals include: energy-efficient buildings, clean and renewable
energy sources, improved transportation options, reduced water consumption, reduced
waste, and maintenance and growth of the urban forest.
The City is currently updating the Climate Action Plan, including an updated GHG
inventory and measures to achieve a net-zero carbon emissions target communitywide. The
updated plan will include strategies that can achieve 40 percent reduction from baseline
levels by 2030, which will meet required SB 32 state reduction goals. In addition, at a City
Council hearing held on September 18, 2018, the City declared its intent to adopt a target
for achieving citywide carbon neutrality by the year 2035. The update to the Climate Action
Plan will identify new measures and policies applicable to development within the City for
reducing carbon emissions from various sources, including energy consumption,
transportation, and organic waste disposal, to achieve this target.
Clean Energy Choice Program
The City is currently developing local amendments to the 2019 California Building Code
(CBC) to encourage all-electric new buildings. When paired with Monterey Bay
Community Power's carbon free electricity supply, all electric new buildings are carbon
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-15
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
free and avoid health and safety issues associated with fossil fuels and GHGs. At its
meeting on Tuesday, September 3, 2019, the City Council approved the Clean Energy
Choice Program. The City anticipates the second reading of the ordinance and subsequent
implementation to occur in early 2020. The City joins more than 50 other California
communities currently considering ways to encourage cleaner buildings. Unlike some
cities that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program
will provide options to people who want to develop new buildings with natural gas. New
projects wishing to use natural gas will be required to build more efficient and higher
performing buildings and offset natural gas use by performing retrofits on existing
buildings or by paying an in-lieu fee that will be used for the same purpose.
County of San Luis Obispo Clean Air Plan and CEQA Air Quality Handbook
SLO County APCD adopted the Clean Air Plan in January 1992; the Clean Air Plan was
updated in 1998, and again in 2001. The Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive planning
document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial
sources. The Clean Air Plan also aims to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by
establishing goals and targets for reducing personal vehicle trips and trip lengths, such as
encouraging or promoting multimodal alternatives. The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to
address the attainment and maintenance of state and federal ambient air quality standards
by following a comprehensive set of emission control measures within the plan.
In 2009, SLO County APCD adopted guidelines for assessment and mitigation of air
quality impacts under CEQA. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which was updated in
2012 (SLO County APCD 2012) and subsequently amended in 2017 (SLO County APCD
2017), is an advisory document that provides lead agencies, consultants, and project
applicants with uniform procedures for addressing air quality issues in environmental
documents. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook also includes standard construction and
operational mitigation measures that may be applied to projects that exceed SLO County
APCD thresholds. For instance, SLO County APCD requires inclusion of Best Available
Control Technologies (BACTs) for construction equipment when estimated O3precursor
emissions for the equipment and vehicle fleet are expected to exceed adopted thresholds of
significance and implementation of fugitive dust control measures (watering of the grading
site, vegetation of exposed soils, early roadway paving, construction vehicle speed control,
etc.) for any project with a grading area greater than 4 acres or that are located within 1,000
feet of any sensitive receptor.
3.3-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.3.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.3.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
Air Quality CEQA Thresholds
Significance criteria for evaluating impacts on air quality emissions associated with the
Project are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project
would have a significant impact on air quality and GHG emissions if the Project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SLO County APCD’s adopted
Clean Air Plan (including providing for growth that is above the rate of growth
contained in the Clean Air Plan);
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard;
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.
Non-Applicable Threshold(s)
• Threshold (d) (Other emissions affecting a substantial number of people): The
Project would not involve the development of the types of land uses that generate
non-criteria pollutant emissions or odors that would affect a substantial number of
people such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities,
refineries, or chemical plants. Nor would the Project locate sensitive receptors
within proximity of these types of sources. Therefore, the Project would not have a
potential to have an impact related to odors and nuisance emissions and this issue
will not be further discussed.
SLO County APCD Clean Air Plan
As recommended by SLO County APCD, the most appropriate standard for assessing the
significance of potential air quality impacts is the preparation of a consistency analysis
where the project is evaluated against the land use goals, policies, and population
projections contained in the current Clean Air Plan. The rationale for requiring the
preparation of a consistency analysis is to ensure the attainment projections developed by
SLO County APCD are met and maintained. SLO County APCD’s CEQA Air Quality
Handbook recommends evaluation of the following questions:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-17
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
• Are the population projections used in the plan equal to or less than those used in
the most recent Clean Air Plan for the same area;
• Is the rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled less than or equal to the
rate of population growth for the same area; and
• Have all applicable land use and transportation control measures from the most
recent version of the Clean Air Plan been included in the plan to the maximum
extent feasible?
SLO County APCD Significance Criteria (Air Quality and Criteria Air Pollutants)
Significance Criteria for Construction-Related Emissions
Short-term construction emission thresholds for the SLO County APCD (Table 3.3-3), as
stated in SLO County APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook are described below. Due to
the length of the Project’s construction phases, quarterly thresholds are used in this
analysis.
ROG and NOx Emissions
• Daily: For construction projects, the 137 pounds per day (lbs/day) threshold
requires Standard Mitigation Measures;
• Quarterly – Tier 1: For construction projects exceeding the 2.5 tons per quarter
(ton/qtr) threshold, Standard Mitigation Measures and Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) for construction equipment are required. Offsite mitigation
may be required if feasible mitigation measures are not implemented, or if no
mitigation measures are feasible for the project; and
• Quarterly – Tier 2: For construction exceeding the 6.3 ton/qtr threshold, Standard
Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation of a Construction Activity
Management Plan (CAMP), and offsite mitigation are required.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions
• Daily: For projects expected to be completed in less than one quarter, exceedance
of the 7 lbs/day threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures;
• Quarterly – Tier 1: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter,
exceedance of the 0.13 ton/qtr threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures,
and BACT for construction equipment; and
3.3-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
• Quarterly – Tier 2: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter,
exceedance of the 0.32 ton/qtr threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures,
BACT, implementation of a CAMP, and offsite mitigation.
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust Emissions
• Quarterly: Exceedance of the 2.5 ton/qtr threshold requires Fugitive PM10
Mitigation Measures and may require the implementation of a CAMP.
If construction-related emissions of the Project equal or exceed any of the thresholds stated
above, mitigation of construction activities and implementation of BACT would be
required.
Table 3.3-3. Thresholds of Significance for Construction Operations
Pollutant of Concern Threshold
Tons/Qtr Tier 1 Tons/Qtr Tier 2 lbs/Day
ROG + NOx (combined) 2.5 6.3 137
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.13 0.32 7
PM10 - 2.5 -
Source: SLO County APCD 2012a.
Significance Criteria for Operational Emissions
Long-term operational emission thresholds for the County, as stated in SLO County
APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, have been set by SLO County APCD as follows
(see Table 3.3-4):
Ozone Precursor (ROG + NOx) Emissions
• Projects which emit 25 lbs/day or more of ROG and NOx should be submitted to
SLO County APCD for review. Onsite mitigation is recommended. If feasible
mitigation is incorporated and emissions are still greater than 25 lbs/day, then an
EIR should be prepared.
• Projects which emit 25 tons/year or more of ROG and NOx require the preparation
of an EIR.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions
• Projects that emit over 1.25 lbs/day of DPM require implementation of onsite
BACT measures.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-19
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) Dust Emissions
• Projects that emit over 25 lbs/day or 25 tons/year of PM10 require implementation
of permanent dust control measures to mitigate emissions or provide suitable offsite
mitigation approved by SLO County APCD.
Table 3.3-4. Thresholds of Significance for Operational Operations
Pollutant of Concern Threshold
Daily Annual
ROG + NOx (combined) 25 lbs/day 25 tons/year
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 1.25 lbs/day -
PM10 25 lbs/day 25 tons/year
Source: Sa SLO County APCD 2012a.
GHGs and Climate Change CEQA Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions
from the Project would be significant if the Project would:
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment; and/or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Significance Criteria for GHGs
The City has not adopted GHG emissions thresholds for use in CEQA documents, but SLO
County APCD has adopted recommended GHG significance thresholds. These thresholds
are based on AB 32 GHG emission reduction goals, which take into consideration the
emission reduction strategies outlined in CARB’s Scoping Plan. The GHG significance
thresholds include one qualitative threshold and two quantitative thresholds options for
evaluation of operational GHG emissions. Lead agencies may select most applicable of the
above thresholds to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emission impact to a
level of certainty based on the type of project.
The qualitative threshold option is based on a consistency analysis in comparison to a
Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, or equitably similar adopted policies, ordinances and
programs. If a project complies with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that is
3.3-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
specifically applicable to the project, then the project would be considered less than
significant. The 2012 Climate Action Plan serves as the City’s Qualified GHG Reduction
Strategy, consistent with SLO County APCD guidance and CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5(b), which allows for streamlining of the GHG impacts analysis of projects that are
consistent with the Climate Action Plan. This EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s
conformance with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan. However, the Climate Action
Plan was prepared to comply with the requirements of AB 32 and achieve the goals of the
AB 32 Scoping Plan, which have a horizon year of 2020. The adopted Climate Action Plan
does not reflect the SB 32 targets for GHG emissions reductions at 40 percent of 1990
levels by 2030. Therefore, the City’s Climate Action Plan is not compliant with SB 32 and
cannot be considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy for assessing the significance of
GHG emissions generated by projects with a horizon year post 2020. Therefore, the Project
is also evaluated against reduced quantitative GHG emissions thresholds, as discussed
below.
Under SLO County APCD’s two quantitative significance thresholds, a residential and/or
commercial project is considered to result in a significant impact if annual GHG emissions
exceed a Bright-Line threshold of 1,150 MT CO2e or exceed an efficiency threshold of 4.9
MT CO2e/service population (SP). The Bright-Line numeric threshold of 1,150 MT
CO2e/yr represents an emissions level below which a project’s contribution to global
climate change would be deemed less than “cumulatively considerable.” However,
emissions from projects that exceed the 1,150 MT CO2e/yr Bright-Line Threshold could
still be found less than cumulatively significant if the project as a whole would result in a
GHG efficiency of 4.9 MT CO2e/SP/yr or less. If projects as proposed exceed both
thresholds, they would be required to implement mitigation measures to bring them below
the 1,150 MT CO2e/yr Bright-Line Threshold or within the 4.9 MT CO2e/SP/yr Efficiency
Threshold. If required mitigation could not bring a project below either threshold
requirement, the project would be found cumulatively significant.
However, SLO County APCD’s thresholds and the City’s Climate Action Plan are specific
to AB 32 goals and do not consider the 2030 GHG reduction targets contained in SB 32
that was adopted 2016. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan sets the state on a course
to reduce GHG emissions an additional 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 under SB
32. Within the Scoping Plan, CARB recommends a statewide target of no more than 6 MT
CO2e/SP/yr by 2030 (CARB 2017b). However, this statewide target is based on all
emissions sectors in the state, statewide population forecasts, and necessary statewide
reductions, and is not reflective of local conditions. In an attempt to inform new GHG
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-21
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
thresholds for land use development projects in compliance with the targets set forth in SB
32, the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) in 2016 released a Climate
Change Committee White Paper which developed an example GHG efficiency target of
2.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr by 2030 (AEP 2016).
The current SLO County APCD GHG quantitative thresholds for land use projects would
achieve AB 32 targets but not SB 32 targets. Since the Project’s operational year (2025)
would exceed the AB 32 target year (2020) and given most recent guidance described
above, it is reasonable to apply a reduced threshold to the Project. Therefore, the Project is
also analyzed against the SLO County APCD GHG thresholds reduced by 40 percent to
account for the continued reductions required by 2030 under SB 32. For this comparison,
the bright line threshold was reduced to 690 MT CO2e and the efficiency threshold was
reduced to 2.65 MT of CO2e/SP/yr for the purposes of analysis of Project impacts where
current adopted thresholds do not uphold state law (SB 32) and City goals and policies, as
further discussed below.
At a City Council hearing held on September 18, 2018, the City declared its intent to adopt
a target for achieving citywide net-zero GHG emissions by the year 2035. For the purposes
of this analysis, the Project’s stationary (non-mobile) operational emissions are also
analyzed for compliance with the City’s 2035 net-zero GHG emissions target, as it aligns
with current City objectives and is consistent with and exceeds the GHG emissions targets
established under SB 32 and requirements of Executive Order B-55-18.
3.3.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
This analysis addresses both short-term construction impacts and long-term operational
impacts from air pollutant emissions generated by the Project. Potential impacts are
identified, along with potential mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce impacts.
This discussion of air quality and GHG impacts is based on a review of information
contained in the City’s General Plan, the Draft FRSP, the County’s Clean Air Plan, the
City’s Climate Action Plan, and the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
runs completed for the Project (Appendix D). CalEEMod was performed for each phase of
proposed Project implementation, as described in Section 2.6, Project Construction.
Criteria Pollutants
This analysis focuses on the air quality impacts that could occur from criteria air pollutant
emissions associated with the construction and operation of the Project, including impacts
from Project-related traffic volumes. Project-related construction and operational
3.3-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
emissions for ROG, NOx, DPM, and PM10 were estimated using CalEEMod Version
2016.3.2 computer model, and then compared to the thresholds of significance defined
above. See Appendix D for CalEEMod worksheet results.
The air quality analysis and CalEEMod estimates for criteria air pollutants follow the
guidelines and methodologies recommended in SLO County APCD’s CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (2012). Construction emissions from heavy-duty diesel exhaust were calculated
using SLO County APCD’s CEQA handbook and typical construction equipment details
provided in Section 2.6.2, Construction Activities. Emissions factors for calculating
emissions from construction equipment, including fugitive dust emissions from ground
disturbance and stockpile activities were based upon default CalEEMod assumptions
supplemented by Project-specific details where reasonable. In accordance with SLO
County APCD recommendations, an overall qualitative analysis was conducted to
determine if emissions resulting from implementation of the Project would be consistent
with the emissions projections in the most recent version of the Clean Air Plan.
Construction Air Quality Emissions
Construction emissions are estimated using CalEEMod for each phase of Project
construction, including excavation and site preparation, building construction, and
architectural coatings as presented in Table 2-7 of Section 2.6.1, Project Construction
Phases. Emission estimates are based on the anticipated types and amount of equipment
that would be used in Project construction, the amount of demolition debris and excavated
soil to be removed, the size and type of new construction, anticipated construction
schedule, and the vehicle trips generated by construction workers (refer to Section 2.6,
Project Construction).
Project construction would temporarily increase diesel emissions and would generate
particulate matter (dust). Construction equipment within the Project site that would
generate ROGs and NOx emissions could include graders, excavators, dump trucks, cranes,
and bulldozers. It is assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel powered.
The precise construction timeline for the Project depends on the timing of entitlements and
permit processing. For the purposes of studying the reasonable worst-case emissions for
this EIR, construction activity for the Project is assumed to occur over a five-year period
beginning in 2020. See Section 2.6, Project Construction, for details about Project phasing.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-23
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Operational Air Quality Emissions
Operational emissions associated with the Project are estimated using CalEEMod for
mobile source, area, and energy emissions. Mobile emissions would be generated by the
resident, employee, visitor, and material delivery motor vehicle trips to and from the
Project site. These are calculated based on the Project’s Transportation Impact Study (TIS)
trip generation and other default traffic assumptions (see Appendix J). Area source
emissions would be generated by consumer products (e.g., household cleaning products),
architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment.2 Energy source emissions
would be generated by emissions resulting from electricity and natural gas consumption
for space and water heating and powering electrical appliances. The default emissions were
used for area and energy sources with consideration of SLO County APCD rules and
regulations that would be required of the Project related to the Project’s operations. Use-
specific water demands estimated in the Project’s Water Supply Assessment (Appendix K)
were utilized for estimating air and GHG emissions from operational water demands. To
determine if an air quality impact would occur, the increase in emissions was compared
with SLO County APCD’s operational thresholds.
Prior to full buildout of the Project by 2025, it is anticipated that the Lower Area of
Villaggio would be fully occupied and operational starting in 2022, prior to completion the
Upper Terrace of Villaggio and the Madonna Froom Ranch portion of the Specific Plan
area. For the purposes of this analysis, full occupancy of the Specific Plan area is assumed
to occur in 2024-2025, following completion of Madonna Froom Ranch.
GHG and Climate Change
Consistent with CEQA and SLO County APCD’s recommendations, the significance of
the Project’s GHG emissions and resulting global climate change impacts are assessed
against the threshold of the City’s adopted Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy in the City
Climate Action Plan. In addition, as noted above, the Project’s stationary (non-mobile)
operational emissions are also analyzed for compliance with the City’s 2035 net-zero GHG
emissions target, as it aligns with current City objectives and is consistent with and exceeds
the GHG emissions targets established under SB 32 and requirements of Executive Order
B-55-18.
2 SLO County APCD defines “area sources” emissions as non-vehicular emissions sources which include energy use, evaporative
emissions from paints and solvents, fuel combustion by small utility equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, leaf blowers), residential wood
burning, household products, and other small sources (SLO County APCD 2012).
3.3-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
In addition, GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the Project
were estimated using CalEEMod (Appendix D). The model quantifies direct emissions
from construction and operations (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions,
such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or
removal, and water use.
Construction GHG Emissions
GHGs from construction projects must be quantified and amortized over the life of a
project. The amortized construction emissions must be added to the annual average
operational emissions and then compared to the operational thresholds in Section 3.5.1 of
SLO County APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook—Significance Thresholds for Project-
Level Operational Emissions. To amortize the emissions over the life of a project, total
GHG emissions for the construction activities would be divided by the project life (i.e., 50
years for residential projects and 25 years for commercial projects) then added to the annual
operational phase GHG emissions.
The construction GHG analysis considers the Project’s anticipated five-year construction
schedule as well as the likely types and number of construction equipment to be used.
Construction-related GHG emissions are amortized over 25 years per SLO County APCD
methodology outlined in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Amortization over a 25-year
period is selected for the Project due to the proposed mix of residential and commercial
uses, as opposed to amortization of a 50-year period for solely residential projects, and
therefore provides a conservative analysis of GHG emissions.
Operational GHG Emissions
The following activities are typically associated with the operation of residential and
commercial uses, as well as senior living communities, that would contribute to the
generation of GHG emissions:
Vehicular trips. Vehicle trips generated by residential, senior living, and commercial uses
within the Project site would result in GHG emissions through combustion of fossil fuels.
Onsite use of natural gas and other fuels. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed
that natural gas would be used by the Specific Plan development to heat the residential and
commercial spaces; natural gas would also be utilized for water heating, cooking, laundry,
and power backup. This would result in a direct release of GHGs. Estimated emissions from
the combustion of natural gas and other fuels is based on the number of dwelling units
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-25
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
(single-family, multi-family, and retirement), commercial space, health care, hotel, and
recreational uses applying the default/typical consumption rates as presented in the
CalEEMod modeling output.
Electricity use. Electricity is generated by a combination of methods, which include
combustion of fossil fuels. Use of electricity for operation of the Project would contribute
to the indirect emissions associated with electricity production. Estimated emissions from
the consumption of electricity are based on the number of dwelling units (single-family,
multi-family, and retirement), commercial sf, health care, hotel, and recreational uses
applying the default/typical consumption rates as presented in the CalEEMod modeling
output.
Water use and wastewater generation. The amount of water used and wastewater generated
by a Project has indirect GHG emissions as a result of the energy used to supply, distribute,
and treat water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with
energy use, wastewater treatment can result in the emission of both CH4 and NOx depending
on the treatment method. Estimated emissions from potable water demand are based on
CalEEMod default emissions factors and use-specific water demands that were calculated in
the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Project (Appendix K). Estimated emissions
from the generation of wastewater is based on the number of residential and senior
(independent and assisted) dwelling units, commercial space, and water consumption rates
as presented in the CalEEMod modeling output.
Solid waste. Emissions calculated for solid waste reflect the indirect GHG emissions
associate with waste that is disposed of at a landfill. GHG emissions associated with the
decomposition of waste are quantified based on amount of degradable organic carbon
generated by the total residential and senior (independent and assisted) dwelling units,
commercial space, health care, hotel, and recreational uses proposed by the Project.
3.3.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses the potential air quality and GHG-related impacts associated with
the construction and operation of the Project. Air quality and GHG emissions impacts
associated with the Project are summarized in Table 3.3-5 below.
3.3-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-5. Summary of Project Impacts
Air Quality Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
AQ-1. The Project 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
AQ-2. The Project would result in potentially
significant long-term operational emissions.
MM AQ-4 Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions or
naturally occurring asbestos during
construction of the Project could expose
sensitive receptors to emissions-related
health risks.
No Mitigation Required Less than Significant
AQ-4. The Project 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
AQ-5. The Project 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
Impact AQ-1 The Project would result in potentially significant construction-related
emissions, including dust and air pollutant emissions (Less than
Significant with Mitigation).
Within each Project implementation phase, construction would consist of site preparation,
grading, building construction, and paving. Substantial grading and earthmoving would be
required to shape the site, realign Froom Creek, and raise the elevation of the Lower Area
and Madonna Froom Ranch above the 100-year flood elevation. Project construction would
generate significant construction air pollutant emissions, including fugitive dust (PM10 and
PM2.5) associated with grading and exhaust from heavy construction vehicles. During
building construction, ROGs would be released during the application and drying of paints
and architectural coatings.
Site preparation and grading would involve substantial earthmoving activities and heavy
equipment use. Phase 1 (Installation of Project Infrastructure and Stormwater Management
System) would involve rough grading and earthmoving activities associated with
installation of private roads, public utility connections, LOVR frontage improvements, and
the stormwater management system (including realignment of Froom Creek and
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-27
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
development of the proposed offsite stormwater detention basin). At the same time, grading
of the Lower Area and Upper Terrace, in anticipation of later development under Phases 2
and 3, as well as rough grading of Madonna Froom Ranch, would occur, as fill from each
phase would be balanced across the site. During this overlapping grading period,
approximately 31,800 cubic yards (cy) of fill materials would be balanced onsite, while
220,000 cy of fill rock material would be imported to the site to raise the Lower Area by 1
foot above the 100-year flood elevation. In addition, the realignment of Froom Creek would
require delivery of approximately 2,300 cy of rock material for bank stabilization and
erosion protection along the creek. The extensive amounts of grading would require large
amounts of use of heavy diesel grading equipment and approximately 15,832 heavy haul
truck trips in order to haul fill and rock material to the site, resulting in large quantities of
NOx, CO, and particulate matter emissions. For purposes of this analysis and consistent
with the Phasing schedule identified in Section 2.6.1, Construction Phasing and
Implementation, peak grading activities are assumed to occur for an approximate eight-
month period from May 2020 to December 2020.
After completion of grading activities for the Lower Area, Phase 2 (Development of
Villaggio Lower Area) would involve installation of private roadway and utility
infrastructure, the emergency access road to Mountainbrook Church, as well as
construction of the Lower Area senior residential community development. following
completion of grading activities within the Upper Terrace Construction of Phase 3,
following completion of grading activities within the Upper Terrace, would involve the
development of residential uses and non-residential ancillary components of the Villaggio
Upper Terrace, as well as the public park within Madonna Froom Ranch. Phase 4
(Development of Madonna Froom Ranch) would involve the development of the
residential and commercial components of Madonna Froom Ranch. See Table 2-7 in
Section 2.6.2, Construction Activities for details on construction phases and approximate
grading amounts.
Construction pollutant emissions, such as NOx and PM10, would be generated through the
use of heavy-duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated by
construction workers traveling to and from the Project site. The majority of the Project’s
ROG emissions would be generated from the application of architecture coatings, including
paints, stains, and other finishes that off-gas ROGs during the drying/curing process.
Emissions were calculated based on a typical construction equipment list and default
CalEEMod emission factors. Each construction phase of the Project would last for more
3.3-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
than 90 days and would result in overlapping construction phases totaling five years of
construction. Therefore, SLO County APCD quarterly thresholds (rather than daily
thresholds) were used to determine the significance level of construction emissions.
Maximum short-term emission estimates from construction of the Project are provided in
Table 3.3-6. Detailed construction emissions and calculation assumptions are provided in
Appendix D.
Table 3.3-6. Short-term Construction Emissions (Unmitigated)
ROG NOx ROG +
NOx CO SO2 PM10
DPM
(Exhaust
PM2.5)
Peak Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
180.81 191.01 371.82 109.68 0.27 30.51 7.23
Peak Quarterly
Emissions (tons/qtr) 1
1.09 5.46 8.152 3.16 0.07 0.91 0.21
APCD Daily
Thresholds (lbs/day)
-- -- 137 -- -- -- 7
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 1
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 2.5 -- -- 2.5 0.13
Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- NO YES
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 2
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 6.3 -- -- -- 0.32
Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- -- NO
1 tons/qtr calculated based on maximum annual emissions divided by four (i.e., one quarter of a year).
2 tons/qtr for ROG + NOx emissions calculated in CalEEMod.
See Appendix D for CalEEMod worksheets.
Modeled emissions for the Project were found to be above SLO County APCD daily and
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Quarterly thresholds for construction emissions of ROG and NOx, and
above SLO County APCD Daily and Tier 1 Quarterly thresholds for DPM. Therefore,
Project construction emissions are considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 A Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP) shall be included as
part of Project grading and building plans and shall be submitted to SLO
County APCD and to the City for review and approval prior to the start of
construction. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following
elements:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-29
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. A Dust Control Management Plan that encompasses the following dust
control measures:
• Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible;
• Water trucks or sprinkler trucks shall be used during
construction to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough
to prevent dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the
APCD’s limit of 20 percent opacity for greater than 3 minutes in
any 60-minute period. At a minimum, this would require twice-
daily applications. Increased watering frequency would be
required when wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph).
Reclaimed water or the onsite water well (non-potable) shall be
used when possible. The contractor or builder shall consider the
use of a SLO County APCD-approved dust suppressant where
feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust control;
• All dirt stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
• Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved
Project revegetation and landscape plans of any development
within the Specific Plan area should be implemented as soon as
possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
• Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates
greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a
fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation
is established;
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be
stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or
other methods approved in advance by SLO County APCD;
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be
completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should
be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used;
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15
mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to
be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114;
• Designate access points and require all employees,
subconsultants, and others to use them. Install and operate a
“track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention
device can be any device or combination of devices that are
effective at preventing track-out, located at the point of
3.3-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
intersection of any unpaved area and a paved road. If utilized,
rumble strips or steel plate devices shall be cleaned periodically.
If paved roadways accumulate tracked-out soils, the track-out
prevention device shall be modified or replaced to prevent track-
out;
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with
reclaimed water should be used where feasible;
• All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans; and
• The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to
monitor the fugitive dust control emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity,
and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include
holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be
provided to SLO County APCD Compliance Division prior to the
start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
2. Implementation of the following BACT for diesel-fueled construction
equipment. The BACT measures shall include:
• Use of at least Tier 3 off-road equipment and 2010 on-road
compliant engines;
• Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
• Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control
Strategies.
3. Implementation of the following standard air quality measures to
minimize diesel emissions:
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according
to manufacturer’s specifications;
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with
CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version
suitable for use off-road).
• Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or
cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
• Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have
engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in
the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets)
may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-31
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
• On- and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle
for more than five minutes. Signs shall be posted in the
designated queuing areas to remind drivers and operators of the
five-minute idling limit;
• Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not
permitted;
• Staging and queing areas shall not be loated within 1,000 feet
of sensitive receptors;
• Electrify equipment when feasible;
• Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered
equipment, where feasible; and,
• Use alternatively fueled construction equipment onsite where
feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied
natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
4. Tabulation of on- and off-road construction equipment (age, horse-
power, and miles and/or hours of operation);
5. Schedule construction truck trips during non-peak hours (as determined
by the Public Works Director) to reduce peak hour emissions; and
6. Limit the length of the construction work-day period to 8 hours max.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The CAMP shall be submitted to SLO
County APCD and to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of
grading and construction permits and recordation of the final VTM. All
required fugitive dust and emissions control measures shall be noted on all
grading and building plans and all construction activities shall adhere to
measures throughout all grading, hauling, and construction activities. The
contractor or builder shall provide the City Community Development
Director and SLO County APCD with the name and contact information for
an assigned onsite dust and emissions control monitor(s) who has the
responsibility to: a) assure all dust control requirements are complied with
including those covering weekends and holidays, b) order increased
watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust offsite, and c) attend the
pre-construction meeting. The dust monitor shall be designated prior to
grading permit issuance for each Project phase. The dust control
components apply from the beginning of any grading or construction
throughout all development activities until occupancy is issued and
landscaping is successfully installed.
3.3-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are depicted on the CAMP
and all submitted grading and construction plans for each Project phase. The
Applicant shall be responsible for compliance during construction
activities, including holidays or weekends when work may not be in
progress. City grading and building inspectors shall spot check and ensure
compliance onsite.
MM AQ-2 To reduce ROG and NOx levels during the architectural coating phase, low
or no Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)-emission paint shall be used with
levels of 50 grams per liter (g/L) or less (Odorless, Zero VOC Paint). The
schedule for architectural coatings application shall be extended, limiting
the daily coating activity to a level determined acceptable by SLO County
APCD.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall verify the measures
through written documentation submitted to the City and SLO County
APCD for review and approval. Measures shall be indicated on all building
and construction plans and submitted to SLO County APCD and to the City
for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. City shall verify measures with the Applicant and SLO County
APCD. City staff shall ensure measures are depicted on all building and
construction plans. City building inspectors shall perform site inspections
to ensure compliance.
MM AQ-3 An offsite mitigation strategy shall be developed and agreed upon by the
Applicant, City, and SLO County APCD at least three months prior to the
issuance of grading permits. Offsite mitigation strategies may be in the form
of cash payment, circulation improvements above the Project’s fair share,
or funding for ongoing transit improvements. The Applicant shall provide
appropriate funding necessary to offset the Project’s residual construction-
related ROG+NOx emissions beyond SLO County APCD’s daily threshold
at least two months prior to the start of construction to help facilitate
emission offsets that are as real-time as possible. Cash payment of offsite
mitigation fees shall be calculated based on the most current ARB-approved
Carl Moyer Guidelines at the time of commencement of each Project phase.
Offsite mitigation strategies shall include one or more of the following:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-33
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
• Develop or improve park-and-ride lots;
• Fund a program to buy and scrap older, higher emission passenger and
heavy-duty vehicles;
• Retrofit or repower heavy-duty construction equipment, or on-road
vehicles;
• Subsidize vanpool programs;
• Contribute to funding of new bike lanes;
• Replace/repower San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(SLORTA) transit buses;
• Purchase Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) for
transit buses or construction fleets; and
• Fund expansion of existing SLORTA transit services.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit
the offsite mitigation strategy to SLO County APCD for review and to the
City for approval at least three months prior to the issuance of grading
permits for Phase 1 construction. The Applicant shall provide any necessary
funding to SLO County APCD at least two months prior to the start of
construction.
Monitoring. SLO County APCD and City staff shall ensure offsite
mitigation measures are appropriate. If the Applicant elects to pay
mitigation fees, SLO County APCD shall verify the receipt of funding to
the City. If the Applicant elects to provide improvements, proposed
improvements shall be approved by the City and SLO County APCD prior
to implementation. City and SLO County APCD staff shall monitor
proposed improvements to ensure compliance.
Residual Impact
The Project would be required to implement MM AQ-1 through -3 which are consistent with
standards mitigation measures for construction equipment, application of BACT, and
implementation of a CAMP. MM AQ-1 and -2 consist of quantifiable emissions reduction
measures which would reduce construction-related air quality impacts from ROG, NOx, and
DPM emissions below SLO County APCD Tier 2 quarterly thresholds. Despite
implementation of these measures, ROG and NOx emission would continue to exceed SLO
County APCD daily and Tier 1 quarterly thresholds (see Table 3.3-7). As such, the Project
is required to implement MM AQ-3, requiring that the Project Applicant fund or implement
3.3-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a range of improvements intended to mitigate Project emissions offsite, or pay the SLO
County APCD’s standard mitigation fee. Though the mitigation strategies and associated
emissions reductions outlined in MM AQ-3 cannot be quantified for the Project, SLO County
APCD deems the measures effective in reducing Project emissions to a level of
insignificance. Residual impacts would be less than significant.
Table 3.3-7. Short-Term Construction Emissions (Mitigated)
ROG NOx ROG +
NOx CO SO2 PM10
DPM
(Exhaust
PM2.5)
Peak Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
59.96 120.79 180.75 129.09 0.27 17.74 4.35
Peak Quarterly
Emissions (tons/qtr)1
0.38 3.43 5.002 3.71 <0.01 0.51 0.13
APCD Daily
Thresholds (lbs/day)
-- -- 137 -- -- -- 7
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 1
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 2.5 2.5 0.13
Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- NO NO
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 2
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 6.3 -- -- -- 0.32
Above Threshold? -- -- NO -- -- NO NO
1 tons/qtr calculated based on maximum annual emissions divided by four (i.e., one quarter of a year).
2 tons/qtr for ROG + NOx emissions calculated in CalEEMod.
See Appendix D for CalEEMod worksheets.
Impact AQ-2 The Project would result in potentially significant long-term
operational emissions (Significant and Unavoidable).
Operational emissions from the Project include those generated by vehicle trips (mobile
emissions), the use of natural gas (energy emissions), use of consumer products and
appliances, and the use of landscaping maintenance equipment (area source emissions).
Maximum daily operational emissions of the Project were estimated using CalEEMod.
While the Project would not exceed annual emissions thresholds, projected maximum daily
emissions for the Project would be above the established APCD daily thresholds for
operational emissions of ROG + NOx (see Table 3.3-8). Project operational emissions are
therefore considered potentially significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-35
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-8. Long-Term Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
ROG NOx ROG +
NOx CO SO2 PM10 DPM
Total Daily Operational Emissions
Area (lbs/day) 24.27 0.60 24.87 51.96 <0.01 0.28 0.28
Energy (lbs/day) 0.38 3.35 3.73 2.16 0.02 0.26 0.26
Mobile (lbs/day) 6.70 23.85 29.80 67.42 0.21 20.47 0.17
Total (lbs/day) 31.35 27.80 58.4 121.54 0.23 21.01 0.72
Threshold (lbs/day) - - 25 550 - 25 1.25
Above Threshold? - - YES NO - NO NO
Total Annual Operational Emissions
Area (tons/year) 4.40 0.10 4.50 8.57 <0.01 0.05 0.05
Energy (tons/year) 0.07 0.61 0.68 0.39 <0.01 0.05 0.05
Mobile (tons/year) 1.05 3.99 5.04 11.06 0.03 3.35 0.03
Total (tons/year) 5.52 4.70 10.22 20.02 0.03 3.45 0.13
Threshold (tons/year) - - 25 - - 25 -
Above Threshold? - - NO - - NO
Note: Values in this table are rounded for reporting purposes.
See Appendix D for CalEEMod worksheets.
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-4 Consistent with standard mitigation measures set forth by SLO County
APCD, Projects generating more than 50 lbs/day of combined ROG + NOx
shall implement all feasible measures within Table 3-5 of the Air Quality
Handbook. The following mitigation measures shall apply to the Project
(Table 3.3-9).
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall include the mitigation
measures in Table 3-5 of the 2012 SLO County APCD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (as amended by the 2017 Clarification Memorandum), as
indicated in the column “How the Project Will Include This Measure” in
Table 3.3-9, above. All feasible standard mitigation measures shall be
included in the FRSP prior to approval of the final FRSP and these measures
shall also be included on the final VTM prior to recordation. City staff shall
ensure the above measures are incorporated into the FRSP, final VTM, and
building plans prior to permit issuance.
3.3-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
Measure
#
Land
Use1
Measure
Type2 Mitigation Measure Pollutant
Reduced3 Phase How the Project Will
Include This Measure
1 R SD Install gas or electric
fireplace in place of
U.S. EPA-certified Tier
2 residential wood
burning appliances.
GHG, O, P D The Project does not
propose any wood
burning appliances.
2 C, R SD, T Design and build high-
density, compact
development within the
urban core or URL to
encourage alternative
transportation (walk,
bike, bus, etc.).
GHG, O, P D The Project would
include residential and
commercial development
within the URL and
would provide access to
transit and non-vehicular
transportation; however,
the Project site lies on the
southern edge of the City
and is not located within
an urban core area. To
encourage alternative
transportation, the Project
shall provide a range of
transit options and
incentives to employees
and residents of
Villaggio, and
commercial and
residential developments
within Madonna Froom.
3 C, I,
R
SD, T Provide a pedestrian-
friendly and
interconnected
streetscape with good
access to/from the
development for
pedestrians, bicyclists,
and transit users to
make alternative
transportation more
convenient,
comfortable and safe
(may include:
appropriate
signalization and
signage; safe routes to
school; linking cul-de-
sacs and dead ends;
orienting buildings
towards streets with
automobile parking in
the rear, etc.).
GHG, O, P D The Draft FRSP includes
guidelines for
incorporating pedestrian
walkways, outdoor
seating, and landscape
areas where possible.
Public commercial
collector roads shall be
connected to adjacent
development to allow
pedestrian and bicyclist
access, and public
pedestrian trails will
connect public roads to
the existing trail system
in the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-37
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Continued)
Measure
#
Land
Use1
Measure
Type2 Mitigation Measure Pollutant
Reduced3 Phase How the Project Will
Include This Measure
4 C, I,
R
SD, T Provide shade over 50
% of parking spaces to
reduce evaporative
emissions from parked
vehicles.
O D Shade trees are to be
provided as part of the
Project per City
requirement. The
Applicant shall amend the
Draft FRSP to require
shade trees are provided
so a minimum of 50 % of
proposed parking spaces
are shaded.
5 C, I,
R
SD, T Reduce fugitive dust
from roads and parking
areas with the use of
paving or other
materials.
P D No unpaved roads,
driveways, or parking
areas are proposed as part
of the Project.
6 C, I,
R
SD, T Implement driveway
design standards (e.g.,
speed bumps, curved
driveway) for self-
enforcement of reduced
speed limits on
unpaved driveways.
P D The City has a
requirement that the
design speeds in local and
collector roads not exceed
25 mph. Bulb-outs, traffic
circles, chicanes, and
other features are also
included in the Project.
There are no unpaved
roads or driveways in the
development.
7 C, I,
R
SD, T Use an APCD-
approved suppressant
on private unpaved
roads leading to the
site, unpaved driveways
and parking areas,
applied at a rate and
frequency that ensure
compliance with APCD
Rule 401: Visible
Emissions, and ensures
offsite nuisance impacts
do not occur.
P O No unpaved roads,
driveways, or parking
areas are proposed as part
of the Project.
8 C, I,
R
SD, T Incorporate traffic
calming modifications
to Project roads to
reduce vehicle speeds
and increase pedestrian
and bicycle usage and
safety.
GHG, O, P D City has a requirement
that the design speeds in
local and collector roads
not exceed 25 mph. Bulb-
outs, traffic circles,
chicanes, and other
features are included.
There are no unpaved
3.3-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Continued)
Measure
#
Land
Use1
Measure
Type2 Mitigation Measure Pollutant
Reduced3 Phase How the Project Will
Include This Measure
roads or driveways in the
development.
9 C, I,
R
SD, T Work with SLOCOG to
create, improve, or
expand a nearby ‘Park-
and-Ride’ lot with car
parking and bike
lockers in proportion to
the size of the Project.
GHG, O, P D The Project Applicant
shall work with SLOCOG
to improve or expand
nearby ‘Park-and- Ride’
lots within the City, such
as the ‘Park–and-Ride’ lot
located at the Calle
Joaquin hotel
development.
10 C SD, T Implement onsite
circulation design
elements in parking lots
to reduce vehicle
queuing and improve
the pedestrian
environment.
GHG, O, P D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
require onsite circulation
design in parking lots to
reduce vehicle queueing
and improve the
pedestrian environment.
11 C, I SD, T Provide employee
lockers and showers to
promote bicycle and
pedestrian use. One
shower and five lockers
for every 25 employees
is recommended.
GHG, O, P D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
require workplaces
provide employee lockers
and showers consistent
with this measure and the
City Zoning Regulations.
12 C, I,
R
SD, T Increase bicycle
accessibility and safety
in the vicinity of the
Project; for example:
provide interconnected
bicycle routes/lanes or
construction of
bikeways.
GHG, O, P D The Project includes a
number of improvements
to pedestrian and bicyclist
environment. MM
TRANS-5, -8, -9, and -10
requiring installation of
protected bike lanes along
Tank Farm Road and
LOVR and would ensure
consistency with this
measure.
13 C, I,
R
SD, T Exceed Cal Green
standards by 25 % for
providing onsite bicycle
parking: both short-
term racks and long-
term lockers, or a
locked room with
standard racks and
access limited to
bicyclists only.
GHG, O, P D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
require onsite bicycle
parking consistency with
this measure and the City
Zoning Regulations.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-39
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Continued)
Measure
#
Land
Use1
Measure
Type2 Mitigation Measure Pollutant
Reduced3 Phase How the Project Will
Include This Measure
14 C, I,
R
SD, T Develop recreational
facility (e.g., parks,
trails, gym, pool, etc.)
within 0.25 mile from
site.
GHG, O, P D The Project includes
development of various
facilities to meet the
recreational needs of the
residents of Villaggio.
The Project also includes
the development of a 2.9-
acre neighborhood park
within the Project site.
15 C, I,
R
SD, T If the project is located
on an established transit
route, provide
improved public transit
amenities (e.g., covered
transit turnouts, direct
pedestrian access,
bicycle racks, covered
bench, smart signage,
route information
displays, lighting, etc.).
GHG, O, P D The Project site is located
along LOVR and
residential development is
less than 0.25 mile from
bus stops for Transit Line
2A and the Laguna
Tripper. The Project
would include installation
of a new transit stop for
these routes to improve
public transit amenities
and access.
16 C, I,
R
T Provide bicycle-share
program for
development.
GHG, O, P O The Applicant shall work
with Public Works to
amend the Draft FRSP to
include a hub/node of the
City’s bicycle share
network at the Project
site. The
infrastructure/operation of
the site shall be the
responsibility of the
developer.
17 C, I T Require 15 % of fleet
vehicles to be zero
emission vehicles.
DPM, GHG,
O
O The Project does not
propose any commercial
or industrial use types
which would utilize fleet
vehicles; however, future
uses may include the use
of shuttles (i.e.
hotel/airport shuttle). The
Applicant shall amend the
Draft FRSP to require the
use of zero emission
vehicles for 15 percent of
all proposed shuttle or
group-transport vehicles.
3.3-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Continued)
Measure
#
Land
Use1
Measure
Type2 Mitigation Measure Pollutant
Reduced3 Phase How the Project Will
Include This Measure
18 C, I T Project includes
alternative fuel fleet
vehicle(s).
DPM, GHG,
O
O The Project does not
propose any commercial
or industrial use types
which would utilize fleet
vehicles; however, future
uses may include the use
of shuttles (i.e.
hotel/airport shuttle). The
Applicant shall amend the
Draft FRSP to require the
use of alternative fuel
shuttle or group-transport
vehicles.
19 C, I,
R
T Provide neighborhood
EV/car-share program
for the development.
GHG, O O The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
require provision of
neighborhood electric
vehicles/car-share
programs for the
development, consistent
with MM AQ-5.
20 C, I,
R
T Provide dedicated
parking for carpools,
vanpools, and/or high-
efficiency vehicles to
meet or exceed Cal
Green Tier 2.
GHG, O, P O The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
require the provision of
dedicated parking for
carpools, vanpools, and
high-efficiency vehicles
in exceedance of Cal
Green Tier 2 standards.
21 C, I T Provide vanpool,
shuttle, mini bus
service (alternative
fueled preferred).
GHG, O, P O The FRSP shall be
amended to include
measures for encouraging
and incentivizing
residents and employees
of the proposed
development participate
in the San Luis Obispo
Regional Rideshare
program. The Applicant
or developer of the FRSP
shall also provide car-
share opportunities and
promote carpool,
vanpool, and EV vehicles.
See also MM AQ-6.
22 C, I,
R
T Work with SLO
Regional Rideshare to
educate occupants with
alternative
GHG, O, P O The FRSP shall be
amended to include
measures for encouraging
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-41
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Continued)
Measure
#
Land
Use1
Measure
Type2 Mitigation Measure Pollutant
Reduced3 Phase How the Project Will
Include This Measure
transportation and
smart commute
information (e.g.,
transportation board,
electronic kiosk, new
hire packets, web
portal, newsletters,
social media, etc.).
and incentivizing
residents and employees
of the proposed
development participate
in the San Luis Obispo
Regional Rideshare
program. See also MM
AQ-6.
23 C, I T Provide child care
facility onsite. GHG, O, P O The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include policies for the
provision of child care
facilities onsite.
24 C, I T Implement programs to
reduce employee
vehicle miles traveled
(e.g. incentives, SLO
Regional Rideshare trip
reduction program,
vanpools, onsite
employee housing,
alternative schedules
(e.g., 9–80, 4–10,
telecommuting, satellite
work sites etc.).
GHG, O, P O The Project is required to
implement mitigation
programs and strategies to
reduce employee VMT
and mobile-source
emissions. Refer to MM
TRANS-5, -8, -9, -10,
MM AQ-6.
25 C, I T Provide a lunchtime
shuttle to reduce single
occupant vehicle trips
and/or coordinate
regular food truck
visits.
GHG, O, P O The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include policies for
provision of lunchtime
shuttles or to encourage
foot truck visits to the
Project site to reduce trips
associated with onsite
commercial businesses, as
feasible.
26 C T Provide delivery
service in clean fueled
vehicles.
GHG, O, P O The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
require delivery-based
commercial uses that may
be developed to utilize
clean fueled vehicles, as
feasible.
27 C T At community event
centers (i.e.,
amphitheaters, theaters,
and stadiums), provide
free valet bicycle
parking.
GHG, O, P O The Project does not
propose development of
any community event
centers or other
communal gathering
areas.
3.3-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Continued)
Measure
#
Land
Use1
Measure
Type2 Mitigation Measure Pollutant
Reduced3 Phase How the Project Will
Include This Measure
28 C, I T Implement a “No
Idling” vehicle program
which includes signage,
enforcement, etc.
DPM, GHG,
O
O The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include programs and
policies requiring
implementation of a “No
Idling” vehicle program
for commercial
development which shall
include standards for
signage and enforcement.
29 R T Provide free-access
telework terminals
and/or wi-fi access in
multi-family projects.
GHG, O, P O The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include programs and
policies requiring
provision of free-access
telework terminals and/or
wi-fi access in multi-
family development.
30 C, I T Meet or exceed Cal
Green Tier 2 standards
for providing EV
charging infrastructure.
GHG, O, P D The FSRP includes
Program 4.7.2f, which
states that individual
garages are to be “electric
vehicle-ready” and shared
parking areas for
apartments shall
incorporate EV charging
stations. In addition,
compliance with City
Zoning Regulations
regarding EV parking
spaces shall be required.
31 C, I T Install 1 or more level 2
or better EV charging
stations.
GHG, O, P D The Draft FRSP includes
Program 4.7.2f, which
states that individual
garages are to be “electric
vehicle-ready” and shared
parking areas for
apartments shall
incorporate EV charging
stations. In addition,
compliance with City
Zoning Regulations
regarding EV parking
spaces shall be required.
32 C, I,
R
EE Meet or exceed Cal
Green Tier 1 standards
for building energy
efficiency.
GHG, O D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include programs and
policies for ensuring new
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-43
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Continued)
Measure
#
Land
Use1
Measure
Type2 Mitigation Measure Pollutant
Reduced3 Phase How the Project Will
Include This Measure
development, at a
minimum, meets Cal
Green Tier 2 standards
for building efficiency.
33 C, I,
R
EE Meet or exceed Cal
Green Tier 2 standards
for building energy
efficiency.
GHG, O D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include programs and
policies for ensuring new
development, at a
minimum, meets Cal
Green Tier 2 standards
for building efficiency.
34 C, I,
R
EE Meet or exceed Cal
Green Tier 2 standards
for utilizing recycled
content materials.
GHG D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP
Program 4.7.4a to require,
at a minimum, use of
recycled content materials
consistent with Cal Green
Tier 2 standards.
35 C, I,
R
EE Meet or exceed Cal
Green Tier 2 standards
for reducing cement use
in concrete mix as
allowed by local
ordinance and
conditions.
GHG D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include a policy for
ensuring construction of
the Project, at a
minimum, meets Cal
Green Tier 2 standards
for reducing cement use
in concrete mix. Recipe
for cement mix shall be
verified by the City prior
to Project construction
and subject to inspection
by City permit
compliance staff.
36 C, I,
R
EE All built-in appliances
shall be Energy Star
certified or equivalent.
GHG D The Draft FRSP includes
Program 4.7.3a, which
requires that all new
residential units shall
incorporate high-
efficiency Energy Star
compliant appliances.
37 C, I,
R
EE Utilize onsite
renewable energy
systems (e.g., solar,
wind, geothermal,
biomass and/or bio-gas)
to offset at least 10 %
of energy use.
GHG D The Project is required to
comply with MM AQ-5,
requiring the Draft FRSP
be amended to include
measures necessary to
reduce Project operational
3.3-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Continued)
Measure
#
Land
Use1
Measure
Type2 Mitigation Measure Pollutant
Reduced3 Phase How the Project Will
Include This Measure
stationary-source
emissions, including
utilization of 100 %
carbon-free energy.
38 C, I,
R
EE Meet or exceed Cal
Green Tier 2 standards
for the use of
greywater, rainwater or
recycled water.
GHG D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include programs or
policies requiring the use
of greywater, rainwater,
or recycled water by an
amount which, at a
minimum, meets Cal
Green Tier 2 standards.
39 C, I,
R
EE Provide and require the
use of battery powered
or electric landscape
maintenance equipment
for new development.
GHG, O D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include programs or
policies requiring the use
of battery powered or
electric landscape
maintenance equipment.
40 C, I,
R
EE Meet or exceed Cal
Green Tier 2 standards
for using shading, trees,
plants, cool roofs, etc.
to reduce “heat island”
effect.
GHG D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include programs or
policies requiring the use
of shading, trees, plants,
cool roofs, and other
measures to reduce “heat
island” effect, at a
minimum, meets Cal
Green Tier 2 standards.
41 C, I,
R
EE Design roof trusses to
handle dead weight
loads of standard solar-
heated water and
photovoltaic panels.
GHG, O D The Applicant shall
amend the Draft FRSP to
include programs and
policies requiring the
design of roof trusses to
handle dead weight loads
of standard solar-heated
water and photovoltaic
panels.
EV – Electric Vehicle
SLOCOG - San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-45
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are listed on final plans
submitted for review and approval by the City. City staff shall work with
the Applicant to ensure that these strategies are implemented. The City shall
conduct periodic site visits to ensure compliance, in consultation with the
SLO County APCD.
Residual Impact
For unmitigated projects that result in emissions of 50 lbs/day or more of combined ROG
and NOx, SLO County APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook recommends that all feasible
standard mitigation measures be implemented as part of the Project to ensure that impacts
would be less than significant, based on a list included as Table 3-5 in that document. The
list covers a large range of activities and would reduce impacts either through site design
or increasing the energy efficiency of the Project, but focuses primarily on reducing
mobile-source emissions through implementing transportation strategies to reduce VMT.
In many cases, adherence to the Project design guidelines and other required mitigation
identified in this EIR would implement many of these measures.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 summarizes the list of appropriate mitigation measures, and
indicates which of these are to be incorporated by the Applicant in accordance with the
2012 APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (as amended by the 2017 Clarification
Memorandum). Many of these measures would be incorporated as policies of the FRSP for
which future development would be required to implement and would manifest as site
design measures that would reduce area source emissions. Measures identified in MM AQ-
2 emphasize transportation strategies to reduce VMT and associated mobile-source NOx
emissions. Incorporation of this mix of measures would be feasible for the Project, and
would substantially reduce operational ROG and NOx emissions. However, it is noted that
many measures listed in MM AQ-2 do not contain quantifiable air quality emissions
reductions for programs such as the FRSP. While implementation of these measures can
feasibly reduce ROG and NOx, the Project’s estimated emissions after implementation of
these measures cannot reasonably be quantified, and long-term operational residual
impacts are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable due to potential
continued exceedance of maximum daily emissions thresholds.
Impact AQ-3 Project development could result in the release of toxic diesel emissions
or naturally occurring asbestos which could expose sensitive receptors
to emissions-related health risks (Less than Significant).
3.3-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Toxic Diesel Emissions
The Project would generate DPM emissions from construction activities. DPM is listed as
a TAC by the CARB. CARB identifies high-volume freeways and roads (highways, urban
roads carrying 100,000 vpd, and rural roads carrying 50,000 vpd), dry cleaners, and large
gasoline stations as potential sources of TACs. SLO County APCD has a threshold for
construction and operational DPM emissions, but not specifically for mobile-source DPMs
for human health effects. The potential for TACs to have an effect on sensitive receptors
would occur if the Project would generate TACs in quantities that may have an adverse
effect on sensitive receptors.
SLO County APCD defines sensitive uses or receptors as people that have an increased
sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants, which include schools, parks
and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units
(SLO County APCD 2012). The proposed development area in the Upper Terrace area of
the site is located as close as 325 feet away and would be accessed from the Mountainbrook
Church facility to the south. Mountainbrook Church does not provide day care or long-
term child care facilities that may expose children under the age of 16 to extended periods
of DPMs during construction. Further, guests of the hotels along Calle Joaquin are not
considered sensitive receptors to air pollutants, as these guests would not reside in these
hotels for extended periods of time. Thus, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site
is the Pacific Beach High School located approximately 0.27 mile to the northeast, which
would be substantially removed and separated from the site by urban development.
Therefore, Project construction would not significantly endanger the health of existing
nearby sensitive receptors to air emissions.
Project construction would generate DPM emissions due to operation of heavy construction
equipment. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that Project phasing would allow
the Lower Area of Villaggio to be occupied as early as 2022. Occupancy would precede
later construction phases of the Upper Terrace and Madonna Froom Ranch. While mass
grading of the site would be complete by 2022, fine grading and vertical construction of
the Upper Terrace and Madonna Froom Ranch would continue between 2022 and 2025,
which would generate emissions from trucks and construction equipment. Independent
living senior residences, the Villaggio Health Care Administration building, and senior
assisted living facilities occupied in 2022 would be considered sensitive receptors to air
emissions, including TACs and DPMs from Project construction. Grading, onsite transport
of cut material between the Upper Terrace and Madonna Froom Ranch areas, and import
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-47
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
of offsite fill to the Madonna Froom Ranch Area would have the potential to generate DPM
emissions from heavy construction equipment and heavy haul trucks (15,832 haul truck
trips).
To protect future residents in the Lower Area from construction emissions of Phase 3 and
Phase 4 (see Section 2.0, Project Description), the Project would strategically schedule
grading of the Upper Terrace (Phase 3) to occur at the same time as grading activities
associated with Phase 1 and 2. All major grading and earthmoving, including balancing
soils within the Project site, would occur prior to occupancy of any units within the Specific
Plan area. Once occupancy begins, the Project would reroute construction trips to the Upper
Terrace, including any heavy haul or materials delivery trips, along Calle Joaquin to the
Mountainbrook Church driveway and parking lot instead of through the local roads
constructed to serve the Project. This circulation approach would move potential sources
of DPM emissions offsite and away from sensitive receptors residing onsite within the
Villaggio Lower Area once it is constructed. This proposed construction phasing would
therefore reduce potential for exposure of sensitive elderly populations to the most
intensive construction activities and DPM emissions associated with development under
the Project.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The Project would result in excavation and grading of serpentine soils in the Upper Terrace,
which may release NOA into the air. The Applicant-prepared geological reports indicate
that asbestos-containing serpentine rock is present beneath topsoil in the Upper Terrace
(Appendix G). Since the Project site lies within an area with the potential to contain NOA
per the SLO County APCD NOA map, compliance with the NOA ATCM would be
required. The NOA ATCM requires submittal of a geologic evaluation determining
whether serpentine rock is present on a project site, and if so, to what extent (less or more
than 1 acre). Depending on the results of the geologic evaluation, the Project would be
required to file an exemption request form (if no serpentine is present), a Mini Dust Control
Measure Plan (if less than 1 acre of serpentine is present), or an Asbestos Dust Control
Measure Plan (if more than 1 acre of serpentine is present). Presuming the Project would
disturb more than 1 acre of serpentine, the Project would be required to submit a geologic
evaluation and Asbestos Dust Control Measure Plan to SLO County APCD for approval.
The Project would comprise residential and commercial uses, which are considered uses
that would not generate substantial amounts of TACs and would not pose a significant risk
to sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. The Project site is not located adjacent to any
3.3-48 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
existing industrial uses (e.g., construction material companies, machine shops, construction
vehicle staging areas) that may generate additional diesel particulates through the idling of
large diesel equipment or construction vehicles. Additionally, according to the 2005
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, a buffer of 500 feet between residences and
a major freeway, and more than 50 feet from a typical gasoline station, should be
maintained. U.S. 101 is located approximately 2,330 feet to the south of the Project site,
and no gasoline stations are located in the immediate (50 feet or less) vicinity of the Project
site. Therefore, the Project is not expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of TACs following completion of Project construction.
There are no existing sensitive receptors on the Project site or vicinity that would be
significantly exposed to Project construction emissions and future sensitive receptors
would be protected from exposure to significant construction emissions through Project
phasing. Proposed areas of development within the Specific Plan area are also not located
adjacent (i.e., within 500 feet) to a freeway producing significant DPMs or a gasoline
station (i.e., 50 feet). Though the Project site overlies potentially NOA in serpentine areas
underlying the Upper Terrace, SLO County APCD standards require a geologic evaluation
and an Asbestos Dust Control Measure Plan for approval prior to grading. Therefore,
impacts to sensitive receptors due to air emission health risks would be less than
significant.
Impact AQ-4 The Project would be consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan,
but would result in potentially significant GHG emissions during
construction and operation (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
The Project would generate GHG emissions during construction, including heavy
equipment, and operation, including energy and vehicle use. Analysis of environmental
impacts from GHG emission considers both quantified and qualified analysis herein.
Construction GHG Emissions
Construction activities for the Project are assumed to occur over a period of approximately
five years for the purposes of this analysis. Based on CalEEMod estimates, construction
activities for the Project would generate an estimated 7,684.95 MT of CO2e (see Table 3.3-
10). Amortized over a 25-year period (consistent with APCD methodology), construction
of the Project would generate approximately 307.40 MT of CO2e per year.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-49
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 3.3-10. Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated)
Year Annual Emissions MT CO2e
2020 2,733.52
2021 1,444.27
2022 896.58
2023 1,691.60
2024 918.98
Total 7,684.95
Amortized over 25 years 307.40
Operational GHG Emissions
Operational GHG emissions would be generated from area, energy use, solid waste, water
use, and transportation. Total operational emissions would be approximately 5,773.50 MT
CO2e/yr (see Table 3.3-11). Combined with construction emissions amortized over a 25-
year period (307.40 MT CO2e), total GHG emissions for the Project would be
approximately 6,080.90 MT CO2e/yr. Based on a new resident population of 1,231, the
Project is estimated to result in 4.9 MT CO2e/SP/yr.
Table 3.3-11. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Unmitigated)
Emission Source Annual Emissions MT CO2e
Area 14.35
Energy Use 2,235.08
Mobile 3,128.70
Water Use 253.18
Solid Waste 142.19
Total 5,773.50
Amortized Construction Emissions 307.40
Total Project GHG Emissions 6,080.90
Project Population (Residents) 1,231
Per Capita Emissions 4.9
The City’s Climate Action Plan is designed as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy,
consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). The Project’s consistency with the
City’s Climate Action Plan goals, actions, and strategies is described below:
• Buildings Goal: Reduce energy-related emissions by promoting greater energy
efficiency at the point of final use in buildings.
3.3-50 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
o The Project is consistent with the buildings actions and strategies by its
inclusion of goals, policies, and programs in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, of
the Draft FRSP for promoting greater energy efficiency, inclusion of alternative
energy systems, use of energy-efficient types of lighting, and incorporation of
high-efficiency Energy Star compliant appliances.
• Renewable Energy Goal: Use cleaner and renewable energy sources.
o The Project is consistent with the renewable energy actions and strategies by its
inclusion of goals, policies, and programs in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, of
the Draft FRSP for inclusion of alternative energy systems in development over
5,000 sf in size.
• Transportation and Land Use Goal: Improve transportation options.
o The Project is consistent with the transportation and land use elements and
strategies within the Climate Action Plan with development of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities along the public street system, dedicated pedestrian pathways,
extension of Class II bike lanes along LOVR, and installation of a transit stop
at the Project site entrance along LOVR. At full buildout of the Project, the
homes and businesses in Madonna Froom Ranch and Villaggio would be
interconnected to the rest of the City through a dense street pattern, sidewalks,
local and regional bikeways and nearby transit.
• Water Goal: Reduce and reuse water consumed by the community.
o The Project is consistent with the water actions and strategies by its inclusion
of policies and programs oriented towards reducing average daily potable
water; and its inclusion of progressive stormwater treatment and management
improvements through bioretention swales, runoff treatment and filtration,
permeable paving, and other integrated treatment detention/retention systems.
Outdoor landscaping irrigation demand for the Project site, including irrigation
needed to establish or maintain vegetation in the proposed stormwater detention
basin and realigned Froom Creek corridor, will be met entirely with non-potable
recycled water.
• Solid Waste Goal: Prevent, reduce, reuse, and recycle solid waste to minimize the
amount of waste being sent to the landfill.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-51
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
o The Project is consistent with the solid waste actions and strategies by being
compliant with the City’s proactive waste management practices that reduce
waste-related GHG emissions.
• Parks and Open Space Goal: Maintain natural areas and plant trees and green
spaces.
o The Project is consistent with the parks and open space actions and strategies
by its inclusion of 59.0 acres of onsite open space in accordance with General
Plan LUE Policy 8.1.6, which includes a 2.9-acre neighborhood park that is
within 0.25 mile of any residential unit and the realigned Froom Creek corridor.
• Government Operations Goal: Reduce GHG emissions from government
operations to 1990 levels using a mix of strategies, including: conservation, clean
energy, efficiency upgrades, recycling, and alternative transportation incentives for
employee commute.
o The Project is consistent with the government operations actions and strategies
by the inclusions discussed above.
All applicable actions and measures identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan must be
incorporated as binding and enforceable components of the Project for it to be found
consistent with the Climate Action Plan. Based on initial analysis of Project consistency
above, the Project would be consistent with the goals of the Climate Action Plan.
However, as described above under the GHGs and Climate Change CEQA Thresholds
discussion under Section 3.3.3.1, the City’s Climate Action Plan is specific to the goals of
AB 32 and does not consider, nor is in compliance with, the 2030 GHG reduction targets
mandated under SB 32. Therefore, the Project is also analyzed against the SLO County
APCD GHG thresholds, reduced by 40 percent to align with SB 32, and CARB and AEP
guidance on SB 32 compliance. Compared to SB 32-compliant thresholds for land
development, a Bright Line Threshold of 690 MT CO2e, or an efficiency threshold of 2.65
MT of CO2e/SP/yr, the Project’s estimated 6,080.9 MT CO2e total and 4.9 MT CO2e/SP/yr
emissions are considered inconsistent with the basic goals, objectives, and emissions
reduction strategies of the state’s adopted GHG laws. The Project is also considered
inconsistent with the City’s current goal for achieving citywide net-zero carbon emissions
by the year 2035, which reflects the City’s intent to achieve the emissions and carbon
reduction requirements of SB 32 and Executive Order B-55-18. Project emissions are
therefore considered potentially significant due to inconsistency with adopted state and
local goals and regulations for reducing GHG emissions.
3.3-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-4 shall apply.
MM AQ-5 The Applicant shall revise the Draft FRSP to include measures necessary
to reduce Project operational stationary-source GHG emissions to achieve
net zero emissions, consistent with the City’s 2035 net-zero GHG emissions
target. These measures shall include Best Available Mitigation strategies
for reducing operational emissions, including but not limited to the
following:
• Electrical power for the entirety of Project operations including but not
limited to illumination, heating, cooling, and ventilation shall be
provided by alternative or carbon-free energy sources according to the
following priority: 1) on-grid power with 100-percent renewable or
carbon-free source (a planned product of Monterey Bay Community
Power available to the City in 2020), or 2) a combination of grid power
and on site renewable generation to achieve annual zero net electrical
energy usage, or 3) purchase of carbon offsets of any portion of power
not from renewable or carbon-free sources. As a first priority, carbon-
free sourced energy shall be purchased from Monterey Bay Community
Power.
• For new buildings, onsite solar photovoltaic systems shall be required,
and retrofitted buildings shall be encouraged to install onsite solar
photovoltaic systems to offset energy demand, regardless of building
size.
• All proposed commercial and health care facilities shall exceed the
minimum standards of Title 24, Part 11 (Cal Green) by adopting all or
some elements of Cal Green Tier 1 and 2 voluntary elective measures
to increase energy efficiency in new buildings, remodels and additions.
These measures shall prioritize upgrading lighting (e.g., using light-
emitting diode [LED] lights), heating and cooling systems, appliances,
equipment and control systems to be more energy efficient.
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall include the above measure
in the Final FRSP prior to approval and shall include the above measure on
the final VTM prior to recordation. Plans submitted for building permits
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-53
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
shall incorporate Best Management Strategies, and for the selected Best
Management Strategies, the Applicant shall work with City and SLO
County APCD staff to calculate estimated stationary-source emissions to
ensure achievement of net-zero stationary source operational emissions for
the Project. City and SLO County APCD staff shall ensure the above
measures are incorporated into the FRSP, final VTM, and building plans
prior to permit issuance.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are listed on final plans
submitted for review and approval by the City. City and SLO County APCD
staff shall work with the Applicant to ensure that these strategies are
implemented. The City shall verify compliance in consultation with the
SLO County APCD.
MM AQ-6 The Applicant shall revise the FRSP to include measures necessary to
reduce the Project’s operational, mobile-source emissions, and VMT to the
maximum extent feasible, including, but not limited to the following:
• Rideshare and Employee Ridership Programs: The FRSP shall be
amended to include measures for encouraging and incentivizing
residents and employees of the proposed development participate in the
San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare program.
• Senior Shuttle Service: Villaggio shall provide clean fuel shuttle
services or coordinate with existing shuttle services such as Dial-A-Ride
and the Senior Go! Shuttle to provide curb-to-curb shuttle service for
residents of the Villaggio Life Community Plan.
• All Electric Small Vehicles: The FRSP shall require all personal small
vehicles (e.g., golf carts) be 100 percent electric powered.
• Car Share: Provide car-sharing opportunities within the Villaggio Life
Community Plan and Madonna Froom Ranch areas.
• Promote Carpools, Vanpools, and Electric Vehicle (EV) Vehicles:
Provide dedicated parking for carpools, vanpools, and high-efficiency
vehicles in exceedance of Cal Green Tier 2 standards.
• Offsite EV Improvements: Work with SLO County APCD to expand or
fund the expansion of EV charging stations throughout the City.
3.3-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall include all feasible Best
Management Strategies as part of the final FRSP and final VTM. For the
selected Best Management Strategies, the Applicant shall work with City
and SLO County APCD staff to calculate estimated mobile-source
emissions to ensure emissions are reduced to the maximum extent feasible.
City and SLO County APCD staff shall ensure the above measures are
incorporated into the FRSP and final VTM prior to recordation.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are listed on the final VTM
submitted for review and approval by the City. City and SLO County APCD
staff shall work with the Applicant to ensure that these strategies are
implemented. The City shall verify compliance in consultation with the
SLO County APCD.
Residual Impact
Implementation of MM AQ-4 and -5 would ensure stationary-source operational emissions
of the Project are reduced to 0 MT CO2e/yr, consistent with the City’s intent to achieve
carbon neutrality by 2035, consistent with the purpose and intent of SB 32 to further reduce
statewide GHG emissions, and consistent with Executive Order B-55-18 requiring
attainment of statewide carbon neutrality by 2045. Similarly, MM AQ-4 and -6 would
reduce Project mobile-source emissions to the maximum extent feasible for the proposed
development. However, given the reduction in emissions from the combination of onsite
and offsite mitigation strategies cannot be directly quantified, implementation of these
mitigation would generally demonstrate compliance with adopted state and local policies
for reducing GHG emissions, but potential remains for mobile-source GHG emissions to
result in inconsistencies with established state and local GHG reduction strategies.
Required mitigation would ensure the Project achieves compliance with adopted
regulations and Citywide objectives and stationary-source operational emissions are
reduced to 0 MT CO2e/yr. Nevertheless, impacts would be significant and unavoidable due
to continued potential for exceedance of GHG emissions thresholds as a result of Project
mobile-source emissions.
Impact AQ-5 The Project is potentially inconsistent with the SLO County APCD’s
2001 Clean Air Plan (Significant and Unavoidable).
Consistency analysis with local and regional plans, such as the Clean Air Plan, is required
under CEQA. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan means that stationary and vehicle
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-55
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
emissions associated with the Project are accounted for in the Clean Air Plan’s growth
assumptions.
According to the County APCD’s guidelines, a project may result in significant air quality
impacts if it is inconsistent with the assumptions in the SLO County APCD Clean Air Plan.
Consistency with the SLO County APCD Clean Air Plan is evaluated based on three
criteria:
1) Are the population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than
those used in the most recent Clean Air Plan for the same area?
The Project would include 174 multi-family units, 404 independent and assisted
senior housing units, 51 beds for memory care and skilled nursing, and up to
100,000 sf of mixed commercial uses. This development would increase the City’s
population by approximately 1,231 people. The Clean Air Plan’s population
estimate for the City is 48,499 by 2015, and 305,854 for the County by 2015 (SLO
County APCD 2001). According to 2018 estimates by the California State
Department of Finance, the City population estimate is 46,548 and the County
population estimate is 280,101 (California Department of Finance 2018). The
City’s General Plan population estimates are just marginally under the Clean Air
Plan’s projected population estimates. The increase of approximately 1,231 persons
by the Project is within the population projections under the Clean Air Plan.
The City’s LUE Policy 8.1.5 indicates the specific plan for the area including the
Project site should provide a variety of housing types and affordability levels, with
performance standards stating a minimum of 200 dwelling units, and maximum of
350 dwelling units. This is inconsistent with the land uses and intensities proposed
by the Project, which proposes a total of 174 multi-family units and 404
independent and assisted senior housing units. This is above the maximum range
of units due to the inclusion of high-density and senior housing. The LUE
objectives are intended to ensure that the Project site is developed primarily with a
compact mixed-use project and includes provisions for onsite and offsite open
space/resource protection. The Project is consistent with the population projections
anticipated by the LUE (see Section 3.11, Population and Housing). However, as
indicated in the LUCE Update EIR, population estimates cannot be directly
compared as the Clean Air Plan only projects population estimates until 2015. In
addition, as described in Impact AQ-2 above, the Project would result in significant
and unavoidable operational air quality impacts generated by area, energy, and
3.3-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
mobile emissions; therefore, the Project is potentially inconsistent with the Clean
Air Plan.
2) Is the rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled less than or equal to the
rate of population growth for the same area?
The population growth from the Project would exceed the Clean Air Plan
projections. As described in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic, the City’s
model forecast for the Project is 46,894 daily VMT, an increase of approximately
3 percent within the City sphere of influence and 0.4 percent within the County.
The VMT generated per household for the Project is forecasted at 69 daily VMT
per household. Although the Project would have a VMT below the regional
average, the VMT per household for the Project is forecasted to be approximately
28 percent higher than the average for the City’s sphere of influence. The rate of
increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled would exceed the Clean Air Plan
projections for the Project site; therefore, the Project would be potentially
inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan.
3) Have all applicable land use and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) and
strategies from the Clean Air Plan been included in the plan or project to the
maximum extent feasible?
The transportation goal of the Clean Air Plan is to reduce the growth of vehicle
trips and VMT to the rate of population growth within the County. TCMs are
controls that help reduce emissions resulting from motor vehicles, by reducing
vehicle use and facilitating the use of alternative transportation options. There are
a total of nine TCMs located in the Clean Air Plan which include the following:
• T-1B Campus Trip Reduction Program
• T-1C Voluntary Commute Options Program
• T-2A Local Transit Systems Improvements
• T-2B Regional Public Transit Improvements
• T-3 Bicycling and Bikeway Enhancements
• T-4 Park–and-Ride Lots
• T-5 Motor Vehicle Inspection and Control Programs
• T-6 Traffic Flow Improvements, and
• T-8 Teleworking, Teleconferencing and Telelearning.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-57
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
T-1B and T-5 are not applicable to the Project as the Project does not include a
college campus or smog check program. T-1C and T-8 are applicable to the
commercial uses of the Project site. The Project will include one bus stop along
LOVR fronting the site with associated transit service, which will be consistent
with T-2A and T-2B after Project buildout; however, during early phases of Project
development, transit services may not be fully in place (see Section 3.13,
Transportation and Traffic, for further analysis of this issue). T-3 is included in the
Project and supports T-1C. T-6 is also included in the Project.
Land use strategies in the Clean Air Plan include planning compact communities, providing
for mixed land use, balancing jobs and housing, circulation management, and
communication, coordination and monitoring. Each of the five land use strategies are
applicable to and would be implemented by the Project.
The Project could hinder the County’s ability to maintain attainment of the state O3
standard, because the emissions reductions projected in the Clean Air Plan may not be met.
The anticipated population growth and increase in vehicle trips is potentially inconsistent
with the Clean Air Plan; therefore, impacts are considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2 shall apply.
MM TRANS-5 shall apply.
MM TRANS-8 shall apply.
MM TRANS-9 shall apply.
MM TRANS-10 shall apply.
Residual Impact
In accordance with the 2012 APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and 2017 Clarification
Memo, all feasible mitigation measures must be incorporated into the Project, which
emphasize transportation strategies for reducing Project operational VMT. Implementation
of MM TRANS-5, -8, -9, and -10 would ensure facilities serving pedestrians and bicycles
in Project vicinity would be provided prior to occupancy of the first unit of Villaggio’s
Lower Area, which would result in consistency with SLO County APCD’s Clean Air Plan
Goal T-2A. However, as described above, the Project is not fully consistent with overall
land use planning principles contained in the Clean Air Plan due to continued exceedance
3.3-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
of population growth, vehicle trip, and VMT projections for the region. Therefore, residual
impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative Impacts
Air Quality Emissions
The Project, in combination with any approved, pending, and proposed development within
the City, would further contribute to the increase in development and associated generation
of air quality-related emissions. The SCCAB is currently in state non-attainment for PM10
and O3, for which NOx and ROGs are a precursor. As the Project would result in significant
and unavoidable impacts associated with long-term operational emissions, particularly for
NOx and ROGs, the Project would generate air quality emissions for criteria pollutants
within an air basin that is under state non-attainment; therefore, the Project would
contribute cumulatively and considerably to air quality emissions throughout the City and
region.
Further, as analyzed in the LUCE Update EIR, full buildout under the LUCE would not be
consistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan. Cumulative impacts related to this increase in air-
quality emissions resulting from the Project would therefore be cumulatively considerable
and significant and unavoidable.
GHG Emissions
The Project, in combination with any approved, pending, and proposed development
presented in Table 3.0-1 of Section 3.0.3, Cumulative Impact Analysis, would further
contribute to the increase the generation of GHG emissions. Analysis of GHG emissions
and climate change are cumulative in nature because impacts are caused by cumulative
global emissions and accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. Additionally, climate
change impacts related to GHG emissions do not necessarily occur in the same area as the
Project is located. As indicated in Impact AQ-4, the Project’s construction and operational
stationary-source emissions would be reduced to as close to 0 MT CO2e/yr as feasible with
implementation of MM AQ-4 through MM AQ-6. Implementation of these measures
would demonstrate consistency with the City and statewide objectives for reducing GHG
emissions; however, mobile-source emissions continue to have potential to result in
exceedance of established GHG emissions thresholds and state and local GHG reduction
strategies due to inability to ensure associated emissions are quantifiably reduced.
Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative levels of GHGs would be cumulatively
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.3-59
Draft EIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
considerable and cumulative impacts from GHG emissions and climate change would be
significant and unavoidable.
3.3-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes biological resources that may be affected by the Project. Biological
resources include sensitive plant and animal species, wildlife habitats, migration corridors,
and vegetation communities, as well as aquatic resources under the jurisdiction of local,
state, and federal resource management and protection agencies. The biological resources
described in this section are based primarily on Applicant-prepared field work and
technical studies for the Project, supplemented by review of published literature, previously
prepared technical studies, and peer review of the Applicant-prepared studies coupled with
reconnaissance-level field observations by Wood. The extent and distribution of sensitive
habitats and plant species onsite has varied over time due to drought and periods of high
rainfall. Habitats onsite have been subject to several mapping efforts over a four-year
period to establish an environmental baseline, as described herein. These reports are
described in detail in Section 3.4.3.2, Impact Assessment Methodology below.
3.4.1 Environmental Setting
3.4.1.1 Regional Biological Resources Setting
The City has a Mediterranean climate with mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers. The
City is surrounded by undeveloped rural land that supports an array of habitats, including
grasslands, coastal scrub, chaparral, oak and bay woodlands, riparian habitat, and wetlands.
Nearby Froom, Prefumo, and San Luis Obispo Creeks support freshwater marsh, seasonal
wetlands, and riparian habitats within low-lying areas. Mature trees and denser vegetation
are generally located along riparian corridors or on hillsides, particularly north-facing slopes.
The Project vicinity supports a diverse mix of habitats suitable to support a wide range of
plant and animal species, some of which are endemic (native and restricted to a certain
location or area) within the region. The Project site lies at the edge of the wildland-urban
interface, with urbanized shopping centers, auto malls, and hotels along LOVR and Calle
Joaquin to the north, south, and east. To the west, undeveloped land within the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve owned by the City provides remarkable biodiversity and habitat
conservation within and proximate to the City. In April 2019, a new botanical species
known as the Irish Hills spineflower (Chorizanthe aphanantha) was discovered in the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve less than one mile from the Project site growing on serpentinite rock
outcroppings near yucca scrub habitats. The Irish Hills spineflower is currently being
recommended and is under review for recognition as one of California’s most rare plants
(Nelson, Keil, and Hill 2018). Approximately one mile of the western boundary of the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-1
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Project site borders the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, a nearly 1,300-acre protected natural
open space area, and its diverse habitats, which allows for significant ecological interaction
between this important open space reserve and the Project site, including wildlife
movement and rare plant propagation. The Irish Hills Natural Reserve consists of a diverse
range of habitats supporting a number of sensitive plant species, including endemic species
located nowhere else in the world, and providing habitat for a broad range of wildlife. The
Froom Creek watershed and tributaries flow from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve down
through the Project site and provide habitat connectivity and value throughout the system.
3.4.1.2 Project Site Overview
The biological setting of the Project site differs greatly between the lower elevations, which
constitute disturbed grasslands with wetlands along LOVR and Calle Joaquin, and the
upper elevations, which are comparatively undisturbed and rich in biological value as an
intact naturally-occurring ecosystem. The most sensitive habitats onsite are located within
an area referred to as the Upper Terrace area of Villaggio (west of Froom Creek and
adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and Mountainbrook Church) and in the lower
portions of the site containing the Calle Joaquin wetlands. East of Froom Creek in the areas
adjacent to LOVR and the Irish Hills Plaza, repeated disturbance and lack of native
vegetation resulting from historic grazing operations, past grading and quarry operations,
and development within the historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex has diminished habitat
values for native plants and wildlife, though riparian habitat and special status plant species
have also been identified in this area.
Biological resources on the Project site vary widely. Lower elevations are dominated by nonnative and
native annual grasslands with substantial wetlands adjacent to LOVR and Calle Joaquin. Upper
elevations are biologically rich with habitat areas that support several sensitive species, such as Chorro
Creek bog thistle. The Project site abuts the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to the west, which is one of the
most biologically diverse regions in the County.
3.4-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Froom Creek traverses the Project site for approximately 3,000 feet, draining a 1,162-acre
watershed, including the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (see also, Section 3.8, Hydrology and
Water Quality). Froom Creek is a direct tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek, which flows
to the Pacific Ocean approximately 5 miles southwest of the Project site. Within the
Specific Plan area, Froom Creek is a seasonally dry channel lined with rock and cobble
with earthen banks and no riparian vegetation. Vegetation is limited along this portion of
the creek to low-lying grasses, scrub, and cactus, including an abundant proliferation of
non-native invasive species such as yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Froom
Creek transitions from a wide-open channel (approximately 100 feet wide) where it enters
the Project site to a deeper, narrower channel (approximately 15 to 50 feet wide) that cuts
through the western side of the Specific Plan area. Banks are often steep and unvegetated
along this segment. A substantial unvegetated, constructed berm constrains the Froom
Creek alignment on the downslope side.
Seasonal pooling in the creek’s incised
banks create some potential for habitat; for
example, field teams observed tree frogs
within the creek channel in January 2018.
Outside the Specific Plan area, Froom
Creek transitions into a narrow riparian
channel conveying flows across
Mountainbrook Church property to a box
culvert under Calle Joaquin and U.S. 101.
Even during dry weather, this segment of
Froom Creek conveys spring-fed flows
Froom Creek flows from the Irish Hills through the Project site. Most of the creek is a seasonally dry
channel lined with rock and cobble with earthen banks and no riparian vegetation. Downstream of the
Specific Plan area, the creek transitions into a spring-fed riparian channel supporting wetland habitats.
The man-made drainage ditch adjacent to LOVR
conveys stormwater runoff from adjacent
development to the north and east. Prolonged
ponding of runoff has resulted in the establishment
of high-quality wetland and riparian habitats.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-3
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
from Drainages 1, 2, and 3 in the Irish Hills (see Figure 3.4-1). This water source supports
a mix of native riparian vegetation and blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) trees.
Drainage 4 flows through the southernmost edge of the Project site and flows to San Luis
Obispo Creek through a separate culvert; Drainage 4 does not flow to Froom Creek.
The Project site also contains man-made drainage features that support wetland or riparian
habitats. Man-made drainage features on the Project site include the LOVR ditch located
along the Project site boundaries bordering LOVR and the 3.2-acre Irish Hills Plaza
stormwater detention basin (Figure 3.4-1).1 The LOVR ditch supports substantial wetland
and riparian habitat, sustained by surface flows from the site, Irish Hills Plaza, and LOVR.
The 3.2-acre Irish Hills Plaza stormwater detention basin supports substantial areas of
wetland vegetation, particularly during wetter periods, even though it was constructed
above natural grade and outside of mapped wetland habitat.
The Calle Joaquin wetlands support
roughly 8.3 acres of wetland habitat
located in the southeast corner of the
Project site extending along more
than 500 feet of Calle Joaquin west of
its intersection with LOVR. This
includes approximately 1-acre of
wetland separated by the Calle
Joaquin roadway and near the
existing hotel development to the
east. The 1 acre of wetlands southeast
of Calle Joaquin is supported by a
number of inlets passing beneath the
Calle Joaquin roadway, allowing water to flow between these two areas and facilitating
connectivity between these wetlands. These wetlands support emergent wetland vegetation
and are fed by a complex mix of surface water flows from onsite drainage channels and
generally high groundwater levels, including groundwater discharge from an artesian well.
Surface water sources supporting the Calle Joaquin wetlands include runoff from the
LOVR ditch and storm event flows from the Irish Hills Plaza stormwater detention basin.
1 The 1.6-acre former stormwater retention basin was initially constructed to receive runoff only during
construction of The Home Depot at the Irish Hills Plaza. Following completion of the Irish Hills Plaza, the
1.6-acre informal retention basin was graded prior to issuance of the NOP for this EIR in July 2017.
However, a storm drain continues to deliver water to the former retention basin area, resulting in seasonal
ponding.
Wetlands are present adjacent to Calle Joaquin on the
southeastern edge of the Project site, in Drainages 1, 2,
and 3 of the Upper Terrace, in the LOVR ditch, and
within the Irish Hills stormwater detention basin during
periods of non-disturbance between permitted
maintenance events.
3.4-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Froom Creek is largely disconnected from the Calle Joaquin wetlands as a substantial
constructed berm confines the creek to an upper elevation within the Project site. Based on
site reconnaissance, the Calle Joaquin wetlands only interact with the Froom Creek channel
intermittently at the edge of the Specific Plan area adjacent to the existing hotels.
The Upper Terrace contains a range of native habitats that support sensitive species,
including native serpentine bunchgrass grassland, coast live oak/California bay woodlands,
coastal scrub/chaparral, and wetlands. The terrain is highly varied where Drainages 1, 2,
and 3 support wetlands. Open areas comprise annual grasslands, serpentine bunchgrass
grassland, coastal scrub/chaparral, and serpentine rock outcroppings. These habitats
support numerous rare native plant species and function as an important wildlife habitat
and corridor due to their relatively undisturbed nature and proximity to the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve.
Non-native annual grasslands dominate the lower portions of the Project site near LOVR
and Irish Hills Plaza where past disturbance and grazing has occurred, as well as the
proposed stormwater detention basin location on Mountainbrook Church property. Annual
non-native grassland and developed/disturbed areas occupy approximately 82 acres (or
roughly 64 percent) of the site, particularly in the lower portion of the Project site, east of
Froom Creek near LOVR and adjacent to the Irish Hills Plaza.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-5
Draft EIR
101MOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOKCHURCHCHURCHMOUNTAINBROOKCHURCHDrainage 3Drainage 3Drainage 2Drainage 2Drainage 1Drainage 1Drainage 4Drainage 4Froom CreekPrefumoCreekCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYFroom CreekDrainage 3Drainage 2Drainage 1Drainage 421Sources: ESRI 2018; San Luis Obispo Parcel InformationKMA 2018 (Appendix E).LEGENDHabitatsTree StandsOtherProject SiteArroyo Willow Riparian ScrubWetlandCreek/StreamSerpentine Rock OutcropSerpentine Bunchgrass GrasslandCoast Live Oak/California Bay WoodlandCoastal Scrub/ChaparralAnnual GrasslandDeveloped/Disturbed3.2-Acre Existing Detention Basin forIrish Hills Plaza1Approximate 1.6-Acre FormerInfiltration Basin1May support wetland habitat.Sycamore TreesEucalyptus TreesMonterey Cypress120600SCALE IN FEETN3.4-1FIGUREExisting Biological Setting3.4-6
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4.1.3 Vegetation and Habitat Types/Communities
The Project site includes ten general habitat types or plant communities. In the Upper
Terrace, native habitats comprise roughly 50 percent of the vegetation, where serpentine
bunchgrass grassland and coastal sage scrub are co-dominant with annual non-native
grassland. This area also supports large stands of coast live oak/California bay woodland
and sensitive spring-fed seep and drainage wetlands. Roughly 80 percent of the lower
portion of the Project site (east of Froom Creek) is covered with annual non-native
grassland and developed/disturbed areas. The notable exceptions are sensitive wetland and
riparian habitats present in the Calle Joaquin wetlands, LOVR ditch, and existing
stormwater detention basin. The developed/disturbed areas contain native and
planted/ornamental vegetation, as well as native and non-native trees (see Table 3.4-1).
Detailed summaries of each habitat type observed onsite are included in the Biological
Resources Inventory (Appendix E).
The Project site’s existing vegetation provides opportunities for nesting, perching, and
roosting for birds, open areas for wildlife forage and dispersal, and edge areas for cover
and escape. The wetland and riparian habitat along Froom Creek downstream of the
Specific Plan area, as well as Drainages 1, 2, and 3 in the Upper Terrace, provide excellent
habitat for songbirds, small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and insects, and serve as
corridors for wildlife movement, including both small and large animals (Appendix E).
Drainage 4 also flows through the southernmost edge of the Project site across
Mountainbrook Church property and supports an additional 400-foot-long area of Arroyo
Willow Riparian Scrub habitat with similar values to small wildlife and songbirds adjacent
to LOVR (Figure 3.4-1).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-7
Draft EIR
PROJECTPROJECT
SITE/BIOLOGICALSITE/BIOLOGICAL
STUDY AREASTUDY AREA
San Luis Obispo CreekDrainage 3Drainage 3
Drainage 2Drainage 2
Drainage 4Drainage 4
Drainage 1Drainage 1
Froom
C
reekPrefumo Creek101CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
MOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYIRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH San Luis Obispo CreekFroom
C
reekDrainage 3
Drainage 2
Drainage 1
Drainage 4 Prefumo CreekIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
NATURALNATURAL
RESERVERESERVE
IRISH HILLS
NATURAL
RESERVE
CITY OFCITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY OFCITY OF
SAN LUISSAN LUIS
OBISPOOBISPO
UNINCORPORATEDUNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTYCOUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY
CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY OF
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
PROJECT
SITE/BIOLOGICAL
STUDY AREA
LEGEND
Trees (approximate location)Design Constraints
CDFW 1B Rare Plants
CDFW Jurisdiction
Chorro Creek Bog
Thistle Setback
Riparian Scrub
Serpentine Bunchgrass
Grassland
USACE Other Waters
USACE Wetlands
Eucalyptus
Freemont
Cottonwood
Hollyleaf Cherry
Arroyo Willow
California Bay
Coast Live Oak
Peruvian Pepper Tree
Western Sycamore
Other Unidentified Trees
Project Site Biological Constraints 3.4-2
FIGURE
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
3.4-8
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 3.4-1. Habitat Types Located within the Project Site
Habitat Type Portion of Project Site
(acres)
Percentage of Project
Site
Annual Grassland 68.65 53.3
Developed/Disturbed (Ruderal)1 14.52 11.3
Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland 13.46 10.5
Coastal Scrub/Chaparral 9.26 7.2
Wetland 8.27 6.4
Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub 4.82 3.7
Coast Live Oak/California Bay Woodland 3.23 2.5
Drainage Feature 3.00 2.3
Serpentine Rock Outcrop 1.96 1.5
Eucalyptus and Sycamore Trees 1.56 1.2
Monterey Cypress Trees2 0.03 0.02
Total3,4 128.76 100
1 Developed/disturbed (ruderal) areas include existing disturbed surfaces (e.g., within the Froom Ranch Dairy complex,
graded roadways, the onsite quarry, and stormwater detention basins). Note that although the stormwater basins are
periodically cleaned out, this appears to have occurred infrequently (e.g., 2-3 times over 13 years), allowing
reestablishment of persistent wetland vegetation.
2 Monterey Cypress Trees occur only within a small area of the proposed stormwater basin site.
3 The total Project site boundary identified in the Biological Resources Inventory varies slightly from that described for
the Project site in Section 2.0, Project Description.
4 Initial habitat mapping was conducted by KMA in 2015 for the Biological Resources Inventory at the end of a long
drought period. In subsequent field investigations by Wood’s biologists in February 2018, following a relatively wet
winter season, the area of some habitat types was observed as being larger than previously identified in the Biological
Resources Inventory; however, acreages have not been updated.
Source: Appendix E.
A California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB) search identified
occurrences of nine special-status
natural plant communities near the
Project site. Within the habitats
mapped within the Project site, field
surveys identified three natural
communities meeting the state’s
definition of special-status natural
communities pursuant to the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), including Coastal
and Valley Freshwater Marsh
(wetland), riparian, and serpentine
bunchgrass grassland. Special-status
plants also occur in certain features within the Project site, including serpentine rock
Froom Creek looking north towards the Upper Terrace.
The Project site provides rich natural communities and
habitats, including wetlands and serpentine bunchgrass
grassland, as well as California bay woodland. The Upper
Terrace is particularly rich in these biological resources.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-9
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
outcrops or in areas of annual and perennial grasslands. Where these features support
special-status plants, these features should also be considered special-status resources.
Further, native habitats such as coastal sage scrub and coast live oak/California bay
woodland that occur onsite may be considered sensitive under City policy if they support
special status plants or wildlife, serve as wildlife corridors, or support significant trees, as
determined by the City Council.
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (Wetland)
The Project site supports
approximately 8.27 acres of
jurisdictional wetland areas and/or
Other Waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and/or the
Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB). The Project site
also supports approximately 5.41
acres of CDFW state jurisdictional
features along Froom Creek, the
LOVR ditch, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4,
and associated riparian habitat
(Appendix E).2 These jurisdictional waters habitats are a combination of the Coastal and
Valley Freshwater Marsh and Vernal Marsh vegetation communities. The Coastal and
Valley Freshwater Marsh, considered by CDFW to be a sensitive natural community,
occurs onsite in Drainages 2 and 3 on the Upper Terrace, the LOVR ditch, and Calle
Joaquin wetlands, with a total area of approximately 8.27 acres. These onsite wetlands are
important to resident and migratory wildlife. The seep- and spring-fed wetlands along
Drainages 2 and 3 provide a water source for wildlife in the broad undisturbed habitats of
the Upper Terrace, relatively far removed from human activity and the noise, light, and
glare found in the wetlands adjacent to LOVR and Calle Joaquin. Further, these seeps and
springs are proximate to generally dry coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and oak woodland
habitats in the southeastern area of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Wildlife, including large
2 CDFW jurisdictional areas onsite include all waters of the U.S. within the ordinary high-water mark and
additional areas extending to the outer edge of associated riparian vegetation (at least to the extent they
exist within the Project site), but do not include non-riparian USACE jurisdictional areas such as the Calle
Joaquin wetland.
The Calle Joaquin wetlands support significant amounts
of ponded water that provide high-quality habitat for
several plant and animal species (Appendix E).
3.4-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
mammals such as deer, bobcats, coyotes, and mountain lions, may rely on water from these
seeps and springs, particularly during dry periods.
Calle Joaquin Wetlands
Adjacent to Calle Joaquin, perennial wetlands support occurrences of wetland plant species
such as round-leaf leather root (Hoita orbicularis), seep spring monkey flower (Mimulus
guttatus), silverleaf (Potentilla ansernia), California bulrush (Schoenoplectus
californicus), and rough sedge (Carex senta). Small areas of open water within these
wetlands likely provide habitat for aquatic invertebrates and amphibians such as the Pacific
chorus frog (Psuedacris regilla). Seasonal ponded water in this area would also likely serve
as a water source for wildlife, and a potential stop over for seasonal or migratory birds or
a foraging site for ducks and great blue herons (Ardea herodias) (Appendix E). The Calle
Joaquin wetlands are predominantly supported by groundwater, as well as an artesian
spring, and surface flows from the LOVR ditch and the Irish Hills Plaza stormwater
detention basin (Appendix H).
Irish Hills Plaza Stormwater Detention Basin
The Project site contains a stormwater
detention basin to control and treat
surface runoff from Irish Hills Plaza. The
3.2-acre Irish Hills Plaza stormwater
detention basin was constructed
approximately 13 years ago between
mid-2006 and mid-2007 and includes
both a main detention basin and its
forebay. The basin is fed through
approximately 1,160 linear feet of
pipeline that conveys surface flows from
Irish Hills Plaza to this basin. During
large storm events or in wet years, the
basin is designed to overtop and
discharge water into the Calle Joaquin
wetlands via a concrete spillway. During lower rainfall years or events, stormwater in this
basin evaporates or percolates into the ground. The basin is subject to periodic maintenance
clearing to maintain capacity and function, though maintenance appears to occur
infrequently based on field observations and aerial photography review by the EIR
View of the main basin of the 3.2-acre stormwater
detention basin in September 2017. Cattails and tules
are present in areas of prolonged saturation, along
with herbaceous wetland species (Appendix E).
Wetlands have regenerated in this basin between
permitted maintenance clearing.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-11
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
consultant team (e.g., 2-3 times over 13 years). Though not delineated as part of the
Project’s Wetland Delineation Report or identified as a jurisdictional feature in the
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination approved by the USACE on September 24, 2015,
standing water was present in the forebay and Wood staff observed wetland vegetation,
including cattails (Typha spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.) that were estimated to cover
approximately 0.6-acre. Similarly, the main basin also had seasonally moist soils and
similar wetland vegetation mixed with upland species within an estimated 1.4-acre area.
The 3.2-acre Irish Hills Plaza stormwater detention basin is therefore conservatively
considered to support up to 2 acres of wetland habitat for the purposes of the EIR analysis.
Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat occurs in five locations within the Project site. The largest stand of riparian
scrub extends over 1,300 feet along the LOVR ditch and supports both mature and juvenile
willow trees, with stands up to 90 feet in width (see Figure 3.4-1). The second-largest stand
of riparian vegetation is located along the 800-foot-long segment of Froom Creek on the
Mountainbrook Church portion of the site. A 1.02-acre isolated portion of the Project site
east of Calle Joaquin also supports a more than 400-foot-long stretch of substantial mature
Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub. Isolated patches of Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub also
occur along a drainage on the north end of the site, adjacent to TJ Maxx and Irish Hills
Plaza (see Figure 3.4-1). Finally, Drainage 4 from the Irish Hills across the southwest
portion of the Mountainbrook Church property supports an additional stand of Arroyo
Willow Riparian Scrub along approximately 400 feet adjacent to Calle Joaquin.
Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub onsite
consists of the Arroyo Willow
Shrubland Alliance and forms a
forested wetland that corresponds to
the Central Coast Arroyo Willow
Riparian Scrub community. The
Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian
Scrub is a form of forested wetland that
is considered a sensitive natural
community by the CDFW. This natural
community and other riparian habitat
occupy approximately 4.82 acres of the
Project site. The habitat is mostly
The largest stand of riparian habitat extends over 1,300
feet along the LOVR ditch and supports both mature and
juvenile willow trees, with stands up to 90 feet in width.
3.4-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), as well as a few cottonwoods in the drainage
adjacent to TJ Maxx. Riparian communities onsite consist of a mixed age class of arroyo
willows and generally lack other riparian trees. The largest extents of these habitats are
located along the boundary of the Project site adjacent to major roadways (see Figure
3.4-1). Limited tree diversity and underdeveloped understory may limit the foraging value
for wildlife and the value of this habitat as cover or as a corridor for movement along the
edges of the open area. Common species of wildlife anticipated to be found include: Pacific
chorus frog, western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
opossum (Didephis virginianus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) (Appendix E).
Aside from the downstream area of Froom Creek on the Mountainbrook Church property,
the dry ephemeral nature of Froom Creek and onsite grazing activities limit the extent of
riparian vegetation in the main creek channel. In one location in the northwestern part of
the Project site, a small occurrence of riparian scrub was observed on the creek bank, south
of existing buildings and an equipment storage yard. Common plant species observed in
this habitat include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), poison oak, and stinging nettle
(Urtica dioica) (Appendix E).
Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland
Native grassland comprised of purple
needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) along with
a mix of native and non-native species
occurs within 13.46 acres of the Upper
Terrace and hillsides of the Project site
where serpentine soils influence plant
distribution. These native grasslands
exist primarily in the Upper Terrace
adjacent to Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and
together with several stands of coast
live oak/California bay woodland and
coastal sage scrub habitat form the
most important native habitat complex
onsite. These native grasslands correspond to the Valley Needlegrass and Serpentine
Bunchgrass Grasslands and the Nassella (or Stipa) pulchra Herbaceous Alliance (purple
needlegrass grassland) sensitive natural communities. The Nassella pulchra Herbaceous
Alliance has a state rarity rank of S3 and is therefore designated by CDFW as a sensitive
The native serpentine bunchgrass grassland represents
one of the most significant biological resources on the
site, supporting a suite of special-status plant species,
many of which are endemic to the San Luis Obispo area.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-13
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
natural community. Onsite, these grasslands are dominated by purple needlegrass (Stipa
pulchra), but also support a rich assemblage of grassland herbaceous species including
yarrow (Achillea millelodium), Cambria morning-glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp.
episcopalis), checker bloom (Sidalcea malviflora), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum),
and western vervain (Verbena lasiotachys). This grassland type provides suitable foraging,
breeding habitat, and movement corridors for many wildlife species, including ground-
nesting birds such as California meadowlarks and special status horned lark, various
raptors, and common rodents (e.g., California vole), insects, lizards, as well as a wide range
of other species (Appendix E). When combined with perennial water from springs and
seeps, the proximity of this habitat to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve also increases its
importance for use by large wildlife species, including deer, as well as predators such as
bobcats, coyotes, foxes, and mountain lions.
3.4.1.4 Critical Habitat
Froom Creek, including the portion extending through the Project site, is designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened south-central California coast steelhead distinct
population segment (DPS) (steelhead; Oncorhynchus mykiss) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) (Appendix E; USFWS 2018).3 Within the Project site, Froom Creek has
the potential to provide suitable habitat for steelhead passage during years of high rainfall
when flowing water is present. However, steelhead are not expected to spawn onsite given
seasonally dry conditions, and it is expected that steelhead would typically only use this
portion of Froom Creek as a movement corridor to areas of more suitable upstream habitat
(Appendix E). Suitable habitat for steelhead also occurs upstream and offsite in the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve, and resident fish in the upper watershed may move downstream
through the Project site, as well. San Luis Obispo Creek downstream of Froom Creek is
also designated critical habitat for steelhead.
Critical habitat for California red-legged frog is mapped approximately 2.1 miles north of
the Project site. A site assessment of California red-legged frog was conducted by Kevin
Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) in 2015 and 2016 to determine the presence or absence of
suitable habitat and/or individuals within the Project site. Based on the results of the site
assessment, suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog may be present within the
Calle Joaquin wetlands; however, no California red-legged frog was observed during the
3 The Biological Resources Inventory prepared by KMA (2015; Appendix E) incorrectly identifies Froom
Creek as critical habitat for “southern steelhead”, but the federally endangered southern California
steelhead DPS and its critical habitat do not occur north of the Santa Maria River in Santa Barbara County.
3.4-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
protocol-level surveys (Appendix E). California red-legged frog were also documented in
the Irish Hills Natural Reserve – Waddell Ranch Addition within the upper extents of
Froom Creek (City of San Luis Obispo 2018).
3.4.1.5 Special Status Species
A total of 35 special-status plant species and 23 special-status animal species have some
potential to occur within the region surrounding the Project site (Appendix E). The special
status of these species has been designated by the USFWS, CDFW, California Native Plant
Society (CNPS), and/or the City. The list of these species was generated using information
available in the CNDDB (CDFW 2018), CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants
of California (CNPS 2018b), and the City General Plan’s Conservation and Open Space
Element (COSE). From this list, 14 special-status plant and 18 animal species were
determined to have moderate to high potential to be present in the Project site due to the
presence of suitable habitat or direct observation during field surveys (Tables 3.4-2 and
3.4-3).4
The Upper Terrace within the Project site supports an abundance of special-status plant
species, with a total of 14 special-status plant species observed growing in this area. These
species occur within native grasslands, on serpentine outcrops, in spring-fed seeps and
wetlands, and coastal sage scrub habitats. Almost 23 acres of native grassland and coastal
sage habitats occur within the Project site, which support species such as Brewer’s
spineflower and Cambria morning-glory. In addition, seven mapped serpentine rock
outcroppings covering almost 2 acres of the Project site support special status species such
as club hair mariposa lily and Eastwood’s larkspur. The general locations of these 14
special-status plants species are depicted on Figure 3.4-2. Of these plant species, one state
and federally endangered species – the Chorro Creek bog thistle – is known to occur within
the Project site, proximate to the seeps on the Upper Terrace.
4 Refer to Section 3.4.3, Special-Status Animals, and Appendix E for a complete list of species identified as
part of the CNDDB search and their potential to occur on the Project site.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-15
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 3.4-2. Special-Status Plants with High Potential to Occur in the Project Site
Species1 Status2 Notes/Occurrence
Adobe yampah
Perideridia pringlei
--/--/4.3 Observed onsite. California
native endemic often found on
grassy slopes and serpentine
soils.
Blochman’s dudleya
Dudleya blochmaniae
--/--/1B.1 Observed onsite. Often found on
rocky, often clay or serpentine
soils in coastal bluff scrub,
chaparral, coastal scrub, and
valley and foothill grasslands.
Brewer’s spineflower
Chorizanthe ssp. breweri
--/--/1B.3 Observed onsite. Occurs in
closed-cone coniferous forests,
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
and coastal scrub habitats on
serpentine derived soils and rock
outcrops.
Cambria morning-glory
Calystegia subacaulis ssp.
episcopalis
--/--/4.2 Observed onsite. Occurs in
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
and sparse to dense grassland
covering sloped or flat areas in
clay-rich soils.
Chaparral (rayless) ragwort
Senecio aphanactis
--/--/2B.2 Observed onsite. Typically found
in drying alkaline flats,
serpentine soils and barren
gravelly or sandy slopes in
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
and coastal scrub habitats.
Chorro Creek bog thistle
Cirsium fontinale var.
obispoense
E/E/1B.2 Observed onsite. Occurs in
chaparral and cismontane
woodland habitats, often in
serpentine seeps.
Club hair mariposa lily
Calochortus clavatus ssp.
clavatus
--/--/4.3 Observed onsite. Species is
known to occur on serpentine
rock outcrops, valley grassland
(i.e., perennial bunchgrass),
chaparral, and foothill woodland.
Congdon’s tarplant
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
--/--/1B.1 Observed onsite. Occurs in moist
alkaline conditions in marshes,
swamps, vernal pools, and valley
and foothill grassland habitats.
Eastwood’s larkspur
Delphinium parryi ssp.
eastwoodiae
--/--/1B.2 Observed onsite. Known to occur
on serpentine based soils (clays)
and outcrops in the general San
Luis Obispo area with collection
made on Camp San Luis Obispo.
Jones’ layia
Layia jonesii
--/--/1B.2 Observed onsite. Occurs on clay
soils and serpentine outcrops in
chaparral and valley and foothill
grassland.
3.4-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 3.4-2. Special-Status Plants with High Potential to Occur in the Project Site
(Continued)
Species1 Status2 Notes/Occurrence
Most Beautiful Jewel-flower
Streptanthus albidus ssp.
Peramoenus
--/--/1B.2 Observed onsite. A rare
California native annual herb
found in chaparral, valley
grassland, and foothill
woodlands on serpentine soils in
arid climates.
Mouse-gray dudleya
Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina
--/--/1B.3 High potential to occur. Occurs
in chaparral and cismontane
woodland, usually on serpentine
outcrops.
Palmer’s spineflower
Chorizanthe palmeri
--/--/4.2 Observed onsite. Occurs on
serpentine-based soils in
grassland and coastal scrub
habitat in the outer coast ranges
of Monterey, San Luis Obispo,
and Santa Barbara Counties.
San Luis mariposa lily
Calochortus obispoensis
--/--/1B.2 Observed onsite. Occurs on
sandstone, serpentine and/or
sandy soils in chaparral, coastal
scrub and valley and foothill
grassland. Species is endemic to
San Luis Obispo County and is
known from localized
occurrences in the San Luis
Obispo and Arroyo Grande
region.
San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover
Castilleja densiflora ssp.
obispoensis
--/--/1B.2 Observed onsite. Occurs in
meadows, seeps, and valley and
foothill grassland. This species
was observed onsite.
Bold text denotes species observed onsite during biological surveys.
1 Source: Appendix E.
2 Federal Status/State Status/ California Rare Plant Rank
E = Endangered
CRPR 1B = “Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere” by the CNPS
CRPR 2 = “Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California but more common elsewhere”
CRPR 2B = “Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere”
CRPR 3 =“Review List: Plants about which more information is needed”
CRPR 4 = “Plants of Limited Distribution – A Watch List”
0.1 = “Seriously threated in California” (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
0.2 = “Moderately threatened in California” (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of
threat)
0.3 = “Not very threatened in California” (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of
threat or no current threats known)
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-17
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 3.4-3. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Site
Species1 Status2 Notes/ Occurrence
American badger
Taxidea taxus
--/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable
habitat is present in grassland onsite, but
heavy clay soils likely preclude badgers
from being regular residents. Could
potentially occur as a transient across the
site.
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris actia
--/WL/-- Moderate potential to occur. Grasslands
provide suitable foraging and nesting
habitat onsite.
California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
T/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Limited
suitable habitat exists; however, potential
for suitable movement, dispersal, and
foraging habitat in onsite wetlands
increases outside of drought conditions.
Cooper’s hawk
Accipiter cooperii
--/WL/-- High potential to occur. Potentially
suitable nesting habitat is present in
oak/bay woodlands and eucalyptus/
sycamore trees onsite. Could also forage
across the site.
Hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
--/SA/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable
foraging habitat onsite. Potentially
suitable roosting habitat present in oak
woodland especially in close proximity to
confluence of tributary drainages of
Froom Creek.
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
--/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable
woodland, grassland, and scrub habitat
present for foraging and nesting exists
onsite.
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
--/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Potentially
suitable roosting habitat present in
oak/bay woodland. Suitable foraging
habitat in grasslands and coastal scrub
onsite.
San Diego woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
--/SSC/-- High potential to occur. Suitable habitat
present in oak woodlands and coastal
scrub through the southwestern portion of
the site within the Upper Terrace,
adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve. Woodrat nests observed in upper
reaches of the property in coastal scrub
habitat. Could potentially occur in
woodlands.
South-central California coast
steelhead DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss
T/SSC/-- High potential to occur. Suitable habitat
present upstream in Froom Creek.
Potential to occur during heavy rainfall
years when flowing water is present. Not
expected to spawn onsite but would use
Froom Creek onsite as corridor for
movement upstream.
3.4-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 3.4-3. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Site
(Continued)
Species1 Status2 Notes/ Occurrence
Townsend’s western big-eared
bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
--/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable
foraging habitat present throughout the
site. Potential roosting habitat located at
existing buildings.
Tri-colored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
T/SSC/--
(Nesting)
Moderate potential to occur. Could occur
as an uncommon transient. Suitable
nesting habitat in a tule patch was noted
as being not large enough to support
nesting. However, the species could
potentially nest onsite should the tule
patch expand/enlarge.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
T/SA/-- Low potential to occur. The Project site
does not support suitable habitat and is
not hydrologically connected to known
vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat.
Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
--/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable
foraging habitat in grasslands onsite.
Potentially suitable roosting habitat
present in oak woodland and large
eucalyptus and sycamore trees.
Western red bat
Lasiurus blossevilli
--/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Potentially
suitable roosting habitat present in
oak/bay woodlands and foraging habitat
consists of onsite grasslands.
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
--/FP/--
(Nesting)
Moderate potential to occur. Suitable
nesting habitat in oak, bay, eucalyptus
and sycamore trees on-site, with good
quality foraging habitat in grasslands
throughout the site.
Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
--/SA/-- Moderate potential to occur. Potentially
suitable roosting and foraging habitat
onsite. Could roost in larger trees along
riparian corridors, in oak woodlands, and
in eucalyptus trees. Could also potentially
roost in rock crevices on steep serpentine
slopes.
1 Source: Appendix E.
2 Federal Status/State Status/Other Status
SSC = California Species of Special Concern
E = Endangered
T = Threatened
C = Candidate for Listing
FP = Federally Protected
SA = Special Animal
WL = CDFW Watch List
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-19
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In addition to those designated special-status species identified above, Table 3.4-4 provides
a list of species of local concern identified in the City’s General Plan COSE that are known
to occur within the Project site.5
Table 3.4-4. Species of Local Concern Within Vicinity of the Project
Species ID1 Common Name Species Name Status1
Plants
4 Blochman’s dudleya Dudleya blochmaniae ssp.
blochmaniae --/--/1B.1
5 Brewer’s spineflower Chorizanthe breweri --/--/1B.3
7 Chorro Creek bog thistle Cirisium fontinale var. obispoense E/E/1B.2
8 Congdon’s tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii --/--/1B.2
14 Jones’ layia Layia jonesii --/--/1B.2
17 Most Beautiful Jewel-flower Streptanthus albidus ssp. Peramoenus --/--/1B.2
25 San Luis mariposa lily Calochortus obispoensis --/--/1B.2
Invertebrates
40 Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus --/SA/--
Bold text denotes species observed onsite during biological surveys.
1 Refer to City General Plan COSE Figure 2 for corresponding species identification
2 Federal Status/State Status/California Rare Plant Rank
CRPR 1B = “Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere” by the CNPS
0.1 = “Seriously threated in California” (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
0.2 = “Moderately threatened in California” (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of
threat)
0.3 = “Not very threated in California” (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat
or no current threats known)
E = Endangered
SA = Special Animal
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2006.
Provided below is a description of special-status plant and animal species of the most
concern at the Project site, either due to limited availability of habitat, sensitivity to
disturbance, moderate to high potential to occur onsite, and/or their observed presence on
the site.
5 The COSE identifies species of local concern in Figure 2: Species of Local Concern.
3.4-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Special-Status Plant Species
Blochman’s Dudleya. This species is
an endemic coastal sage scrub perennial
herb native to Southern California and
northwestern Baja California that
flowers from mid to late spring. While
Blochman’s dudleya has not been
assigned federal or state status, it is
considered by the CNPS to be seriously
endangered within its distribution across
the state. The species typically occurs on
rocky, often clay or serpentine soils, in
coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal
scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands at an elevation ranging from approximately 15 to
1,350 feet. This species was observed growing on rock outcrops near Drainage 3 in the
Upper Terrace of the Project site (Appendix E).
Chorro Creek Bog Thistle (San Luis
Obispo fountain thistle). This species
is an endemic California perennial herb
that flowers from February to July and
occurs only in San Luis Obispo County.
Chorro Creek bog thistle is designated
as both a state and federal endangered
species and designated as an imperiled
species by CNDDB at the state and
global level. The species typically
occurs in chaparral and cismontane
woodland habitats, often in serpentine
seeps ranging from approximately 105
to 1,100 feet. This species was observed
growing in wetland habitat along the seep-/spring-fed Drainages 1 and 2 in the Upper
Terrace of the Project site (Appendix E).
Blochman’s dudleya, a perennial herb that is
considered seriously endangered by CNPS, was
observed in small patches distributed in rocky
outcrop areas of the Upper Terrace area of the
Project site. (Photo: CalPhotos; photograph by Keir
Morse 2016)
Chorro Creek bog thistle, a perennial herb that is
federally endangered, was observed in wetland
habitat along the seep-/spring-fed Drainages 1 and 2
in the Upper Terrace. (Photo: CDFW, Jeb Bjerke)
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-21
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Congdon’s Tarplant. This species is an
endemic Californian annual herb that
flowers in late spring through fall. While
Congdon’s tarplant does not have federal
or state status, it is considered by the
CNPS to be rare or endangered within its
distribution across the state. The species
typically occurs in moist alkaline
conditions in marshes, swamps, vernal
pools, and valley and foothill grassland
habitats at an elevation ranging from
approximately 1 to 700 feet. A
population of Congdon’s tarplant was
observed growing in the northeast portion of the Specific Plan area, adjacent to the Irish
Hills Plaza (Appendix E).
Special-Status Animals
Special-Status Bird Species
Loggerhead Shrike. The loggerhead shrike is a CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC)
and resident of arid regions of the County as well as elsewhere in California. Although
historically considered a common resident of most of the County, recent studies indicate
populations have declined by as much as 76 percent during the non-breeding season within
the County. Preferred habitats for loggerhead shrike include woodland, chaparral, coastal
scrub, and grassland, with perches such as fences, posts and scattered trees. Suitable habitat
for foraging and nesting is present within the Project site (Appendix E).
California Horned Lark. California horned lark is a CDFW Watch List species known to
occur from Sonoma County to San Diego County, as well as east to the foothills of the
Sierra Nevada Mountains. It breeds in open, flat habitats with short vegetation, including
grasslands, alkali flats, fallow grain fields, and meadows. They are known to make local
movements through the seasons, and may not breed in all areas they are observed. Suitable
habitat for foraging and nesting is present within the Project site, though no nests were
observed (Appendix E).
White-tailed Kite. The White-tailed kite is a California Fully Protected species known to
occur in riparian woodlands and near agricultural fields, and forages over grasslands and
Congdon’s tarplant, an annual herb that is endemic
to California and rare, was observed in the
constructed Home Depot detention basin in the
northeastern part of the site.
3.4-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
scrub habitat. At the Project site, suitable nesting habitat for the White-tailed kite is present
in oak, bay, eucalyptus, and sycamore trees dispersed throughout the site, along with good
quality foraging habitat in grasslands throughout the site. Though the species was not
observed onsite during surveys and no stick nests were identified, White-tailed kite are
known to occur north of the site in Los Osos Valley, and could nest onsite or occur during
foraging activities (Appendix E).
Special-Status Fish Species
South-central California coast Steelhead. South-central California coast steelhead is
listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and is also listed by
CDFW as an SSC. Steelhead depend on quality riparian areas with overhanging vegetation
to provide shade to maintain suitable water temperature, filter pollutants (including fine
sediments), and to provide habitat for their preferred prey (National Marine Fisheries
Service 2007). San Luis Obispo Creek is within the South-central California coast
steelhead’s range and is a known migration corridor and spawning area. As further
discussed above, Froom Creek, including that portion through the Project site, and San
Luis Obispo Creek are mapped as critical habitat for steelhead, and the upper reach of
Froom Creek has a known population of steelhead (potentially land-locked). It is unknown
if steelhead in the upper reaches of Froom Creek make their way through the Project site
and into San Luis Obispo Creek. It is highly likely that during the winter storm season
when high flows are present in the onsite portion of the creek, that steelhead could move
through the site to areas up or downstream with suitable habitat. The onsite reach of Froom
Creek is a dry channel for most of the year with flowing water present only following large
storm events. Water flows recede quickly, and prolonged pools are poorly represented in
the onsite portion of creek. Therefore, no perennial aquatic habitat is present that could
support steelhead within the Project boundaries (Appendix E).
Special-Status Reptile and Amphibian Species
California Red-Legged Frog. The California red-legged frog is listed as threatened under
the ESA and as an SSC by CDFW. The species inhabits creeks and ponds with open water
often overhung with dense growths of woody riparian vegetation, especially willows.
Suitable environments for California red-legged frog may also include areas with seasonal
waters canopied by willows, which is present at the Project site along Calle Joaquin. This
species is known to occur within San Luis Obispo Creek and some of its tributary channels.
It generally requires seasonal pools or streams that hold water until late summer for
successful breeding. Bullfrogs and introduced fish are detrimental to this species and have
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-23
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
severely reduced populations in many areas. As further discussed in Section 3.4.1.4,
Critical Habitat, much of Froom Creek is mapped critical habitat for California red-legged
frog, though the portion of Froom Creek in the Project site does not provide adequate pool
habitat for breeding. However, during the rainy season, transient individuals could move
through Froom Creek intermittently. Froom Creek connects to San Luis Obispo Creek,
immediately downstream across U.S. 101 from the Project site. One adult and one juvenile
California red-legged frog were found in San Luis Obispo Creek 0.1-mile upstream from
this confluence. This occurrence is located about 0.5-mile straight-line distance northwest
of the Project site. As noted above, this species was also documented in the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve – Waddell Ranch Addition within the upper extents of Froom Creek (City
of San Luis Obispo 2018). Flowing water was present within Froom Creek in the winter
and spring of 2017, and other areas of ponded water in onsite features were identified;
however, no California red-legged frog was observed (Appendix E). The Biological
Resources Inventory prepared for the project (KMA 2018; Appendix E) subsequently
identified potential for occurrence of this species at the Project site as low due to regionally
low population levels and marginal suitable habitat onsite.
However, marginal habitat suitability identified by KMA during extensive site surveys
between 2015 and 2016 may be due to the prolonged drought-period in prior years in the
area (KMA 2017; Appendix E). Despite the long culverts and other potential barriers that
may deter movement from documented occurrences in the vicinity, it is feasible for
California red-legged frog to disperse onto the site under favorable conditions (i.e., during
warm rains) given their ability to travel extensively over land as well as through
marginal/seasonally dry riparian corridors. Recent upstream observations of adult and
juvenile frogs along Froom Creek on the City-owned Waddell Property indicate that a
breeding population is present in the vicinity and could expand if conditions are suitable.
Onsite wetlands (Calle Joaquin wetlands, LOVR ditch, 3.2-acre stormwater detention
basin) within or near the Project site have the potential to support California red-legged
frog in dry years (e.g., Drainages 1, 2, and 3) and other aquatic and wetland features onsite
are more suitable in wet years such as 2017. Photos from the Site Assessment for the
California Red-Legged Frog (KMA 2017) indicate that drainages and adjacent vegetation
onsite may provide potential aquatic dispersal and upland refugia habitat, both important
components of California red-legged frog life history. If California red-legged frog are
present within the wetlands offsite, drainage features onsite (e.g., Drainage 1) would likely
be considered potential dispersal habitat by the USFWS. Given these conditions and
3.4-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
considerations, potential for California red-legged frog to occur onsite during non-drought
periods is conservatively considered to be moderate.
Special-Status Mammal Species
Pallid Bat. The pallid bat is a large, long-eared bat that occurs throughout the state from
deserts to moist forests, and is considered an SSC. Pallid bats are primarily a crevice
roosting species that frequently occur in oak woodlands where they roost in tree cavities.
These roosts are generally day or night roosts for one or a few bats. Attics may be used as
roosts and during hot days individuals may emerge from crevices and roost on open rafters.
Communal wintering or maternity colonies are more common in rock crevices and caves.
Suitable roosting habitat is present at the Project site in oak/bay woodlands, and suitable
foraging habitat exists in on-site grasslands and coastal scrub (Appendix E).
Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat. Townsend’s western big-eared bat is a medium-
sized bat with large rabbit-like ears that is an SSC. The Townsend’s western big-eared bat
has been recorded in a variety of habitats in California, and in the County and is found
consistently in the vicinity of creek beds where they use the riparian corridor for foraging.
Typical roost sites are found in caves or buildings with cave-like features. Townsend’s big-
eared bat is a sedentary species and is presumed to spend the winter within 25 miles of its
summer roosts. Suitable foraging habitat for the Townsend’s western big-eared bat is
present throughout the site, and potential roosting habitat occurs at existing ranch buildings
onsite (Appendix E).
3.4.1.6 Additional Common Wildlife Species
Although much of the northern and
eastern half of the Project site supports
disturbed areas and non-native
grassland, areas in the Upper Terrace
proximate to the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve provide important wildlife
foraging value. Upland grasslands,
Froom Creek, and four tributary
drainages provide foraging habitat and
movement corridors for wildlife,
including birds of prey and large
mammals, such as mountain lion (Felix
A female mountain lion and her three cubs (two pictured
above) were caught on trail cameras approximately 1
mile from the Project site within the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-25
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
concolor), coyote (Canis latrans), and bobcat (Lynx rufus). The dense vegetation and
perennial water within the Calle Joaquin wetlands also provide substantial wildlife habitat
value. For example, in January 2018, CDFW staff captured footage of a mountain lion and
its three cubs approximately 1 mile from the Project site, and Wood staff observed coyotes
at the Project site during field observations. A juvenile mountain lion was also observed
on the adjacent Mountainbrook property by City staff and the Project Applicant during a
pre-project site visit.
The City General Plan COSE identifies the Project site as being within a Wildlife Zone and
Wildlife Corridor due to the undeveloped nature of the site, adjacency to the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve, the Froom Creek channel, and quality of upland and lowland habitat.
Wildlife zones and corridors are areas that provide the conditions necessary to allow
wildlife to move safety through urban areas, or across barriers to wildlife movement (City
of San Luis Obispo 2006).6 As noted above, due to their distance from urban disturbance
and proximity to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, the springs and seeps within Upper
Terrace likely provide an important water source for wildlife.
3.4.1.7 Tree Inventory
KMA conducted an inventory of trees within the Project site on February 10 and March 3,
2015. All trees within the site with a diameter at breast height (about 4.5 feet above ground)
of approximately 4 inches or greater were identified, measured, tagged and evaluated.
Willow shrubs, Monterey cypress, blue gum eucalyptus, and coast live oak that were less
than 4 inches in diameter were not tagged, but their general location and canopy were
delineated and are included in the total area of habitat in Table 3.4-1 (see also Figure 3.4-2).
Based on these surveys, a total of 96 mature trees exist at the Project site, with most being
native species such as sycamores, oak, and bay, with the oak and bay trees constituting
more than 75 percent of mature trees onsite (see Table 3.4-5). Non-native trees identified
within the Project site include blue gum eucalyptus and Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle)
trees. None of these trees are considered a Heritage Tree under the City’s Heritage Tree
Program.
6 The City General Plan COSE identifies wildlife corridors and wildlife zones in Figure 3: Wildlife
Corridors.
3.4-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 3.4-5. Inventory of Mature Trees within the Project Site
Common Name Scientific Name Number of Specimens
Native Species
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 41
California bay Umbellularia californica 31
Western sycamore Platanus racemosa 3
Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii 3
Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis 3
Hollyleaf cherry Prunus ilicifolia 1
Non-native Species
Blue gum eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 12
Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 2
Total 96
Note: The KMA Biological Resources Inventory also included delineated canopy area for blue gum eucalyptus,
Monterey cypress, arroyo willow, and coast live oak trees. The approximate area or canopy of these trees is included in
Table 3.4-1.
Source: Appendix E.
3.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Biological resources are governed primarily by federal, state, and local laws that would
apply to the Project. Various development activities proposed under the Project would
require coordination and permits from federal and state agencies.
3.4.2.1 Federal
Endangered Species Act
The ESA of 1973, as amended, establishes measures intended to ensure the protection and
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems on which they
depend. Under the federal ESA, it is unlawful to “take” any species listed as threatened or
endangered. Take is defined as actions intended to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” An activity
is defined as a take even if it is unintentional or accidental. Take provisions under the
federal ESA apply only to listed fish and wildlife species under the jurisdiction of USFWS
and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Consultation with USFWS or NMFS is required if a project
“may affect” or result in take of a listed species.
When a species is listed, USFWS and/or NMFS, in most cases, must officially designate
specific areas as critical habitat for the species. Consultation with USFWS and/or NMFS
is required for projects that include a federal action or federal funding if the project would
modify designated critical habitat.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-27
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) governs the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nest, and requires
harvests to be limited to levels that prevent overuse. Further, the MBTA prohibits the take,
possession, import, export, transport, selling, purchase, barter, or offering for sale,
purchase, or barter, of any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests, except as authorized
under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11).
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 and Section 401
Under Section 404 of the CWA, USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. are those waters that have a connection to
interstate commerce, either directly via a tributary system or indirectly through a nexus
identified in USACE regulations. In nontidal waters, the lateral limit of jurisdiction under
Section 404 extends to the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) of a water body or, where
adjacent wetlands are present, beyond the OHWM to the limit of the wetlands. The OHWM
is defined as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated
by physical characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving,
changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of
litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the
surrounding area” (33 CFR 328.3). In tidal waters, the lateral limit of jurisdiction extends
to the high tidal line (HTL) or, where adjacent wetlands are present, beyond the HTL to
the limit of the wetlands.
Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for a life in
saturated soil conditions.” “Other waters” essentially include any body of water not
otherwise exempted that displays an OHWM and lacking one or more of the three wetland
parameters (i.e., dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland
hydrology).
Under Section 401 of the CWA, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) must
certify all activities requiring a 404 permit. The RWQCB regulates these activities and
issues Section 401 water quality certifications for those activities requiring a 404 permit.
3.4-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4.2.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) parallels the main provisions of the
Federal ESA and is administered by the CDFW. CESA prohibits the take of state-listed
threatened and endangered species. California Fish and Game Code Section 86 defines
“take” to include catch, pursue, or capture, or attempt to catch, pursue, or capture. Under
the CESA, the CDFW is responsible for maintaining a list of rare, threatened, and
endangered species designated under state law (California Fish and Game Code 2070-
2079). The CDFW also maintains lists of candidate species, Species of Special Concern,
and Fully Protected species. Pursuant to the requirements of the CESA, agencies reviewing
proposed projects within their jurisdictions must determine whether any state-listed species
have the potential to occur within a proposed project site and if the proposed project would
have any significant impacts upon such species. Project-related impacts to species on the
CESA’s rare, threatened, and endangered list would be considered significant.
Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; California Fish and Game Code 1900) was
enacted in 1977 and allows the Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as rare or
endangered. There are 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants protected as
rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants, but
includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; emergencies; and after
properly notifying CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites; and
changes in land use. Impacts to state designated rare plant species require a permit from
CDFW.
3.4.2.3 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan contains policies requiring protection of special-
status plant and animal species. While a comprehensive presentation of these local policy
requirements would be prohibitively long, key policies pertaining to biological resources
associated with the Project site are summarized below.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-29
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Land Use Element
Policy LUE 6.6.3: Amenities and Access. New public or private developments adjacent to
the lake, creeks, and wetlands must respect the natural environment and incorporate the
natural features as project amenities, provided doing so does not diminish natural values.
Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy COSE 7.3.1 Protect Listed Species (A-D).
A. The City will identify the location, habitat and buffer needs of species listed for
protection. This information will be developed by qualified people early in the
planning and development review process.
B. The City will establish and maintain records on the location of listed species. The
City will maintain, for public use, generalized maps showing known locations of
listed species. Specific site information may be kept confidential to protect the
resources.
C. The City will comply with State and Federal requirements for listed species.
D. The City will protect listed species through its actions on: land-use designations;
development standards; development applications; location, design, construction
and maintenance of creeks, City roads and facilities; and on land that the City owns
or manages.
Policy COSE 7.3.2 Species of Local Concern. The City will:
A. Maintain healthy populations of native species in the long term, even though they
are not listed for protection under State or Federal laws. These “species of local
concern” are at the limit of their range in San Luis Obispo, or threats to their habitat
are increasing.
B. Identify the location, habitat and buffer needs of species of local concern. This
information will be developed by qualified people early in the planning and
development review process.
C. Protect species of local concern through: its actions on land use designations,
development standards, development applications; the location, design,
construction, and maintenance of City facilities; land that the City owns or
manages.
D. Encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to protect species of local
concern within their areas of responsibility and jurisdiction.
E. Protect sensitive habitat, including creeks, from encroachment by livestock and
human activities.
Policy COSE 7.3.3 Wildlife Habitat and Corridors. Continuous wildlife habitat, including
corridors free of human disruption, shall be preserved and where necessary, created by
3.4-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat, and corridors. To accomplish this, the City
will:
A. Require public and private developments, including public works projects, to
evaluate animal species and their movements within and through development sites
and create habitats and corridors appropriate for wildlife.
B. Plan for connectivity of open spaces and wildlife habitat and corridors using
specific area plans, neighborhood plans, subdivision maps, or other applicable
planning processes, consistent with Open Space Guidelines.
C. Coordinate with San Luis Obispo County and adjoining jurisdictions, federal and
state agencies such as Caltrans to assure regional connectivity of open space and
wildlife corridors.
D. Preserve and expand links between open spaces and creek corridors.
Policy COSE 7.5.1 Protection of Significant Trees. Significant trees, as determined by the
City Council upon the recommendation of the Tree Committee, Planning or Architectural
Review Committee, are those making substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the
urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. Significant trees, particularly native
species, shall be protected. Removal of significant trees shall be subject to the criteria and
mitigation requirements in Chapter 8.6.3. Oak Woodland communities in the Greenbelt
and in open space areas shall be protected.
Policy COSE 7.5.2 Use of Native California Plants in Urban Landscaping. Landscaping
should incorporate native plant species, with selection appropriate for location.
Policy COSE 7.5.4 Preservation of grassland communities and other habitat types.
Grassland communities and other habitat types in the Greenbelt and in designated open
space areas shall be preserved.
Policy COSE 7.5.5 Soil Conservation and Landform modification. Public and private
development projects shall be designed to prevent soil erosion, minimize landform
modifications to avoid habitat disturbance, and conserve and reuse onsite soils.
Policy COSE 7.5.6 Minimize synthetic or organic environmental toxins.
Policy COSE 7.7.7 Preserve Ecotones. Condition or modify development approvals to
ensure that “ecotones,” or natural transitions along the edges of different habitat types, are
preserved and enhanced because of their importance to wildlife. Natural ecotones of
particular concern include those along the margins of riparian corridors, marshlands, vernal
pools, and oak woodlands, where they transition to grasslands and other habitat types.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-31
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Policy COSE 7.7.8 Protect Wildlife Corridors. Condition development permits in
accordance with applicable mitigation measures to ensure that important corridors for
wildlife movement and dispersal are protected. Features of particular importance to
wildlife include riparian corridors, wetlands, lake shorelines, and protected natural areas
with cover and water. Linkages and corridors shall be provided to maintain connections
between habitat areas.
Policy COSE 7.7.9 Creek Setbacks. As further described in the Zoning Regulations
[Section 17.70.030], the City will maintain creek setbacks to include: an appropriate
separation from the physical top of bank, the appropriate floodway as identified in the
Flood Management Policy, native riparian plants or wildlife habitat, and space for paths
called for by any city-adopted plan. In addition, creek setbacks should be consistent with
the following:
A. The following items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback
line: buildings, streets, driveways, parking lots, aboveground utilities, and outdoor
commercial storage or work areas.
B. Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and
protection of floodways and natural features identified in Part A above, whether or
not the setback line has been established.
C. Features which normally would be outside the creek setback may be permitted to
encroach where there is no practical alternative, to allow reasonable development
of a parcel, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element.
D. Existing bridges may be replaced or widened, consistent with policies in this
Element. Removal of any existing bridge or restoration of a channel to more natural
conditions will provide for wildlife corridors, traffic circulation, access, utilities,
and reasonable use of adjacent properties.
Policy COSE 8.3.1: Open Space within an Urban Area. The City will preserve the areas
listed in Goal 8.2.2 (creek corridors, including open channel with natural banks and
vegetation, wetlands and vernal pools, grassland communities and woodlands, wildlife
habitat corridors, habitat of listed species, and unique plant and animal communities
including “species of local concern”) and will encourage individuals, organizations, and
other agencies to do likewise. The City will designate these areas as Open Space or
Agriculture in the General Plan.
Policy COSE 8.3.2: Open Space Buffers. When activities close to open space resources
within or outside the urban area could harm them, the City will require buffers between the
activities and the resources. The City will actively encourage individuals, organizations,
and other agencies to follow this policy. Buffers associated with new development shall be
3.4-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
on the site of the development, rather than on neighboring land containing the open space
resource. Buffers provide distance in the form of setbacks, within which certain features or
activities are not allowed or conditionally allowed. Buffers shall also use techniques such
as planting and wildlife-compatible fencing. Buffers shall be adequate for the most
sensitive species in the protected area, as determined by a qualified professional, and shall
complement the protected area’s habitat values. Buffers shall be required in the following
situations [four of the five noted here, see COSE Policy 8.3.2 for A]:
B. Between urban development and agricultural operations, to address dust, noise,
odors, chemical use, and access by people and pets.
C. Between agricultural operations and natural habitat, to address noise, chemical use,
sediment transport, and livestock access.
D. Between new development and cultural resources, to address visual compatibility
and access by people.
E. Between new development and scenic resources or the greenbelt, to address view
blockage, lighting and noise, and visual transition from urban character to rural
character.
F. Between urban development -- including parks and public facilities-- and natural
habitats such as creeks, wetlands, hillsides, and ridgelines, Morros, scenic rock
outcrops and other significant geological features, and grassland communities, to
address noise, lighting, storm runoff, spread of invasive, non-native species, and
access by people and pets (see also the Safety Element for “defensible space” next
to wildland fire areas).
Policy COSE 8.7.2 C: Enhance and Restore Open Space. Remove invasive, non-native
species in natural habitat areas, and prevent the introduction or spread of invasive, non-
native species and pathogens.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Chapter 12.24 Tree Regulations (Ordinance No. 1544). The City regards trees as essential
to the community’s well-being and adopted Ordinance No. 1544 for the purpose of
establishing and maintaining a comprehensive program for planting, maintaining, and
preserving trees within the City. Under Chapter 12.24, developers are required to submit
tree removal permits to the City for review when proposing to engage in activities that may
result in the harm, removal, or disfigurement of any trees.
City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance
17.70.030 Creek Setbacks. As stated in the zoning regulations, creek setbacks apply to all
creeks as defined in the COSE, as shown on that element’s Creek map (Figure 9), and only
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-33
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
to those creeks. Creek setbacks shall be measured from the existing top of bank (or the
future top of bank resulting from a creek alteration reflected in a plan approved by the
City), or from the outside edge of the predominant riparian vegetation, whichever is farther
from the creek flow line. The zoning regulations specify different setback dimensions for
different classes of covered waterways such as whether the creek was zoning regulations
for a 35-foot setback from the top of the bank or outside edge of riparian vegetation; within
the 1996 City limits or in areas annexed after 1996. Under Section 17.70.030, Froom Creek
is designated for a 35-foot setback; however, 17.70.030.E.3 provides that the City may
require larger setbacks for discretionary projects in order to avoid potentially significant
environmental impacts.
3.4.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.4.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
With respect to biological resources, applicable sections of Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines state that a project would normally have a significant impact on the environment
if its implementation would result in:
a) A substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;
b) A substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
CDFW or USFWS;
c) A substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means;
d) Substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or,
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
Non-Applicable Threshold(s)
• Threshold (f) (Conflict with an adopted conservation plan): The Project site is not
located within the management area of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
3.4-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plans.
3.4.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
The information on existing biological resources presented in this section is based
primarily on Applicant-prepared studies spanning the period from 2015 to 2019, which
were peer reviewed by the City’s EIR consultant. Botanical and biological surveys were
conducted for the Project site in 2015, and updated and verified through additional field
surveys conducted in spring and early summer of 2019 by KMA. The habitat, vegetation,
rare plant, and animal surveys conducted in 2015 – supplemented with the additional rare
plant surveys conducted in 2019 – serve as the environmental baseline / existing site
conditions, as well as the basis for analysis of Project impacts against existing biological
resources onsite, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1). Baseline
conditions include approximately 2.0 acres of wetland within the 3.2-acre Irish Hills Plaza
stormwater detention basin. This included approximately 0.6 acres of predominately native
wetland species (e.g., cattails and rushes) within the forebay, and an additional 1.4 acres of
potential hydric soils and similar native wetland species mixed with non-native species
within the main basin.7
In addition to the surveys conducted by KMA for the Project, Wood’s team performed
general site reconnaissance five times between 2017 and 2019 to document site conditions.
Wood planners, biologists, and botanists conducted an additional one-day reconnaissance-
level site visit in January 2018 to document existing conditions and peer review the
Applicant-prepared studies. Wood’s team photo-documented conditions throughout the
site, including the Upper Terrace and the Froom Creek channel. This information was used
to review and confirm the locations and extent of creek, riparian, wetland, and upland
habitats and extent and location of sensitive species.
Impacts are analyzed by evaluating the Project’s effects on candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species, vegetative communities, individual occurrences of plant and wildlife
species, habitat linkages, and wildlife corridors. The analysis of potential impacts to
biological resources is based on a review of information contained in the City of San Luis
Obispo’s General Plan and Creek and Waterways Management Program, the CNDDB,
7 As discussed in Section 3.4.1.3, Vegetation and Habitat Types/Communities, this basin is subject to a
maintenance agreement which requires clearing of vegetation to maintain capacity. Based on review of
aerial photographs, the basin appears to have been maintained at least twice since being constructed 13
years ago, with wetland vegetation re-growing after such maintenance events and potentially enduring for
multiple years between past maintenance events.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-35
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
information from the USFWS, and several technical studies prepared by the Applicant team
for the Project (Appendix E). These include:
• Biological Resources Inventory prepared by KMA in January 2016 and revised
November 2018;
• Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment prepared by KMA in November 2017;
• Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii) prepared by
KMA in December 2017; and
• 2019 Rare Plant Update and Wetland Impact Analysis Memorandum prepared by
KMA in July 2019.
To quantify the Project’s potential area of effect on specific biological resources, ArcGIS
data were prepared by KMA and utilized by Wood staff to calculate the proposed Project’s
potential impacts on mapped habitat (see Figure 3.4-1) and sensitive biological site
constraints (see Figure 3.4-2). The Project would result in the direct development of 39.1
acres of multi-family residential and senior living units, 3.1 acres of commercial, 5.6 acres
of roadways and paved surfaces, 2.9 acres of parks and public facilities, disturbance of 11.5
acres associated with realignment of Froom Creek, and disturbance of 7.1 acres associated
with development of the stormwater detention basin (i.e., total disturbance of
approximately 59.3 percent of the Project site). Approximately 9.91 acres of this
development would be associated with the development of the Upper Terrace of Villaggio
(approximately 24 percent of the total area of the Upper Terrace). Given this extent of
development and disturbance, Project development has the potential to impact a range of
sensitive resources, particularly within the Upper Terrace area where biological resources
are rich and diverse. Construction impacts are assessed based on the Project’s preliminary
VTM and the draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Appendix C), including rough grading
estimates; location and area of disturbance associated with realignment of Froom Creek,
roadways, and bridges; and location and size of utility and drainage infrastructure.
Construction impacts are assessed based on the likely presence of heavy construction
equipment, vehicles, and construction crews operating in close proximity to or within
sensitive habitats. Operational impacts are based on the proposed extent of development,
vehicle traffic, noise, landscape maintenance, fire protection, light and glare, and human
presence within proximity to existing biological resources. This analysis assesses the
potential for increased activity and increased impervious surfaces near Froom Creek to
result in impacts to biological resources.
3.4-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts to biological resources could result from development of the site,
including grading, fill import, realignment of Froom Creek, and vegetation/habitat
removal, as well as operational generation of new light and noise, and increased human
activity. Permanent and temporary impacts to biological resources in the Project site are
analyzed and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce those impacts are identified and
summarized in Table 3.4-6.
Table 3.4-6. Summary of Project Impacts
Biological Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
BIO-1. Project implementation
would impact sensitive riparian,
wetland, and native grassland
habitats identified as sensitive
natural communities under state
and City policy.
MM HAZ-2
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2
MM BIO-3
MM BIO-4
MM BIO-5
MM BIO-6
MM BIO-7
MM BIO-8
Significant and Unavoidable
BIO-2. Project 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 HAZ-2
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-9
MM BIO-10
MM BIO-11
MM BIO-12
Significant and Unavoidable
BIO-3. Project 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
MM BIO-7
MM BIO-8
Significant and Unavoidable
BIO-4. Project 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-13
MM BIO-14
Significant and Unavoidable
BIO-5. Project construction
would result in the potential
disturbance, trimming, or
removal of up to 75 mature trees.
MM BIO-15 Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-37
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1 Project implementation would impact sensitive riparian, wetland,
and native grassland habitats identified as sensitive natural
communities under state and City policy (Significant and
Unavoidable).
Project construction would create substantial direct and indirect impacts to onsite
biological resources from construction disturbance, particularly sensitive resources located
within the Upper Terrace, in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve bordering the site, and wetlands
in the Irish Hills stormwater detention basin, LOVR ditch, and Calle Joaquin wetlands. A
total of 8.37 acres of sensitive natural communities would be directly impacted within the
Project site, including the loss of 4.74 acres of serpentine bunchgrass grasslands, 1.13 acres
of wetlands, and 0.5 acre of Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub. Project construction over a 5-
year period could also expose onsite and adjacent habitats to sustained disturbance and
indirect impacts from vegetation clearing, construction staging and storage, dust
generation, erosion and sedimentation, risk of spills of fuel or motor oils, and increased
human presence in currently natural areas. Indirect impacts would affect onsite and
adjacent habitats, such as those within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve along the boundary
of the Project site.
Table 3.4-7. Impacts to Sensitive Habitat Types Located within the Project Site
Habitat Type
(Corresponding Sensitive
Natural Community)
Existing Portion
of Project Site
(acres)
Direct Impact
(acres)
Indirect Impact
(acres)1
Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland
(Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance) 13.46 4.74
11.0 / 3.9
Coastal Scrub/Chaparral
(--) 9.26 0
Wetland
(Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh) 8.27 2.5
Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub
(Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian
Scrub)
4.82 1.13
Total 35.81 8.37 14.9
1 Onsite indirect impacts / offsite indirect impact.
Project construction would eliminate and potentially contaminate water sources and food
supplies and available forage areas in sensitive habitats. Prolonged construction activities
and exposure of large areas of disturbed soils and artificial slopes proximate to both the
existing and proposed realigned Froom Creek corridor could result in erosion and sediment
flows into the creek and downstream habitats during grading and site preparation activities
extending over multiple phases and several years. Potential for large volumes of sediment
3.4-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
input could compromise riparian and wetland habitat in Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo
Creek downstream, as well as the Calle Joaquin wetlands. Changes to the creek flow and
hydrology with potential for release of contaminants into riparian and wetland habitats
could directly affect plants and animals by reducing the quality of existing habitat and
causing mortality of individuals, both of which constitute an adverse impact to the affected
species (see Impact BIO-2). Damage to or direct removal of sensitive vegetative
communities as a result of the proposed disturbance and development is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Once operational, the Project would require maintenance and clearance of vegetation to
maintain permanent wildfire buffers both onsite and offsite (e.g., within the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve) (For additional information see Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous
Materials, and Wildfire.) The exact location, width, and area of these buffers will be subject
to coordination, review, and approval of the City Natural Resources Manager, San Luis
Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD), CALFIRE, and the Applicant based on project
development plans. This coordination has the potential to result in a reduced size of or need
for a wildfire buffer and fuel management zone around the proposed development.
However, for the purposes of this analysis, wildfire buffers are conservatively estimated to
require a minimum width of 100 feet of defensible space from planned structures.8 Wildfire
buffers are anticipated to extend into the Irish Hills Natural Reserve along approximately
1,000 feet of the perimeter of Madonna Froom Ranch, as well as 700 feet of Villaggio’s
Lower Area (see Figure 3.7-2). Although the precise location and width of buffers are not
known, assuming fire clearance of a maximum of up to 100 feet within Irish Hills Natural
Reserve, approximately 3.9 acres of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland habitats
within the Reserve may be indirectly impacted.
Clearance of a wildfire buffer area within internal open space on the Project site would also
indirectly result in the permanent loss or modification of up to 11.0 acres of existing
vegetation onsite through vegetation clearance. Wildfire buffer clearance would impact
annual non-native grasslands and serpentine bunchgrass grasslands, coastal live oak/
California bay woodlands, coastal scrub/chaparral, and riparian habitats in the Upper
Terrace. The western boundary of the Lower Area would likely also require additional
vegetation maintenance and clearance. Planned development would also closely border
8 Recent major wildfires in California and observed changes in the severity of fires and their behavior are
causing some agencies to adjust fire management strategies, including some changes in buffer
requirements. Final fire buffer width and maintenance vegetation clearance and maintenance requirements
would be determined by SLOFD.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-39
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Drainages 1, 2, and 3, which may also be subject to vegetation clearance and management
requirements resulting in impacts to wetland vegetation, including the endangered Chorro
Creek bog thistle. Therefore, wildfire buffer clearance requirements would result in
potential indirect impacts to biological resources both on and off the Project site, including
potentially rare and sensitive habitats, such as serpentine bunchgrass grasslands. See
Impact HAZ-1 in Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire, for additional
discussion of fire clearance requirements. Damage to or direct removal of sensitive
vegetative communities as a result of fire management activities (e.g., vegetation clearing
for fire clearance) is considered a potentially significant impact.
Sensitive Upland Habitat
Project construction would result in the direct, permanent loss of up to 4.74 acres of native
serpentine bunchgrass grassland habitat, which corresponds to the Nassella pulchra
Herbaceous Alliance, a designated sensitive natural community considered biologically
important by CDFW. Once operational, maintenance of wildfire buffers could result in up
to an additional 14.9 acres of disturbance of habitats on and offsite, including serpentine
rock outcroppings and native serpentine bunchgrass grassland habitat (refer also to Impact
HAZ-1; see Figure 3.7-2). Fire clearance requirements could also impact coastal scrub and
coast live oak/ California bay woodlands, which may support special-status species (see
Impact BIO-2 below). Habitat near or adjacent to the Project development area may also
be subject to gradual degradation over time through increased human activity such as
landscape maintenance practices, herbicide use, polluted runoff, trampling, introduction of
non-native species, or other activities of new residents and long-term operation of the
developed and landscaped portions of the site. Damage to or direct removal of these
vegetation communities as a result of the proposed grading and development or operation
of the Project would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Sensitive Riparian Habitat
Project construction would result in permanent direct loss of 1.13 acres of Arroyo Willow
Riparian Scrub through realignment of Froom Creek and construction of the proposed
stormwater detention basin on the Mountainbrook Church property, as well as relocation
or realignment of the existing LOVR ditch, widening of LOVR, and construction of a new
Project entrance road and culvert. Direct removal of Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian
Scrub, a designated sensitive natural community, would be considered a potentially
significant impact.
3.4-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In addition to these direct impacts, the Project includes realignment and restoration of
Froom Creek which may mitigate some of these losses of riparian habitat. If successful,
and as shown in the Applicant’s proposed restoration plan, the Project would result in the
creation of riparian habitat through the relocation and restoration of Froom Creek.
However, given the existing Froom Creek habitats and channel characteristics, which are
a combination of dry cobble and sandy gravelly wash with no riparian vegetation within
the Specific Plan area, successful establishment of a riparian woodland and, more
importantly, its long-term survival may be challenging. As discussed in Section 3.8,
Hydrology and Water Quality, the resiliency of such restored riparian habitat during major
flood flows is uncertain, though potential for bank erosion is anticipated to be limited
downstream of the proposed bend in the realigned creek channel. Along approximately
1,000 feet of the realigned Froom Creek from the Project site’s western boundary and
through the major bend in the creek, there appears to be the potential for higher velocity
flood flows (5 to 9 feet per second) to scour planted riparian vegetation from the creek
bank leading to potential for repeated damage or removal of such vegetation over the 75 or
more years life of the Project. In the period shortly following construction of the realigned
Froom Creek channel and before riparian vegetation can become fully established, or
following a severe flood event that would remove vegetation from the creek bank, flow
velocities within the creek would become much greater (8 to 12 feet per second) (Appendix
H). This potential would be particularly high during flood events and debris flows that may
follow a fire in the upper Froom Creek watershed.9 While such scouring is a natural process
along creek corridors, given the engineered nature of this realigned creek habitat, it is
uncertain that native riparian habitat would naturally re-establish, potentially requiring
repeated restoration efforts and maintenance over the long term. The Project would directly
affect riparian habitat, and proposed restoration in the realigned Froom Creek channel is
not certain to fully offset this loss. Therefore, this impact would be considered potentially
significant.
Sensitive Wetland Habitat
Project development would impact a range of wetland habitats onsite, including both
sensitive natural communities and constructed wetlands. Direct adverse impacts could
9 Fire return frequencies are uncertain. However, there are no records of fires having occurred within the
Irish Hills in recent history. While wildfire return frequencies are not easily predictable, it is likely that the
Froom Creek watershed will burn at least once or twice during a presumed 75-100 years Project horizon. If
such a burn is followed by heavy rains, substantially increased flows, debris, and sediment can be
anticipated from this watershed, with associated potential for increases in scouring and sedimentation until
watershed vegetation recovers.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-41
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
affect up to 0.5-acre of wetland habitat, 0.2-acre of which corresponds to the Coastal and
Valley Freshwater Marsh sensitive natural community, through construction of the
realigned Froom Creek and LOVR road shoulder improvements. In addition, construction
of the Upper Terrace may result in the direct disturbance or incidental fill of Drainages 1,
2, and 3 to allow for movement of construction equipment and material around the site.
Such activities have potential to result in additional sedimentation or pollution of adjacent
or downstream drainages and wetland habitats also associated with the Coastal and Valley
Freshwater Marsh sensitive natural community. During construction of private roadways
associated with the proposed development, four headwall/culvert road crossings of
approximately 30 feet in width would be constructed over Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and would
potentially lead to direct loss of habitat and impacts to adjacent and/or downstream wetland
and stream habitat. The proposed Project would also eliminate up to 2 acres of wetlands
in the existing 3.2-acre Irish Hills stormwater detention basin. This would include
approximately 0.6 acres of largely native wetland species (e.g., cattails and rushes) within
the forebay, and an additional 1.4 acres of wet soils and similar mixed native wetland
species mixed with and non-native species within the main basin. The loss of these
sensitive wetland habitats would be substantial, and the Applicant’s preliminary plans do
not account for restoration of this habitat.
Based on preliminary designs, the Project would include installation of at least three utility
lines underlying the realigned Froom Creek and existing Calle Joaquin wetlands to connect
with existing infrastructure along LOVR (see Figure 2-13 and Figure 2-14). It is unknown
at this time how of these lines would be installed through trenching or directional drilling.
As such, it is conservatively assumed that construction of utility lines across Froom Creek
and onsite wetlands would require some degree of surface disturbance and result in adverse
effects to these habitats. Installation of these utilities may also result in adverse effects to
water quality and designated critical instream habitat downstream from potential
introduction of sediment runoff, siltation, and accidental spillage of fuel and lubricants.
The Calle Joaquin wetlands are currently fed by high groundwater, an artesian well, and
surface water inflows primarily from the LOVR ditch and the 3.2-acre Irish Hills Plaza
stormwater detention basin. These wetlands are not typically hydrologically connected to
surface waters from Froom Creek, but may receive some flows when flood flows overtop
the existing Froom Creek channel; the frequency of such an event is estimated to occur
during a 10-year flood event. Project implementation would expose the Calle Joaquin
wetlands to substantial changes in hydrology and drainage. The Project would configure
the LOVR ditch to flow to the realigned Froom Creek rather than to the Calle Joaquin
3.4-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
wetlands, removing a regular source of inflow to the wetlands. However, as described
above, upward groundwater inflow is the primary hydrologic influence supporting these
wetlands. Though stormwater is a source of water supporting these wetlands, the presence
of groundwater inflows within the area indicates the Calle Joaquin wetland area is likely
to persist with relocation of the stormwater basin and installation of the LOVR ditch, even
during dryer periods. Given the dominant source of water for these wetlands is and would
remain groundwater inflow, alterations in the hydrologic connections and source water for
the Calle Joaquin wetlands is not anticipated to significantly affect the health of these
wetlands (Appendix E).
Within the Upper Terrace, proposed development would be closely situated along both
sides of Drainage 2 for over 475 feet, with setbacks of new buildings from this wetland of
as little as approximately 10 feet based on preliminary site plans. Such development could
create potential direct and indirect impacts to this wetland habitat through damage caused
by heavy equipment operations and polluted runoff during construction, fire clearance
requirements, landscape management, changes in surface and subsurface drainage and
hydrology over the long-term, and increased disturbance through activity of new residents.
Development in the Upper Terrace would also closely border Drainage 1 for almost 250
feet with setbacks of as little as approximately 18 feet. Several units in Lower Villaggio
would also be constructed adjacent to Drainages 2 and 3, with similar potential for impacts
to sensitive wetland habitat, potentially affecting the health, extent, or quality of these
wetlands. For these reasons, impacts to sensitive wetland habitat are considered potentially
significant.
In addition, as discussed in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic, the Project would be
required to implement MM TRANS-9, which would require widening of LOVR fronting
the Project site between Irish Hills Plaza and Calle Joaquin and developing a curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and protected bike lane. The design of the proposed improvements would result
in an estimated 19,300 sf of additional pavement area extending into the Project site,
resulting in an estimated 18,425 sf of disturbance to the wetlands and riparian habitat
located within the existing LOVR ditch and Calle Joaquin wetlands. Based on the total area
of disturbance associated with widening of LOVR to accommodate this improvement, the
secondary impact to sensitive riparian and wetland habitat is estimated to be up to 25,000
sf (0.57 acre). Refer also to Impact TRANS-2 for discussion of secondary impacts
associated with these required improvements.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-43
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Proposed Policy 3.2.7 of the Specific Plan is intended to address such impacts to sensitive
natural communities and habitats and requires that impacts be avoided or minimized,
including through the creation of twice the area of habitat lost (2:1 ratio), of equal quality
and similar kind, within the Specific Plan Area or adjacent open space. However, several
of the habitats impacted would be difficult or infeasible to restore or replace. First, native
bunchgrass grasslands and the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance are challenging to
successfully restore or replace with habitat of equal quality. For example, while it is
possible to plant plugs of Stipa pulchra, successful restoration of the full complement of
grassland herbaceous species, particularly in the unique serpentine grasslands, may not be
feasible.10 In addition, replacing the unusual seep-fed wetlands present along impacted
segments of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 in the Upper Terrace would be challenging. These
wetlands would be directly impacted through culvert-headwall installation and
sedimentation from grading and development as well as new buildings sited as little a 10-
20 feet from these wetlands, and the ability to reestablish and maintain rare plant species
present within these areas is unknown. Lastly, ensuring the long-term maintenance of the
restored From Creek riparian habitat must be considered speculative and as such, cannot
be considered as feasible long-term mitigation due to potential for scour and denudation
within the Froom Creek corridor.
In addition to these impacts, there are four additional ways in which Project-related
drainage improvements (i.e., Froom Creek realignment) may affect the Calle Joaquin
wetlands. These impacts are associated with substantial changes in the hydrologic
connection between Froom Creek and the Calle Joaquin wetlands:
1) Change in frequency and quantity of waters entering the Calle Joaquin wetlands
and potential changes to wetland habitat.
The proposed creek realignment would substantially increase the hydrologic interaction
between the Calle Joaquin wetlands and Froom Creek, effectively making this wetland part
of the active stream system. The changes in the hydrologic balance of this wetland may
have consequences to the character, function, and species composition of these wetlands.
The design of the realigned Froom Creek and low-flow channel would allow for flows
greater than a 2-year event to overtop a low-flow channel and flow into the Calle Joaquin
wetlands. Flood flows reaching the Calle Joaquin wetlands would become substantially
10 In consultation with Wood biologists and other local restoration ecologists, the difficulty of fully
restoring a functioning native grassland with a full complete set of species has been noted; success of
restoration of such grasslands with a full complement of species that currently occur can therefore not be
assured.
3.4-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
more frequent, occurring during storms larger than a 2-year storm event. Under existing
conditions, based on initial cross sections of the creek channel and banks, Froom Creek
overtopping currently occurs along upper segments of the creek bank when flows are in
excess of 10-year to 25-year storm conditions, depending on location. Under the Project,
due to the topography and the design of the realigned creek channel, the Calle Joaquin
wetlands would be inundated with stormwater flows and serve as a wide channel for the
realigned Froom Creek. During large rainfall events, up to 11 acre-feet of stormwater
would flow into the wetlands, filling to a depth of 3 to 4 feet, submerging the wetlands
more frequently and for longer duration than under existing conditions. Further, stormwater
collected in the Calle Joaquin wetlands would primarily evaporate, since high groundwater
would cause low rates of percolation and the Project does not include drain pipes to allow
the detained water to flow downstream or on to other areas. As such, the Calle Joaquin
wetlands would hold standing water for extended periods and the wetlands may become
submerged more frequently and for prolonged periods of time following storm events. This
change in frequency and duration of potential inundation of these wetlands has an
unpredictable potential to affect the character and species composition of the wetlands (and
associated use by wildlife), potentially affecting their qualifying characteristics as Coastal
and Valley Freshwater Marsh and a sensitive natural community. Therefore, the impacts
of these changes in the hydrology of the Calle Joaquin wetlands are considered potentially
significant.
2) Potential for migration of the Froom Creek corridor through the wetlands.
Based on the Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations and Preliminary
Sediment Transportation Analysis and Calculations prepared by RRM (Appendix J) for the
proposed Froom Creek channel realignment, water flowing through the low-flow channel
would move at a rate that would not cause erosion (less than 1 foot per second). Under
normal conditions, erosive flow velocity and sediment transport would not be present
through the low-flow channel due to the low anticipated flow rate. The Project does not
include any bank stabilization measures for the proposed low-flow berm separating the
realigned Froom Creek from the Calle Joaquin wetlands that would ensure it retains its
proposed location and function over the life of the Project. During large flood events with
higher-velocity flows, over time the low-flow berm may erode, and Froom Creek may
migrate into and form a braided channel within the Calle Joaquin wetland due to more
frequent bank overtopping and flooding and lower elevations within the wetland area (refer
to Appendix E). Migration of the creek channel or establishment of a braided channel
within the wetlands would alter and potentially reduce wetland habitat and potentially alter
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-45
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
the mix of wetland vegetation that contributes to the Calle Joaquin wetlands designation as
a sensitive natural community. Therefore, impacts are considered potentially significant.
3) Increases in sedimentation of the wetlands under typical storm conditions.
Realignment of Froom Creek and design of the low-flow channel would increase potential
sedimentation of the Calle Joaquin wetlands over time. The existing Froom Creek overtops
and flows to the Calle Joaquin wetlands infrequently from upper reaches onsite during 10-
to 25-year storm events. Under most storm conditions, the existing Froom Creek channel
conveys all stormwater offsite and does not flow to the Calle Joaquin wetlands. Under
proposed conditions, the Froom Creek corridor would directly abut the Calle Joaquin
wetlands and a low-flow channel creek bank would allow for substantially more frequent
direct flow of water from smaller storm events (anything greater than a 2-year storm event)
into the wetlands. Because large-scale (i.e., 50- to 100-year) floods carry the highest
sediment volume and already overtop existing creek banks, deposition of sediment within
the Calle Joaquin wetlands during smaller overflow events would be incremental. In
addition, most sediment within the main realigned Froom Creek channel is expected to
drop out (settle) higher up the creek channel, before reaching the Calle Joaquin wetlands.
While the potential increased sediment transport from the realigned Froom Creek into the
Calle Joaquin wetlands have some potential for increased long-term accumulation of
sediments in the Calle Joaquin wetlands, typical sediment volumes carried by more
frequent small storms tend to be low, and higher sediment loads are typically carried by
larger 50- to 100-year storm events. In addition, and as discussed above, increased
frequency and duration of inundation related to stormwater storage would tend to offset
incremental increases in sedimentation and its possible effects on the character and species
composition of these wetlands. It remains feasible that sediment carried by more frequent
storms that would now regularly overtop the banks of the realigned Froom Creek would
accumulate and alter the Calle Joaquin wetlands over the life of the Project. Therefore,
impacts are considered potentially significant.
4) Effects from severe storm and post-fire flood conditions from realignment of the
Froom Creek corridor.
Large storm events, particularly those occurring shortly after wildfires have potential to
result in substantial sediment loading of creeks and downstream areas. As discussed in
Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire, there are no records of wildland
fires having occurred within the immediate Project vicinity, which may indicate a high
degree of fuel loading and increased risk of wildfire, particularly within the Irish Hills
3.4-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Natural Reserve (County of San Luis Obispo Fire Department 2018). Depending on
weather conditions, habitat types, and fire management policies, the Irish Hills and
surrounding area have a very high risk of wildland fire and the majority of the area is
identified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CALFIRE. Major storms,
particularly those that occur in post-fire conditions, have the potential for mass sediment
loading within the realigned Froom Creek and into the Calle Joaquin wetlands with
potential to affect the Calle Joaquin wetlands. However, in high intensity post-fire flood
conditions, conveyance of sediment and denuded soil to the Calle Joaquin wetlands has
potential to occur regardless of the Project. Implementation of the Project would not
exacerbate these conditions; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-2 shall apply.
MM BIO-1 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and operational related
avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measures for impacts to sensitive
natural communities. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall
include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize impacts
to biological resources, and implementation of on and offsite habitat
replacement as follows:
1) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the
following construction-related measures and BMPs:
a) Construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored at least 100
feet away from existing and proposed drainage features and
adjacent riparian habitat, and all construction vehicle maintenance
shall be performed in a designated offsite vehicle storage and
maintenance area approved by the City.
b) Prior to commencement of construction, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4
and all associated springs, seeps, and wetlands shall be protected
with construction fencing located a minimum of 25 feet from the
edge of the stream channel or top of bank and signed to prohibit
entry of construction equipment and personnel unless authorized by
the City. Fencing shall be maintained throughout the construction
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-47
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
period for each phase of development. Fencing and signage shall be
removed following completion of construction.
c) During any construction activities within 50 feet of the existing
Froom Creek channel, realigned Froom Creek channel, LOVR
ditch, Drainages 1, 2, 3, or 4, or other existing or proposed
drainage features, a City-approved biological monitor shall be
present and have the authority to stop or redirect work as needed to
protect biological resources.
d) All construction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building
materials) shall be stored at designated construction staging areas,
which shall be located outside of designated sensitive areas. Should
spills occur, materials and/or contaminants shall be cleaned
immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the
RWQCB.
e) All trash and construction debris shall be properly disposed at the
end of each day and dumpsters shall be covered either with locking
lids or with plastic sheeting at the end of each workday and during
storm events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand
weather conditions.
f) The Applicant shall implement measures designed to minimize
construction-related erosion and retain sediment on the Project site,
including installation of silt fencing, straw waddles, or other
acceptable construction erosion control devices. Such measures
shall be installed along the perimeter of disturbed areas and along
the top of the bank of the existing and proposed Froom Creek
channel and other existing or proposed drainage features and 25
feet from the edge of Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4. All drainage shall be
directed to sediment basins designed to retain all sediment onsite.
g) Concrete truck and tool washout shall occur in a designated
location such that no runoff will reach the creek, onsite drainages,
or other sensitive areas.
h) All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps
to allow species that fall into a trench to escape. All open trenches
3.4-48 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
shall be inspected at the beginning of each work day to ensure that
no wildlife species is present. Any sensitive wildlife species found
during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the Project
site by a qualified biologist or otherwise trained and City-approved
personnel. Trenches will remain open for the shortest period
necessary to complete required work.
i) Existing disturbed areas shall be used for construction staging and
storage to the maximum extent possible to minimize disturbance of
undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging
areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and minimize
habitat fragmentation.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. The
plan shall incorporate any additional measures or requirements identified
by state and federal agencies, including but not limited to CDFW, RWQCB,
NMFS, and USFWS. The Applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation
Plan that identifies and incorporates all required measures identified in MM
BIO-2 through MM BIO-12 below. The plan shall specify all mitigation site
locations, timing of surveys and activities, species composition, habitat
compensation, species avoidance measures, and other required information,
including identification of appropriate onsite construction staging locations.
The plan shall demonstrate compliance with all required measures and any
required permits shall be obtained from state and federal regulatory
agencies prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. A 7-year site
mitigation monitoring plan shall also be prepared by the City-approved
biologist and incorporated into the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM,
with annual reports submitted to the City Natural Resources Manager and
Community Development Department.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation
measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance with
requirements of the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-49
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
frequent monitoring and inspection, and receipt of quarterly monitoring
reports provided by the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator required
per MM BIO-2. The Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also
ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration activities
through routine monitoring, inspection, and reporting of restoration
activities.
MM BIO-2 The Applicant shall retain a qualified Environmental Coordinator/qualified
biologist, subject to review and approval by the City to oversee compliance
with the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all construction activities,
conduct a biological resources education program for all construction
workers prior to the initiation of any clearing or construction activities, and
provide quarterly reports to the City regarding construction activities,
enforcement issues, and remedial measures. The Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator shall be responsible for conducting inspections
of the work area each work day to ensure that excavation areas and
sensitive or restored habitats do not exhibit construction-related impacts or
hazards to wildlife. If any exposure risk is identified, the Environmental
Coordinator shall implement measures that could include, but not be
limited to, hazing, fencing, and wildlife removals to eliminate the exposure
risk.
In addition, the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall monitor and
regulate all construction occurring within 50 feet of the existing and
proposed Froom Creek channel, other existing or proposed drainage
features, riparian habitat, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4, and seasonal or
permanent wetlands. During appropriate flowering, nesting, breeding,
migration, and dispersal seasons, the Environmental Coordinator shall
also conduct sensitive species surveys immediately prior to construction
activities and shall monitor construction activities in the vicinity of habitats
to be avoided.
The work area boundaries and other off-limit areas shall be identified by
the biologist and/or Environmental Coordinator on a daily basis. The
biologist and/or Environmental Coordinator shall inspect construction and
sediment control fencing each work day during construction activities. Any
3.4-50 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
vegetation clearing activities shall be monitored by the biologist and/or
Environmental Coordinator.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The City shall approve the Applicant’s
qualified Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist prior to issuance of
grading and building permits for each phase of construction. The
Environmental Coordinator shall be present onsite to monitor construction
activities pursuant to the approved Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan.
Monitoring. The Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all grading and
construction activities occurring within the vicinity of sensitive habitats or
known location of sensitive species, shall conduct regular site inspections
throughout the entire site, and shall be responsible for compliance of the
construction activities and the above BMPs within MM BIO-1 and MM
BIO-3 through MM BIO-8. During construction, the Environmental
Coordinator shall submit quarterly monitoring reports to the City to ensure
compliance with the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and
applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The Environmental
Coordinator/qualified biologist shall be onsite during all construction
activities which take place within 50 feet of sensitive creek, wetland, and
riparian habitat areas.
MM BIO-3 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include a Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) with details on timing and
implementation of required habitat restoration, enhancement, or creation
measures. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP shall
be prepared under the direction of, and approved by, the City’s Natural
Resources Manager in conjunction with regulatory agencies with
permitting authority over the Project. The HMMP shall contain, at a
minimum, the following components (or as otherwise modified by
regulatory agency permitting conditions):
a) Pre-construction surveys and delineation of vegetation
communities, habitat, and wetland features, including clear maps
and a summary of onsite habitats to be protected and acreage,
design, and locations of required habitat mitigation sites.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-51
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
b) A description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site
and description of existing site conditions.
c) A description of measures to be undertaken to enhance the
mitigation site for the target species and to protect sensitive
resources.
d) Record necessary replacement of disturbed, altered, and/or lost
area of habitat.
e) A binding long-term agreement with the Applicant to implement and
maintain protected and restored sensitive habitats, including native
bunch grassland, wetlands, springs, seeps, tributary drainages, and
other sensitive or restored native habitats. These measures shall
identify typical performance and success criteria deemed
acceptable by the City and CDFW based on measurable goals and
objectives. Said criteria for restored habitats shall be, at a
minimum, at least 70-percent survival of container plants and 70-
percent relative cover by vegetation type.
f) A description of habitat and species restoration and monitoring
measures, including specific and objective performance criteria,
monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, and
monitoring schedule. (At a minimum, success criteria shall be at
least 70-percent survival of container plants and 70-percent relative
cover by vegetation type and will include a replacement ratio of 2:1
and determination by a City-approved biologist that the mitigation
site provides ecological functions and values for the focal species
equal to or exceeding the impacted habitat.)
g) Plan requirements that ensure mitigation elements that do not meet
performance or final success criteria within 5 years are completed
through an extension of the plan for an additional 2 years or at the
discretion of the City Natural Resources Manager with the goal of
completing all mitigation requirements prior to the HMMP end
date.
h) Monitoring of the mitigation and maintenance areas shall occur for
the period established in the HMMP, or until success criteria are
3.4-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
met; an endowment may be required in some cases as determined
by the City. If success criteria cannot be met through the HMMP,
the City Natural Resources Manager shall specify appropriate
commensurate measures (e.g., onsite or offsite restoration,
endowment, or bond to the City for completion of necessary
mitigation).
i) A binding long-term agreement with the Villaggio Life Plan
Community to fund and retain a qualified biologist to train all
landscaping crew staff hired over the life of the development on
sensitive plant species and habitat within the vicinity of the
development, including the identification and avoidance of sensitive
plants and habitat. The qualified biologist shall conduct annual
monitoring of vegetation surrounding the development and prepare
a report summarizing the avoidance or disturbance of sensitive
resources from operational activities of the Villaggio development,
and identifying necessary replacement or restoration of affected
resources. Necessary mitigation shall be subject to the same
standards for performance, monitoring, and success identified in
subitems b through h, above. The report shall be submitted to the
City annually for review and approval.
j) A plan for fencing and/or signage around the Upper Terrace of the
Villaggio development, prohibiting residents, guests, and employees
from accessing and disturbing the surrounding sensitive resources.
k) Requirements for payment of annual fees to the City to fund City
review and inspection of the site and Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and HMMP requirements.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-53
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
through frequent monitoring and inspection. The Environmental
Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during habitat compensation
and/or restoration activities through routine monitoring and inspection of
restoration activities.
MM BIO-4 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require avoidance of
sensitive natural communities outside approved development footprints
such as the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance, Central Coast Arroyo
Willow Scrub Community, Coastal and Central Valley Freshwater Marsh,
and wetland areas to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation for impacted
sensitive natural communities that cannot be avoided shall be achieved
through one or more of the following options, subject to City approval:
a) Onsite restoration, enhancement, or creation of suitable
replacement habitat, if feasible onsite restoration opportunities
exist and at ratios consistent with those identified in MM BIO-5;
b) Offsite restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted
species at the minimum replacement ratio of 2:1 for sensitive
natural communities, native grasslands, and riparian habitat;
c) Financial contribution to an in-lieu fee program that results in
restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted natural
communities and/or species; and/or
d) Purchase of mitigation credits at a USFWS- and/or CDFW-
approved mitigation bank.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to be submitted to
the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the BMMP and HMMP to
ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures have been
included. The Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall ensure
compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration activities
through routine monitoring, inspection, and reporting of restoration
3.4-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
activities pursuant to the approved Biological Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan and HMMP. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements for
the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP through receipt
and review of monitoring reports, and site inspections.
MM BIO-5 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require all temporary
and permanent impacts to wetlands, grasslands, and riparian habitat be
mitigated, as follows:
a) Temporary wetland, native grassland, and riparian habitat impacts
shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (area of
restored habitat to impacted habitat).
b) Permanent impacts to sensitive natural communities, native
grasslands, and riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio
(area of restored and enhanced habitat to impacted habitat).
c) Permanent direct impacts to wetlands shall be mitigated at a
minimum 3:1 ratio unless otherwise directed by state and federal
agencies, including but not limited to the CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS,
and USFWS.
d) Potential indirect impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetlands affected by
the Froom Creek realignment and changes to site hydrology shall
be mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio and require mitigation of at
least 10.24 acres. For the purpose of this mitigation, the area of the
Calle Joaquin wetlands potentially affected by the Project include
those wetlands northwest of Calle Joaquin within the Specific Plan
area and southeast of the proposed Froom Creek low-flow channel.
e) Habitat revegetation or creation shall occur in the fall or winter no
more than 1 year following habitat disturbance. Revegetation shall
be monitored monthly for 7 years with a goal of at least 70-percent
survival of container plants and 70-percent relative cover by
vegetation type at the end of the 7-year period. Irrigation shall be
provided during this period or until otherwise determined necessary
by the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-55
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
f) Riparian vegetation along Froom Creek shall be maintained in
perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City by the Applicant or a City-
approved designee. Froom Creek conditions shall be monitored
annually following winter storm seasons to assess damage to
riparian vegetation and need for maintenance restoration.
Monitoring and maintenance of riparian vegetation conditions shall
be conducted consistent with the requirements of the Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan outlined in MM BIO-3.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The Environmental Coordinator
shall ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities through routine monitoring, inspection, and reporting of
restoration activities. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements
for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through receipt of
monitoring reports and site inspections.
MM BIO-6 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall detail timing and
implementation of required habitat restoration and shall be submitted to the
City’s Natural Resources Manager for review and approval, including
requirements for consultation with CDFW, NMFS, and USACE as needed.
A copy of the final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. The plan shall be implemented by the Project Applicant, under
supervision by the City and the Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator,
and shall:
a) Describe replacement of sensitive natural community habitats
removed, lost, or adversely impacted by the Project, including a list
of the soil, plants, and other materials that will be necessary for
successful habitat restoration/ replacement, and a description of
planting methods, location, spacing, erosion protection, and
irrigation measures that will be needed. Restoration and habitat
3.4-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
enhancement shall be limited to use of appropriate native species.
Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be designed to
facilitate establishment of appropriate native plants such as
willows, cottonwoods, bunchgrass, and rushes.
b) Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be established
within the Project boundaries, adjacent to and contiguous with
existing habitats to the maximum extent possible.
c) Habitat restoration or enhancement sites shall be placed within
existing or additional necessary deed-restricted area(s) and shall be
maintained and monitored for a minimum of 7 years. If sufficient
onsite mitigation area is not practicable, an offsite mitigation plan
shall be prepared as part of the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and approved by permitting agencies.
d) The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall identify
appropriate restoration and enhancement activities to compensate
for impacts to creek, wetland, native bunch grass and riparian
habitat, including a detailed planting plan and maintenance plans
using locally obtained native species, and shall include habitat
enhancement to support native wildlife and plant species.
e) A weed management plan and weed identification list shall be
included in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
f) Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be maintained
weekly for the first three years after Project completion and
quarterly thereafter. Maintenance shall include replacement of
unsuccessful planted specimens and eradication of noxious weeds
found on California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA)
Lists A and B. Noxious weeds on CDFA List C may be eradicated or
otherwise managed.
g) Quarterly and annual reports documenting site inspections and site
recovery status shall be prepared and sent to the City and
appropriate agencies.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-57
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to be submitted to
the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The Environmental Coordinator
shall ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration
activities. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP through receipt of
monitoring reports and site inspections.
MM BIO-7 All utility lines proposed to be installed across the realigned Froom Creek
from LOVR to the Project site shall be installed via horizontal directional
drilling (HDD) to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats. Prior to installation
of utility lines, a site-specific geotechnical investigation and frac-out clean-
up plan shall be completed in areas proposed for HDD. The geotechnical
investigation shall provide recommendations for avoidance of frac-outs
and/or other HDD related impacts and to determine appropriate HDD
methods (i.e., appropriate drilling mud mixtures for specific types of
sediments). The investigation shall include results from at least three
borings, a geologic cross-section, a discussion of drilling conditions, and
frac-out clean-up plan. The frac-out clean-up plan shall identify methods
for minimizing potential for frac-outs and addressing any necessary clean-
up or remediation in case of a frac-out. The boring operation would be
stopped immediately if a frac-out occurs and steps would be taken to
contain and minimize the effects of any spill of drilling mud. The Applicant
shall comply with all recommendations of the geotechnical investigation.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Geotechnical investigations shall be
conducted, and a report of findings submitted to the City for approval. The
findings shall be incorporated into the final Utilities Plan prior to issuance
of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review the findings of the geotechnical
investigations and final Utilities Plan and confirm compliance through
review of grading and improvement plans.
3.4-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-8 The Applicant shall submit a Froom Creek restoration plan that identifies
measures for securing the proposed low-flow channel berm along the
stretch of Froom Creek proposed adjacent to the Calle Joaquin wetlands to
protect the bank from erosion and prevent migration of the Froom Creek
channel into these wetlands. Measures for securing the bank may include a
mix of natural and biotechnical measures capable of prevention erosion
based on the anticipated erosive velocity of the creek under 100-year storm
conditions.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit a Froom
Creek restoration plan for review and approval by the City, which
incorporates these requirements in addition to all requirements identified by
state and federal resource agencies. The proposed bank stabilization
measures shall be depicted on final plans prior to issuance of grading
permits and recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review the final plans, and shall inspect the
Project site during construction to confirm installation of proposed
stabilization measures.
Residual Impacts
Implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-8 would reduce impacts to sensitive
vegetation communities and bring the Project into partial compliance with relevant goals
and policies of the City General Plan COSE, including COSE Policy 7.5.4, Preservation
of Grassland Communities and Other Habitat Types. Implementation of these measures
would reduce potential impacts to sensitive riparian and wetland habitats within the Lower
Area (e.g., LOVR ditch and Calle Joaquin wetlands) to less than significant with
mitigation. However, with respect to wetlands in the Upper Terrace, replacing the unusual
seep-fed wetlands present along impacted segments of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 would be
challenging. Due to the lack of detailed plans and setbacks for these minor drainages at this
stage in the process, these wetlands could be directly impacted through culvert-headwall
installation and sedimentation from grading and development, and the ability to reestablish
and maintain rare plant species present within these areas is unknown. Because the Project
would directly and indirectly affect sensitive wetlands which support rare plant species and
for which successful restoration and mitigation is not known to be possible, impacts would
be significant and unavoidable.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-59
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Further, for impacts to sensitive upland habitats, implementation of these mitigation
measures would result in only partial compliance with COSE Policies 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.5.4,
and 8.3.1 because the Project would not completely avoid disturbance of natural and open
space areas designated under the Project due to mandatory fire clearance requirements.
Further, MM HAZ-2 would require preparation of a Community Fire Protection Plan and
use of a City-qualified biologist to identify and preserve the integrity of vegetation and
habitat surrounding proposed development to the maximum extent feasible, also reducing
impacts. However, the proximity of new development, particularly within the Upper
Terrace would limit the effectiveness of any proposed measures for mitigating impacts to
sensitive upland habitats, particularly the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance. It is
reasonable to assume that the limited setbacks between proposed development and known
sensitive biological resources would not be sufficient to avoid ongoing indirect impacts
associated with continued potential for disturbance from human activities and fire
management requirements. Therefore, impacts to sensitive upland habitats are
conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.
The Project would also result in the direct loss of serpentine bunchgrass grasslands
corresponding to the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance through Project development
or through removal of vegetation as a result of implementation of defensible space
requirements. The difficulty in successfully establishing or even restoring a serpentine
bunchgrass grassland community is well documented. As such, successful compensatory
replacement and restoration of the Nassella Pulchra Herbaceous Alliance of equal or
greater quality than that which exists onsite is considered unlikely, resulting in the inability
to successfully mitigate associated impacts. Therefore, impacts to these sensitive natural
communities from Project implementation would be significant and unavoidable.
Impact BIO-2 Project implementation would have substantial direct and indirect
adverse impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species that
are known to occur or have the potential to occur on the Project site
(Significant and Unavoidable).
Potentially suitable habitat exists within the Project site for several designated special-
status species, particularly in serpentine outcrops, Froom Creek, and seeps, springs, and
drainages within the Upper Terrace, as well as within the adjacent Irish Hills Natural
Reserve (Table 3.4-2 and Table 3.4-3). The Upper Terrace supports a rich assemblage of
sensitive habitats and 12 documented occurrences of special-status plant species, most in
close proximity to or within the planned Villaggio development/disturbance footprint.
3.4-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Disturbance, alteration, or removal of these habitats would result in the loss or damage
(take) of sensitive wildlife and plant species. Ground disturbance may result in the direct
take of special-status plant and animal species that may reside, forage, or rest within the
Project site. Additionally, as more mobile wildlife species (e.g., avian species) would be
forced to move into adjacent areas in the vicinity (e.g., Irish Hills), competition would
increase for available resources in those areas. This could result in the loss of additional
wildlife species outside of the Project site, including sensitive species that may not be able
to survive with increased competition.
Further, habitat for sensitive species adjacent to the Project site within the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve could be exposed to construction-related noise, which could result in the
disruption of foraging, nesting, and reproductive activities. Indirect impacts to sensitive
bird and bat species due to construction-related noise, light, and human presence may occur
throughout the duration of construction activities (i.e., approximately 5 years), resulting in
abandoned nests or breeding colonies. Potential indirect impacts to wildlife utilizing nearby
habitats could also result from loss of access to water from the spring seep-fed wetlands,
increases in human activity, the increased threat of road-kill by vehicle and machinery
traffic both on- and offsite due to emigration of wildlife to nearby habitat, deposition of
trash and debris, potential exposure to pollutants and hazardous materials (refer to Impact
HYD-1), and increased soil erosion that may contaminate aquatic environments onsite and
downstream. Movement of sensitive wildlife through the site would also be temporarily
and permanently impeded by development of the Project (refer to Impact BIO-4).
Special-Status Plants
The Upper Terrace supports 14 special-status plant species that have been observed onsite
and has the potential to support several other species by the time the Project is under
construction given its location at the base of the Irish Hills. These species occur within the
native serpentine bunchgrass grassland habitat, on serpentine rock outcrops, and within
coastal sage scrub and wetland habitats, all of which are within or in close proximity to
proposed development footprints. Proposed development in the Upper Terrace would
directly displace existing and potential habitat for three known species and would further
indirectly impact special-status plants over the long-term as discussed below.
Chorro Creek Bog Thistle. The Project design attempts to precisely site roads and
structures a minimum of 50 feet from mapped locations of sensitive plants, but proposes
development in very close proximity to known occurrences of sensitive plants and habitat
areas that contain features that would support them. Development of facilities and
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-61
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
infrastructure in the Upper Terrace under the FRSP has been planned in an attempt to avoid
known occurrences of Chorro Creek bog thistle located along Drainage 2. However, project
grading and construction can have impacts outside of planned building footprints given the
specific hydrologic conditions that support this species, and plant communities are mobile,
expanding and contracting their distribution in response to changing weather and site
conditions. Based on the presence of habitat potentially suitable to support this species, the
Project may result in impacts to the Chorro Creek bog thistle due to direct removal or loss
of individual specimens during construction of four (4) culvert headwalls across Drainages
1, 2, and 3 or indirectly through site preparation (e.g., grading) and development of new
structures, landscaping and paved surfaces in the Upper Terrace. Development within the
Upper Terrace would be sited in very close proximity to known mapped populations of
Chorro Creek bog thistle, with setbacks of new buildings, roads and driveways as little as
10 feet from seeps, springs, and drainages that are capable of supporting this species, and
that provide the habitat conditions (hydrology) that support known occurrences.
Operation of the Project also has potential to result in adverse impacts to the Chorro Creek
bog thistle or its habitat through increased human activity such as landscape maintenance,
herbicide use, polluted runoff, trampling, or clearing of vegetation and maintenance of
required wildfire buffer in this area. For instance, known populations of Chorro Creek bog
thistle along Drainage 2 occur entirely within the potential anticipated 100-foot wildfire
vegetation maintenance area. Consequently, establishment and maintenance of this
required setback would likely result in the harm to or loss of individual specimens or loss
of entire populations over the life of the Project.
As such, it is reasonable to assume that Project implementation would potentially result in
take of Chorro Creek bog thistle either through direct loss or through habitat disturbance.
Therefore, impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
Blochman’s Dudleya. The Blochman’s dudleya is known to occur on rocky serpentine
outcrops, chaparral, coastal scrub, and grasslands, all of which exist primarily within the
Upper Terrace portion of the Project site. Development of the Upper Terrace could
potentially eliminate known populations of this plant species or suitable habitat during
construction. Further, after occupancy, increased human activity such as landscape
maintenance, herbicide use, polluted runoff, trampling, or maintenance of required wildfire
buffers would result in removal of additional individuals and suitable habitat. Attempting
to site multiple large new buildings and supporting infrastructure within and immediately
adjacent to known populations of this species would lead to both direct and indirect impacts
3.4-62 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
over the long term. Therefore, potential impacts to this species would be potentially
significant.
Congdon’s Tarplant. This species was identified within the northeastern portion of the
Project site, adjacent to the Irish Hills Plaza during fieldwork conducted to establish the
environmental baseline. Construction of the Madonna Froom Ranch development would
result in the direct removal of individuals and loss of suitable habitat in this area. Impacts
are considered potentially significant.
Other Special-Status Plant Species. As noted above, a total of 12 special-status plant
species are known to occur within the Project site, primarily within the Upper Terrace
within habitats such as rocky serpentine outcrops and native serpentine bunchgrass
grassland. Given the rich habitat area and direct connections to the Irish Hills, additional
species such as the mouse-gray dudleya have a moderate to high potential to occur (see
Table 3.4-2 and Appendix E). The Project would have potential to result in the direct
removal of individuals or the loss of suitable habitat for these species. Further loss of
individuals and suitable habitat on- and offsite would occur as a result of vegetation
clearance and maintenance of the required wildfire buffer areas. Given the quality of
habitat present onsite and the high potential for species to occur within the area of proposed
development, impacts are considered potentially significant.
Special-Status Animals (Species of Special Concern, Special Animal, Watch List)
American Badger. Direct impacts to this species may occur due to loss or interruption of
migratory corridors and loss of potential foraging habitat. Construction within the Project
site may also result in harassment or injury if badgers are foraging within the Project area
during implementation. Impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
Cooper’s Hawk. Direct impacts to this avian species may occur due to direct loss of nesting
habitat through loss of coast like oak/California bay woodland and removal or disturbance
of trees that may contain active nests. Construction within the Project site may also result
in indirect impacts should this species be present in or near areas of disturbance at the time
of construction. Operation of the Project may also result in indirect impacts from
disturbance of nesting individuals as a result of increased human activity adjacent to
suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Impacts to this species are considered potentially
significant.
White-tailed Kite. Direct impacts to this species may occur due to direct loss of high-quality
foraging habitat and removal or disturbance of trees that may contain active nests within
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-63
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
riparian areas. Construction within the Project site may also result in indirect impacts
should this species be present in or near areas of disturbance at the time of construction.
Operation of the Project may also result in indirect impacts from disturbance of nesting
individuals as a result of increased human activity adjacent to suitable nesting and foraging
habitat. Impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
California Horned Lark. Potential direct impacts to California horned lark within the
Project site include loss of nesting habitat and harassment or injury if they are found nesting
within the Project area during implementation. Operation of the Project may also result in
indirect impacts from disturbance of nesting individuals as a result of increased human
activity adjacent to grasslands in the elevated slopes of the Project site. Impacts to this
species are considered potentially significant.
Hoary Bat. Potential direct impacts to hoary bats within the Project site include removal of
roosting habitat in the Upper Terrace and harassment or injury if they are foraging within
the Project area during implementation. Increased human activity from operation of the
Project in the vicinity of suitable roosting sites may also indirectly affect this species.
Impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
Loggerhead Shrike. Direct impacts to this species may occur, primarily in the Upper
Terrace, due to removal of high-quality grasslands, trees, and shrubs that may contain
active nests. Construction within the Project site may result in indirect impacts should this
species be present in the vicinity of areas of disturbance at the time of construction.
Operation of the Project may also result in indirect impacts from disturbance of nesting
individuals as a result of increased human activity adjacent to suitable nesting and foraging
habitat. Impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
Pallid Bat. Potential direct impacts to pallid bats within the Project site include removal of
roosting habitat and harassment or injury if they are foraging within the Project area during
implementation. Increased human activity from operation of the Project in the vicinity of
suitable roosting and foraging sites may also indirectly affect this species. Impacts to this
species are considered potentially significant.
San Diego Woodrat. The proposed Project would not result in development of areas of
suitable habitat or known nesting areas located in the southwestern portions of the site
within the Upper Terrace, adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Therefore, the Project
would have no impact on this species.
3.4-64 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Townsend’s Big-eared Bat. Potential direct impacts to Townsend’s big-eared bats within
the Project site include removal of roosting habitat and harassment or injury if they are
foraging within the Project area during implementation. Increased human activity from
operation of the Project in the vicinity of suitable roosting sites may also indirectly affect
this species. Impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
Tri-colored Blackbird. Potential direct impacts to tri-colored blackbirds within the Project
site include disturbance or removal of foraging habitat, particularly during realignment of
Froom Creek, and harassment or injury if they are foraging within the Project area during
implementation. Direct impacts may also occur should suitable nesting habitat expand
beyond the extent initially observed by KMA in 2015 by the time of initiating construction
activities. Operation of the Project may also result in indirect impacts from disturbance of
nesting individuals as a result of increased human activity adjacent to suitable nesting
habitat. Impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
Western Mastiff Bat. Potential direct impacts to western mastiff bats within the Project site
include removal of roosting habitat and harassment or injury if they are foraging within the
Project area during implementation. Increased human activity from operation of the Project
in the vicinity of suitable roosting and foraging sites may also indirectly affect this species.
Impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
Western Red Bat. Potential direct impacts to western red bats within the Project site include
removal of roosting habitat and harassment or injury if they are foraging within the Project
area during implementation. Increased human activity from operation of the Project in the
vicinity of suitable roosting and foraging sites may also indirectly affect this species.
Impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
Yuma Myotis. Potential direct impacts to Yuma myotis within the Project site include
removal of roosting habitat and harassment or injury if they are foraging within the Project
area during implementation. Increased human activity from operation of the Project in the
vicinity of suitable roosting and foraging sites may also indirectly affect this species.
Impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
Special-Status Animals (Protected and Federally/State-Listed Species)
California Red-legged Frog. Project development would entail significant direct and/or
indirect changes to the riparian, drainage, and wetland features within the Project site.
Froom Creek would be relocated to a lower elevation on the site and the existing channel
would be filled and developed. The wetlands on site would also be subject to changes in
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-65
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
hydrology with the relocation of Froom Creek, and may receive additional sedimentation
and nutrient loading from runoff during construction and operation. While the California
red-legged frog is not known to occur on the Project site, potentially suitable habitat is
present and would be subject to Project-related impacts. Potential for impacts to California
red-legged frog would increase during normal to wet water years when more suitable
habitat is likely to be present within the Project site, and frogs would be more likely to be
present. Direct impacts to this species would result from the realignment of Froom Creek
and loss of associated riparian habitat, as well as impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetlands and
the LOVR ditch. Grading and construction – and resulting sedimentation and siltation of
onsite creeks and drainages, wetlands, and downstream water bodies – would also
adversely affect individuals and habitat for this federally threatened species. While this
species has not been observed onsite, the presence of suitable habitat indicates that
individuals may exist onsite now and in the future that may be harmed during Project
implementation. However, over the long-term, the proposed Froom Creek channel would
be designed with pools and connected channels that could support California red-legged
frog habitat, potentially resulting in replacement of existing onsite habitat. Nevertheless,
implementation of the Project would continue to have the potential to directly affect
individual specimens. Impacts to this species are considered potentially significant.
South-central California Coast Steelhead. Due to physical barriers to movement and lack
of suitable migration corridors in the existing Froom Creek, steelhead are not anticipated
to occur onsite except possibly during years of high rainfall when flowing water is present.
Site development would likely result in short-term, temporary erosion, sedimentation, and
siltation onsite, having the potential to adversely affect water quality downstream (e.g., in
San Luis Obispo ). As discussed in Impact HYD-1, compliance with existing regulations
(e.g., City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Program, Storm
Water Management Plan, the SWRCB’s Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-
DWQ, and the City’s Storm Water Quality Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 12.08])
would reduce or avoid impacts to downstream water quality during Project construction.
The proposed Froom Creek channel would be designed with pools and connected channels
that could support steelhead migration and spawning. An identified goal of the proposed
realignment of Froom Creek is to improve migration and access for steelhead between the
upper reaches of Froom Creek, where land-locked populations are known to exist, and the
lower reaches within the Project site. Construction could create short-term impacts to
steelhead if it occurred during the rainy season, where the Froom Creek channel would be
disturbed and reconstructed in its proposed alignment. Installing all components of the
3.4-66 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
realigned creek channel prior to grading and removing the current channel would ensure
continuous migration access for steelhead. Therefore, impacts from short-term
construction activity would remain less than significant with mitigation.
In addition, the long-term resiliency of the proposed migration and access features within
the realigned Froom Creek is uncertain, as analyzed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality. During storms, fast-moving waters in upper reaches of the creek within the
Specific Plan area may mobilize boulders within the stream channel or cause bank erosion
and sedimentation, altering or eliminating the proposed system of pools over time. Pools
may fill with sediment or cobble over time, a naturally occurring process, and the long-
term success of this proposed habitat modification remains unclear given the location of
this reach of Froom Creek, its existing physical characteristics (i.e., dry wash), and the
long-term dynamics of flood flows. However, regardless of these potential issues, the
overall changes to the stream channel through addition of pools, boulders, and revegetation
would improve habitat conditions for steelhead when compared with existing conditions.
Therefore, with implementation of the proposed Project – and specifically the realignment
of Froom Creek within the Project site – existing steelhead habitat would not be eliminated
or damaged, and has the potential to be improved. Therefore, long-term impacts would be
less than significant and potentially beneficial.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-2 shall apply.
MM BIO-1 shall apply.
MM BIO-9 Construction and grading of the realigned portion of Froom Creek,
including planting of riparian vegetation, watering, and bank stabilization,
shall be conducted prior to removal of the existing creek segment to ensure
a habitat for special-status species within the creek is maintained through
the Project site with no interruption during construction. Project phasing
shall be adjusted as needed to accommodate this sequence of construction
activities.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall demonstrate phasing
and creek restoration within the final VTM, and the Biological Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan. The Applicant shall submit the plan to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-67
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Monitoring. The City shall review the Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan, and final VTM for compliance. The Applicant’s
Environmental Coordinator shall monitor creek realignment activities to
ensure compliance with this mitigation measure.
MM BIO-10 Chorro Creek Bog Thistle Management. Prior to issuance of grading and
building permits, the Applicant shall submit or fund a site survey for Chorro
Creek bog thistle, and:
1. All individual locations of Chorro Creek bog thistle shall be mapped
using GPS coordinates. No construction activities or disturbance shall
occur within 50 feet of mapped Chorro Creek bog thistle. This setback
shall be delineated and maintained with construction fencing and clear
signage for the duration of grading and construction. If the site survey
results identify Chorro Creek bog thistle that may be disturbed or lost
from Project construction, the Project shall be redesigned to ensure a
minimum 50 foot buffer from mapped Chorro Creek bog thistle
occurrences.
2. Development adjacent to Drainages 1, 2, and 3 shall be set back a
minimum of 50 feet from the top of the bank of these drainages and the
edge of delineated associated wetlands.
3. Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and associated wetlands shall be fenced a
minimum of 50 feet from the top of the bank or edge of delineated
wetland. The Applicant shall ensure and demonstrate to the City
through frequent reporting requirements approved by the City that these
areas are managed and maintained in perpetuity to maintain wetland
and Chorro Creek bog thistle habitat values.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance
with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
3.4-68 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance
during habitat compensation and/or restoration activities.
MM BIO-11 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address special-status
wildlife species management. Grading and construction activities shall
avoid the rainy season (typically October 15 to April 15) to the extent
practicable, particularly within 50 feet of the existing and proposed Froom
Creek channel, and other existing or proposed drainage features, riparian
or wetland habitat, and any suitable nesting sites as determined by the City-
approved biologist. Injury, mortality to, or significant disturbance of onsite
sensitive species, including the California red-legged frog, south-central
California coast steelhead, and white-tailed kite, shall be avoided. The plan
shall include the following measures: pre-construction surveys; worker
awareness; cessation of work in occupied areas if individuals are identified;
relocation (if necessary) of frogs and steelhead from the work area by a
professional biologist authorized by the USFWS and/or CDFW; and
monitoring of construction activities within the vicinity of sensitive habitats
by a qualified biologist during construction, consistent with MM BIO-2.
Necessary permits shall be obtained from the state (CDFW) and federal
(USACE and USFWS) regulatory agencies with jurisdiction and/or
permitting authority over a portion of the Project. Any other sensitive
species observed during the pre-construction surveys shall be relocated by
the qualified biologist into the nearest suitable habitat outside the
disturbance area as determined in consultation with the appropriate
jurisdictional resource agency.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on the
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of
the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate
mitigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance
with requirements in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The
Applicant’s Environmental Coordinator shall also ensure compliance
during habitat compensation and/or restoration activities.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-69
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-12 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address the movement
of special-status species, as follows:
1. Migratory and Nesting Bird Management. Grading and construction
activities shall avoid the breeding season (typically from February 15
to August 15) to the extent practicable, particularly within 50 feet of
riparian or wetland habitat and mature trees. If Project activities must
be conducted during this period and within the vicinity of riparian or
wetland habitat and/or mature trees, pre-construction nesting bird
surveys shall take place no more than one week prior to habitat
disturbance associated with each phase; if active nests are located
during these surveys, the following measures shall be implemented:
a. Construction activities within 50 feet of active nests shall be
restricted until chicks have fledged, unless the nest belongs to a
raptor, in which case a 500-foot activity restriction buffer shall be
observed.
b. Construction shall be limited to daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00
PM or sunset, whichever is sooner).
c. A pre-construction survey report shall be submitted to the City
immediately upon completion of the survey. The report shall detail
appropriate fencing or flagging of the buffer zone and make
recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map of
the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the report.
If any sensitive species are observed during pre-construction
surveys, the Project biologist shall coordinate with appropriate
resource agencies to determine appropriate procedure for handling
or avoidance of the specimen.
d. The Project biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the
authority to reduce or increase the recommended buffer depending
upon site conditions and the species involved. A report of findings
and recommendations for bird protection shall be submitted to the
City prior to vegetation removal. If sensitive species are observed
during pre-construction surveys, the Project biologist shall
3.4-70 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
coordinate with appropriate resource agencies to determine
appropriate procedures for handling or avoidance of the specimen.
2. Bat Colony Management. Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches
diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) or demolition/relocation of existing
onsite structures, a survey shall be conducted by a City and CDFW-
approved biologist to determine if any tree or structure proposed for
removal, trimming, demolition, or relocation harbors sensitive bat
species or maternal bat colonies. Maternal bat colonies shall not be
disturbed, and grading and construction activities shall avoid the bat
breeding season to the extent feasible. If disturbance of structures must
occur during the bat breeding season, buildings must be inspected and
deemed clear of bat colonies/roosts within 7 days of demolition and an
appropriately trained and approved biologist must conduct a daily site-
clearance during demolition. If bats are roosting in a structure or tree
in the Project site during the daytime but are not part of an active
maternity colony, then exclusion measures shall be utilized and must
include one-way valves that allow bats to leave but are designed so that
the bats may not re-enter the structure. For each occupied roost
removed, one bat box shall be installed in similar habitat as determined
by the Project biologist and shall have similar cavities or crevices to
those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions,
height above ground, and thermal conditions. If a bat colony would be
eliminated from the Project site, appropriate alternate bat habitat shall
be installed within the Project site. To the extent practicable, alternate
bat house installation shall occur near onsite drainages.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall include a management plan for migrating and nesting
birds and bat colonies and shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City prior to issuance of grading and construction permits and
recordation of the final VTM. Construction shall be conducted between
August 16 and February 14 unless pre-construction surveys are completed.
Reports summarizing pre-construction species surveys (i.e., nesting, bat
surveys, etc.) shall be submitted to the City within 10 days of survey
completion. Construction work shall not commence until after the
completion of surveys and City review of corresponding reports. Any
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-71
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
required permits shall be obtained from appropriate state and federal
agencies prior to issuance of grading and construction permits and
recordation of the final VTM.
Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that appropriate requirements
have been included to address potential impacts to bird and bat species. The
City shall ensure compliance with requirements for the Biological
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The Applicant’s Environmental
Coordinator shall also ensure compliance during habitat compensation
and/or restoration activities.
Residual Impacts
Implementation of the Project would result in development of land within and adjacent to
populations of at least 14 known sensitive plant species. Mitigation requirements, including
pre-construction surveys and relocation of animal species, would minimize potential
impacts to the maximum extent feasible, but based on the Project’s footprint relative to the
locations of known occurrences and the extent of biological habitats capable of supporting
special status species, reasonable and feasible mitigation measures would not ensure that
all damage to these resources would be avoided or reduced to less than significant during
Project construction and long-term operation. MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-9 through MM
BIO-12 would reduce impacts to listed, candidate, or special-status wildlife species and
partially assure compliance with COSE Policies 7.3.1, Protect Listed Species, and 7.3.2,
Species of Local Concern due to continued loss of protected species and species of local
concern which are observed onsite, including, but not limited to: Chorro Creek bog thistle,
Blochman’s dudleya, Congdon’s tarplant, San Luis mariposa lily, and Brewer’s
spineflower. Implementation of MM HAZ-2 requiring preparation of a Community Fire
Protection Plan and use of a City-qualified biologist and Applicant’s Environmental
Coordinator to identify and preserve the integrity of vegetation and habitat, as well as the
maximum feasible avoidance of designated special-status species, would also reduce
impacts. Consistency with existing regulations pertaining to water quality would ensure
impacts to south-central California coast steelhead and aquatic habitat downstream of the
Project site resulting from potential discharge of pollutants or increased erosion and
sedimentation would be reduced to less than significant (see Impact HYD-1).
While required mitigation would partially reduce impacts to special-status plants, Project
development is proposed in such proximity to individual special-status plants and high-
3.4-72 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
quality habitat for special-status species that complete avoidance of impacts to species may
not be feasible. For instance, siting of proposed development in the Upper Terrace would
not avoid the known extent of individual plant species or assure populations’ long-term
survival given the proximity of planned development to populations of special-status plant
species. In particular, the proximity of Chorro Creek bog thistle within Drainage 2 and
species endemic to rocky serpentine outcrops and native serpentine bunchgrass grassland
to planned development in the Upper Terrace would expose such populations to adverse
impacts. Operation of the Project and ongoing human activity within these areas would
also result in long-term degradation, confinement, and isolation of individuals and suitable
habitat. Further, mitigation for replacement or relocation of Chorro Creek bog thistle is not
well documented, and there little to no scientific literature regarding the successful
replacement or restoration of this species. Mitigation of associated impacts on the species
is therefore considered infeasible due to inability to complete avoid or replace disturbed
individuals. Therefore, impacts to special-status plant species would be significant and
unavoidable.
Impact BIO-3 Project implementation would have a substantial adverse impact on
state and federally protected wetlands (Significant and Unavoidable).
As analyzed in Impact BIO-1, the Project would have potentially significant adverse
impacts on the Calle Joaquin wetlands, the LOVR ditch, and the wetlands in Drainages 2
and 3. Project implementation would result in the loss of up to 1.59 acres of CDFW
jurisdictional features, 0.32 acre of USACE jurisdictional wetlands, and 0.79 acre of
USACE Other Waters (2.7 acres total; see Table 3.4-8 and Figure 3.4-2). These losses
would occur primarily from construction of LOVR frontage improvements and relocation
of the LOVR ditch, which would eliminate up to 0.5 acre of wetlands. Based on preliminary
site design, much of the wetland area along Calle Joaquin would be preserved; however,
an unknown amount of wetland along the outside bank of the realigned creek channel may
be adversely affected or eliminated during the realignment of Froom Creek due to
construction of the realigned creek channel, construction of the low-flow berm, and
substantial changes in hydrology and drainage at the site.11 Removal of the 3.2-acre
stormwater detention basin would also eliminate approximately 2.0 acres of wetland.
Lastly, as discussed in Impact BIO-1 and Impact TRANS-2, widening of LOVR would
result in secondary impacts to wetlands through disturbance or removal of up to 0.57 acre
11 Note that this analysis does not account for the potential long-term adverse effects to the quality and
extent of the Calle Joaquin wetlands from changes in the hydrologic connectivity of these wetlands with the
realigned Froom Creek. Refer to Impact BIO-1 for consideration of associated impacts.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-73
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
of wetlands located along LOVR. In total, implementation of the Project has potential to
result in the direct loss of up to 5.27 acres of wetlands (see to Table 3.4-8).
Construction in the Upper Terrace could result in the direct disturbance or temporary fill
of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 as a result of movement of construction equipment and material
around the site. Construction would involve soil disturbance, equipment, and materials that
could cause sedimentation, pollution, or inadvertent fill of adjacent or downstream
wetlands. During construction of private roadways in the Upper Terrace, four
headwall/culvert road crossings of approximately 30 feet in width would be constructed
over Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and would also potentially lead to loss of adjacent and/or
downstream wetlands.
Froom Creek would be realigned to
connect hydrologically with the LOVR
ditch and the Calle Joaquin wetlands and
would result in the construction of a
restored and widened creek channel.
Based on preliminary designs, it is
estimated that the realigned Froom
Creek could support up to 2.81 acres of
restored wetlands. However, future
wetlands within the realigned Froom
Creek would not sufficiently replace the
total acreage of wetlands lost during
Project implementation. Under CDFW,
USFWS, and RWQCB standards,
adequate mitigation for loss or
disturbance of wetland features, either
direct permanent loss or the temporary
disturbance, requires replacement by a
ratio of 3:1, which would mean the Project’s loss of 5.27 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
would be mitigated by a minimum of 15.81 acres of restoration. If 2.81 acres of
jurisdictional wetland could be restored onsite within the Froom Creek channel and 0.94
acres could be restored within the proposed LOVR ditch (i.e., a total potential of 3.75 acres
restored onsite under the Project), the Project would require 22.3 acres of additional
restoration to meet the 3:1 ratio (see Table 3.4-8).
Froom Creek is not currently connected to the Calle
Joaquin wetlands. The Project would relocate Froom
Creek to flow and flood into the Calle Joaquin
wetlands.
3.4-74 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 3.4-8. Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Features
Feature Existing Delineated Area
Onsite (Acres)
Area Impacted by the
Project (Acres)
Wetlands Waters of the U.S.
Wetland within OHWM 1.43 0.32
Calle Joaquin wetlands1 5.81
Intermittent Streambed within OHWM 2.66 0.79
CDFW Jurisdictional Areas
Froom Creek and Tributary Channels;
LOVR ditch; sensitive riparian habitat
5.41 1.59
Additional Aquatic Resources
Wetland Within 3.2-acre Stormwater
detention basin
2.00 2.00
Secondary Impacts to Wetlands Along
LOVR --2 0.57
Total 9.913 5.27
Total Necessary Restoration of Direct Impacts (3:1) 15.81
Total Necessary Restoration of Calle Joaquin (1:1) 10.24
Maximum Potential Area of Restoration with Realigned Froom Creek 2.81
Affected Wetland Area Restored at LOVR ditch (3:1 replacement ratio) 0.94
Total Potential Restoration Onsite 3.75
Necessary Remaining Restoration 22.3
OHWM = ordinary high-water mark
1 This analysis does not account for the potential long-term adverse effects to the quality and extent of the Calle Joaquin
wetlands from changes in the hydrologic connectivity of these wetlands with the realigned Froom Creek.
2 Secondary impacts to wetlands as a result of implementation of transportation mitigation consist of waters of the U.S.
and CDFW jurisdictional areas. As such, the existing delineated area of these wetlands subject to secondary
impacts of the Project are already reflected in the existing delineated area of those federal and state features.
3 Total acreage of onsite wetland includes some overlap of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional features.
As discussed above, the Project includes realignment and restoration of Froom Creek
which may mitigate some of these losses of wetlands and other jurisdictional features.
However, the Specific Plan does not provide replacement, monitoring, performance
standards, or policies for restoration of wetlands onsite. Consequently, development under
the Project may not provide reliable or adequate mitigation for the direct net loss of at least
5.27 acres of wetlands. Further, construction and operation of proposed development in the
Upper Terrace may result in the direct disturbance, pollution, temporary fill, or loss of an
unknown amount of adjacent or downstream wetlands and jurisdictional features located
along Drainages 1, 2, and 3. These drainages and associated wetland habitat would also be
subject to long-term degradation due to the proximity of new buildings, roads, driveways,
and associated disturbance from human activity. Therefore, wetland impacts are considered
potentially significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-75
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Further, as discussed under Impact BIO-1 above, the Project would include installation of
at least three utility lines beneath the realigned Froom Creek and existing Calle Joaquin
wetlands to connect utilities on site with existing infrastructure along LOVR. Installation
of these utilities may result in temporary adverse effects to the quality of waters or habitat
under the jurisdiction of CDFW and/or USACE. Installation may also adversely affect
waters downstream as a result of introduction of sediment runoff, siltation, and accidental
spillage of fuel and lubricants.
In addition to the physical loss and disturbance of existing wetlands, realignment of Froom
Creek would substantially alter onsite hydrology and drainage with potential to change the
characteristics and dynamics of several wetlands. While it is the intention of the Project to
maintain or improve wetland habitat onsite, as discussed in Impact BIO-1, realignment of
Froom Creek has potential to affect the Calle Joaquin wetlands by changing the frequency
and quantity of water supporting the wetlands, increasing potential for migration of the
Froom Creek corridor through these wetlands, increasing potential for sedimentation of the
wetlands, and altering the effects from severe storm and post-fire flood conditions. Impacts
of the Project on these jurisdictional wetlands are therefore considered potentially
significant (refer to Impact BIO-1 for detailed discussion of potential impacts to the Calle
Joaquin wetlands).
The Specific Plan includes several goals and policies pertaining to the protection of onsite
wetlands and enhancement of Froom Creek and adjacent habitat. These goals, policies and
programs, including Program 3.2.2b, Program 3.2.2e, and Policy 3.2.3, are provided to
ensure Project development complies with the goals and policies of the City General Plan
COSE. Nevertheless, the alteration of Project site hydrology would create potential for
permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetland features or other waters, which would be
potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 shall apply.
MM BIO-2 shall apply.
MM BIO-4 shall apply.
MM BIO-5 shall apply.
MM BIO-6 shall apply.
3.4-76 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-7 shall apply.
Residual Impact
Implementation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-4 through MM BIO-6 would
reduce impacts to federal- and state-protected wetland areas through avoidance to the
maximum extent feasible, on- or offsite wetland restoration, and full replacement of
equivalent wetland values affected by proposed future development of the site.
Implementation of MM BIO-7 would ensure that water quality within Froom Creek,
adjacent wetlands, and downstream in San Luis Obispo Creek is not adversely impacted
by installation of utility lines by requiring HDD techniques. Installation of utility
infrastructure by HDD would reduce potential direct impacts to water quality resulting
from erosion and accidental equipment-related petroleum releases. While HDD has
potential to cause frac-outs or the inadvertent return of drilling fluids to the ground surface
and increases in siltation of surface water and groundwater, adherence to the
recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would reduce potential for such events
to occur.
With respect to wetlands in the Upper Terrace, replacing the unusual seep-fed wetlands
present along impacted segments of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 would be challenging. These
wetlands would be directly impacted through culvert-headwall installation and
sedimentation from grading and development, and the ability to reestablish and maintain
rare plant species present within these areas is unknown. Because the Project would
directly and indirectly affect jurisdictional wetlands which support rare plant species and
for which restoration and mitigation is not considered completely feasible or likely, impacts
would be significant and unavoidable.
Impact BIO-4 Project 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 (Significant and Unavoidable).
The proposed Project would create a new urban community within the wildland-urban
interface along more than one mile of the City’s existing Irish Hills Natural Reserve,
resulting in disruption of wildlife values on the Project site and within boundary areas of
the Reserve itself. The Project site is designated in the City General Plan COSE as both a
Wildlife Zone and Wildlife Corridor providing the conditions necessary to allow wildlife
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-77
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
to move safety through urban areas, particularly those on the urban-rural interface of the
City’s boundary.
Implementation of the Project would disrupt wildlife utilization of and movement across
the Project site. Development of the Project would largely isolate the restored Froom Creek
channel and the Calle Joaquin wetlands from wildlife in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve,
replacing the existing broad open grasslands and ecotones that currently link these habitats
with intensive development, confining wildlife movement to a relatively narrow restored
creek channel extending between the proposed development and LOVR. While the
realigned and restored From Creek corridor may provide enhanced riparian habitat, it
would be a relatively urbanized creek corridor – compared to its current more natural state
– bordered by relatively intensive development.
The Project would disrupt wildlife utilization of and movement across the Upper Terrace
and along Drainages 1, 2, and 3, which link the Project site to the Irish Hills. While
substantial open areas would remain on the Upper Terrace, construction of local access
roads would disrupt wildlife movement through the primary remaining onsite open space
corridor linking the Irish Hills Natural Reserve with Froom Creek. Increased wildlife
mortality and disturbance can also be expected due to traffic along this road. Extensive site
alteration and construction of new homes, roadways, trails, fences, utility and drainage
infrastructure, and increased noise, lighting, and glare, particularly within the Upper
Terrace, would also disrupt wildlife movement across the Project site over the long-term
operation of the Project.
Development in the southwest corner of the Lower Area at the confluence of Drainages 1,
2, and 3 and adjacent to a large serpentine outcrop, would impact sensitive biological
resources. Under the Project, a residential cul-de-sac with up to 4 Villas and 2 Garden
Terrace apartment buildings would be located immediately adjacent to drainages and
wetland areas at the confluence of the three drainages and extending to their ultimate
confluence with the realigned Froom Creek channel. The confluence of these drainage
plays a vital role in the accessibility to resources and foraging habitat for wildlife within
the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The location of these Villas would also isolate the
restored Froom Creek and sensitive natural communities such as the Calle Joaquin
wetlands and LOVR ditch from high-quality grassland and other habitats in the southern
portion of the Project area.
Project development would also incrementally impact wildlife values of and movement
within adjacent habitats within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Fire management activities
3.4-78 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
and vegetation management within an estimated 100-foot buffer along the Project’s
boundary with Irish Hills Natural Reserve could directly reduce the value of this area to
wildlife through loss of forage value and cover. Noise, light, and glare from new
development could inhibit wildlife usage of boundary areas. Predation of pets of future
owners and/or passage through new development by large predators such as mountain
lions, coyotes, and bobcats may lead to resident requests for predator control and/ or
removal. Such increased urban-wildland conflicts would increase demands on City
resources to balance management of valued wildlife resources of the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve with public safety. These issues are discussed in more detail below.
Permanent Disturbance to Wildlife Corridors
The Project would be densely populated with new residents, employees, and visitors. Long-
term impacts to sensitive species would occur due to increased human presence onsite,
including lighting located on buildings and in parking areas, increased noise from
automobiles, human activity, truck loading, parking lot cleaning and sweeping, trash
dumpsters or compactors, and other similar activities. Solid waste and polluted runoff from
trash storage areas and approximately 12.58 acres of roads and parking lots could enter
Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and Froom Creek through wind or littering from human activities.
These long-term impacts could cause sensitive species onsite to be killed, to flee the area,
or could cause disruption to breeding/nesting efforts, and could be considered significant
impacts to sensitive resident and migratory species.
Outdoor night lighting and noise associated with new development could create glare
offsite, light spillage, and increased noise levels degrading the quality of Froom Creek, its
tributary drainages, and the associated riparian buffer areas that could be utilized by
wildlife to navigate the site. Night lighting and noise would be substantial relative to
existing conditions, resulting in potential impacts to wildlife migrating through the site.
Development within the Upper Terrace would surround and closely border Drainage 2 and
border Drainages 1 and 3, inhibiting wildlife access to key water sources at currently
undisturbed springs and seeps. Grading, site alteration, and polluted runoff could also alter
these springs and seeps, reducing their value to both onsite wildlife and those resident in
the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
Further, the interface of the Project site and the realigned Froom Creek would lead to
increased human interaction within the proposed riparian area, which could reduce the
habitat value of the restored Froom Creek and restrict or inhibit wildlife movement and
utilization. A walking path is proposed adjacent to the realigned creek’s west side, bringing
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-79
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
pedestrians and bicyclists to the creek corridor. Impacts could occur from increased foot
traffic in and around Froom Creek and more post-consumer waste entering the sensitive
habitat from use of proposed foot trails within the creek setback areas. Increased runoff
from paved surfaces and buildings could lead to increased sedimentation, water turbidity,
and water quality degradation in the long-term, directly inhibiting aquatic species. These
impacts to wildlands in the Upper Terrace, loss of access to water sources in Drainages 1,
2, and 3, and changes to Froom Creek may cause wildlife to avoid or abandon the site and
are considered to have a potentially significant impact on wildlife movement through or
adjacent to the site.
As discussed under Impact BIO-1, the Draft FRSP contains goals, policies, and programs
intended to protect and enhance biological resources at the Project site. Realignment of
Froom Creek may maintain and enhance critical instream habitat for south-central
California coast steelhead, while also enhancing nesting and foraging habitat for other
resident or migratory species. However, because the Project would result in permanent
removal of high value native wildlife habitat within the Upper Terrace and disruption of
wildlife access to water sources, this impact would be potentially significant.
Temporary Disturbance to Wildlife Corridors
During construction phases, the Project would render some areas of the Project site
uninhabitable even though the habitat area would be avoided. In the Upper Terrace,
Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and the grassland, woodland, and scrub habitats would remain but
would be temporarily unavailable (or unattractive) while heavy equipment transformed the
site (e.g., during grading and other site preparation activities). Once complete, the proposed
open space areas of the Project site would become more available to wildlife with ongoing
impacts of the development described above.
Realignment of Froom Creek would result in the temporary loss of a critically important
wildlife corridor, lasting until near completion of the realignment of the creek and
restoration of riparian habitat. During the anticipated 20-month period it would take to
realign Froom Creek, the existing corridor for movement of wildlife across the site would
be repeatedly disturbed or inaccessible, including the primary corridor for movement of
California red-legged frog and south-central California coast steelhead (see Impact BIO-2
above). This disruption could impact both common and sensitive species that currently rely
on Froom Creek for movement. As such, impacts associated with realignment of Froom
Creek would be temporarily adverse and potentially significant. However, over the long
3.4-80 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
term, it is anticipated that species would generally return to the migratory corridor after
completion of realignment and riparian restoration.
As further discussed under Impact BIO-2, Project development within and adjacent to
Froom Creek could impact California red-legged frog, which is considered to have
moderate potential to occur onsite. In addition, construction could impact south-central
California coast steelhead, which have a low potential to occur onsite. These species could
occur in Froom Creek due to the presence of seasonally restricted suitable pool habitat.
Removal of instream habitat during realignment of Froom Creek could directly impact
suitable downstream habitat for steelhead and could also impact dispersal habitat for the
California red-legged frog, if construction occurs during the spring of a year with average
or greater rainfall. Froom Creek was also determined to support seasonal movement of
transient California red-legged frog intermittently during the rainy season, and construction
at that time within the creek could impact movement corridors associated with those
species. Impacts are considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 shall apply.
MM BIO-2 shall apply.
MM BIO-4 shall apply.
MM BIO-5 shall apply.
MM BIO-6 shall apply.
MM BIO-9 shall apply.
MM BIO-11 shall apply.
MM BIO-12 shall apply.
MM BIO-13 The Applicant shall amend the FRSP to establish a 300-foot development
buffer on the centerline of the confluence of Drainage 1, 2, and 3 and the
realigned Froom Creek to maintain natural vegetation, ecological,
hydrologic, and wildlife connectivity between the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve and the Froom Creek corridor. The required buffer shall extend
from the point at which the proposed realigned Froom Creek exits the
Specific Plan area, upstream along the centerlines of Drainages 1, 2, and 3
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-81
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
for 600 linear feet. The Applicant shall relocate residential uses to areas
outside of this buffer and should not exacerbate biological resource impacts
in other areas of the site.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The above requirements shall be
integrated into the Final FRSP and final VTM prior to recordation. City staff
shall ensure the above measures are incorporated into building plans prior
to issuance.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into
the Final FRSP prior to Project approval.
MM BIO-14 Proposed roadway/pathway crossings over any drainage shall be designed
to ensure adequate passage for wildlife, consistent with the design
standards and guidelines of the Federal Highway Administration Wildlife
Crossing Structure Handbook.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The above requirements shall be
integrated into the Final FRSP. City staff shall ensure the above measures
are incorporated into the improvement plans prior to approval.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into
the Final FRSP prior to Project approval.
Residual Impact
Implementation of MM BIO-1 through -2, BIO-4 through -6, BIO-9, and BIO-11 through
-12 would reduce potential impacts to wildlife species, riparian corridors, nesting and
foraging habitat adjacent to the site, and other sensitive natural communities.
Implementation of MM BIO-13 and MM BIO-14 would ensure some access is maintained
for passage of wildlife along Drainage 1 to the realigned Froom Creek corridor and Calle
Joaquin wetlands from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and would help protect the natural
ecotones along the drainage confluences. MM BIO-12 and MM BIO-13 would improve
Project consistency with City policies for provision and maintenance of continuous habitat
corridors and preservation of ecotones, including COSE Policies 7.3.3 and 7.7.7. However,
proposed mitigation would not feasibly reduce the level of significance of or mitigate
Project impacts, nor would they ensure complete consistency with the City’s policies.
The Project site is a designated Wildlife Zone and Wildlife Corridor that provides some of
the highest quality and most continuous wildlife corridors and ecotones within the City’s
3.4-82 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Urban Reserve Line. Because of this, the City has established rigorous policies for the
preservation and enhancement of ecotones and wildlife corridors within the City. For
instance, City General Plan COSE Policy 7.3.2 aims to preserve continuous wildlife
habitat, including corridors free of human disruption. City General Plan COSE Policy 7.7.7
similarly aims to preserve and enhance ecotones and natural transitions between varying
habitat types because of their importance to wildlife. Despite proposed mitigation, the
Project would continue to alter the value the Project site currently provides with regards to
wildlife and habitat connectivity. While realignment of the Froom Creek might improve
some habitat for movement of fish or amphibious species, the realigned Froom Creek
corridor is proposed as an engineered stream surrounded by urban development.
Development within the Upper Terrace would similarly eliminate important foraging
habitat for many residents of the Irish Hills and restrict access to lower elevations of the
site, including the Calle Joaquin wetlands. Therefore, residual impacts to wildlife corridors
and movement of wildlife are therefore significant and unavoidable.
Impact BIO-5 Project construction would result in the potential disturbance,
trimming, or removal of up to 75 mature trees (Less than Significant
with Mitigation).
Up to 75 mature native and non-native trees would be adversely affected by construction
of the proposed Project. These trees are generally located in the developed/ disturbed area
adjacent to the existing John Madonna Construction operations and in the southwest
portion of the Project site adjacent to Drainages 1, 2, and 3 on the Upper Terrace.
Construction activities would either result in the direct removal of trees to support
development of building pads and structures, trimming of trees, or involve operation of
equipment or construction activities within the root zone of a tree. Where work does not
require the removal of a tree, trimming or work within the root zone of a mature tree has
the potential to result in decline in health or mortality of the affected tree. Further, once
operational, clearing of vegetation and maintenance of a 100-foot wildfire buffer area
around the Madonna Froom Ranch and Villaggio developments would have potential to
result in removal or trimming of additional mature trees, primarily in the Upper Terrace
and within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
City General Plan COSE Policy 7.5.1 requires that oak woodland communities be
protected. An existing oak woodland exists in the southern and western portions of the
Project site, within the elevated hillsides near the Project site boundary. Development
under the Specific Plan, as well as the 100-foot wildfire buffer area, would avoid
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-83
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
disturbance of this oak woodland community and any mature native oak trees, consistent
with COSE Policy 7.5.1. However, the Specific Plan does not include any other goals,
policies, or programs, which would reduce or mitigate impacts to mature trees. The
potential disturbance of up to 75 mature trees remains a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-15 Native Tree Protection. To ensure protection of native protected trees with
respect to the tree trunk, canopy, and root zone, the Applicant shall hire a
City-approved arborist or qualified biologist to conduct a daily, pre-
construction survey of all activities occurring within the protected root
zones of protected trees, and shall make recommendations for avoidance,
and for any necessary remedial work to ensure the health and safety of trees
that are encroached, and any measures necessary to reduce and/or remove
potential safety hazards posed by any of these trees. Following
construction, the health of affected trees shall be monitored by the arborist
or qualified biologist for up to 5 years if necessary and as determined at the
discretion of the City.
Should Project activities result in the compromised health of native trees
resulting from encroachment, the Applicant shall submit a native tree
replacement planting program, prepared by a qualified biologist, arborist,
or other resource specialist, which specifies replacement tree locations,
tree or seedling size, planting specifications, and a monitoring program to
ensure that the replacement planting program is successful, including
performance standards for determining whether replacement trees are
healthy and growing normally, and procedures for periodic monitoring and
implementation of corrective measures in the event that the health of
replacement trees declines.
Where the worsened health of a tree results in the loss of protected tree
species, mitigation measures in the native tree replacement program shall
include the planting of replacement trees on the Project site, if suitable area
exists. Riparian trees 4 inches or greater measured at DBH shall be
replaced in-kind at a minimum ratio of 3:1 (replaced: removed). Trees 24
inches or greater inches DBH shall be replaced in-kind at a minimum ratio
of 10:1. Willows and cottonwoods may be planted from live stakes following
3.4-84 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
guidelines provided in the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration
Manual for planting dormant cuttings and container stock (CDFW 2010).
• Tree replacement shall be conducted in accordance with a Natural
Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Plan to be approved by the City’s
Natural Resources Manager.
• The Natural Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Plan shall prioritize
the planting of replacement trees on-site where feasible, but shall allow
that replacement trees may be planted off-site with approval of the
City’s Natural Resources Manager.
• Replacement trees may be planted in the fall or winter of the year in
which trees were removed. All replacement trees will be planted no
more than 1 year following the date upon which the native trees were
removed.
Where onsite mitigation through planting replacement trees is not feasible,
mitigation shall be provided by one of the following methods:
• Off-site mitigation shall be provided by planting no less than 10:1, at a
suitable site that is restricted from development or is public parkland.
The Applicant shall plant seedlings – less than 1-year old – in an area
providing suitable habitat. In the case of oak trees, the seedlings shall
be grown from acorns collected in the area; or
• An in-lieu fee shall be provided for the unavoidable impacts of the loss
of native tree habitat. The fee shall be based on the type, size and age of
the tree(s) removed.
Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included on
final grading plans. The qualified biologist shall monitor for the health of
trees during and following construction activities, for a period of up to 5
years if determined necessary by the City.
Monitoring. The qualified biologist shall monitor all construction
activities, and if necessary, periodically monitor the placement and planting
program. City staff shall monitor for the health of affected individuals to
determine compliance and potential need for further mitigation.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-85
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Residual Impacts
With implementation of MM BIO-15, requiring a Native Tree Protection Plan which
addresses avoidance of trees and requirement for replacement of affected trees, impacts
would be avoided and/or reduced. Further, MM BIO-15 would ensure proposed
development occurs consistent with the intent and requirements of COSE Policy 7.5.1.
Residual impacts to native trees are less than significant with mitigation.
3.4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project is one of several planned and/or proposed residential developments
in undeveloped open or agricultural lands along edges of the City, such as the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan and Avila Ranch Development Project. Construction of the Project
would incrementally contribute to the conversion of undeveloped agricultural land and
open lands to developed urban uses, with resultant losses of open space and habitats,
increases in impervious surfaces, night light, noise, and traffic that accompany such
development. These changes would both directly and indirectly affect sensitive habitats
and wildlife species.
Project development resulting in impacts to onsite wetlands and riparian habitat would
contribute to cumulative losses of foraging/nesting habitat for several sensitive wildlife
species in the region. Cumulative removal of habitat in the vicinity of the Project site
reduces the amount of foraging and breeding habitat for other non-sensitive mammals,
birds, and reptiles, particularly to wildlife corridors along Froom Creek, its tributaries, and
the Irish Hills. Project impacts, when combined with other projects in the vicinity as
represented in Table 3.0-1, such as the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and Avila Ranch
Development Project, would add to impervious surfaces and resultant pollutant loading in
the Froom Creek and San Luis Creek watersheds. No cumulative development projects are
located within the immediate vicinity of the Project that would contribute to adverse effects
to biological resources onsite, along Froom Creek, adjacent to the site, or in the greater
Irish Hills. Given no additional cumulative development has been identified near existing
or ongoing projects near the Irish Hills development, the Project is not considered to have
a localized cumulative impact on habitat adjacent to proposed development or the
movement of wildlife through the site or surrounding area.
The Project would directly affect the Froom Creek corridor through realignment of the
creek and would not contribute runoff and increased potential for pollutants to Froom
Creek and downstream water bodies, assuming the project is implemented in compliance
3.4-86 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
with applicable regulations (refer to Impact HYD-1). Despite the proposed riparian buffer
and dedication of open space within the Project site, Project contributions to increased
levels of runoff (pollution and siltation) and waste material to downstream water bodies
(San Luis Creek) would potentially impact the species that use and reside in and around
Froom Creek and San Luis Creek. In the long-term, potential cumulative degradation of
water quality and habitat in Froom Creek and downstream in San Luis Creek are of
concern.
Project development would contribute to citywide and regional impacts to biological
resources. Pending development projects in other cities within the County, and within
unincorporated areas, could impact a range of biological resources, including riparian and
wetland habitats, as well as special-status species. Construction of the Project, as well as
reasonably foreseeable projects in the County, would result in further loss to natural land
and other habitat that supports sensitive and listed species, and would contribute to the
fragmentation of habitat by interrupting wildlife corridors. Within the City and its
immediate planning area, full development permitted under the LUE would increase
overall developed area in the City and further reduce natural habitat acreages within the
City limits. Development under the LUCE would contribute to the removal or modification
of natural habitats, decrease in native plant and animal species occurrences, increase in
urban/wildland interface, and increase in ruderal/disturbed habitat areas. However, the
LUCE EIR ultimately found that cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less
than significant after implementation of both the existing General Plan policies and those
proposed by the LUCE Update, as well as compliance with state and federal regulations.
Despite incorporation of all the Project-specific mitigation measures described above, the
Project’s contribution to regional cumulative impacts to biological resources would be
cumulatively considerable due to inability for the Project to avoid or successfully mitigate
all impacts associated with loss or disturbance of sensitive and regionally significant
biological resources; therefore, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.4-87
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section describes cultural and tribal cultural resources and analyzes the potential
impacts on these resources from implementation of the Project. Cultural resources as
defined in CEQA Section 15064.5 include prehistoric and historic archaeological
resources, and historic-period resources (buildings, structures, area, place, or objects).
Tribal cultural resources are defined in PRC Section 21074(a) as a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe
that is either included or determined eligible for inclusion on the California Register of
Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, or other
resources determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant tribal cultural resources.
3.5.1 Environmental Setting
3.5.1.1 Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric Setting
Archaeological resources reflect past human activity extending from Native American
prehistoric cultures throughout the early 20th century.
The Project site was inhabited prehistorically by Obispeño Chumash for at least 10,000
years. The Obispeño were the northernmost Chumash group, occupying much of the
County, including the Project vicinity. Obispeño Chumash neighbors were the Southern
(Migueliño) Salinan, also known as Te'po'ta'ahl, who lived along the upper course of the
Salinas River. Obispeño is derived from the Spanish mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa
where the indigenous community was baptized by Franciscan priests in the late 18th
century. The Obispeño Chumash and the Migueliño Salinan tribes subsisted within several
ecological settings, including coastal resources, oak studded valleys, foothill areas, and
extensive grasslands (Appendix F).
Native American prehistory in the Project vicinity is divided into six periods (Appendix
F):
1. Paleoindian Period (11000–8500 Before Present [B.P.]). The Paleoindian Period
represents the earliest human occupations in the Central Coast region. Paleoindian
sites throughout North America are known by the representative fluted projectile
points, crescents, large bifaces used as tools as well as flake cores, and a distinctive
assemblage of small flake tools. Relatively few sites have been dated to this Period
in the Project vicinity, though many along the coast may have eroded into the ocean
with sea level rise that began in the Early Holocene Period defined below.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-1
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
2. Early Holocene Period (8500–5500 B.P.). More extensive evidence of human
occupation has been recorded at sites along the Central Coast dating to the early
Holocene. The most common artifacts in these assemblages are milling slabs
(metates) and handstones (manos) used to grind hard seeds and process other
vegetable matter. Obsidian stone tools and manufacturing waste flakes recovered
from several sites dating to this period have been sourced to the east side of the
Sierra Nevada, indicating that long-distance trade networks were established by this
time.
3. Early Period (5500–3000 B.P.). Technological changes marking the transition into
the Early Period include an abundance of contracting-stemmed, Rossi square-
stemmed, large side-notched, and other large projectile points. Site occupants of
the Central Coast appear to have been more sedentary; populations appear to have
increasingly used sites for specific resource procurement activities, including
hunting, fishing, and plant material processing.
4. Middle Period (3000–1000 B.P.). The Middle Period is defined by the continued
specialization in resource exploitation and increased technological complexity.
Mano and metate ground stone implements are replaced by mortars and pestles
associated with oak tree acorn processing. This is due to a substantial change in
climate, where oak woodland habitats expanded with greater rainfall. Additionally,
expansion of trade is reflected by an increased quantity of obsidian, shell beads
made on Santa Cruz Island, and sea otter bone. Circular shell fishhooks, which
facilitated an increase in fishing, appeared for the first time.
5. Middle to Late Transition Period (1000–700 B.P.). The Middle to Late
Transition Period represents a rapid change in artifact assemblage, as well as social
and settlement organization. Archaeological evidence suggests a regional
population decline that was affected by periodic drought conditions. Interregional
trade items, such as obsidian, are less frequently observed. Artifacts associated with
fishing and marine mammal hunting and associated bone are much less
conspicuous; populations appear to have adapted to changing climate by relying on
terrestrial resources, such as small mammals.
6. Late Period (700 B.P.–to Missionization). Populations on the Central Coast
expanded in the Late Period. A wetter climate returned and provided for more
extensive plant and marine resources to exploit. The major technological change
during this time is the introduction of the bow and arrow by tribes to the east. This
allowed for effective hunting of small game and birds. Permanent villages
expanded in size, and social structure became more complex with the rise of
powerful chiefs. Interaction between villages was strengthened by intermarriage
and trade represented by shell beads used as monetary exchange.
3.5.1.2 Historical Setting
Historical resources are buildings, structures, objects, places, and areas that are eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of
Historic Resources (CRHR), or the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, have an
3.5-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
association with important persons, events in history, or cultural heritage, or have
distinctive design or construction method.
The earliest recorded visit by a European to a Native American village in the County took
place in 1595, when the Spanish sailed into San Luis Obispo Bay, near the large Obispeño
village of Sepjato. In 1769, Gaspar de Portolà and Father Junipero Serra departed the newly
established San Diego settlement and marched northward toward Monterey with the
objective to secure the port and establish five missions along the route. The Portolà
expedition passed through the present day County that same year. In 1772, the first mission
located within Chumash territory, Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, was founded beside
San Luis Obispo Creek and adjacent to the village of Sepjato. This first mission gradually
expanded in size and significance. Several historic Obispeño villages have been identified
from mission records and informant interviews. The Obispeño area showed a somewhat
dispersed settlement pattern as compared to intensive settlement and large village sizes
found along the Santa Barbara Channel.
Spanish and Mexican influence greatly changed the aboriginal way of life. In its first
decade, due to dissatisfaction with Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, some Obispeño
Chumash attempted to burn the mission down. Their attempt failed, and by the 1790s, the
influence of the mission had increased. By 1803, mission records indicate that numerous
Obispeño Chumash groups had moved away from traditional villages to the vicinity of
Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa. The native people at the mission suffered and the
population declined rapidly. In 1803, there was a peak of 919 Native Americans residing
at the mission, but by 1838 the population had declined to 170. In 1822, California became
a Mexican Territory, and the mission lands gradually became private ranchos via Mexican
land grants. After the decline of the mission era in the late 1830s, San Luis Obispo
gradually grew into a thriving town.
3.5.1.3 Project Site History
In the early 1800s, the Project site was part of ranch lands of the Mission San Luis Obispo
(Laguna Rancho), and was regranted by the Mexican government in 1844. The land was
confirmed by the American government in 1855 and was continually used by a series of
farmers. In 1869, the property parcel was approximately 868 acres. A dairy was installed
no later than 1883.
The Project site is historically associated with the Froom family, which operated a dairy
onsite beginning in 1890. By 1905, the ranch consisted of approximately 413 acres.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-3
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Supported by the cattle and creamery, the Froom family lived within the structure attached
to the creamery until approximately 1915, when the modern craftsman-style residence
within the northwestern portion of the property was built. The Froom family operated the
dairy for several decades until the Madonna family purchased the site in 1976. Dairy
operations ceased in 1977 and the Madonna family raised beef cattle on the site for several
years after that date, eventually using the site primarily as an office and equipment storage
area, as well as operating a small onsite quarry (see Section 3.15, Mineral Resources)
(Appendix F).
3.5.1.4 Documented Archaeological and Historical Resources
A records search of the 109.7-acre Specific Plan area and a 0.5-mile radius was conducted
by FirstCarbon Solutions (2015) at the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC),
University of California Santa Barbara on January 5, 2015. The search identified all
recorded cultural resources and previous investigations within the Project site and a 0.5-
mile radius of the Project site. Several data sources were referenced, including NRHP,
CRHR, the list of California Historical Landmarks, the California Inventory of Historic
Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest.
Five investigations have been conducted within the Project site and 36 within 0.5 mile. The
investigations resulted in the recordation of two prehistoric sites and two historic-period
sites within the Project site (see Table 3.5-1).
Table 3.5-1. Cultural Resources Recorded within the Project Site
Resource Number Age Date Recorded Recorder(s) Description
P-40-000783/CA-SLO-783 Prehistoric 1987 R. Gibson Bedrock mortars
P-40-001195/CA-SLO-1195 Prehistoric 1987 R. Gibson Stone tool manufacturing
flakes, shellfish and
animal bone fragment
scatter; hearths/pits
P-40-040991 Historic-
Period
1998 B. Bertando Froom Ranch Dairy
complex
P-40-001780/CA-SLO-1780 Historic-
Period
1996 J. Parker Building
foundations/structure
pads,
privies/dumps/trash
scatters
Source: Appendix F (note: confidential information has been excluded from the publicly-published appendix).
Two prehistoric sites, one historic-period site, and one prehistoric isolated artifact are
recorded within 0.5 mile of the Project site (see Table 3.5-2).
3.5-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 3.5-2. Cultural Resources Recorded within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site
Resource Number Age Date Recorded Recorder(s) Description
P-40-001365/CA-SLO-1365 Prehistoric 1988 R. Gibson Prehistoric bedrock
milling feature
P-40-002145/CA-SLO-2145 Prehistoric 1997 R. Gibson Prehistoric lithic
scatter site
P-40-038206 Prehistoric 1997 R. Gibson Prehistoric isolate
P-40-001002/CA-SLO-1002H Historic-
Period
1989 C.E. Dills Farm/ranch barn
Source: Appendix F (note: confidential information has been excluded from the publicly-published appendix).
Onsite Prehistoric Resources
A pedestrian ground surface survey was conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions
archaeologists from January 6 to January 8, 2015 to observe recorded and potential new
cultural resources. Transect spacing varied between approximately 10 to 15 meters, where
possible. Surface soils and rodent burrows were examined for any signs of prehistoric
archaeological or cultural materials, including seashell fragments, stone tools and
fragments, stone flakes, bone, burnt rock, and similar materials. All prehistoric and historic
resources and features encountered during the survey were documented, which entailed the
acquisition of location coordinates and photographic documentation. Results are further
discussed below.
P-40-000783: Bedrock Mortars. Four rock outcrops contain one to three bedrock mortar
holes used to mill acorns. All eight mortar holes were found to be in good condition. The
ground surface surrounding the bedrock mortars was examined. No additional
archaeological features or cultural materials were found during this survey. However, the
subsurface boundaries of the site have not been defined and may possibly be related to site
P-40-001195.
P-40-001195: Lithic/Shell/Bone Scatter. This resource is a scatter of stone tool
manufacturing flakes, shellfish fragments, and animal bone. It is recorded approximately
200 meters (650 feet) from P-40-000783. The site is considered to represent a temporary
or seasonal campsite adjacent to an intermittent stream. One Franciscan chert biface, two
chert cores, and approximately 12 to 15 chert waste flakes associated with stone tool
manufacturing and reuse were found. The biface, cores, and some pieces of chert waste
flakes were observed in concentration in the eastern portion of the site. In addition, shellfish
and bone fragments were observed scattered across the ground surface of the Project site.
The shellfish remains were highly weathered and fractured and were not identifiable as a
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-5
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
specific species. Highly weathered bone fragments included what is believed to be both
deer and rabbit. The condition of the archaeological site remains was considered generally
good.
Several isolate prehistoric cultural materials were discovered during the intensive ground
surface archaeological survey (FirstCarbon Solutions 2015; Appendix F). Included in these
unrecorded artifacts were a concentration of stone artifacts, including a projectile point, a
chert core, and chert waste flake, found on a hilltop northeast of the bedrock mortar site
(P-40-000783) in the southwestern portion of the Project site. Other isolate artifacts
included a Franciscan chert biface, located southwest of the bedrock mortar site (P-40-
000783), and a piece of Franciscan chert waste was located in the northeastern portion of
the Project site, adjacent to the west bank of the existing Froom Creek alignment. The
locations of isolate cultural materials were mapped and photographed.
The Project site received a reconnaissance-level site survey on January 18, 2018 to confirm
and expand, as needed, on the findings of Applicant-prepared cultural resource technical
studies. Applied EarthWorks, a third-party cultural resources firm, observed the recorded
sites as well as the isolates mapped and photographed; however, upon observation, the
three stone artifacts, including the projectile point, chert core, and chert flake, were
clustered and associated to constitute a new archaeological resource site. Applied
EarthWorks also observed additional artifacts not mapped or photographed in the
Applicant-prepared studies that may contribute to this new site. This new site has not been
evaluated or recorded to date, so the significance of the site is not known; however, based
on the reconnaissance-level survey, it is possible the site may be a significant resource
considering the significance level of known resource sites nearby, as described above.
In addition, a Supplemental Phase I Cultural Report was conducted by FirstCarbon
Solutions (2018) for the 7.1-acre proposed stormwater detention basin area in August 2018.
The study included an updated CCIC records search, updated Sacred Lands file search,
Native American consultation, and pedestrian survey. No additional prehistoric resources
were identified during this supplemental survey (Appendix F).
Onsite Historical Resources
P-40-040991: Froom Ranch Dairy Complex. FirstCarbon Solutions prepared a historic
resource evaluation (HRE) to determine the significance of the onsite historic Froom Ranch
Dairy complex (P-40-040991). The evaluation was updated in July 2017 with input from
an historic architect and architectural historian from Chattel, Inc. who performed a site visit
3.5-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
and assessment (Appendix F). The site visit included an assessment of 10 structures on the
property, including a main residence, “old” barn, bunkhouse, dairy barn, creamery/house,
granary, shed/storage building, outhouse, storage building, and a water tower. The HRE
includes descriptions of each of the structures, their history, evaluations against NRHP,
CRHR, and City’s Master List of Historic Resources criteria, historic themes, and the
integrity of the buildings.
Of the ten structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy complex, seven of them have been
determined to be contributing structures associated with the historic dairy and Froom
family: the main residence, dairy barn, creamery, granary, the shed/storage building, old
barn, and bunkhouse. The main residence and bunkhouse are examples of Craftsman
architecture that exemplify intact and good examples of the style. Vernacular architecture
is displayed within the dairy barn with a rounded front – the only such structure in the
County. Additional early 20th century agricultural vernacular-style structures include the
creamery and granary, which reflect the local farming and dairy industry development and
predominant architectural styles of the early 1900s (Table 3.5-3). The main residence, dairy
barn, creamery, and granary structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy complex have been
determined eligible significant historic resources as individual structures.
These four structures, together with the three other contributing (though not individually
significant) resources associated with the Froom Ranch Dairy complex (the shed/storage
building, old barn, and bunkhouse), have also been determined eligible as a historic district
under the criteria listed within the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and CRHR.
Though a precise boundary for this historic district has not been established, it includes the
area encircling these seven contributing structures. The landscape and layout of structures
is historically significant for its association with the Froom family and Bill Froom, and
early 20th century ranching and the dairy activity in the region. The Froom Ranch Dairy
Farm has retained good integrity (condition) of location, design, materials, workmanship,
feeling, association, and overall historic integrity. Historic integrity of the seven
contributing structures is associated with the historic development of the San Luis Obispo
area and the dairy industry; the pioneering Froom family and for Bill Froom and his local
contributions; and the Craftsman and vernacular architecture of the buildings located
within the complex.1
1 It should be noted that in 2019, as a result of heavy rains during the winter season, heavy damage and
partial collapse has occurred at the creamery structure.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-7
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Three modern structures located in proximity to the Froom Ranch Dairy complex, the
outhouse, storage building, and water tower, are not considered contributing features to
this eligible historic district (see Table 3.5-3).
Table 3.5-3. Structures Associated with the Historic Froom Ranch Dairy
Structure Year
Built
CRHR Eligibility, Significance,
& Features Significance
Contributing Features to the Potential Historic District
Main
Residence
1915 Individually Eligible. Character
defining features of this one-story
Craftsman-style structure include
its horizontal massing, low-pitched
gable roof, wood exterior wall
cladding, projected front porch,
and sash windows that exemplify
Craftsman architecture in the San
Luis Obispo area. The structure
served as the primary residence for
the Froom family until 1998. The
interior has been altered
extensively over time and now
serves as a commercial office.
Creamery Before
1915
Individually Eligible. The
creamery is a one-story, irregularly
shaped, vernacular-style building
indicative to the local historic style
of the area and its utilitarian
function that dates to early period
of the Froom Ranch Dairy Farm
operation and served as both the
dairy production area and the
original residence on the site prior
to 1915. The creamery has
experienced heavy damage and
partial collapse as a result of heavy
rains in 2018-2019.
3.5-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 3.5-3. Structures Associated with the Historic Froom Ranch Dairy
(Continued)
Structure Year
Built
CRHR Eligibility,
Significance, & Features Significance
Dairy Barn 1913 Individually Eligible. This 60-
foot by 80-foot structure is
irregularly shaped, contains a
concrete foundation, vertical
wood siding, and a gabled
roof. The dairy barn represents
a unique example of the local
dairy industry vernacular
construction and is the only
barn in the County with a
rounded façade, which was
designed to facilitate the
milking process and move
cows through the barn
efficiently.
Granary 1913 Individually Eligible. The
granary is a small one-story
rectangular structure with
wood pier foundation and
vertical wood siding walls,
used for grain storage, and has
a unique construction to
prevent damage from rodents
and animals.
Shed/Storage
Building
1913 Not Individually Eligible. A
one-story, irregularly shaped
vernacular-style storage
building with a steeply slanted
roof. Built as part of the early
Froom Ranch development
and has served as a storage
shed for the dairy complex.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-9
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 3.5-3. Structures Associated with the Historic Froom Ranch Dairy
(Continued)
Structure Year
Built
CRHR Eligibility,
Significance, & Features Significance
Bunkhouse 1915 Not Individually Eligible.
Craftsman-style one-story
building has a concrete
foundation, wood horizontal
shiplap siding, and shingled
roof. Constructed by Hans
Peterson, the bunkhouse was
formerly used as a residence
by a member of the Froom
family, but was not integral to
dairy farm functionality.
Old Barn 1900 Not Individually Eligible. The
old barn is a one-story
rectangular, vernacular-style
structure with a concrete floor,
vertical wood siding, and
gabled roof with corrugated
metal roofing. The old barn
was moved to the current
location in the early 20th
century and has been
renovated extensively as a
result of its deteriorating
condition.
Non-Contributing Structures
Outhouse Modern Not Eligible. This small
asymmetrical parking kiosk
structure was relocated and
repurposed as an outhouse for
the John Madonna
Construction Company staff.
Storage
Building
Modern Not Eligible. Mobile storage
unit moved to the site for use
by the John Madonna
Construction Company.
3.5-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 3.5-3. Structures Associated with the Historic Froom Ranch Dairy
(Continued)
Structure Year
Built
CRHR Eligibility,
Significance, & Features Significance
Water Tower Modern Not Eligible. Modern-style
Verizon stealth cell tower is
shaped like a water tower to
appear compatible with the
ranch landscape.
P-40-001780: Building Foundations/
Structure Pads. The historic building
foundations/structure pads located within
the proposed stormwater detention basin
area were a part of Francisco Antonio
Lima’s (Frank Lima) farm, established in
the latter half of the 19th century. The farm
passed hands through a variety of families
through the early 20th century, with the
buildings operating as a homestead until all
but one of the structures were demolished
sometime between 1959 and 1965. By
1987, no structures remained onsite; however, the building foundations were in place. While
the site contained some historic fragments (e.g., a stoneware bottle, a porcelain fragment),
and two prehistoric lithics (e.g. chert scraper, materials produced during the production of
chipped stone tools), the site was in a highly disturbed state from mechanical destruction
sometime between the 1960s and 1987. Sometime after 2000 the site appears to have been
bulldozed, and only portions of the foundations remain.
Due to the poor integrity of the soils surrounding the site as a result of the previous
disturbance/demolition, the artifacts associated with P-40-001780 have lost their ability to
address NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria. This site is therefore not considered significant
relative to historic-period resource criteria. The presence of prehistoric archaeological sites
within the 0.5 mile research radius of the study area, the presence of large quantities of
Foundation remains from a historic homestead site
within the proposed stormwater detention basin
area.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-11
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
chert in the area, and the proximity of the creek and seasonal ephemeral drainages are
indicators that subsurface Native American cultural deposits may be present within the
study area (Condor Country Consulting, Inc. 2018; Appendix F).
Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Features: Possible historical-age features were documented
and mapped during the 2015 Project site survey, including four linear rock wall features
located along the western Project boundary. The linear rock wall features contain natural
rock outcroppings, as well as rocks that appear to be intentionally placed, although the
purpose is unknown. A follow-up pedestrian survey to evaluate these features was
conducted in May 2018, and an associated historical resource evaluation of these features
was conducted in July 2018. A total of six linear features were evaluated within or
immediately adjacent to the Specific Plan area. The features are made of local schist and
serpentine ground stone cobbles, ranging from 158 to 380 feet in length, 6 to 8 feet in
width, 1 to 2 feet in height, and oriented on a roughly northwest – southeast axis. While
some of the features may have been intentionally placed, it is unclear for what purpose. At
least two sets of the features are paired and appear to run in parallel or convergent lines.
All of the stones appear to have been grouped on the surface, with no evidence of a
subsurface component. They are not considered to be building foundations or collapsed
rock walls. Due to the distance from the Froom Ranch Dairy complex, it is not likely that
the linear rock wall features are associated with past dairy operations. The rocks may be
aligned with previously existing fence lines, as regular wooden and/or metal channel stakes
and sections of barbed wire fence were observed along sections of the features. A review
of historic aerial photographs failed to provide a date or range of dates for the features.
Though they may be the result of efforts to clear ground stone from the hillside up to, and
along existing fence lines, no evidence exists to definitively date or determine the function
of the features in relation to activities taking place at Froom Ranch. Therefore, these linear
rock features do not meet NRHP, CRHR, or City listing criteria for historic resources
(FirstCarbon Solutions, Inc. 2018; Appendix F).
3.5-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
In addition to the linear rock wall
features, a stone revetment/retaining
wall feature was identified adjacent to
the bedrock mortar prehistoric site (P-
40-000783). This is likely a recent
feature as the boards associated with it
are painted. A recent rock fire pit
located west of the prehistoric lithic
site P-40-001195 was also identified,
with modern trash discovered and
unrelated to the lithic site. Lastly, a
boulder containing a blasting hole was
located southwest of the lithic site P-
40-001195 in a cluster of oak trees, within the southwestern portion of the Project site.
Overall, these historical features did not appear to have any historical significance or
unique features, nor did they appear to be over 45 years old, although there was no way to
definitively determine their exact age (FirstCarbon Solutions 2015; Appendix F).
Native American Consultation
FirstCarbon Solutions contacted the State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
on December 31, 2014 requesting a search of the Sacred Lands Inventory and a list of local
Native American tribal representatives who may have knowledge of tribal cultural
resources in the Project site and vicinity. The NAHC responded to this request on January
21, 2015 indicating that there were no sacred lands listed in the area and provided a list of
22 tribal representatives who could potentially have information on tribal cultural
resources. FirstCarbon Solutions sent letters to the 22 tribal representatives (Appendix F).
One response was received.
• Patti Dunton, Administrator of the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo
Counties requested on January 28, 2015 that planned development stay clear of the
two recorded sites and that all ground disturbing activities be monitored by an
archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Playano Salinan monitor. Subsequent
consultation with the Project architect, RRM Design Group, resulted in a decision
to not move the bedrock mortars associated with site P-40-000783/CA-SLO-783.
On February 17, 2015, Ms. Dunton responded that she had no additional comments
on the Project.
One of six linear rock wall features located along the
Project site’s western boundary.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-13
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Subsequently, the City initiated formal Native American consultation pursuant to the
requirements of SB 18 (Government Code 655352.3) and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (PRC
Section 21080.3.1). The City contacted the NAHC on April 15, 2017 to identify any
updates to the list of tribal representatives who could potentially have information on tribal
cultural resources. Ten tribal contacts were identified by the NAHC in their response on
April 24, 2017, who were contacted by the City on December 26, 2017 requesting
consultation (Appendix F).
In compliance with AB 52, the City offered an opportunity to consult with the City on the
potential effects of the Project on tribal cultural resources to 12 tribal representatives that
had requested notification by the City on all CEQA projects. Letters were sent on
December 22, 2017 and tribal representatives had 30 days from receipt of the City’s letter
to request consultation. Of the 12 unique groups and/or individuals contacted under AB 52,
four responses were received from representatives of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash
Indians, Salinan Tribe, Northern Chumash Tribal Council, and Northern Chumash Tribe
as follows:
• Mr. Freddy Romero of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians called and left a
message on January 2, 2018, and the City returned the call and left a message on
January 3, 2018. No formal consultation or comments regarding the Project were
received by the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
• Ms. Patti Dunton of the Salinan Tribe responded via email on January 3, 2018
requesting that all archeological sites, including bedrock outcroppings, be avoided
within designated open space areas and that all ground disturbing activities be
monitored by a qualified archeologist and cultural resource monitor of the Salinan
tribe. Ms. Dunton did not request consultation with the City and did not identify
any tribal cultural resources in the Project area.
• Mr. Fred Collins of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council (NCTC) contacted the
City on January 30, 2018 and requested consultation under AB 52 and a copy of
the Cultural Resource Assessment. A consultation meeting was held with the City
on February 21, 2018. During the meeting Mr. Collins requested that intact
archeological resources be preserved and avoided and requested that a Native
American monitor be retained during ground disturbances. Subsequent cultural
resources reports were provided to the NCTC, and additional comments have not
yet been received specifically regarding the Project. The NCTC requested that
3.5-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
archaeological consultants contact tribal representatives prior to conducting
surveys and assessment.
• Ms. Mona Olivas Tucker of the yak titʸu titʸu yak tiłhini (Northern Chumash Tribe)
emailed the City on February 8, 2018 requesting a copy of the Cultural Resource
Assessment. The City emailed the report on February 8, 2018. Subsequent cultural
resources reports were provided to the Northern Chumash Tribe, and additional
comments have not yet been received specifically regarding the Project.
3.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Cultural and tribal cultural resources are governed primarily by federal, state, and local
laws that would apply to future development under the Project. Federal, state and local
regulations that are relevant to the Project are summarized below.
3.5.2.1 Federal
No federal action is required for the Project, but related federal regulation is provided for
background.
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 to
help identify and protect properties that are significant cultural resources at the national,
state, and/or local levels. Four criteria have been established to determine if a resource is
significant to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture and
should be listed in the NRHP. These criteria include:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; and
4. It yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-15
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance that are at least
50 years in age must meet one or more of the above criteria to be eligible for listing in the
NRHP.
3.5.2.2 State
California Register of Historical Resources
PRC Section 5024.1 states that a resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP are considered eligible for
listing in the CRHR, and thus are significant historical resources under CEQA (PRC
Section 5024.1(d)(1)).
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52 amended PRC Section 5097.94 (CEQA) and added eight sections to the PRC related
to California Native American tribes. It was passed and signed into law in 2014 and took
effect on July 1, 2015. This law establishes a new category of resource called tribal cultural
resources (PRC Section 21074) and establishes a process for consulting with Native
American tribes and groups regarding those resources. The consultation process must be
completed before a CEQA document can be certified. California Native American tribes
to be included in the process are identified through consultation with NAHC (PRC Section
21080.3.1).
Tribal cultural resources are “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places,
and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe…” (PRC Section
21074.1). A tribal cultural resource must be on, or eligible for, the CRHR as described
above for historical resources or must be included in a local register of historical resources.
Also, as discussed above for historical resources, the lead agency can determine that a tribal
3.5-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
cultural resource is significant even if it has not been evaluated as eligible for the CRHR
or is not on a local register.
AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead
agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant
characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).
Senate Bill 18
Passed in 2004, Senate Bill (SB) 18 requires cities and counties to consult with Native
American tribes to help protect traditional tribal cultural places as part of a general plan
adoption or amendment. Unlike AB 52, SB 18 is not an amendment to, or otherwise
associated with, CEQA. Instead, SB 18 requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment
of a city or county’s general plan, the city or county must conduct consultations with
California Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving specified places, features,
and objects that are located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. Under SB 18, cities and
counties must notify the appropriate Native American tribe(s) of intended adoption or
amendments to general plans and offer the opportunity for the tribe(s) to consult regarding
traditional tribal cultural places within the proposed plan area. A Native American tribe is
defined as “a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally
recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the
Native American Heritage Commission” (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
2005:6). Traditional tribal cultural places are defined in PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993
to include sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred
shrines, or any historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed on or eligible for the CRHR
including any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, or archaeological site
(Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2005:4).
Codes Governing Human Remains
The disposition of human remains is governed by Section 7050.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 and falls within the jurisdiction
of the NAHC. If human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified
within 48 hours and there should be no further disturbance to the site where the remains
were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the
coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-17
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Section 5097.98, will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely
descended from the deceased Native Americans, so they can inspect the burial site and
make recommendations for treatment or disposal.
3.5.2.3 Local
City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines
Developed by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), the Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (part of the City’s Environmental Guidelines)
regulate the identification, evaluation, and treatment of archaeological sites and Native
American cultural landscapes within the City. They are used to help develop the
information needed to evaluate a project’s effects on archaeological sites and artifacts, and
thus achieve compliance with the cultural resource provisions of CEQA. The guidelines
include a three-step approach to historical resources: preparation of an Archaeological
Resource Inventory (ARI); Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE); and
Archaeological Resource Impact Mitigation (ARIM).
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines
The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines were adopted by City Council Resolution
No. 6158 (1987 Series) and amended in 2010 with the adoption of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance (Chapter 14.01 of the Municipal Code). The guidelines discuss historic
preservation benefits and services offered by the City, discuss the principles of historic
preservation, and summarize the architectural review process. Additionally, the Historic
Preservation Ordinance guidelines establish the roles and duties of the CHC, define historic
resources and historic districts, outline procedures for adding properties to the City’s
Master List of Historic Resources, and outline procedures for amending or establishing
Historic Preservation Districts. The list was last updated in December 2016.
City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee
The City’s CHC is a seven-member advisory body for the City responsible for overseeing
preservation and management of historical and cultural resources. The purpose of the CHC
is to “promote the preservation of architectural, archaeological, historical and cultural
resources in San Luis Obispo” (Advisory Body Handbook 2015). A historical resource or
feature that is designated for preservation or alteration under a proposed project requires
review by the CHC, per San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 14.01 Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
3.5-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
Proposed projects are evaluated for consistency with the City’s following adopted goals
and policies relating to cultural resources. The COSE of the General Plan addresses
Historic and Architectural Resources with multiple goals and policies. The goals and
policies discussed below focus on those relevant to cultural resources present on the Project
site. Relevant goals and polices include:
Goal COS 3.2 Historic and Architectural Resources. The City will expand community
understanding, appreciation, and support for historic and architectural resource
preservation to ensure long-term protection of cultural resources.
Policy COS 3.3.1 Historic Preservation. Significant historic and architectural resources
should be identified, preserved, and rehabilitated.
Policy COS 3.3.3 Historical Documentation. Buildings and other cultural features that are
not historically significant, but which have historical or architectural value should be
preserved or relocated where feasible. Where preservation or relocation is not feasible, the
resources shall be documented, and the information retained in a secure but publicly
accessible location. An acknowledgement of the resources should be incorporated within
the site through historic signage and the reuse or display of historic material and artifacts.
Goal COS 3.4 Archaeological Resources. The City will expand community
understanding, appreciation, and support for archaeological resource preservation.
Policy COS 3.5.1 Archaeological Resource Protection. The City shall provide for the
protection of both known and potential archaeological resources. To avoid significant
damage to important archaeological sites, all available measures, including purchase of the
property in fee or easement, shall be explored at the time of a development proposal. Where
such measures are not feasible, and development would adversely affect identified
archaeological or paleontological resources, mitigation shall be required pursuant to the
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
Policy COS 3.5.2 Native American Sites. All Native American cultural and archaeological
sites shall be protected as open space wherever possible.
Policy COS 3.5.4 Archaeological Sensitive Areas. Development within an
archaeologically sensitive area shall require a preliminary site survey by a qualified
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-19
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures, prior to a determination of the
potential environmental impacts of the project.
Policy COS 3.5.5 Archaeological Resources Present. Where a preliminary site survey
finds substantial archaeological resources, before permitting construction, the City shall
require a mitigation plan to protect the resources. Possible mitigation measures include:
presence of a qualified professional during initial grading or trenching; project redesign;
covering with a layer of fill; excavation removal and curation in an appropriate facility
under the direction of a qualified professional.
Policy COS 3.5.6. Qualified Archaeologist Present. Where substantial archaeological
resources are discovered during construction or grading activities, all such activities in the
immediate area of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in
Native American cultures can determine the significance of the resource and recommend
alternative mitigation measures.
Policy COS 3.5.7 Native American Participant. Native American participation shall be
included in the City’s Guidelines for resource assessment and impact mitigation. Native
American representatives should be present during archaeological excavation and during
construction in an area likely to contain cultural resources. The Native American
community shall be consulted as knowledge of cultural resources expands and as the City
considered updates or significant changes to its General Plan.
Policy COS 3.5.8 Protection of Native American Cultural Sites. The City will ensure the
protection of archaeological sites that may be culturally significant to Native Americans,
even if they have lost their scientific or archaeological integrity through previous
disturbance; sites that may have religious value, even though no artifacts are present; and
sites that contain artifacts which may have intrinsic value, even though their archaeological
context has been disturbed.
3.5.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.5.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
With respect to cultural resource impacts, applicable sections of Appendix G of the State
CEQA Guidelines state that a significant impact would occur if a project would:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5;
3.5-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; or
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
In addition, the Project would impact tribal cultural resources if it would cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section
21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that is:
d) Eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as
defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); or
e) A resource determined by the Lead Agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.
3.5.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
This analysis evaluates potential cultural resource and tribal cultural resource impacts
associated with implementation of the Project. The impact analysis for cultural resources
is based on review of information and analysis from cultural resources reports prepared for
the Project, including:
• Froom Ranch/El Villaggio Specific Plan Section 106 Prehistoric Report San Luis
Obispo prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions in 2015;
• Analysis of Historic Structures at Froom Ranch 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San
Luis Obispo, CA prepared by Stork, Wolfe and Associates in 2017;
• Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review prepared by Chattel, Inc. in
2017;
• Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment, San Luis Obispo, San
Luis Obispo County, CA prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions and Chattel, Inc. in
2017;
• Froom Ranch Specific Plan Cultural Resource Assessment, San Luis Obispo, San
Luis Obispo County, CA prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions and Chattel, Inc. in
2017;
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-21
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
• Froom Ranch Retention Basin and Land Exchange Areas Supplemental Phase I
Cultural Resources Report prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions in 2018;
• Froom Ranch Limited Phase II Cultural Resources Assessment, Froom Ranch
Storm Water Basin, County of San Luis Obispo, CA prepared by Condor Country
Consulting, Inc. in 2018; and
• Linear Rock Features Historical Resource Evaluation, Froom Ranch, 12165 Los
Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA prepared by Chattel, Inc. in 2018.
This analysis also included review of cultural resource records, and consultation with tribal
representatives. Additionally, Applied EarthWorks, a third-party cultural resources firm,
conducted a reconnaissance-level site survey on January 18, 2019, then peer reviewed the
cultural resource studies prepared by the Applicant (Appendix F). Taken together, this
background research and the targeted assessment performed form the basis for this EIR
analysis (Appendix F). Cultural resources impact assessment is based on a comparison of
known resource locations with the placement of ground disturbing Project activities that
have the potential to directly or indirectly remove, relocate, damage, or destroy the physical
evidence of past cultural activities.
Historical Resources
A project is judged to have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause a
substantial adverse change in the characteristics of a historical resource that convey its
significance or justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR or a local register, either
through demolition, destruction, relocation, alteration, or other means (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15064.5[b]). For historical resources, impacts can generally be mitigated to a less
than significant level through maintenance, repair, stabilization, restoration, preservation,
conservation, or reconstruction in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68) and/or the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Alterations meeting these criteria generally would
not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to any historic resources. In
other words, a project that successfully incorporates the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards would, for purposes of CEQA, be considered to have a less than significant
impact on historic resources (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4[b] and 15064.5[b][3]).
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards define four options for the treatment of historic
buildings: 1) preservation, 2) rehabilitation, 3) restoration, and 4) reconstruction.
Generally:
3.5-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Preservation involves the application of measures necessary to sustain the existing
form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary
measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing
maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive
replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope
of this treatment (Weeks and Grimmer 1995).
2. Rehabilitation entails making possible a compatible use for a property through
repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which
convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values (Weeks and Grimmer 1995).
3. Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form,
features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period by means
of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of
missing features from the restoration period (Weeks and Grimmer 1995).
4. Reconstruction involves new construction to recreate the form, features, and
detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the
purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period and in its historic location
(Weeks and Grimmer 1995).
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are not prescriptive, but instead provide general
guidelines and are intended to be flexible and adaptable to specific project conditions,
including aspects of adaptive use, functionality, and accessibility. The goal is to balance
continuity and change and retain historic building fabric to the maximum extent feasible.
Documentation of historic buildings and structures, including documentation to the
standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey or Historic American Engineering
Record (HABS/HAER), may lessen impacts but may not reduce them to less than
significant levels.
The analysis in this EIR considers both direct impacts and indirect impacts on historic
resources. Direct impacts may occur by:
1. Physically damaging, destroying, or altering all or part of the resource;
2. Altering characteristics of the surrounding environment that contribute to the
resource’s significance;
3. Neglecting the resource to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed; or
4. The incidental discovery of cultural resources without proper notification.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-23
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Removal, demolition, or alteration of historical resources can directly impact their
significance by destroying the historic fabric of an archaeological site, structure, or historic
district. Direct impacts can be assessed by identifying the types and locations of proposed
development, determining the exact locations of historical resources within the area,
assessing the significance of the resources that may be affected, and determining the
appropriate mitigation.
Indirect impacts can result from blocking significant public views of a resource’s defining
character; isolating a resource from its setting or relationship to the streetscape; altering the
setting of a resource; introducing incompatible visual, audible, or atmospheric elements to
a resource’s setting; or introducing shadows over a historic landscape or an architectural
resource with sun-sensitive features that contribute to that resource’s significance.
A key element in this impact assessment methodology involves consideration of the
effectiveness of the Draft FRSP’s proposed treatment and relocation of four historic
structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy complex. The analysis below considers the
efficacy and effectiveness of Project’s proposed policies and development standards in
avoiding or minimizing impacts to these historic resources.
Archaeological Resources
CEQA provides guidelines for mitigating impacts to archaeological resources in Section
15126.4. According to the CEQA Guidelines, public agencies should, whenever feasible,
seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an archaeological nature. The
following factors shall be considered for a project involving potential archaeological
resources:
A. Preservation in place (avoidance) is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to
archaeological sites. Preservation in place maintains the relationship between
artifacts and the archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict with
religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site.
B. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the
following:
1. Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites;
2. Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space;
3. Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil
before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site; or
4. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
3.5-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
C. When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data
recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically
consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared
and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be
deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center.
Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in
accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code.
D. Data recovery shall not be required for a historical resource if the Lead Agency
determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the
scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or
historical resource, provided that the determination is documented and that the
studies are deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional
Information Center.
Typically, such measures will reduce impacts on archaeological resources to less than
significant levels.
3.5.3.3 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
During Project construction, direct impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources may occur
from disturbance or destruction. Impacts may also occur during Project operation through
illicit artifact collection and site disturbances resulting from increased access to open space
areas containing cultural resources. Table 3.5-4 below summarizes these impacts.
Table 3.5-4. Summary of Project Impacts
Cultural Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
CR-1. Project 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
CR-2. Future resident recreational activities
could impact archaeological resources
located within proposed open space.
MM CR-8 Less than Significant
with Mitigation
CR-3. The Project 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
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-25
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CR‐1 Project grading and construction would occur within areas of
prehistoric archaeological sensitivity with the potential to impact
subsurface cultural or tribal cultural resources (Less than Significant
with Mitigation).
The Project would involve extensive ground disturbance to support development of
Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch, including excavation of subterranean parking
garages, building foundations, and utility installations. Installation of the proposed
stormwater detention basin would also require extensive earthmoving and soil disturbance.
Construction activities have the potential to unearth, damage, or destroy prehistoric
archaeological resources within the site. There are three recorded prehistoric sites within
the Project site, including two within Villaggio and one within the proposed stormwater
detention basin area. There is also one unrecorded prehistoric site comprised of the three
mapped stone artifacts (including a projectile point, chert core, and chert flake) observed
through field investigation within Villaggio.2
The Project’s proposed land use and conceptual development plan would avoid direct
disturbance to the known prehistoric sites within the Project site; however, unknown
resources associated with these sites or other prehistoric use of the Project vicinity would
be vulnerable to impacts during construction (Appendix F). The City’s Archeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines defines “archaeologically sensitive” as “Areas
inside or within 200 feet (61 meters) of the boundaries of an archaeological site shown on
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps on file in the Community Development
Department and/or recorded with the CCIC” (City of San Luis Obispo 2009). In
archaeologically sensitive areas, the City may require a SARE, per the Guidelines. The
purpose of the SARE is to verify the presence and location of archaeological resources, to
determine the site's integrity and archaeological significance, and to determine a project’s
potential effects on the resources. Prehistoric sites are important to the contemporary
Obispeño Chumash community. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council representative
requested avoidance of these sites within a designated open space area during AB 52 and
SB 18 consultation.
2 This unrecorded prehistoric site consisting of three stone artifacts was first identified in the Froom
Ranch/El Villaggio Specific Plan 106 Prehistoric Report (FirstCarbon Solutions 2015) but later considered
to three isolate features and not comprising a site and were therefore not further evaluated. However, these
isolate features were later identified as a prehistoric site, but were similarly not further evaluated due to
their removal from the proposed area of development.
3.5-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The recorded prehistoric sites P-40-000783 and P-40-001195, as well as the historic sites
P-40-040991 and P-40-001780, are located either directly within or in close proximity to
areas of proposed development under the Project.3 In compliance with the requirements of
the City’s Archaeological Resources Reservation Program Guidelines, a Limited Phase II
Cultural Resources Assessment meeting the requirements of a SARE was prepared for the
Project by FirstCarbon Solutions in 2018 to verify the presence or absence of archeological
resources within the vicinity of the known prehistoric site (P-40-001780), which would be
directly impacted by development of the proposed stormwater detention basin; however,
no Phase II SARE has been prepared for prehistoric sites P-40-000783 and P-40-001195,
which would be within proposed Open Space areas and would not be directly impacted by
construction of the Project. The other recorded site (P-40-040991) is the Froom Ranch
Dairy Farm, which has been extensively evaluated as a historic resource and district.
Prehistoric site P-40-000783, consisting of prehistoric bedrock mortars, is located within a
proposed private open space area in Villaggio adjacent to areas proposed for development
and within 50 feet of potential earthmoving activities in the southern region of the Project
site. A private recreational area for Villaggio residents is also proposed within 50 feet of
P-40-000783. The boundary of P-40-000783 has not been defined through subsurface
investigation, and there is potential for additional unknown buried resources associated
with the site to be present. Prehistoric site P-40-001195, consisting of one Franciscan chert
biface, two chert cores, and approximately 12 to 15 chert waste flakes chert flakes, dietary
shellfish, and bone fragments, is located in proposed private open space at least 100 feet
from proposed development.
The known resources recorded at these sites are located in proposed private open space
within Villaggio and would not be directly modified or disturbed during Project
construction. Based on the proximity of these sites to one another and the nature of the
resources, it is possible that additional undiscovered subsurface cultural resources
associated with these sites could exist and be located within the areas of proposed
development. Therefore, proposed grading, excavation, trenching, and other earthwork for
proposed roadways, utility lines, storm drainage features, and other earthmoving activities
could occur in areas where undiscovered subsurface resources associated with these
recorded sites may exist.
3 Refer to Impact CR-2 for discussion of impacts to site P-40-040991 and other recorded historic resources
potentially affected by the Project.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-27
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project includes construction of a stormwater detention basin within the southeastern
region of the Project site, where archaeological site P-40-001780 is located. This site and
a 200-foot buffer qualify as an archaeologically sensitive area by the City’s Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The presence of two prehistoric artifacts at the
site, in addition to the presence of prehistoric archaeological sites within the 0.5 mile
research radius of the study area, the presence of large quantities of chert for making
prehistoric stone tools in the area, and the proximity of the creek and seasonal ephemeral
drainages, indicate that subsurface Native American cultural deposits may be present
within the area of disturbance for the proposed stormwater detention basin. Based on the
Phase II SARE prepared for this area of the Project site, there is a potential for additional
prehistoric resources to be discovered during construction of the proposed stormwater
detention basin feature.
In addition to those recorded archaeological sites, several prehistoric isolates including
shellfish and animal bone fragments were identified during the intensive ground surface
survey for the Project within Villaggio (Appendix F). Most of these materials did not
include artifacts such as stone or seed grinding implements, and therefore do not represent
important sources of research data and are not significant cultural resources as defined by
CEQA. However, three mapped but unrecorded isolates located in the Upper Terrace of
Villaggio include a projectile point, chert core, and chert flake.4 This collection of stone
resources constitutes a new archaeological resource site, which has not been mapped or
recorded to date. For the purposes of this EIR analysis, this new site is assumed to be a
significant archaeological resource subject to the City’s Archaeological Guidelines for
archaeologically sensitive areas; the Project has been designed to avoid these resources.
Further, the City’s Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines identify areas
within 200 feet of the top of banks of Froom Creek as archeologically sensitive based on
the distribution of prehistoric sites near the drainage. The Project would involve ground
disturbance in areas that would be within 200 feet of Froom Creek’s historic alignment,
which indicates a potential for increased archaeological sensitivity in the area of the
proposed Froom Creek realignment and Villaggio’s Lower Area. Additionally, the cultural
resource investigations conducted within the Project site and vicinity conclude there is
potential for undiscovered buried sites to exist in areas where alluviation occurred during
heavy episodes of precipitation within the alluvial plain between Froom and Prefumo
4 The Cultural Resource Assessment for the Project (FirstCarbon Solutions 2015) concluded this
concentration of stone artifacts, may comprise a small lithic scatter; however, the assessment did not
include evaluation of these resources for significance.
3.5-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
creeks (Appendix F). The alluvium between these creeks was likely deposited throughout
Holocene age flood events spanning the past 10,000 years, potentially burying prehistoric
site landforms. While portions of the Project site near the existing Froom Creek alignment
have been subject to soil disturbance, which reduces the potential for discovery of intact
resources, the areas of the site where Froom Creek historically flowed appear to be
relatively undisturbed based on historic aerial photography (Google Earth 2019). The
Project would include excavation in this archaeologically sensitive area to realign Froom
Creek to its historic location.
Per the City’s Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, and as
summarized above, there are five archaeologically sensitive areas within the Project site
that are considered to have a higher likelihood of containing undiscovered cultural
resources that could be impacted by Project construction. These include those areas within,
surrounding, or between sites P-40-001195, P-40-000783, P-40-001780, the unrecorded
prehistoric site within Villaggio, and the sensitive areas along the historic Froom Creek
alignment. If development of the Project results in direct damage or loss of unknown
significant archaeological resources in archaeologically sensitive areas around the four
known prehistoric sites (three recorded and one unrecorded) or the historic alignment of
Froom Creek, the impact on cultural resources would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM CR-1 A Phase 2 – Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE)
investigation shall be conducted prior to any grading or development
proposed within 200 feet of the recorded P-40-000783 and P-40-001195
sites, or the unrecorded site comprising three mapped stone isolates, to
evaluate the potential for unknown buried resources within these
“archaeologically sensitive” areas, including but not limited to stone, bone,
glass, ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including
hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites, consistent with City
Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. If discovery of
unknown buried archaeological resources occurs through the SARE, a City-
approved archaeologist shall evaluate the significance of the discovery
pursuant to City Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines and CEQA. If the discovery is found to be a significant cultural
resource, Project design shall be modified to avoid modification,
disturbance, or destruction of the archeological resource. If the Phase 2
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-29
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
SARE investigations do not discover unknown buried archaeological
resources but conclude there is a possibility that cultural resources exist
within the archaeologically sensitive areas that were evaluated, the
Community Development Department Director shall require that the
Applicant retain a City-approved archaeologist and local Native American
observer to monitor construction activities to identify and protect
archaeological resources in accordance with the Archaeological
Monitoring Plan described in MM CR-3.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Any required Phase 2 SARE
investigations shall be conducted by a City-approved archaeologist prior to
approval of the VTM or Project entitlements. Monitoring. The City shall
ensure the Phase 2 SARE investigations are completed by a City-approved
archaeologist and consistent with City Archeological Resource Preservation
Program Guidelines. Any potential modifications to the Project design shall
be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of any subdivision
map or other entitlement.
MM CR-2 If any ground disturbing activities are proposed within 100 feet of the
recorded sites P-40-000783, P-40-0011195, or the unrecorded site
comprising three mapped stone isolates, on preparation of construction
plans, the plans shall delineate a 50-foot buffer surrounding the boundaries
of the recorded sites. The area shall be labeled as an “Environmentally
Sensitive Area”. Highly visible temporary construction fencing shall be
installed along the boundary of the 50-foot buffer and shall remain in place
until the archaeological monitor recommends removal. If feasible, no
ground disturbance, construction worker foot traffic, storage of materials,
or storage or use of equipment shall occur within the “Environmentally
Sensitive Area”. Archaeological monitoring shall occur during all
construction activities occurring within 50 feet of the delineated boundary.
Upon completion of archaeological monitoring, an archaeological
monitoring report shall be prepared and submitted to the City Community
Development Department and the Central Coast Information Center at the
University of California Santa Barbara.
3.5-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to recordation of the final VTM and
issuance of grading permits, plans shall incorporate the delineation of the
“Environmentally Sensitive Area” and associated protection measures.
Monitoring. The City shall verity that required elements are shown on the
final VTM and grading permits. Compliance shall be verified pursuant to
the approved Archaeological Monitoring Plan.
MM CR-3 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, and recordation of the
final map, an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) shall be prepared.
The AMP should include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. A list of personnel involved in the monitoring activities;
b. Description of Native American involvement;
c. Description of how the monitoring shall occur;
d. Description of location and frequency of monitoring (e.g., full time, part
time, spot checking);
e. Description of what resources are expected to be encountered;
f. Description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at
the project site;
g. Description of procedures for halting work on the site and notification
procedures;
h. Description of monitoring reporting procedures; and
i. Provide specific, detailed protocols for what to do in the event of the
discovery of human remains.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The AMP shall be prepared by a City-
approved archaeologist prior to issuance of grading or building permits and
recordation of the final map..
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the AMP is prepared by a City-approved
archaeologist and consistent with City Archeological Resource Preservation
Program Guidelines.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-31
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CR-4 The Applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist and local Native
American observer to monitor Project-related ground-disturbing activities
that have the potential to encounter previously unidentified archaeological
resources, as outlined in the AMP prepared to satisfy MM CR-1.
Archaeological and tribal monitoring may cease only if the City-approved
archaeologist determines in coordination with the Applicant, Community
Development Director, and the Native American monitor that Project
activities do not have the potential to encounter and/or disturb unknown
resources.
Requirements and Timing. The conditions for monitoring and treatment
of discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans. Prior to
issuance of building and grading permits for each phase of the Project, the
Applicant shall submit to the City a contract or Letter of Commitment with
a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. The City shall
review and approve the selected archaeologist to ensure they meet
appropriate professional qualification standards, consistent with the City’s
Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines.
Monitoring. City permit compliance staff shall confirm monitoring by the
archaeologist and tribal representative and City grading inspectors shall
spot check fieldwork. The Native American monitor and Project
archaeologist shall ensure that actions consistent with this mitigation
measure are implemented in the event of any inadvertent discovery.
MM CR-5 In the event of any inadvertent discovery of prehistoric archaeological
resources, including but not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, fossils,
wood, or shell artifacts, or historic-period archaeological resources, all
work within 100 feet of the discovery shall immediately cease (or greater or
lesser distance as needed to protect the discovery and determined in the
field by the City-approved archaeologist). The Applicant and/or contractor
shall immediately notify the City Community Development Department. The
City-approved archaeologist shall evaluate the significance of the discovery
pursuant to City Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines prior to resuming any activities that could impact the
site/discovery. If the City-approved archaeologist or Native American
monitor determine that the find may qualify for listing in the CRHR or as a
3.5-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
tribal cultural resource, the site shall be avoided or shall be subject to a
Phase II or III mitigation program consistent with City Archeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines and funded by the Applicant.
Work shall not resume until authorization is received from the City.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The conditions for monitoring and
treatment of discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans.
Prior to issuance of building and grading permits for each phase of the
Project, the Applicant shall submit to the City a contract or Letter of
Commitment with identified Project archaeologist and Native American
monitor. The City shall review and approve the selected archaeologist to
ensure they meet appropriate professional qualification standards,
consistent with the Archeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines.
Monitoring. City permit compliance staff shall confirm monitoring by the
archaeologist and tribal representative and City grading inspectors shall
spot check fieldwork. The Native American monitor and Project
archaeologist shall ensure that actions consistent with this mitigation
measure are implemented in the event of any inadvertent discovery.
MM CR-6 Prior to construction of each phase, workers shall receive education
regarding the recognition of possible buried cultural remains and
protection of all cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic
resources, during construction. Such training shall provide construction
personnel with direction regarding the procedures to be followed in the
unlikely event that previously unidentified archaeological materials,
including Native American burials, are discovered during construction.
Training shall also inform construction personnel that unauthorized
collection or disturbance of artifacts or other cultural materials is not
allowed. The training shall be prepared by a City-approved archaeologist
and shall provide a description of the cultural resources that may be
encountered in the Project site, specify areas of known sensitivity, outline
steps to follow in the event that a discovery is made, and provide contact
information for the City-approved archaeologist, Native American monitor,
and appropriate City personnel. The training shall be conducted concurrent
with other environmental or safety awareness and education programs for
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-33
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
the Project, provided that the program elements pertaining to
archaeological resources is provided by a qualified instructor meeting
applicable professional standards.
Requirements and Timing. Prior to ground disturbance for each phase,
construction workers shall participate in an educational program that will
enable them to recognize and report possible buried cultural remains and
protect all cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic resources.
The educational program shall be outlined within the Archaeological
Monitoring Plan and submitted to the City for approval prior to issuance of
grading permits for each phase.
Monitoring. The City-approved archaeologist shall verify the training has
been completed by all construction workers and shall ensure construction
workers follow cultural resource discovery protocols.
MM CR-7 If human remains are exposed during construction, the City Community
Development Department shall be notified immediately. The Applicant and
City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which
states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
been notified and can make the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition of the remains pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. Construction
shall halt around the discovery of human remains, the area shall be
protected, and consultation and treatment shall occur as prescribed by law.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The conditions for monitoring and
treatment of discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans
and reflected in the AMP.
Monitoring. City permit compliance staff shall confirm monitoring by the
City-approved archaeologist and tribal representative and City grading
inspectors shall spot check fieldwork. The Native American monitor and
City-approved archaeologist shall ensure that actions consistent with this
mitigation measure are implemented in the event of any inadvertent
discovery.
3.5-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Residual Impact
Implementation of MM CR-1 through -7 would ensure that appropriate precautions and
protection measures are taken to avoid potentially significant impacts to unknown or
undiscovered archaeological resources during construction activities. Therefore, residual
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact CR‐2 Future resident recreational activities could impact
archaeological resources located within proposed open space (Less than
Significant with Mitigation).
Prehistoric site P-40-001195, a concentration of chert flakes, dietary shellfish, and bone
fragments, is located in an area of proposed open space at least 100 feet from area proposed
for development. The resource would be generally inconspicuous from passive recreational
users and the nearest residential structures within Villaggio would be enclosed by a security
fence that would substantially limit access to the cultural resource. A separate private
recreational area for Villaggio residents is also proposed within 50 feet of P-40-000783, a
cluster of bedrock mortars. It is reasonable to assume that Villaggio residents would use
open space areas and the private recreational area for passive recreation or to access the
Irish Hills trails network. Increased passive recreational use of the open space by Project
residential populations and domesticated animals could result in indirect adverse impacts
to the prehistoric resource, including illicit artifact collection and erosion from hiking, dog
walking, etc. These potential disturbances would be a potentially significant impact on
cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures
MM CR-8 No designated recreational areas, facilities, pedestrian paths, or roadways
shall be located with 50 feet of a known prehistoric or tribal cultural
resource site. All archaeological site soils within 100 feet of a known
prehistoric or tribal cultural site shall be seeded with shallow rooted
vegetation unless existing natural vegetation (i.e., existing grasslands) can
screen the cultural resource from view.
Requirements and Timing. The Draft FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate these measures as they apply to P-40-000783 or P-40-001195
and the unrecorded site, prior to adoption of the Final FRSP.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-35
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Monitoring. A City-qualified archaeologist shall review and approve the
established buffer between Project development and known cultural
resource sites and review vegetation seeding covering the archaeological
site boundaries prior to issuance of occupancy.
Residual Impact
Implementation of MM CR-8 would reduce impacts to sensitive cultural resources and
soils, particularly as they apply to site P-40-000783 and P-40-001195, to less than
significant with mitigation.
Impact CR‐3 The Project would result in relocation, demolition, disturbance, and/or
removal of historic resources onsite, including individually eligible
historic resources and a historic district (Significant and Unavoidable).
As documented in Section 3.5.1.4, the Project site contains the historic Froom Ranch Dairy
Farm (P-40-040991), including seven existing contributing structures associated with the
historic dairy and Froom family. Four structures (i.e., main residence, creamery, dairy barn,
and granary) are considered significant historic resources as individual structures. These
four structures together with the three other contributing structures (i.e., the old barn,
shed/storage building, and bunkhouse) constitute an eligible historic district under the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the CRHR. The landscape and layout of these
seven buildings comprising the Froom Ranch Dairy complex is historically significant
under CEQA.
The Project would relocate and adaptively reuse (within the proposed public park) four
Froom Ranch Dairy buildings (i.e., main residence, creamery, dairy barn, and granary) that
are eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and City’s Master List of Historic Resources.
The main residence would be relocated and rehabilitated, and the creamery, dairy barn, and
granary would be disassembled, relocated, and reconstructed, while the shed, bunkhouse,
old barn, and non-historic storage building and outhouse structures would be demolished
(refer to Section 2.4.2.4, Relocation and Reconstruction of Historic Structures). Due to the
presence of the Los Osos fault (refer to Section 3.6, Geology and Soils), which underlies
the dairy barn at its existing location, the Project would relocate and reconstruct the dairy
barn approximately 220 feet to the east, outside of the required fault setback. The main
residence, creamery, and granary would also be relocated to maintain the relative
horizontal configuration in relation to the dairy barn, in addition to grade changes to mimic
the existing vertical relationship and visual hierarchy.
3.5-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed relocation and reconstruction of four of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex
buildings would maintain the character-defining features of the four individually
significant structures, including the existence, orientation, relative horizontal and vertical
relationship of the main residence, creamery, dairy barn, and granary, and the relative open
space and minimally landscaped setting. The viewshed from the main residence to the
creamery, dairy barn, and granary would also be retained, as it would remain at the lowest
elevation, the creamery at mid-elevation, and the dairy barn and granary at the highest
elevation. The main residence would be rehabilitated consistent with the Rehabilitation
Standards of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the creamery, dairy barn, and
granary would be reconstructed consistent with the Reconstruction Standards of the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, requiring minimal changes to the distinctive
materials, finishes, features, or construction techniques. Deteriorated historic features
would also be repaired or replaced in-kind to match the existing structure. The character-
defining features of each of the individually eligible historic structures would be retained.
Continued review of the restoration and rehabilitation would ensure compliance with these
standards during treatment and relocation of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex. However,
there is a potential for conflict between the design and character of the surrounding
Madonna Froom Ranch development and the rehabilitated main residence. Incompatible
design of adjacent new development has the potential to reduce or inhibit the historic
quality, character, and context of the relocated and rehabilitated main residence.
Further, there are several structures onsite that would be destroyed through Project
implementation but are not considered significant historic resources. Within the Froom
Ranch Dairy complex, the storage building and outhouse, which are non-contributing
structures to the potential historic district, would be demolished; however, these structures
were built after the period of significance and demolition of these structures would not
affect the integrity of this potential historic district. Within the proposed stormwater
detention basin area, the integrity of the historic-period component of site P-40-001780
consisting of the historic building foundations and structure pads was found to be
substantially lost during the Limited Phase II Cultural Resources Assessment (Condor
Country Consulting 2018), such that these materials are not historical resources or
historical properties pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA or under Section 106 of NHPA
(36 CFR 800). Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historic-period archaeological resource. Lastly, the six linear rock wall
features located along the western Project boundary were determined not eligible for the
NRHP, CRHR, or the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. The potential loss of these
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-37
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
features either through Project construction or operation would not contribute to the loss
of a historical resource or contributing factor to the potential historic district (Chattel, Inc.,
2018; Appendix F).
However, the Project would result in the demolition and permanent loss of three
contributors to the potential Froom Ranch Dairy historic district (i.e., the shed, bunkhouse,
and old barn). While these structures are not individually significant historic resources,
they contribute to the historic setting and integrity of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex
based upon their association with the Froom family, connection to the historic dairy
operation, character-defining features of Craftsman-style or vernacular architecture, and
good integrity. The Applicant-prepared HRE characterizes these structures as secondary
contributors to the historic district and concludes their demolition would not affect the
integrity or historic value of the historic district; however, per NRHP Bulletin 15, a district
possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of site, buildings, structure, or
objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district
derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a
wide variety of resources both contributing and non-contributing. The identity of a district
results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the
overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related
properties. A district can encompass both features that lack individual distinction (such as
the shed, bunkhouse, and old barn) and individually distinctive features, such as the four
individually eligible historic structures (U.S. Department of the Interior 1991).
The loss of the shed, bunkhouse, and old barn would reduce the concentration of physical
features that make up the character and appearance of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex.
While the proposal for relocation and reconstruction of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex
would continue to retain sufficient integrity to convey its significant association with the
dairy industry and the Froom family, the Project would result in the loss of historic
materials and character defining features that existed during the resource’s period of
significance. With application of the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines criteria for
historic resources, Section 14.01.070 (3)(C), demolition of the shed, bunkhouse, and old
barn would reduce the degree to which the Froom Ranch Dairy complex retains its design,
setting, workmanship, and “feeling” (aesthetic or historical sense of a particular period).
Additionally, relocation and reconstruction of the dairy barn away from a fault line, and
reconstruction of the four structures would potentially preserve this cultural resource from
future seismic impacts. However, grading and earthmoving would occur within 50 feet of
3.5-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
the Froom Ranch Dairy historic structures prior to their relocation and restoration.
Relocation of the four significant historical structures would occur during Phase 3 of the
Project construction period, exposing the structures to construction equipment vibration
hazards throughout previous phases. Phase 4 construction vibration could potentially also
impact the buildings after they are relocated. Ground vibrations could weaken the
surrounding soils, causing adverse impacts to the existing building foundations and
structural supports.
The Project would potentially damage existing historic buildings proposed to be relocated,
rehabilitated, and reused and would substantially degrade the integrity of the potential
Froom Ranch Dairy historic district through the loss of contributing structures. In addition,
there is potential for incompatibility between the proposed adjacent development of the
Madonna Froom Ranch and the relocated structures, resulting in potential effects on the
character and quality of historic resources, particularly the main residence. Therefore,
impacts to historic resources are potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM CR-9 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional historic architect
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards (36 CFR Part 61) to review and comment on design and
construction drawings and monitor construction to ensure conformance
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The role of the historic
architect shall include collaboration on a range of items relating to
materials selection, construction methods, design of exterior and interior
alterations, and monitoring of construction activities. The historic architect
and Applicant shall resolve any unforeseen circumstance in a manner that
conforms with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
The qualified professional historic architect shall work with the Applicant
team to ensure:
a) Deteriorated historic features would be repaired to the greatest extent
feasible. Where features are deteriorated beyond repair, they would be
replaced to exactly match the old.
b) All character-defining features are retained.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-39
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
c) Physical treatments to historic material would use the gentlest means
possible and would not damage material.
d) Reconstruction would be clearly identified as a contemporary re-
creation.
e) Interpretative signage would clearly provide information regarding the
history of the buildings and their reconstruction.
Artifacts, features, and other materials recovered through this process shall
be described, illustrated, and analyzed fully in a technical report of
findings; the analysis shall include comparative research with other sites of
similar age. In addition to the technical report, the findings from this
research shall be published in an appropriate scientific journal. The
Applicant shall fund all technical reporting and subsequent publication.
Requirements and Timing. The historic architect shall submit a report
documenting conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to
the City for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits
for the Project. Artifacts, features, and other materials recovered through
this process shall be described, illustrated, and analyzed fully in a technical
report of findings; the analysis shall include comparative research with
other sites of similar age. In addition to the technical report, the findings
from this research shall be published in an appropriate scientific journal.
The Applicant shall fund all technical reporting and subsequent publication.
The historic architect shall notify the Applicant if any unforeseen
circumstance arises during construction that could potentially result in
nonconformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the report is reviewed and approved
prior to issuance of grading permits for Phase 3. The historic architect
shall participate in a pre-construction meeting with the general contractor
and subcontractors and periodically monitor construction to completion of
construction.
MM CR-10 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional photographer to prepare
Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II documentation. This
documentation shall record the existing appearance of all seven
contributing buildings in large and medium format HABS photographs. All
3.5-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
documentation components shall be completed in accordance with the
Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (HABS
standards). The photographs shall consist primarily of large format, 4-inch
by 5-inch, black and white negatives (one set), contact prints (one set) and
8-inch by 10-inch prints (two sets), archivally processed and printed on
fiber-based paper. The set of original negatives shall be made at the time
the photographs are taken. The original, archivally-sound negatives and
prints shall be and distributed as follows: (1) the Library of Congress in
Washington, DC through the National Park Service (one set of negatives
and contact prints).
Requirements and Timing. The draft documentation shall be assembled
and submitted to the qualified professional historic architect and the City
for review and approval prior to submittal to the repository. The HABS
documentation shall be completed prior to the issuance of grading permits
for Phase 1.
Monitoring. A digital copy of the HABS documentation shall be
reviewed by the City and approved prior to the issuance of grading
permits.
MM CR-11 The Applicant shall work with the City to develop an interpretive project
that documents the potential historic district and its cultural and
architectural heritage by means of a pamphlet. This pamphlet will highlight
the former Froom Ranch Dairy, both primary and secondary contributors,
in a social (Froom family) and industrial (dairy industry) context, with an
emphasis on how these buildings were used on the dairy farm, and how this
property relates to the larger dairy farm context in San Luis Obispo, the
Central Coast, and California. Five hundred copies of the pamphlet shall
be published. These professionally researched, written and printed
materials shall be offered at no cost through the local museums and
heritage organizations, and at the trailhead park. After the initial
distribution of printed brochures, digital copies shall be available.
Throughout the park, interpretive signs that provide information on
building history and function (extant and demolished) shall also be
incorporated.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-41
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit draft
documentation to the City and Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for
review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase 3.
Monitoring. The pamphlet and interpretive signage shall be reviewed by
the CHC and approved by the Community Development Director. The
Parks and Recreation Commission shall review any interpretive signage
proposed to be located within the park. The City Community Development
Department shall ensure park designs incorporate interpretive signage
consistent with approved documentation.
MM CR-12 The Applicant shall reuse original material to the greatest extent feasible in
the proposed work on the contributing structures to be relocated and/or
reconstructed within the proposed public park (main residence, dairy barn,
creamery/house, and granary). The Applicant and historic architect shall
work with the City to prepare a marketing plan to offer to the public any
salvaged historic materials not used during rehabilitation and
reconstruction of the primary contributors, and demolition of the secondary
contributors. As appropriate, unused or unretained historic materials will
be offered to local historical societies and museums, then offered to
architectural recycling before being disposed.
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit draft
documentation to the City for review and approval by the Community
Development Director prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase 3.
Monitoring. The marketing plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director.
MM CR-13 The Applicant and historic architect shall prepare design guidelines and a
review process for new construction proximate to the main residence. New
construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that the essential form
and integrity of the main residence and its setting would be unimpaired. The
design guidelines and review by City Community Development Director
shall ensure new construction is compatible with main residence in
material, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing.
3.5-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit draft
design guidelines to the City and CHC for review and approval prior to
approval of entitlements and the issuance of grading permits for Phase 1.
Monitoring. The design guidelines shall be reviewed by the CHC and
approved by the Community Development Director.
MM CR-14 Prior to commencement of Phase 1 construction, a City-approved qualified
structural engineer and historical architect shall survey the existing
foundations and other structural aspects of the main residence, creamery,
dairy barn, and granary, and develop a preservation plan to protect the
historic buildings from potential damage during construction activities.
The qualified structural engineer shall identify any necessary temporary
structural bracing for the historic structures to avoid damage to these
resources during the duration of construction. The qualified structural
engineer shall prepare a temporary historic structure stabilization plan
identifying these techniques as necessary.
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit the preservation
plan and temporary historic structure stabilization plan to the City for
review and approval prior to recordation of the final map and issuance of
grading and building permits for Phase 1 of construction. Prior to the
issuance of Phase 4 building and grading permits, the Applicant shall submit
the final Historic Structures Plan and temporary historic structure
stabilization plan, with incorporation of any additional recommendations
for repair, to the City for review and approval.
Monitoring. The City engineer shall review and approve the preservation
plan prior to recordation of the final map and issuance of grading permits
for Phase 1. The City-approved structural engineer shall periodically
monitor vibration during vibration-causing construction activities to ensure
excessive vibration does not occur and that temporary historic structure
stabilization plan strategies are effective at avoiding vibration damage. The
structural engineer shall halt construction activity if he/she deems
construction activity may harm historical resources and shall modify or
augment the temporary historic structure stabilization plan strategies
accordingly.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-43
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Residual Impact
Implementation of MM CR-9 through -13 would ensure relocation and restoration of the
four individually eligible historical resources would conform to the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards, and MM CR-14 would address potential for construction vibration to
disturb these buildings. Additionally, these measures would lessen impacts to the potential
historic district by ensuring that relocation and reconstruction of the main residence, dairy
barn, creamery, and granary would retain character-defining features that convey the
district’s historical significance, and that demolished historic structures would be
thoroughly documented and curated. However, because the demolition of a portion of a
historical district and relocation of a historical district represents an irreversible change to
the historical resource, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
3.5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
For cultural resources, the geographic extent of cumulative impacts encompasses a
relatively broad area as the significance or importance of any individual resource can only
be judged in terms of its regional context and relationship to other resources. Thus, the
significance of impacts on any given resource or group of resources must be examined in
light of the integrity of the regional resource base. Because the number of cultural resources
is finite, limited, and nonrenewable, any assessment of cumulative impacts must take into
consideration the impacts of the Project on resources within the Project site; the extent to
which those impacts degrade the integrity of the regional resource base; and impacts other
projects may have on the regional resource base. If these effects, taken together, result in a
collective degradation of the resources base, then those impacts are considered
cumulatively considerable.
The cultural resource region of influence is the Obispeño Chumash culture area and historic
context that encompasses the City and County. In this EIR, the cumulative impact analysis
includes the Project and the list of past and future projects identified in Table 3.0-1,
Cumulative Projects List, in Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation
Measures.
Trends that have led to degradation of the regional archeological and historical resource
base, which are expected to continue in the future, include continuing urban development
in the County. Cumulative development would result in the permanent loss of known
archeological resources and historical structures, including those located within the Avila
Ranch Specific Plan and San Luis Ranch Specific Plan areas. In addition, cumulative
3.5-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
development such as that anticipated under the projects listed within Table 3.0-1 may
uncover previously undisturbed archeological resources and could potentially result in
damage or loss of such resources. However, in most cases project-specific impacts would
be addressed on a project-by-project basis.
Cumulative projects would be required to comply with General Plan Policies COSE 3.5.5,
3.5.6, and 3.5.7, described in Section 3.5.3, Regulatory Setting, and would be subject to
review by the CHC for conformance with guidelines for cultural resources protection.
Further, cumulative projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA,
which requires avoidance of significant cultural resources whenever feasible; if avoidance
is not feasible, then appropriate mitigation measures would be applied (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.4).
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact associated with the
removal, relocation, and reconstruction of features associated with the historic Froom
Ranch Dairy complex. As such, the Project would contribute to the cumulative loss of
historic resources in the City, resulting in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-45
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section describes the existing geologic conditions and analyzes the potential for
impacts from geologic and soils hazards to occur through implementation of the Project.
Geologic resources consist of all soil, bedrock materials, mineral deposits, important
landforms and underlying or regional tectonic features that may create seismic hazards
(i.e., earthquake faults). These resources can present hazards or obstacles to new
development and may also have scientific and economic value. Paleontological resources
(fossils) are also identified as geological resources in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G under Geology and Soils. Paleontological resources are most commonly encountered
below the ground surface and may be discovered or disturbed during Project
implementation.
3.6.1 Environmental Setting
3.6.1.1 Regional Setting
The City is in a geologically complex and seismically active region within the Coast Range
Geomorphic Province. This region extends along the coastline from central California to
Oregon and consists of a series of northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges and
intervening valleys that are generally separated by faults. The eastern boundary of the
Coast Range Geomorphic Province is the Central Valley, the western boundary is offshore
in the Pacific Ocean, and the Santa Ynez Valley is the southern boundary. The geology of
the province is dominated by long surface blocks adjacent to major faults that run
approximately parallel to the San Andreas Fault. Typically, the layers within each of these
blocks have been intensely folded and faulted (Dibblee 2004).
The Project site is located east of and adjacent to the Irish Hills at the southern flank of the
Santa Lucia Mountain Range in the San Luis Obispo Valley, a northeast-southwest
trending stream valley that is carved into underlying bedrock and filled with alluvial
sediments. Much of the region is situated within low-lying valley areas that are
predominantly underlain by varying thicknesses of recent-age alluvium. The surrounding
hills are comprised of the Franciscan and Monterey Formations and Quaternary-aged non-
marine terrace deposits. The alluvium is derived from the surrounding upland areas and is
composed primarily of clayey sands and gravels (GeoSolutions, Inc. 2017; refer to
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-1
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Appendix G). The area historically supported chromite and chromium mining activities,
though all mining ceased more than 50 years ago.
3.6.1.2 Site Topography
The Project site consists of level to rolling
topography with natural drainages that rise
to the steep, rocky Irish Hills in the
southwestern portion of the site. The site is
“U” shaped and generally aligned in an
east-west orientation. Onsite topography
rises gently from an average surface
elevation of approximately 110 feet above
mean sea level (msl) in the east to over 300
feet above msl in the southwest. The
southern portion of the site consists of a
relatively level terrace with a surface
elevation of approximately 200 feet above
msl. Within the proposed Villaggio area of the Project site, slopes range from 0 to 75 percent,
but are more commonly between 15 and 30 percent. Within the Madonna Froom Ranch
portion of site, slopes range from 0 to 30 percent, though slopes are most commonly less than
15 percent.
3.6.1.3 Project Site Soils and Formational Units
The Project site lies within Jurassic and Cretaceous-age geology (205-63 million years
before present), primarily consisting of Franciscan Complex formational units overlain by
alluvial soil material. The Franciscan Complex rock at the site varies from fresh to very
intensely weathered, very hard to very soft, and massive to slightly bedded. Additional soil
types at the site include fill, colluvium, landslide deposits, stream deposits, and alluvial
deposits (Appendix G).
The Project site generally contains surface soils comprised of fine-grained and nearly
impervious material with slow to very slow infiltration rates with high runoff potential,
soils with high water tables, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material
(such as the above-described Franciscan Complex rock) (Table 3.6-1). Surface materials
The Project site consists of level topography in the
lower elevations which gradually rises up to the base
of the Irish Hills. Slopes generally range between 0
and 30 percent, while some steeper areas contain up
to 75 percent slopes.
3.6-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
in the eastern, lower elevations of the site generally consists of soft, wet clay. The soil
texture and colors are very dark grayish brown sandy clay and dark gray clay at various
depths depending on location. Underlying the surface soils of the western upper-elevation
areas are formational units of the Franciscan Complex. Localized hard to very hard rock
conditions (chert, serpentite) are beneath top soils in the upper-elevation areas. Per
subsurface investigations within the Project site, groundwater within the eastern lower
portions of the site adjacent to the Calle Joaquin wetlands is generally encountered at an
approximate depth of 1.5 to 4.0 feet below ground surface (bgs). In the northeastern
portions of the site, near Irish Hills Plaza, groundwater was not encountered at a depth of
10 feet bgs. Groundwater was not observed in the western upper-elevations of the site
though natural springs were mapped in the Upper Terrace of Villaggio (Appendix G).
Table 3.6-1. Project Site Soils Characterization
Soil
Symbol Soil Name Acreages in
Project Site Slope % Surface Runoff
Potential
Specific Plan Area
127 Cropley clay 43.8 (40.3%) 0 to 2 Medium
130 Diablo and Cibo clays 16.0 (14.7%) 9 to 15 Very high
131 Diablo and Cibo clays 7.3 (6.7%) 15 to 30 Very high
162 Los Osos – Diablo complex 1.8 (1.6%) 5 to 9 Very high
164 Los Osos – Diablo complex 14.5 (13.3%) 15 to 30 Very high
183 Obispo – Rock outcrop complex 21.8 (20.0%) 15 to 75 Very high
221 Xerets – Xerolls – Urban land complex 0.7 (0.6%) 0 to 15 Very high
300 Corducci – Typic Xerofluvents 2.9 (2.7%) 0 to 5 Very low
Proposed Stormwater Detention Basin Area
127 Cropley clay 0.1 (1.8%) 0 to 2 Medium
197 Salinas silty clay loam 3.7 (62.2%) 0 to 2 Negligible
221 Xerets – Xerolls – Urban land complex 2.2 (36.0%) 0 to 15 Very high
Source: NRCS 2018.
3.6.1.4 Geologic Hazards
Regional Faulting, Seismicity, and Earthquakes
The City lies in a seismically active region of California. The California Central Coast has
a history of damaging earthquakes, primarily associated with the San Andreas Fault. In
addition, there have been a number of magnitude 5.0 to 6.5 earthquakes on other faults
which have also affected large portions of the Central Coast. Recent events include the 6.5-
magnitude San Simeon Earthquake in December 2003 and the 6.0-magnitude Parkfield
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-3
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Earthquake in September 2004 (Earthquake Track 2018). Earthquake magnitudes are
quantified using the Richter scale, which is a logarithmic scale whereby each whole
number increase in Richter magnitude represents a tenfold increase in the amplitude of the
seismic wave generated by an earthquake. For example, at the same distance from a fault,
the shaking during a 5.0-magnitude earthquake will be 10 times larger than a 4.0-magnitude
earthquake while the amount of energy released would increase by a factor of 32.
Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.0 to 6.9 are classified as moderate, those between 7.0
and 7.9 are classified as major, and those of 8.0 or more are classified as great.
There are several faults in the vicinity of the Project site that are capable of producing
strong ground motion, including the onshore Los Osos and San Andreas faults, and the
offshore Hosgri Fault. These active fault zones are considered to have a high probability
of producing a major earthquake within an average human lifespan. With respect to
seismically induced ground shaking, the areas with the highest risk are those located in
valleys where relatively thick sections of unconsolidated alluvium have accumulated (City
of San Luis Obispo 2000). During an earthquake along any of the proximate faults, seismic
shaking would be anticipated to occur in the vicinity of the Project.
A list of the seismic parameters for active faults most likely to affect the Project site is
presented in Table 3.6-2. Based on the maximum probable earthquake magnitude for each
active fault, the seismic events that would generate the highest estimated ground
accelerations at the site would likely be earthquakes of close to magnitude 7.0 along the
Los Osos Fault. Consequent ground acceleration associated with this type of seismic event
has the potential to cause severe damage to buildings and infrastructure. Local subsurface
conditions such as the presence of unconsolidated, saturated alluvium may intensify
seismic shaking or result in other seismic hazards.
Table 3.6-2. Seismic Parameters for Active Faults near the Project Site
Fault Fault-to-Site Distance
(miles)
Maximum Probable Earthquake1,2
(Richter Magnitude)
Los Osos 1.5 7.0
Hosgri 8 7.5
San Andreas 38 8.0
1Maximum Probable Earthquake = the maximum earthquake likely to occur over a 100-year period.
2The parameters presented in this table are intended for planning purposes only and should not be used as a basis for
design.
Source: Appendix G.
3.6-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The closest active fault to the Project site is the Los Osos Fault, located west of the City on
the south side of the Los Osos Valley. The Los Osos Fault Zone is a 31.1-mile-long, 0.75-
mile-wide system of discontinuous fault traces extending from Estero Bay on the north to
an intersection with the West Huasna Fault southeast of the City. The full Irish Hills
segment is about 10 to 12 miles long and extends from the Pacific Ocean near Los Osos
eastward to San Luis Creek, including through the Project site (Figure 3.6-1). A two-mile
fault section of the Irish Hills segment west of Laguna Lake and 1.5 miles northwest of the
Project site is considered active according to Alquist-Priolo zoning by the State of
California (Appendix G). The potential for ground rupture during ground shaking is
considered moderate due to the presence of the Los Osos Fault through the Project site,
further detailed below.
Figure 3.6-1. Active Fault Lines at the Project Site
(Insert Half-page Figure)
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-5
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Los Osos Fault
While the Project site is not located within the mapped Alquist-Priolo designated
Earthquake Fault Zone of the Los Osos Fault, other maps have indicated the Project site is
located within active traces of the Los Osos Fault, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the
designated Alquist-Priolo area. Therefore, a Subsurface Fault Investigation was conducted
and a Development Setback Map was prepared (Appendix G) to establish development
setbacks from the trace of the Los Osos Fault through the site.
The Los Osos Fault at the site exhibited characteristics of active movement (movement
within the last 11,000 years before present or Holocene in age, offset in colluvial
sediments), Quaternary age movement (last 2 million years before present), and pre-
Quaternary movement (movement prior to 2 million years before present). Additional maps
identify the Los Osos Fault through the site as a “Late Quaternary fault”, involving
displacement during the past 700,000 years. Comparing the faulting characteristics with
observed faulting characteristics within fault trenches excavated at the Project site, the site
generally shows a southwest-oriented fault that is broken by discontinuous faults,
extending first across the northwestern extension of the Project site from near Costco to
the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, and continuing again across the southwestern extension of
the Project site from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to the base of the hill below
Mountainbrook Church (Appendix G).
Surface Rupture
Surface rupture involves the displacement and cracking of the ground surface along a fault
trace. Surface ruptures are visible instances of horizontal or vertical displacement, or a
combination of the two, typically confined to a narrow zone along the fault. Surface rupture
is more likely to occur in conjunction with active fault segments where earthquakes are
large, or where the location of the movement (earthquake hypocenter) is shallow. The Los
Osos Fault Zone, located along the southwestern border of the City, is identified as a high
rupture hazard to development and facilities in the Los Osos Valley, including the Project
site, in the City’s General Plan Safety Element (SE).
3.6-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a form of earthquake-
induced ground failure that occurs
primarily in relatively shallow, loose,
granular, water-saturated soils.
Liquefaction is defined as the
transformation of a granular material
from a solid state into a liquefied state
as a consequence of increased pore
pressure, which results in the loss of
grain-to-grain contact. Unconsolidated
silts, sands, and silty sands are most
susceptible to liquefaction, along with
areas of high groundwater. Almost any saturated granular soil can induce an increase in
pore water pressures when shaken, and subsequently, these excess pore water pressures
can lead to liquefaction if the intensity and duration of earthquake shaking are great
enough. During large earthquakes in which liquefaction occurs, structures that are most
vulnerable to liquefaction include buildings with shallow foundations, railways, buried
structures, retaining walls, port structures, utility poles, and towers.
The General Plan SE identifies the lower-elevation areas of Project site as areas of high
liquefaction potential. In areas that have the potential for liquefaction, site-specific
investigations are required, including subsurface sampling to determine the actual risk of
settlement or liquefaction. The Preliminary Soils Engineering Report (GeoSolutions, Inc.
2016) and the Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation (GeoSolutions, Inc. 2017)
prepared for the Project concluded that the liquefaction hazard at the site is considered low
in the upper elevations of the site. In the lower-elevation areas, based on the consistency
and relative density of the existing soils, the potential for seismic liquefaction of soils is
also low. The potential for seismically induced settlement and differential settlement at the
site is low with implementation of geotechnical recommendations (Appendix G).
Landslides and Slope Instability
The stability of slopes is affected by rock and soil type, amount of water present, and
amount of vegetation present. Sudden movements can cause a slope to fail, such as during
The Project site has high groundwater in the
southeastern corner which contributes to known
liquefaction potential, though the potential to result in
liquefaction is low with implementation of
geotechnical recommendations.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-7
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a seismic event, modification (i.e., grading) of the slope, undercutting caused by erosion,
and changes in hydrologic characteristics, including heavy rains that can saturate the soil.
The General Plan SE classifies the upper-elevation areas of the Project site as having
moderate landslide potential. Slopes within the Project site are topped with a layer of
colluvium or alluvium, which may be subject to erosion. Just beneath this layer lies the
Franciscan Complex geologic unit, which is hard and stable rock. This geologic
arrangement indicates that the western upper-elevation portion of the property is generally
stable. Additionally, the potential for slope failure due to a seismic event is considered low.
While evidence of a small landslide (surface slump) was found along the eastern boundary
of the Project site, no significant landslide event was found on published geologic maps or
through air photo analysis. Finally, the potential for ridgetop instability is considered
moderate if structures are located at the top of local ridges or peaks. Overall, the potential
for slope instability (that is not caused by a seismic event) is considered low (Appendix
G).
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils tend to swell with seasonal increases in soil moisture in the winter months
and shrink as soils become drier in the summer months. Repeated shrinking and swelling
of the soil can lead to stress and damage of structures, foundations, fill slopes and other
associated facilities. Soil expansion potential at the site was determined to be moderate to
very high based on laboratory testing. The expansion potential is classified based on tested
expansion index values of very low (values 0 to 20), low (21 to 50), medium (51 to 90),
high (91 to 130), and very high (greater than 130)(FEMA 2011). Expansion index tests
conducted on soil samples collected from the Project site yielded values of 79 to 186. The
values indicate that the soils tested have moderate to very high potential for expansion per
California Building Code (CBC) (Appendix G).
Subsidence
Subsidence is the downward shift of the ground surface relative to a datum, such as sea
level or groundwater level. Subsidence may be caused by mineral dissolution, earth
extraction activities, geological faulting, seasonal effects that cause changes in soil
moisture content, or the withdrawal of pressurized fluids (e.g., groundwater, oil, or gas)
from subsurface aquifers. Deep subsidence and hydrocompaction are two types of
subsidence that occur most frequently in the western U.S. Deep subsidence is the slow
3.6-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
downward movement of land caused by the withdrawal of pressurized fluids from the
subsurface, including groundwater pumped from confined aquifers and fluids pumped
from oil and gas reservoirs, such as within the California Central Valley (NASA 2016).
Much of the western U.S. is characterized by geologic conditions that are susceptible to
hydrocompaction. Hydrocompaction is the subsidence of shallow soils as a result of adding
water, and is generally associated with dry regions where agriculture relies on irrigation.
Irrigated agricultural practices have not been recorded on the Project site historically, as it
has primarily been used as grazing land.
There is potential for subsidence within the Project site due to its location within the San
Luis Obispo Valley above a groundwater basin and the loose, moist, clayey soils that exist
within the lower-elevation areas of the site (County of San Luis Obispo 2016). The
potential for subsidence at the site is considered to be low with implementation of
geotechnical recommendations (Appendix G).
Differential Settlement
Differential settlement is the process whereby soils settle non-uniformly, potentially
resulting in stress and damage to utility pipelines, building foundations, or other overlying
structures. Such movement can occur in the absence of seismically induced ground failure,
due to improper grading and soil compaction or discontinuity of underlying fill and
naturally occurring soils. Strong ground shaking often greatly exacerbates soil conditions
already prone to differential settlement, resulting in distress to overlying structures.
Elongated structures, such as pipelines, are especially susceptible to damage as a result of
differential settlement.
According to the General Plan SE and the results of the Preliminary Soils Engineering
Report, there is a low potential for seismically induced settlement in the western elevated
topographic areas at the site based upon the depth to Franciscan Complex units and
densities within the subsurface. However, there is a potential for seismically induced
settlement in the eastern lower-topographic areas at the Project site based upon the depth
of the sediments and densities within the subsurface (Appendix G)
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-9
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
3.6.1.5 Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the evidence of once-living organisms as preserved in the
rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the
traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). In general, fossils are considered
to be older than recorded human history or greater than 5,000 years old and are typically
preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic
rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions(Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Sources of information for this section include museum
collections records, geologic mapping, and geotechnical investigation reports completed
for the Project (Appendix G).
The geologic setting is key to understanding
the potential for important paleontological
resources to be located in the Project site
(Table 3.6-3). The Project site is located in
the vicinity of the San Luis Range of the
Coast Range Geomorphic Province of
California (Appendix G). The Coast Ranges
lie between the Pacific Ocean and the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley and trend
northwesterly along the California Coast for
approximately 600 miles between Santa
Maria and the Oregon border. Locally, the
Project site is located along the southwestern flank of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range and
east of the adjacent Irish Hills. Paleontological resources have been discovered throughout
the County and include extensive collections of marine invertebrates from rocks of
Cretaceous to Recent age; marine vertebrates from rocks of Miocene to Pliocene age along
the Pacific Coast, and terrestrial vertebrates from rocks of Oligocene to Miocene age from
the eastern part of the County (University of California Museum of Paleontology [UCMP]
2018; Jefferson et al. 1992).
Geologic units that have low potential to contain
significant paleontological resources underlie the
Project site. While they have a low potential,
similar geologic units within the County have
produced fossils including those of an extinct
camel (Camelops hesternus) found in
Quaternary-aged sediments in the County. While
rare, such resources may be present within the
Project site.
3.6-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 3.6-3. Geologic Units and Paleontological Potential Within Project Vicinity
Geologic Unit
Label Geologic Unit Name Age Paleontological
Potential
AF Artificial Fill Present None
Qls Landslide Deposits Quaternary-Present Low
Qf Alluvial Fan Deposits Quaternary-Present Low
Qal Stream Deposits Holocene Low
KJfmv Franciscan Complex –
Metavolcanics Jurassic-Cretaceous Low
KJfs Franciscan Complex -
Serpentinite Jurassic-Cretaceous Low
Source: California Department of Conservation 2010.
Paleontological resources are found within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlie
the soil layer. A search of UCMP’s public locality database along with the Paleobiology
Database (paleodb.org) was conducted to identify information on paleontological localities
within and near the Project site and to determine if fossil resources have been recovered
from geologic formations similar to those present in the Project vicinity.
Museum records indicate that no previously recorded vertebrate paleontological localities
are recorded within the boundaries of the Project site. The UCMP database records a total
of 2,003 specimens from the County, including 427 invertebrate fossils, 1,114 microfossils,
320 plant fossils, and 142 vertebrate fossils. Of the 142 vertebrate fossil specimens, two
were recovered from rocks of similar type and age as those that occur on the Project site.
The first, a camel astragalus (ankle bone), was recovered from indeterminate Quaternary-
aged units near San Miguel; the second specimen, two vertebrae of the aquatic reptile
Plesiosaurus hesternus, was identified in metamorphosed sedimentary units of the
Franciscan Complex near Oakley Ranch located near Highway 166, approximately 27
miles southeast of the Project site (UCMP Collections Database 2018). Other Pleistocene-
aged vertebrate collections from the County are listed in Table 3.6-4.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-11
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 3.6-4. Non-UCMP Pleistocene Localities of San Luis Obispo County
Locality Name Recovered Fauna
Arborgast Ranch, Salinas River Valley Mammoth, horse, antique bison
Carizzo Plains School Mastodon, mammoth, camel, long-horned bison
Chorro Creek, Morro Bay Mammoth
Cayucos Squirrel
Creston Mammoth
Crowbar Canyon (Montana del Oro State Park) Cod
Irish Canyon, Point San Luis area Horse, antique bison
Mankin, Ranchita Cattle Company Mammoth
Pecho Creek, Diablo Canyon area Horse, giant ground sloth, camel
Point San Luis Indeterminate whale or dolphin
Salinas River Sand Site Mammoth
San Miguel, Salinas River Valley California condor, puffin, auklet, flightless sea duck,
bald eagle, barn owl, vole, mammoth, camel, sea
otter
Source: Jefferson et al. 1992.
3.6.2 Regulatory Setting
Geologic resources, paleontological resources, and geotechnical hazards are governed
primarily by local jurisdictions, although federal and state laws would apply to future
development under the Project. Federal, state, and local regulations, including the CBC,
that are directly relevant to the Project are summarized below.
3.6.2.1 Federal
Federal Soil Conservation Law (16 USGS 590a)
By Congressional policy, this law provides permanently for the control and prevention of
soil erosion by preventative measures, including but not limited to engineering operations,
methods of cultivation, growing of vegetation, and changes in land use.
Clean Water Act Section 402 (Erosion Control)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA
requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the
regulation of point source and certain nonpoint source discharges to surface water. Those
discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
3.6-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
permit process (CWA Section 402). Projects that disturb one acre of soil or more, or are
part of a common plan that in total disturbs more than one acre, are required to obtain
NPDES coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit), Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. The
General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect
stormwater runoff, including measures to prevent soil erosion.
3.6.2.2 State
California Building Code
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the CBC.
In accordance with the CBC, a grading permit is required if more than 50 cubic yards of
soil are moved during implementation of a project. Chapter 16 of the CBC contains
definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces on
structures. Chapter 18 of the CBC contains standards and regulations relating to soil
stability, design standards for seismic safety, and construction standards for building
foundations. Specific regulations in Section 1803 require geotechnical investigations or
preliminary soil reports as a condition of building permit approval. Section 1804 provides
regulations on the siting of structures and site grading based on the soils and slope stability
of a site. Section 1808 establishes regulations for the design and construction of building
foundations, with emphasis on stability (i.e., issues pertaining to shifting soils, seismic
overturning and expansive soils) and design loads.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 regulates development and
construction of buildings intended for human occupancy to avoid the hazard of surface
fault rupture. In accordance with this law, the California Geological Survey maps active
faults and designates Earthquake Fault Zones along mapped faults. This Act groups faults
into categories of active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults
are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially
active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive. These classifications are
qualified by the conditions that a fault must be shown to be “sufficiently active” and “well
defined” by detailed site-specific geologic explorations in order to determine whether
building setbacks should be established. Any project that involves the construction of
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-13
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
buildings or structures for human occupancy, such as an operation and maintenance
building, is subject to review under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and
any structures for human occupancy must be located at least 50 feet from any active fault.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act & Mapping Regulations
These regulations were promulgated for the purpose of promoting public safety by
protecting against the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, other
ground failures, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. The Act requires that site- specific
geotechnical investigations be conducted identifying the hazard and formulating mitigation
measures prior to permitting most developments designed for human occupancy. Special
Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,
from the California Division of Mines and Geology constitutes the guidelines for
evaluating seismic hazards other than surface fault-rupture, and for recommending
mitigation measures as required by PRC Section 2695, subdivision (a).
3.6.2.3 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Safety Element (SE)
Policy 4.5 Avoiding Faults. Development shall not be located atop known faults.
Applications for the following types of discretionary approvals within 100 meters (330
feet) of any fault that is previously known or discovered during site evaluation shall be
subject to review and recommendation by a state-registered engineering geologist: change
to a more intensive land-use designation; subdivision into five or more parcels;
development of multifamily, commercial, industrial, or institutional buildings.
Policy 4.6 Avoiding Slope Instability. Development shall not be located on or immediately
below unstable slopes, or contribute to slope instability. Any development proposed in an
area of moderate or high landslide potential shall be subject to review and recommendation
by a state-registered engineering geologist.
Policy 4.7 Avoiding Liquefaction Hazards. Development may be located in areas of high
liquefaction potential only if a site-specific investigation by a qualified professional
determines that the proposed development will not be at risk of damage from liquefaction.
3.6-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Chief Building Official may waive this requirement upon determining that previous
studies in the immediate area provide sufficient information.
Policy 9.18 Safety of Structures and Facilities. Existing and new structures and facilities
should reflect adopted safety standards. Within this policy, the City has developed
programs for reducing structural hazards, development review, and conducting safety
inspections.
Land Use Element (LUE)
Policy 6.4.3 Hillside Policies – Development Standards. San Luis Obispo wants to keep
open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less steep hillside
areas; however, are seen as suitable for development, particularly where development is
coupled with permanent open space protection of the more sensitive areas. This policy
focuses on where and how some hillsides may be developed. Topics include standards and
policies for hillside development for aesthetics, open space, and directing development
away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires, flooding, and erosion.
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
Policy COSE 3.5.1 Archaeological Resource Protection. The City shall provide for the
protection of both known and potential archaeological resources. To avoid significant
damage to important archaeological sites, all available measures, including purchase of the
property in fee or easement, shall be explored at the time of a development proposal. Where
such measures are not feasible, and development would adversely affect identified
archaeological or paleontological resources, mitigation shall be required pursuant to the
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
The City Municipal Code, Title 16 Subdivisions, establishes minimum submittal
requirements for the submittal of a tentative map and establishes a process for review of
plans by licensed professionals. This includes technical reports on faulting, slope analysis,
soils, and engineering geology. Further, Title 15 Building and Construction, provides
standards for grading and development on expansive soils. Coupled with development
standards within the CBC, standards within Title 15 and 16 are intended to ensure the safety
of life and property through the regulation of development.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-15
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
San Luis Obispo County General Plan Safety Element
The County’s General Plan SE describes geologic conditions that occur in the County and
provides policies and implementation measures to minimize the potential for loss of life
and property resulting from geologic and seismic hazards.
Per the County’s Interactive Maps database (Land Use View), the western upper portions
of the Project site are within a mapped Geologic Study Area combining designation.
3.6.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.6.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
With respect to geologic and soils impacts, applicable sections of Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines state that a project would normally have a significant impact on the environment
if it would:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
iv. Landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property.
3.6-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
Non-Applicable Thresholds
• Threshold (e) (Septic Systems): Development in accordance with the Project would
not involve the use or development of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems, since sewer system and wastewater treatment facilities are
available for the disposal of wastewater at the Project site. As such, there would be
no potentially significant adverse impacts related to septic systems and this issue
will not be analyzed further in this EIR. Wastewater treatment and infrastructure
impacts are addressed in Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation.
3.6.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
Geology and Soils
This analysis evaluates the potential impacts to local and regional geologic hazards (e.g.,
fault rupture, seismic shaking, liquefaction, landslides, expansive soils) resulting from the
Project, including soil erosion or loss of top soil. Existing conditions, including the
configuration of the Project site, current operations, and present geologic setting were
established based on site-specific information obtained from the General Plan SE, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) data, and reports prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. and peer
reviewed by Wood, Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood). These reports
include the Applicant-prepared Preliminary Soils Engineering Report (2016), Preliminary
Engineering Geology Investigation (2017), and Subsurface Fault Investigation and
Development Setback Map (2017) to assess geologic conditions within the site. These
reports describe geologic conditions based on literature review, field reconnaissance,
subsurface exploration, including soil boring, soil laboratory testing, geologic surface
mapping, and fault investigations to classify subsurface soil and formational units and to
supplement regional geologic mapping. These reports and investigations were prepared in
the absence of final development plans, and consequently provide only general
recommendations regarding geologic site suitability for planning-level analysis.
Recommendations from the site-specific reports will be incorporated into the Project, as
required by the General Plan SE. These reports are provided as Appendix G of this EIR.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-17
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Paleontological Resources
The SVP (2010) guidelines were used for the assessment of potential for paleontological
resources to occur within the Project site. According to CEQA, the threshold of
significance for impacts to paleontological resources is reached when a project would
disturb or destroy scientifically important fossil remains, as defined by the SVP. Significant
paleontological resources are defined as “identifiable” vertebrate fossils, uncommon
invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils that provide taphonomic (i.e., the study of what
happens to an organism after its death and until its discovery as a fossil), taxonomic,
phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, or biochronological data. These data are
important because they are used to examine evolutionary relationships, provide insight on
the development of and interaction between biological communities, establish time scales
for geologic studies, and for many other scientific purposes(Scott and Springer 2003; SVP
2010). A literature review was conducted on museum collections records maintained by
the UCMP, USGS published geologic mapping of the San Luis Obispo 7.5’ Quadrangle by
various authors and compiled by Wiegers and Gutierrez (California Department of
Conservation 2010), and various geotechnical investigation reports completed for the
Project (Appendix G).
3.6.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the Project has the potential to result in direct impacts to soils from
erosion and grading, and impacts related to geologic hazards onsite and in the vicinity,
including seismic hazards. Potential impacts related to geologic hazards and soils are
discussed further below and summarized in Table 3.6-5.
3.6-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 3.6-5. Summary of Project Impacts
Geological Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
GEO-1. The Project would expose
people or structures to adverse effects
from earthquakes and seismically
induced hazards.
None required Less than Significant
GEO-2. The Project has the potential
to exacerbate potential soils hazards,
including expansive soils, differential
settlement, and subsidence.
None required Less than Significant
GEO-3. The Project would potentially
cause erosion, landslides, and rockfall.
None required Less than Significant
GEO-4. The Project would include
subterranean parking in Villaggio and
may require groundwater dewatering
in areas with high groundwater.
None required Less than Significant
GEO-5. Project 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
Impact GEO-1 The Project would expose people or structures to adverse effects from
earthquakes and seismically induced hazards (Less than Significant).
The Project site is located in a seismically active region of California’s Central Coast.
While regional faulting (e.g., San Andres Fault) may generate seismic shaking at the
Project site, the strongest potential ground shaking event for the site is anticipated to occur
from a rupture of the Los Osos Fault. Ground acceleration at the site associated with an
event on the Los Osos Fault or a moderate-to-large earthquake on any of the other local
and regional faults has the potential to cause severe damage to buildings and infrastructure
and threaten life and property.
A section of the Los Osos Fault runs through both the Madonna Froom Ranch and
Villaggio portions of the site (refer to Figure 3.6-1). The Los Osos Fault Zone mapped at
the Project site is not continuous, and portions in the Madonna Froom Ranch area of the
site have not been active since the Quaternary age (i.e., over 700,000 years ago). However,
fault segments in the Villaggio area have been active more recently in the Holocene age
(approximately 11,000 years ago). If development were placed on the existing fault line
and a seismic event occurred that resulted in faulting or rupturing, damage would occur to
people and property in the immediate vicinity.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-19
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Based on the proposed land use plan, the Los Osos Fault would cross residential (R-3-SP),
open space (C/OS-SP), and public facility (PF-SP) land uses (Figure 3.6-2). The fault
and/or associated setback area underlays areas that are proposed for the development of
segments of Local Roads “A” and “C”, walking paths, the trailhead park, and the trailhead
park parking lot. To reduce impacts to development, the Subsurface Fault Investigation
(2017) conducted for the Project site conservatively recommends a development setback
from the Los Osos Fault segments onsite. For the part of the fault crossing the northern
portion of the site, a 25-foot setback on either side of the mapped fault is recommended by
the investigation and will be incorporated into the Project. For the fault portion crossing
the southern region of the site, a 50-foot setback along the western edge of the fault and a
30-foot setback along the eastern edge of the fault are recommended. In accordance,
Section 3.2.3, Fault Lines, of the Draft FRSP incorporates these recommendations of the
Subsurface Fault Investigation (Appendix G), including development standards to ensure
habitable structures (structures occupied more than 2,000 hours per year) are constructed
outside the recommended setbacks (of 25 feet, 30 feet, and 50 feet; refer to Figure 3.6-2).
The design and construction of proposed land uses would be subject to several
requirements and regulations to ensure structural integrity in seismically active areas. As
stated in Section 3.2.3, Fault Lines, of the proposed Draft FRSP, development plans would
be required to be designed in accordance with applicable state and local standards for
development near fault traces, including adherence to the International Building Code
(IBC), the CBC, and the City Municipal Code, in addition to compliance with the General
Plan SE Policy 4.5, Avoiding Faults. Planning-level recommendations within the
Subsurface Fault Investigation and Development Setback Map (2017) for site preparation,
grading, backfill, and foundations would be required for incorporation into the Project
design. Further, because the Project does not propose or permit deep subsurface
construction, and would be required to comply with applicable state and local standards for
development near fault traces, the Project would not exacerbate the existing faulting
hazards onsite.
3.6-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Figure 3.6-2. Active Faults and Recommended Setback at the Project Site
(Insert Half-page Figure)
Although the probability of a larger-than-expected earthquake with corresponding high
ground acceleration is generally low, any structure built in California is susceptible to
failure during significant seismic events. Such impacts are common throughout California
and nothing can be done to absolutely ensure that structures do not fail during significant
seismic events. However, impacts of structural failure and risks to life and property due to
seismic shaking and seismic-related ground failure can be reduced by locating development
outside of fault setbacks and implementing the most current industry standards for
structural design. Through the incorporation of proper engineering measures in accordance
with existing regulations (i.e., IBC, CBC, General Plan SE, and City Municipal Code), and
application of Draft FRSP Section 3.2.3, Fault Lines, risks to life and property would be
minimized. Recommendations from the Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation
and Subsurface Fault Investigation for site preparation, grading, backfill, and foundations
would be required for incorporation into the Project design. In addition, subsequent
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-21
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
development within the Project area may be subject to site-specific geotechnical
investigations and further recommendations to minimize hazards near a known fault per
the General Plan SE.
Seismically induced hazards include ground surface ruptures, tsunamis and seiches,
settlement and slope failure, or liquefaction that occur as a result of ground shaking or
earthquake events. Based on the geotechnical investigations conducted for the Project site,
although the site is transected by a fault line, the site is not located within an Earthquake
Fault Zone and is not subject to a moderate or high threat of ground surface rupture.
Additionally, based on the consistency and relative density of in-situ soils at the Project
site, the potential for liquefaction of soils at the Project site is low.
Despite the limited probability for other seismically induced hazards, given the depth of
sediments and densities within the subsurface, the lower-elevation areas of the Project site
contain a low potential for liquefaction-induced failures. The Preliminary Soils
Engineering Report (Appendix G) includes recommendations that address liquefaction,
including a recommendation that all of the foundations are established on equally
competent uniform material. Future development under the Draft FRSP may continue to
be subject to risk from liquefaction or settlement of soils in the event of ground shaking.
However, consistency with Title 15 of the City Municipal Code and General Plan SE Policy
4.7, Avoiding Liquefaction Hazards, would require site-specific investigations and a
determination that proposed development would not be at risk of damage from liquefaction.
Impacts of structural failure and risks to life and property due to seismic shaking and
seismically induced hazards can largely be reduced by complying with state and local
building regulations for site preparation and structural design. Therefore, compliance with
federal, state, and local regulations, in addition to the recommendations of the Subsurface
Fault Investigation and Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation (Appendix G)
would reduce the impacts associated with seismicity or seismically induced hazards to less
than significant.
3.6-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-2 The Project has the potential to exacerbate potential soils hazards,
including expansive soils, differential settlement, and subsidence
(Less than Significant).
The soil zone within the upper two to three feet of the Project site has the potential to be
affected by seasonal changes in moisture content. Seasonal fluctuations in soil moisture
and proximity to adjacent drainages (i.e., Froom Creek) can result in geologic hazards from
expansive soils, especially within the lower-elevation areas of the site where shallow
groundwater is present (ranging between 1.5 to 4.0 feet bgs). The volume change
associated with this soil movement can stress and damage foundations, concrete flatwork,
interior slabs-on-grade, and roadway pavements. These loose and saturated soils beneath
the Project site could potentially result in damage to roadways, structures, parking lots,
commercial buildings, and the hydrology of realigned Froom Creek, should the proposed
structural shoring and foundations not be properly designed and constructed. The potential
for subsidence to occur with or without the Project is low. The Project does not propose
any actions that would cause or exacerbate subsidence (e.g., withdrawal of
groundwater/oil, hydrocompaction).
Construction of the Project site would involve large amounts of grading, earthmoving, and
the import of engineered fill foundation in the lower-elevation areas. Fill material used for
building pads would be compacted and would reduce the amount of loose alluvial soils that
are in direct contact with structural foundations constructed within the Project site. This
would reduce the amount of loose and saturated soils that may be expansive after the
buildings are constructed. Further, the Project’s Preliminary Soils Engineering Report
includes recommendations that address expansion and differential settlement. The report
recommends that all foundations are established on equally competent uniform material,
to address the potential for differential settlement occurring when foundations supported
on two soil materials have different settlement characteristics. In combination with the use
of engineered fill foundation in lower-elevation areas of the Project site, uniform
foundations would reduce risks associated with expansion and differential settlement.
Implementation of recommendations outlined in the Preliminary Soils Engineering Report
and the geotechnical recommendations included therein would reduce impacts related to
construction and operation of the Project on soils that are loose, saturated, and expansive.
Additionally, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations (i.e., IBC, CBC, the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-23
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
General Plan SE, and the City Municipal Code) would reduce impacts associated with
expansive soils, differential settlement, and subsidence as a result of the Project. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Impact GEO-3 The Project would potentially cause erosion, landslides, and rockfall
(Less than Significant).
The Project includes the excavation of approximately 160,000 cubic yards of soil and rock.
Grading for site development has the potential to expose undocumented fill and existing
soft alluvium soils, which may erode or slide. During construction, due to the topography
and proposed disturbances along the base of steep slopes, loose alluvium soils would
temporarily be subject to erosion, especially on upper-elevation areas (e.g., Upper Terrace).
Beneath the loose alluvial soils, the presence of shallow and hard bedrock materials within
the Upper Terrace may result in hard digging and excavation conditions. These conditions
are anticipated in some areas during building pad preparation and underground utility
construction on the hillsides and would contribute to the disturbance of topsoil. These
excavation activities would be entirely located within the Project site; therefore, potential
erosion is largely anticipated to be contained within the Project site and not affect
surrounding areas.
While there is the potential for limited slope instability to occur during excavation and
construction activities, implementation of the CBC and compliance with federal, state, and
local regulations would reduce the potential for erosion and long-term impacts during
construction of the Project. Additionally, because more than one acre of land would be
disturbed during the construction phase, the applicant would be required to prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain a storm water permit from the
RWQCB. Refer to Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfires, and Section
3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional information on stormwater permit
requirements and erosion control measures. Compliance with permit conditions would
require implementation of erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Based on
the relatively short period of time that soils would be susceptible to erosion, and because
construction activities would require implementation of erosion control measures as
recommended by the Preliminary Soils Engineering Report, impacts associated with
erosion would be low. Further, the Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation
(Appendix G) establishes planning-level recommendations that would help to reduce
3.6-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
impacts on the Project site’s slopes. Therefore, the potential for significant erosion hazards
during the construction phase would be low.
Potential for landslides to occur at the Project site is considered low, and slopes at the
Project site are generally stable due to the presence of shallow and hard bedrock materials
within the Upper Terrace that provides a solid base for development. Implementation of
the Project is not anticipated to cause or be subject to landslide hazards due to the slope
stability of the site. Further, the potential for rockfall overall at the site is considered low,
although one area has been identified as a potential rockfall hazard area in the Upper
Terrace. Based on the conceptual land use plan for the Project, the area of potential rockfall
hazard is proposed for development of private access roadways and medium-high density
residential uses. The development within or downslope of the potential rockfall hazard area
may be affected if the slope is disturbed (see Impact GEO-1 for a discussion of seismic
hazards).
Implementation of recommendations outlined in the Preliminary Soils Engineering Report
and Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation (Appendix G) and included therein,
would reduce impacts related to development of the Project on soils that are steep and
potentially unstable. Additionally, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations
(i.e., IBC, CBC, the General Plan SE, and the City Municipal Code) would reduce impacts
associated with erosion, landslides, and rockfall hazards. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Impact GEO-4 The Project would include subterranean parking in Villaggio and
may require groundwater dewatering in areas with high
groundwater (Less than Significant).
As previously discussed, most soils within the Project site are alluvial soils with high
groundwater levels, especially within Villaggio where site topography is level and at a
lower elevation. Several subsurface parking structures are anticipated to be constructed
within the Villaggio adjacent to the proposed Froom Creek realignment. These parking
structures may be excavated up to 12 feet bgs. According to the Project’s geology and soils
reports, shallow groundwater levels were observed at a depth of 1.5 to 4.0 feet bgs.
Subsurface construction in this area may encounter groundwater or saturated soils.
Additionally, the Project would import engineered fill material, and natural seepage could
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-25
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
occur at the interface of the native soils and engineered fill resulting in soil saturation.
Further, if designed incorrectly, the intrusion of groundwater into these structures may
occur. Where subterranean structures are proposed, shoring and groundwater dewatering
may be necessary to support construction of these structures. In cases where the floor of
subterranean parking foundations encounters the groundwater table, ongoing groundwater
dewatering may be necessary to prevent the percolation or inflow of groundwater into
excavation pits and future garage/basement levels.
To prevent groundwater from entering into and potentially damaging the Project, the
Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation recommends that as a minimum, the upper
36 inches (three feet) of the development area should consist of a select import material on
top of existing grade or in replacement of the existing surficial soils. This would allow for
support of mat foundations for the proposed structures. An increase in thickness of the
select import material to a minimum of five feet would allow for the use of conventional
foundation systems. Additional recommendations are provided to ensure the perimeter of
the excavation would act as an impermeable barrier to groundwater infiltration through
shoring in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
regulations.
To limit potential for saturated soils or groundwater intrusion, the Project would import
engineered fill material to elevate the lower-elevation areas of the Project site to a finished
grade of at least one foot above the 100-year floodplain. Further, realignment of Froom
Creek and alteration of the 100-year floodplain would change the site topography to ensure
development avoids groundwater intrusion. Where necessary, the finished grade may be
raised several feet above the existing grade. Implementation of the above measures and
compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would reduce impacts associated with
development on an area of potential shallow groundwater to less than significant.
Impact GEO-5 Project construction could uncover paleontological resources in
geologic deposits during earthwork activities. If damaged or
improperly handled, such resources could be adversely impacted
(Less than Significant with Mitigation).
As documented in Section 3.6.1.5, the geologic deposits underlying the Project site,
including Quaternary-aged alluvial deposits and meta-sediments of the Franciscan
3.6-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Complex, have a low potential for containing paleontological resources in accordance to
criteria set forth by the SVP (2010). Surficial deposits of Holocene age or previously
disturbed sediments are determined to have a low paleontological sensitivity because they
are either too young or unlikely to preserve fossilized remains. However, if paleontological
resources were uncovered during Project construction and were then improperly handled,
such unknown paleontological resources could be damaged or destroyed resulting in a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to construction of each phase, workers shall receive education
regarding the recognition of possible paleontological resources, during
grading and excavation. Such training shall provide construction personnel
with direction regarding the procedures to be followed in the unlikely event
that previously unidentified paleontological materials are discovered
during construction. Training shall also inform construction personnel that
unauthorized collection or disturbance of paleontological resources is not
allowed. The training shall be prepared by a City-approved paleontologist
and shall provide a description of paleontological resources that may be
encountered in the Project site, outline steps to follow in the event that a
discovery is made, and provide contact information for the Project
paleontologist and appropriate City personnel. The training shall be
conducted concurrent with other environmental or safety awareness and
education programs for the Project, provided that the program elements
pertaining to paleontological resources is provided by a qualified instructor
meeting applicable professional qualifications standards. In order to
prevent inadvertent potential significant impacts to paleontological
resources that may be encountered during ground disturbance or
construction activities, in the event of any inadvertent discovery of
paleontological resources during construction, all work within the vicinity
of the resource established by the City-approved paleontologist shall
temporarily cease. If a paleontological resource is discovered, the City-
approved paleontologist shall be notified to assess the significance of the
find and provide recommendations as necessary for its proper disposition.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-27
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Requirements and Timing. Prior to ground disturbance for each phase,
construction workers shall participate in an educational program that will
enable them to recognize and report possible paleontological resources. The
conditions for treatment of discoveries shall be printed on all grading plans.
The City shall be notified immediately after the unanticipated discovery of
a paleontological resource. Paleontological reports shall be reviewed and
approved prior to issuance of occupancy. In the event that any potentially
significant paleontological resources are uncovered during ground
disturbance or construction activities:
a. Temporarily cease grading in the vicinity of the resource
established by the City-approved paleontologist and redirect
activity elsewhere to ensure the preservation of the resource in
which the discovery was made;
b. Immediately notify the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department regarding the resource and redirected
grading activity;
c. Obtain the services of a City-approved professional
paleontologist who shall assess the significance of the find and
provide recommendations as necessary for its proper disposition
for review and approval by City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department.
d. Complete all significance assessment and mitigation of impacts
to the paleontological resource and verification reviewed and
approved by City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department prior to resuming grading in the area of the find.
Monitoring. Paleontological reports prepared for the Project site in
response to an unanticipated discovery shall be maintained by the City of
San Luis Obispo Community Development Department.
3.6-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Residual Impact
The protection of potential paleontological resources would be assured through
implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-1. The qualified paleontologist would
ensure that if an inadvertent paleontological discovery were to occur, adequate steps would
be taken to document and preserve the paleontological resource, resulting in impacts that
are less than significant with mitigation.
3.6.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would result if Project impacts, when
combined with other past, present, and future projects, would cumulatively increase the
potential for geologic hazards, such as ground shaking, or increased soil impacts, such as
erosion. Although the probability of a larger-than-expected earthquake with corresponding
high ground acceleration is low, it is not zero. Consequently, any structure built in the
seismically active region of the Central Coast is inherently at risk to damage during major
seismic events. The majority of structures on properties bordering the site were constructed
within the past 30 years, including the hotels along Calle Joaquin, Mountainbrook Church,
and Irish Hills Plaza. These structures were required to meet CBC standards to prevent
them from hazardous conditions to public safety due to soil instability during an
earthquake.
Cumulative development such as that anticipated under the projects listed within Table 3.0-
1 may uncover previously undisturbed paleontological resources and could potentially
result in damage or loss of such resources. However, in most cases project-specific impacts
would be addressed on a project-by-project basis. Additionally, in accordance with the City
Municipal Code and the General Plan SE, all discretionary development within the City,
including development projects listed in Table 3.0-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Impact
Analysis and Mitigation Measures, would be required to undergo analysis of each site’s
geological and soil conditions prior to construction. This analysis would include
investigations of native soils onsite and the structural stability of any proposed
subterranean structures to ensure each individual project is designed and engineered to
withstand reasonably foreseeable seismic activity or unstable soil conditions and would
meet the most current and stringent building safety requirements. Further, because all
projects would be required to undergo an analysis of site-specific geological and soil
conditions, and because restrictions on development would be applied in the event that
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.6-29
Draft EIR
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
geological or soil conditions pose a risk to safety, it is anticipated that the Project’s
contribution to cumulative impacts associated with seismic activity, soil instability,
subsidence, collapse, and/or expansive soil would be less than significant.
3.6-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
This section describes the existing conditions related to hazards, hazardous materials, and
wildfire in the vicinity of the Project site and analyzes the potential for hazards, hazardous
materials, and wildfire impacts to occur as a result of implementation of the Project.
Hazards may include exposure to both natural and man-made hazards. These could include
wildfire in the adjacent Irish Hills, hazards associated with aircraft operations at the nearby
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Airport), or exposure to hazardous materials.
Hazardous materials are defined as substances with physical and chemical properties of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, which may pose a threat to human health or
the environment. The term “hazardous materials” is used in this section to generally
describe chemical materials, such as petroleum products, solvents, pesticides, herbicides,
paints, metals, asbestos, and other regulated chemical materials. Additionally, the term
“release” as used in this section includes known historical spills, leaks, illegal dumping, or
other methods of release of hazardous materials to soil, sediment, groundwater, or surface
water. If a historical release exists, then there is a risk associated with planned development
disturbing the release area. Potential future releases of hazardous materials that could occur
from development under the Project also are included in the analysis.
3.7.1 Environmental Setting
3.7.1.1 Regional Setting
The Project site is located on unincorporated County land at the southwestern border of the
City where urban development transitions to natural open space and agricultural areas. The
nearest school to the Project site is Pacific Beach High School located approximately 0.25-
mile northwest. The Airport is located approximately 1.8 miles east of the Project site.
3.7.1.2 Project Site
The Project site has historically been used for dairy cow, beef cattle, and horse grazing,
and an existing quarry area in the site’s northwest corner is currently used as a construction
materials storage yard and for grazing. The Project site is largely undeveloped. Historical
aerials indicate that development has been limited to ranch buildings, including the farm
house and agricultural accessory structures located in the northwestern portion of the
Project site. In the Project vicinity, chromium mining operations briefly occurred over 50
years ago, as further described in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources; however, there is no
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-1
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
evidence of this historical operation occurring onsite or on any Department of Conservation
mine maps within the Project site (California Department of Conservation 2016).
Structures onsite include the historic ranch buildings, a construction materials storage yard
and red rock quarry in the northwestern portion of the site, and a stormwater detention
basin located in the central portion of the site. The onsite construction materials storage
yard may involve intermittent use or handling of hazardous materials associated with the
use and storage of construction equipment and materials (i.e., fuels, lubricants, cleaning
solutions). While grazing operations do not frequently involve the use of hazardous
materials, historical use of the dairy barn, the creamery, the granary, and the horse barn
may have included use of some commercial materials such as pesticides, herbicides, and
cleaning liquids. Additionally, the existing stormwater detention basin has provided onsite
water infiltration for runoff from the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza parking lots for at least ten
years, with potential for accumulation of pollutants associated with vehicle liquids, such as
motor oil, which have undergone biofiltration within the basin.
3.7.1.3 Wildfire Risk
Regional Wildfire Conditions and Hazards
In central California, the fire season
usually extends from roughly May
through October.1 The duration of the fire
season is influenced by a combination of
climatic, vegetative, and physiographic
conditions, including rainfall totals,
distribution, and/or drought conditions
that may affect the duration of this period.
Structural losses or damage from
wildfires often result from inappropriate
siting of structures within or adjacent to high fire hazard areas, use of inappropriate
construction materials or flammable landscaping, and accessory structures. Fire hazard is
the composition of fuels within an area that affect its potential for flammability and energy
1 Recent events may indicate that wildfire behavior, frequency, and the duration of the fire season are
changing in California; for example, the 250,000-acre 2017 Thomas Fire in neighboring Santa Barbara and
Ventura counties was the largest wildfire in California history and it occurred in December. These issues are
discussed more fully in Section 3.7.3.4, Cumulative Impacts.
The Project site is within Moderate and Very High
Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) and
contains open grasslands, tree canopy, and riparian
vegetation that include biofuels for wildfires.
3.7-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
release, whereas fire risk is the probability that a fire would ignite, spread, and potentially
affect one or more resources valued by people (such as structures or life).
Climate change has the potential to affect fire frequencies, intensities, and total burn area.
For instance, a warmer climate may result in increased fire frequency by facilitating the
increased drying of fine surface fuels, allowing more potential ignitions to become actual
ignitions that become wildfires. Fire intensity is more closely related to biomass
management; however, large intense fires have nonetheless become more common in
California throughout the past 20 years. Increased temperature and decreased precipitation
influence the size of forest and woodlands, while arid forests and woodlands in the
southwest primarily influence the size of a fire by the production of fuels in the year prior
to fire and secondarily by drought in the year of fire. While the frequency, intensity, and
burn area of a fire is subject to a variety of factors, it is accepted that the general increase
in temperature is correlated to a higher risk of fire hazard (U.S. Forest Service 2012).
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) are defined by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) based on the presence of fire-prone vegetation, climate,
topography, assets at risk (e.g., high population centers), and a fire protection agency’s
ability to provide service to the area. Approximately 102 acres of the site is designated as
a Moderate FHSZ, and approximately 13 acres within the Upper Terrace are located within
a Very High FHSZ (see Figure 3.7-1; CALFIRE 2007). Further, it should be noted that the
site borders a Very High FHSZ within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, with this border
extending adjacent to and within the site’s northern and western boundaries for
approximately 0.75 mile. As the Project site is located both within Moderate to Very High
FHSZ areas and at the edge of the wildland-urban interface, it has potential to be exposed
to wildfire hazards.
The Project site is located within a CALFIRE State Responsibility Area (SRA); however,
about one acre of the proposed stormwater detention basin area of the Project site falls
within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA).2
2 The SRA is the area where the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the
prevention and suppression of wildland fires. The LRA is an area where local agencies have primary
financial responsibility for fire suppression.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-3
Draft EIR
Drainage 3
Drainage 2
Drainage 4
Drainage 1DEVAUL RANCH ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADCALLE JOAQUINFroom Creek Prefumo CreekSan Luis Obispo CreekIRISH HILLS
PLAZA
IRISH HILLS
NATURAL RESERVE
101
101
LEGEND
Threat of Fire
Project Site
Irish Hills Natural Reserve
City of San Luis Obispo
Moderate
High
Very High 0 750
SCALE IN FEET
N
Fire Hazard Severity Zones 3.7-1
FIGURE
3.7-4
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Slope and Topography
Topography influences wildland fire to such an extent that slope conditions can often
become a critical wildland fire factor. Conditions such as the length and steepness of
slopes, direction of exposure, and/or overall ruggedness of terrain influence the potential
intensity and behavior of wildland fires and/or the rates at which they may spread. Of these,
the most important factor is the influence of slope steepness and prevailing wind direction
on the speed at which a fire may spread (Barros et al. 2013). Nevertheless, flat terrain may
still experience intense fire patterns. For example, the 2017 Santa Rosa Tubbs Fire traveled
from flatlands over mountain ranges and back to flatlands, destroying over 5,600 structures
in the process, many of them located within developed areas of Santa Rosa’s downtown.
Lower-elevation portions of the Project site are generally flat (0-15 percent slopes).
However, the Project site includes moderate to steep slopes (i.e., 15 to 75 percent)
surrounding the site’s Upper Terrace and western perimeters. Further, the Project site is
bordered by upward sloping lands to the west into the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Slope
steepness and the ruggedness of terrain may affect both fire behavior and firefighting
access (Table 3.7-1). As slope gradients increase, hand crews are less likely to establish
fire-containment lines in areas of excessively steep slopes due to the lack of accessibility
and safety concerns. The development of spot fires ahead of fire-lines and the hazards of
rolling and blowing firebrands (i.e., ember showers) become progressively more serious as
slope increases. The steep slopes with chaparral vegetation along the site’s western
perimeter presents severe wildland fire hazards. In addition, prevailing winds range from
northwest to west-northwest, blowing inland from the Pacific Ocean up valleys such as the
Los Osos Valley (Western Regional Climate Center 2018). Thus, prevailing winds, steep
slopes, and the presence of dense old growth, highly flammable vegetation within portions
of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve present a substantial wildland fire hazard along the site’s
1-mile-long interface with these open lands.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-5
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Table 3.7-1. Potential for Firefighting Success and Tactics on Steep Slopes
Slope
Class Potential for Firefighting Success and Tactics
< 20% Optimal chances for success of combating fires utilizing direct attack methods with all-
wheel-drive fire trucks, bulldozers, hand crews, and aerial resources, including fixed-wing
tankers.
21 – 40% Moderate feasibility for controlling fires by direct attack with all-wheel-drive fire trucks,
bulldozers, hand crews, and helicopters. Use of fixed-wing aerial tankers limited by
ruggedness of terrain.
41 – 60% Limited feasibility for controlling fires as slopes are typically beyond operating capability of
all-wheel-drive fire trucks. Direct firefighting tactics are possible, but become increasingly
difficult with increases in slope. Use of fixed-wing aerial tankers becomes highly restricted.
> 60% Low feasibility for controlling fires. Slope gradients largely beyond operating capability of
bulldozers. Attack methods become more indirect. Hand crews and helicopters become
primary tools.
Source: County of Los Angeles 2011.
Vegetation and Fuel Biomass
Within the Project vicinity, open grasslands and coast live oak woodlands on and adjacent to
the site, along with chaparral vegetation found in areas of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, can
quickly burn during the dry fire season, particularly under conditions of strong, dry winds
such as the Santa Anas. The grassland and coastal scrub/chaparral plant communities that
dominate the slopes of the Irish Hills have various chemical, physical, and physiological
characteristics that contribute to the frequency and potential of local wildland fires. These
vegetation communities have a propensity to burn on an intermittent basis, with grassland
fires particularly susceptible to expand quickly. Consequently, recurrent fire has developed
into an ecological factor necessary for the survival of some grassland, coastal scrub, and
chaparral species. Some grassland and chaparral species require a “fire cue” such as intense
heat, smoke, or charring of bark before seed germination can occur, and some have
reproductive systems that allow for fast germination after fire. However, the grassland and
chaparral ecosystems do not appear to require fire to remain healthy. According to recent
studies, some California chaparral is extraordinarily resilient to very long periods without
fire (Keeley and Borchert 2005) and generally continues to maintain productive growth
throughout pre-fire conditions (Hubbard 1986; Larigauderie, Hubbard, and Stafford 1990).
Unlike chaparral habitat, coastal sage scrub has less standing biomass and litter
accumulation, and constituent shrub species are capable of continual reproduction by seed.
In general, fire frequency tends to be highest within areas that are covered by coastal sage
scrub communities, as they tend to accumulate more herbaceous plants annually than do
areas containing woody chaparral shrubs.
3.7-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Historic Wildland Fires and Return Interval
Past wildland fires in the County demonstrate that major wildland fires occur on average
every 10 years within and north of the Santa Lucia Mountains; however, no major wildland
fires have been recorded in recent history south of this mountain range and within the
coastal portions of the County, nor have any been recorded within the vicinity of the Project
site. The nearest historic wildfires in the area include the 1985 Las Pilitas Fire
approximately 2.3 miles east, the 2005 Bishop A Fire approximately 3.3 miles north, and
the 1984 Swift LE-7 Fire approximately 4.0 miles northwest (Fire Resource and
Assessment Program 2017). The lack of recorded wildland fires within the immediate
Project vicinity may indicate a high degree of fuel loading and increased risk of wildfire,
particularly within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (County of San Luis Obispo Fire
Department 2018). Depending on weather conditions, plant types, and fire management
policies, the Irish Hills and surrounding area have a very high risk of wildland fire and the
majority of the area is identified as a Very High FHSZ by CALFIRE. Consequently,
structures and residences located in this area are at risk from wildland fire.
Wildland Firefighting Strategies
Typical strategies for managing wildland fire hazards involve three parts, including
ongoing fuel management activities, fuel reduction near structures, and suppression of
active fires. Fuel management includes fire crews removing dried vegetation, creating fuel
breaks where all vegetation is removed, and conducting prescribed burns. Fuel
modification reduces the radiant and convective heat generated by wildfire and provides
valuable defensible space for firefighters to take an effective stand against an approaching
fire front and firebrands (i.e., ember showers). While these strategies may prove to be
effective in preventing the spread of large fires and reducing risk to life and structures, they
may also fragment and damage ecosystems and cause visual changes in the process (Los
Angeles County Fire Department 2012).
When a wildfire occurs, an important factor for life, property, and the environment comes
from passive protection measures, such as defensible space, fire-resistive landscaping, and
fire-resistive construction. The sum effect of passive protection measures substantially
increases the effectiveness of fire suppression activities. Inadequate or unreliable water
supply, inadequate ingress and egress, inadequate structural safeguards, and inadequate
vegetation management are the factors that lead to major structural-related fire losses in
areas adjacent to wildlands (Cohen 1999). In addition, the inability of residents to shelter-
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-7
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
in-place in their homes can also create evacuation and fire department access problems in
these areas (U.S. Forest Service 2000).
3.7.1.4 Hazardous Materials
Potential for Hazardous Materials on the Project Site
The Project site is largely undeveloped and has historically supported and continues to
support grazing operations. There is no evidence of storage or use of hazardous materials
associated with the grazing operations. Historical grazing and dairy operations may have
resulted in limited amounts of pesticides and herbicides in low concentrations near the soil
surface; however, these substances are not generally regulated as hazardous materials/site
contamination and there is little risk associated with residual presence of pesticides in site
soils. However, the northwestern portion of the site is developed with historic ranch
buildings and a red rock quarry primarily used as a storage yard for construction materials
and equipment/vehicles. Typical hazardous materials used, stored, or handled at the
construction materials storage yard include fuels, fertilizers, and construction materials.
Storage of these materials can pose potential hazards where leaks can contaminate air,
water, and soil, or generate fire. There are no known contaminated sites recorded within
the Project site, but use of portions of the site for construction storage may have resulted
in soil contamination.
In addition to typical hazards and hazardous materials associated with storage of
construction equipment and materials and grazing operations, radon is considered to have
a moderate risk in some geologic formations and soils in the County. Radon is a naturally
occurring gas produced by the breakdown of traces of uranium in certain soils and rocks
and can pose a significant health problem. Within the region, only 3 of 173 tests for radon
in homes contain over 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), ‘the highest’ rating, and radon is not
considered to be a substantial local hazard (City of San Luis Obispo 2014). Further, the
presence of a transformer on any of the adjacent Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
power poles that run along the northeastern property line could possibly contain
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). However, the possibility of a PG&E transformer to
contain PCBs is very low, as PG&E discontinued use of PCBs in transformers in the 1980s
(Grisanti & Associates 2011).
Inspection of the Project site indicates minimal presence of debris from the adjacent Irish
Hills Plaza within onsite drainages and some non-hazardous solid waste from residual
homeless campsites adjacent to Froom Creek.
3.7-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Hazardous Materials Site Listings
There is no evidence of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) or underground storage tanks
(USTs) within the Project site. In addition to the lack of ASTs and USTs, the Project site
is not currently or has not historically been associated with any bulk fuel storage or fixed
dispensing equipment.
Records indicate that at least 10 inactive Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs)
sites are located within 0.5 mile of the Project site ( Table 3.7-2; SWRCB 2018). There is
one active SWRCB cleanup assessment site and one Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) backlog cleanup assessment site that were identified approximately 0.2
mile southeast of the Project site across U.S. 101. These sites are undergoing assessments
for potential contaminants of concern that affected soils, groundwater, and surface water.
Offsite cleanup sites located near the Project site or hydraulically up-gradient could be a
concern if contaminants migrate to the Project site. Given the location of known sites with
potential contamination and associated soil and groundwater affected and their distance
from the Project site, there is a low potential for migration of contaminants to the Project
site.
3.7.1.5 Airport Safety Hazards
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
The Airport provides commuter, charter, and private aviation service to the area. The
primary hazard associated with land uses near the Airport is the risk of aircraft incidents
on approach and takeoff. Aircraft flight operations are determined largely by the physical
layout of the Airport and rules of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (City of San
Luis Obispo 2014). There are two runways at the Airport with parallel taxiways. Runway
11-29 is utilized for the majority of aircraft operations, with 97 percent of all aircraft
operating at the Airport using this runway for departures and arrivals, as well as touch-and-
go flights. Runway 7-25 is mostly used by small, light, general aviation aircrafts during
crosswind conditions and is utilized for the remaining 3 percent of aircraft flights, only for
general aviation propeller aircraft.3 The Project site is not located in the path of the
3 General aviation is all civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air
transport operations for remuneration or hire.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-9
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Table 3.7-2. USTs and Cleanup Sites within a 0.5 mile-Radius of the Project Site
Hazardous Site Record Location Potential for Migration to the
Project site
Laguna Lake Shell LUST
Inactive Cleanup Site
Madonna Road and LOVR
intersection, 0.5 mile north
of Project site
Very Low – An inactive cleanup site
associated with gasoline and other
fuel oxygenate contaminants which
was completed and closed in 2013.
Perry Ford, Lincoln LUST
Inactive Cleanup Site
LOVR, 0.1 mile northeast
of Project site
Very Low – An inactive cleanup site
associated with waste, motor,
hydraulic, and lubricating oil
contaminants which was completed
and closed in 2008.
Sunset Honda LUST Inactive
Cleanup Site
LOVR, 0.1 mile northeast
of Project site
Very Low – An inactive cleanup site
associated with waste, motor,
hydraulic, and lubricating oil
contaminants which was completed
and closed in 2000.
Kimball Motors LUST
Inactive Cleanup Site
LOVR, 0.2 mile northeast
of Project site
Very Low – An inactive cleanup site
associated with benzene, gasoline,
and tetrachloroethylene contaminants
which was completed and closed in
2012.
Shell (former Texaco) LUST
Inactive Cleanup Site
LOVR, 0.1 mile east of
Project site
Very Low – An inactive cleanup site
associated with gasoline and other
fuel oxygenate contaminants which
was completed and closed in 2009.
ARCO #6038 LUST Inactive
Cleanup Site (A)
LOVR, 0.1 mile east of
Project site
Very Low – An inactive cleanup site
associated with diesel contaminants
which was completed and closed in
1993.
ARCO #6038 LUST Inactive
Cleanup Site (B)
LOVR, 0.1 mile east of
Project site
Very Low – An inactive cleanup site
associated with gasoline and other
fuel oxygenate contaminants which
was completed and closed in 2010.
Chevron USA LUST Inactive
Cleanup Site
Calle Joaquin, 0.1 mile east
of Project site
Very Low – An inactive cleanup site
associated with gasoline contaminants
which was completed and closed in
1996.
San Luis Obispo
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Plume State Response Cleanup
Site
LOVR, 0.2 mile east of
Project site
Low – Active cleanup site since 2010.
Groundwater was potentially
impacted by PCE from the site’s
previous dry-cleaning use. The extent
of PCE contamination is unknown,
and further investigative work is
needed for locating PCE source areas;
the extent of concern is limited to
areas north of LOVR up to Marsh
Street.
3.7-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Table 3.7-2. USTs and Cleanup Sites within a 0.5 mile-Radius of the Project Site
(Continued)
Hazardous Site Record Location Potential for Migration to the
Project site
Conoco Phillips Site #5143
Cleanup Program Site
LOVR, 0.2 mile east of
Project site
Low – Active cleanup site and initial
assessment initiated in 2010. Soils
were contaminated with crude oil,
diesel and gasoline. Due to the
separation by U.S. 101 and the
potential for soil to migrate, potential
for contaminate migration to the
Project site is low.
Source: SWRCB 2018; DTSC 2018.
arrival/departure pattern for either runway and is not located within a Runway Protection
Zone. A majority of the Project site is located within Aviation Safety Area S-2, while a
small portion of the eastern area of the Project site is located with Aviation Safety Sub-
Area S-1c (SLO County ALUC 2005).
Airport Safety Areas
The Project site is approximately 1.7 miles west of the Airport and falls within the
jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) adopted by the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) in 1973 and updated in 2005. The ALUP is currently in the process
of being updated. The ALUC oversees development subject to the ALUP to ensure safety.
Allowable types and intensity of development and potential airport safety hazards are
identified within each Aviation Safety Area defined by the ALUP. Under the 2005 ALUP,
a portion of the Project site overlaps Aviation Safety Sub-Areas S-1B and S-1C. However,
more recent analysis of Airport hazards indicates the safety risks may differ from the 2005
ALUP. Using the criteria in Caltrans’ California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook,
the Project site falls outside of the Aviation Safety Areas (Johnson Aviation 2014). Further,
the ALUC conceptually reviewed the Project on April 19, 2017. While the 2005 ALUP
Safety Area maps are adopted by the ALUC, the City has consistently deferred to the San
Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Compatibility Report prepared by Johnson Aviation in 2014
as the more accurate assessment of Airport hazards in the City. The report uses the
Caltrans’ California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which provides a more current
and appropriate methodology for assessing aviation safety risks. The City has relied on the
report during adoption hearings for recent planning and development projects, including
the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project and the Avila Ranch Specific Plan project.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-11
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Aviation Accidents at San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Accident Study, 68
percent of aviation accidents occur over or within an airport, and accident sites tend to
occur fairly close to the extended runway centerline (Johnson Aviation 2014). There had
been a total of 33 aviation accidents or incidents associated with the Airport, six of which
resulted in fatalities, between 1984 and 2014. Of these, five incidents resulted in emergency
landings within LUCE- defined Airport Overlay Zones (AOZs) between 1984 and 2014,
none of which resulted in an on-ground fatality or occurred within or adjacent to the Project
site (Table 3.7-3).
Table 3.7-3. Fatal Aircraft Accidents within the Vicinity of San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport
Flight Date ALUP Safety Area
9/24/1990 S-2
8/7/1994 S-1B
1/16/2001 S-1C
8/1/2005 S-2
6/24/2013 S-1B
Source: Johnson Aviation 2014.
Note: Accident site placement for the ALUP Safety Areas were based on visual determination of Figure 4-3 from the
Johnson Aviation Land Use Compatibility Report.
3.7.2 Regulatory Setting
Hazardous materials and hazards safety are governed by local jurisdictions, although
federal and state laws which apply to local jurisdictions would also apply to future
development under the Project. Regulations that are directly relevant to the Project are
summarized below.
3.7.2.1 Federal
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) – Process Safety
Management Standard (29 CFR 1910.119)
OSHA’s mission is to ensure the safety and health of American workers by setting and
enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships;
and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. OSHA standards
are listed in 29 CFR 1910, including Process Safety and Management. This standard
includes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic
releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals. Some of the requirements
3.7-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
of this standard include: all information pertaining to the hazardous chemicals shall be
available to the employees; employees shall be given training on the operation of
equipment with hazardous materials; and, the employer is required to perform a process
hazard analysis.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
SLO County APCD is delegated authority by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) to implement the Federal Asbestos NESHAP regulations specified in 40 CFR
61, Subpart M. There are specific requirements and procedures delineated in this regulation
which pertain to certain demolition and renovation projects. All non-residential
demolitions of any kind of structure or asbestos containing material disturbance are
required to be approved in advance by SLO County APCD. Requirements for an
owner/operator subject to this regulation include conducting a thorough inspection for the
presence of asbestos by a Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) and written notification to
SLO County APCD of the demolition or renovation at least 10 working days prior to the
start of the job.
3.7.2.2 State
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) lists specific requirements for emergency water supply,
access roads and turnarounds, roofing, construction techniques, hazard abatement, and
event inspection and safety. The CFC provides uniform fire prevention, hazardous
material, and building construction regulations. To minimize risks to public health and the
environment, a Fire Prevention Inspector is required to review a list of hazardous materials
stored aboveground on a property to assess potential individual and/or cumulative impacts
to the property and surrounding areas. The inspector would ensure that hazardous materials
stored onsite comply with Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 4291 Mountainous, Forest-, Brush- and Grass-
Covered Lands
(a) A person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in,
upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-
covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material, shall at all times do all the
following:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-13
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
(1) Maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the
structure, but not beyond the property line except as provided in paragraph (2). The amount
of fuel modification necessary shall take into account the flammability of the structure as
affected by building material, building standards, location, and type of vegetation. Fuels
shall be maintained in a condition so that a wildfire burning under average weather
conditions would be unlikely to ignite the structure. This paragraph does not apply to single
specimens of trees or other vegetation that are well-pruned and maintained so as to
effectively manage fuels and not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from other
nearby vegetation to a structure or from a structure to other nearby vegetation. The intensity
of fuels management may vary within the 100-foot perimeter of the structure, the most
intense being within the first 30 feet around the structure. Consistent with fuels
management objectives, steps should be taken to minimize erosion. For the purposes of
this paragraph, “fuel” means any combustible material, including petroleum-based
products and wildland fuels.
(2) A greater distance than that required under paragraph (1) may be required by state law,
local ordinance, rule, or regulation. Clearance beyond the property line may only be
required if the state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation includes findings that the
clearing is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat
sufficient to ignite the structure, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possible
to reduce the risk of ignition or spread of wildfire to the structure. Clearance on adjacent
property shall only be conducted following written consent by the adjacent landowner.
Hazardous Materials Transportation
The transport of hazardous materials within the State of California is subject to federal,
state, and local regulations. It is illegal to transport explosives or inhalation hazards on any
public highway not designated for that purpose unless the use of the highway is required
to permit delivery or the loading of such materials (California Vehicle Code, Sections
31602(b) and 32104(a)). The California Highway Patrol (CHP) designates through routes
to be used for the transport of hazardous materials. The transport of hazardous materials is
restricted to such routes except in cases where travel from these routes is required to deliver
or receive hazardous materials.
3.7-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (Section 93105)
This CARB ATCM regulation applies to any area to be disturbed that is located in a
geographic ultramafic rock unit, or to any area where NOA or serpentine would be
disturbed. Projects that require grading within an area where an NOA may be present are
required to demonstrate adequate dust control measures with the SLO County APCD. For
example, for projects that require grading of 1 acre or more in serpentine, a geologic
evaluation and Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan must be submitted to the SLO County
APCD.
The Project site lies within the NOA buffer area per the SLO County APCD’s NOA map,
and is therefore subject to CARB’s ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations. CARB has identified asbestos as a TAC that if inhaled may
result in the development of lung cancer or cause other health hazards. NOA can be found
in serpentine rock and can be released into the air when it is broken or crushed. In the
County, serpentine rock is located in many regions, including the Project site. Work in
serpentine areas requires a SLO County APCD pre-approved dust control plan and may
include asbestos air monitoring. Prior to any grading activities at a site within an area
potentially containing NOA, the Applicant is required to comply with the applicable
sections contained in the NOA ATCM, including the California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Title 17, Section 93105. Refer also to Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions.
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
DTSC, a department of CalEPA, is the primary agency in California for regulating
hazardous waste, cleaning up existing contamination, and finding ways to reduce the
amount of hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste
primarily under the authority of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5
through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are
specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and
emergency planning.
U.S. Code (USC) 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed
hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health Services (DHS) lists of
contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by SWRCB as having UST leaks or
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-15
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
discharges of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from
local regulatory agencies of sites with a known migration of hazardous waste/material.
3.7.2.3 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Safety Element (SE)
The City’s General Plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet
community purposes. The General Plan SE focuses on achieving acceptable levels of risk
through decisions on land use and the form of development, with consideration for the
closely related factor of transportation. The General Plan SE includes policies that describe
an approach to achieving the goals of the General Plan. In terms of hazards/hazardous
materials, there are three policies included in the General Plan SE:
Policy 3.1 Wildland Fire Safety.
G. New subdivisions shall be prohibited in areas of “Very High” wildland fire
hazard unless part of conservation or open space acquisition program. Development
of existing parcels shall require a development plan to manage fuels, maintain a
buffer zone, and provide adequate fire protection to the approval of the Chief
Building Official. The development plan must be consistent with Policies required
by the General Plan COSE.
H. The City of San Luis Obispo is considered a “Community at Risk” due to the
threat of wildfire impacting the urban community. The City shall continue to
enhance the fire safety and construction codes for new buildings in order to reduce
the risk of urban fires that may result from wildfires. Citywide building code
enhancements should include: Fire resistant exterior wall coverings; Sprinkler
protection in attic areas; and Ember resistant vent systems for attics and under floor
areas and other provisions identified in California Building Code (CBC) Chapter
7A.
Policy 5.2 Minimizing Hazardous Materials Exposure. People’s exposure to hazardous
substances should be minimized.
Policy 9.18 Safety of Structures and Facilities. Existing and new structures and facilities
should reflect adopted safety standards. Within this policy, the City has developed a
program, Program S 8.6.5 Required Inspections, whereby the City will conduct safety
3.7-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
inspections for hazardous materials in commercial, industrial, and multifamily residential
buildings.
Land Use Element (LUE)
The General Plan LUE, the associated LUCE Update EIR, and technical studies such as
the 2014 San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Compatibility Report (Johnson Aviation)
address the issues of airport hazards in detail. Based on this analysis, the LUE set forth
both policies and programs to address Airport safety, which are summarized below and
discussed in more detail in Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning.
Policy 7.4 Airport Safety Zones. Density and allowed uses within the Airport Safety Zones
shall be consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport ALUP unless the
City overrides a determination of inconsistency in accordance with Section 21676 and
21676.5 et seq. of the Public Utilities Code. If the City overrides a determination, all land
uses shall be consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and guidance provided in the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, City policies, and noise
standards as substantiated by the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Master Plan
activity forecasts as used for noise planning purposes.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code – Demolition and Moving of Buildings Section
115 Public Safety Requirements
The City Municipal Code includes general requirements for building demolition activities,
permitting for such activities, hauling operations, and routes for moving materials. In
addition, there are subsections included for dust and debris, fire safety, and removal and
disposal of demolition materials.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code – Site Development Standards
23.05.080 - Fire Safety
Any proposed use that requires land use permit approval is subject to the provisions of
Sections 23.05.082 and 23.05.086. The purpose of these standards is to provide for
precautions to minimize hazards to life and property in the event of fire.
23.05.082 - Fire Safety Plan
The purpose of a fire safety plan is to enable a fire protection agency that has jurisdiction
over a proposed site to evaluate the adequacy of proposed fire protection measures, and to
keep itself informed of new developments to evaluate their effect upon the ability of the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-17
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
agency to provide continuing service. The approval of a fire safety plan does not imply a
commitment by any agency to an increased level of service.
This section details where fire safety plans are required, and the required content of the fire
safety plan is described, including what is necessary for projects within urban and village
areas and rural areas. Exceptions are provided to the content, such as in the case where the
applicable fire protection agency determines that information provided with the project
application and plans is sufficient to enable fire safety review without the need for a
separate fire safety plan. Finally, fire safety plan review is required, and the timing and
effect of review are detailed.
23.05.086 - Fire Safety Standards
In areas where fire protection is provided by the San Luis Obispo County Fire
Department/California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, new uses are required
to comply with applicable provisions of the Uniform Fire Code, 1988 Edition, or such later
edition as adopted by an ordinance of the County.
Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
State law requires an independent, countywide ALUC to adopt an ALUP for each airport.
This plan establishes zones based on flight patterns, with the aim of having future
development be compatible with airport operations, considering safety and noise exposure.
The ALUP contains several safety-related policies to address future development:
4.4.6 Safety Policies. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ALUP except for the
specific provisions set forth in Section 6 (Specific Land Use Provisions for the Margarita
Area), a proposed general plan, general plan amendment, specific plan, specific plan
amendment, zoning ordinance, zoning ordinance amendment, building regulation
modification, or individual development proposal will be determined to be inconsistent
with the ALUP if the proposed project or local action:
c. Policy S-3. Would permit or fail to adequately prohibit any future development
project which specifies, entails, or would result in a greater building coverage than
permitted by ALUP Table 7 (see Table 3.8-3 in Section 3.9, Land Use and
Planning).
4.4.3.2 Aviation Safety Areas. Three fundamental areas are delineated with respect to
aviation safety risks, of which Safety Area S-1 and S-2 overlay the Project site:
3.7-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
b. Safety Area S-1 – The area within the vicinity of which aircraft operate
frequently or in conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes equal to or less than 500
feet above ground level.
c. Safety Area S-2 – The area, within the vicinity of which aircraft operate
frequently or in conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes between 501 and 1000
feet above ground level. Aviation safety hazards to be considered in this area
include mechanical failures, fuel exhaustion, loss of control during turns from
downwind to base legs or from base to final legs of the traffic pattern, stall/spin
incidents during engine-out maneuvers in twin engine aircraft, and midair
collisions. Operational factors of concern include circle-to-land instrument
approaches south of Runway 11-29, extensive “pattern work” by student pilots in
fixed-wing aircraft (predominantly, but not exclusively to the south and west of the
airport), and extensive practice flight by students in rotary-wing aircraft to the north
of the airport. Nonetheless, because aircraft in Area S-2 are at greater altitude and
are less densely concentrated than in other portions of the Airport Planning Area,
the overall level of aviation safety risk is considered to be lower than that in Area
S-1 or the Runway Protection Zones.
4.4.4.2 Aviation Safety Sub-Areas. In consideration of the above, the ALUC has
established and adopted sub-areas within Aviation Safety Area S-1. The following
description is for Aviation Safety Sub-Area S-1C, which applies to the Project site:
c. Safety Area S-1C – Those portions of Safety Area S-1 which are not included
in Safety Areas S-1A or S-1B, but are adjacent to (within 0.5 nautical miles)
frequent or low-visibility aircraft operations at less than 500 feet above ground
level. Aviation safety hazards to be considered in this area include mechanical
failures, deviation from localizer or VHF omnidirectional range during Instrument
Flight Rules operations (due to pilot error or equipment malfunction), stall/spin
incidents during engine-out maneuvers in multi-engine aircraft, loss of control
during “go around” or missed approach procedures, and loss of visual references
by aircraft performing circle-to-land procedures.
4.5.3 Airspace Protection Policies. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ALUP,
any proposed general plan, general plan amendment, specific plan, specific plan
amendment, zoning ordinance, zoning ordinance amendment, building regulation
modification, or individual development proposal will be determined to be inconsistent
with the ALUP if the proposed local action:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-19
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
a. Policy A-1 – Lacks sufficient provisions to ensure that no structure, landscaping,
apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary or permanent in nature shall
constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a hazard to air navigation, as defined
above.
These policies are linked to designated Airport runway safety zones which encompass the
Project site and are discussed more fully in Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning.
CALFIRE and San Luis Obispo County Fire Department Strategic Fire Plan 2017
The Strategic Fire Plan collaboratively addresses fire protection planning efforts within the
County and provides a planning level framework for hazardous fuel assessment and
strategies to reduce the potential for wildfire ignition. The goals of the plan include
coordination between multiple jurisdictions within the County and improvement of fire
suppression capabilities.
City of San Luis Obispo Emergency Operations Plan 2011
The City Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) addresses the planned response to
emergencies in, or affecting the City. The EOP identifies the emergency management
organization to coordinate response to emergencies or disasters, describes procedures, and
establishes framework for preparedness and response actions.
3.7.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.7.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The Project would have a significant impact if it would create a public health hazard or
cause harm to the environment. The significance criteria for this hazards, hazardous
materials, and wildfire analysis are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
A potential impact related to hazards, hazardous materials, or wildfire is considered
significant if the Project would:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment;
3.7-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment;
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area;
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires.
Additionally, since the Project site is located in or near state responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, wildfire impact is considered significant
if the Project would:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan;
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment; or
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-21
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Non-Applicable Thresholds
• Threshold (c) (Hazardous Materials Emission Near Schools): There is one school
located approximately 0.25 mile from the Project site, separated by existing urban
development that includes commercial businesses and residential uses. The Project
proposes residential and commercial uses that would not generate hazardous
materials. Typical materials (e.g., cleaning soaps, solvents and pesticides) used in
the residential and commercial development would be similar in nature to those
used at the school. Accordingly, there would be no potentially significant adverse
impact to schools with implementation of the Project and this issue will not be
analyzed further in this EIR.
3.7.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
This assessment includes review of existing adopted plans, public databases, recent studies
and EIRs, to assess the potential presence of hazards and hazardous materials sites within
the Project site and vicinity. The Project site was evaluated for the presence of hazardous
materials based on a review the LUCE Update EIR, and integrated current information for
contaminated sites from U.S. EPA’s EnviroFacts, DTSC’s EnviroStor, and SWRCB’s
GeoTracker databases. Additionally, information for this section was gathered from
information provided by the General Plan SE, ALUP, historical reports, the DTSC data
management system, and Project site information on file with the City.
Risk associated with wildfire is assessed based on numerous items, including the CALFIRE
FHSZ determination, an assessment of the fuel biomass that is within and adjacent to the
Project site, historic wildland fires in the vicinity, slope, winds, vegetation age and
composition, and changes that may result after implementation of the Project.
Analysis of potential airport-related hazards included review of the State Aeronautics Act,
the FAA regulations, and guidance provided in Caltrans’ California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook. In addition, policy consistency with the ALUP Safety Areas is
provided in Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning. For the purposes of this section, the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is used for hazards impacts, consistent
with City guidance and the LUCE Update EIR methodology.
To evaluate potential for post-fire impacts, such as debris flows, flooding, or slope
instability, this section incorporates an assessment of impacts of the Project associated with
downstream flooding as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes
as presented in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. Regarding impacts associated
3.7-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
with increased potential for landslide under these same conditions, please refer to Section
3.6, Geology and Soils.
3.7.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Project would place residential and commercial development in a location that is
vulnerable to wildfires. The Project would also have a limited potential for release of
hazardous materials during construction and operation. Potential impacts related to
hazardous materials, airport operations, and wildfire are discussed further below and
summarized in Table 3.7-4.
Table 3.7-4. Summary of Project Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
HAZ-1. The Project would exacerbate wildfire
risks, thereby exposing occupants to wildfire
hazards, and impair 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
HAZ-2. The Project 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
HAZ-3. The Project 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
Impact HAZ-1 The Project would exacerbate wildfire risks, exposing occupants to
wildfire hazards and impairing emergency response, and would
require wildfire fuel management in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve
(Significant and Unavoidable).
As described in Section 3.7.1.3, Wildfire Risk, the Project site is located in a region with
very high to moderate fire hazard potential, including the western 1-mile-long perimeter of
the site that borders and includes very high fire hazard areas. Adjacent grassland, coastal
sage scrub, oak woodland and chaparral vegetation within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve
provides substantial flammable natural fuels for future potential wildfires. The Project site
also lies at the base of the Froom Creek watershed with steep slopes in the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve creating wind channels; prevailing winds generally blow northwest up the
slopes but periodically reverse and blow southeast downslope toward the Project site
(Western Regional Climate Center 2018). In addition, grasslands and vegetation along
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-23
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
slopes and within drainage channels within the Project site serve as fuels that contribute to
potential fire hazards for future development. As part of the Project, 39.1 acres of
residential uses, 3.1 acres of commercial uses, and 2.9 acres of public facilities are
proposed within the CALFIRE-designated Moderate FHSZ. While approximately 13 acres
of the Very High FHSZ exist within the Project site, no development is proposed within
this zone; proposed development within the Upper Terrace of Villaggio are approximately
200 feet from the Very High FHSZ. Further, along approximately 1,000 feet of the Project
site’s western perimeter, residential land uses within Madonna Froom Ranch are proposed
directly adjacent to Very High FHSZ within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, though these
residential uses would be buffered by the existing Froom Creek alignment.
Project Construction
The Project would allow for construction activities to occur on approximately 58 acres of
the site over multiple years. Project site construction activities would occur on and adjacent
to grasslands in a Moderate FHSZ and immediately adjacent to a Very High FHSZ where
the risk of fire ignition is heightened, especially during critical fire weather conditions with
warm temperatures, low humidity, and strong winds. Operation of construction equipment,
such as saws, welders, generators, and heavy machinery, would temporarily introduce new
ignition sources into the area. Flammable solids involved in construction include plastic
and fiberglass components, and the accumulation of material from work equipment.
Flammable liquids include gasoline or diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, engine oil, and engine
coolant.
While the chance of accidental ignition by such heavy equipment may seem improbable,
several wildland fires in Southern California have been ignited by such equipment.4 For
example, the nearly 85,000-acre Las Pilitas Fire in 1985 was ignited by equipment use and
burned wildland areas to the east of the City (County of San Luis Obispo Fire Department
2018). As construction would occur over a period of several years, the risk of fire ignition
from construction activities immediately adjacent to the Very High FHSZ constitutes a
potentially significant adverse impact, especially during periods of high fire risk. While
adherence to the City’s Municipal Code Sections 23.05.080, 23.05.082, and 23.05.086 and
associated compliance with CFC and CBC construction requirements would minimize the
4 The 2014 Rancho Bernardo suburb fire in San Diego that burned 1,500 acres was caused by construction
equipment, and the 2009 Jesusita Fire in Santa Barbara, which burned almost 9,000 acres and destroyed 80
homes, was ignited by landscape equipment during a trail maintenance operation.
3.7-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
risk from accidental construction-related wildfires, the risk would not be eliminated given
the setting of the Project site. Associated impacts would be potentially significant.
Project Operation
There is the potential for a fire ignition within the Irish Hills or elsewhere within a Very
High FHSZ, which would potentially affect the Project site and surrounding development,
infrastructure, and natural resource areas. Project operation could also increase the
potential to ignite wildfires. Activities such as barbeques, smoking, vehicle maintenance,
and landscaping activities, etc., could introduce new ignition sources into the area,
including within the Project site and within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, considering
potential increased activities from Project residents. Fueled by prevailing northwest winds,
fire ignition from the Project site may spread rapidly up the Irish Hills.
When southeast winds prevail, wildfire may burn downslope onto the Project site. The
rugged, sloped terrain of the Irish Hills make firefighting challenging and the Project would
eliminate the existing buffer between the Irish Hills and urban development in the southern
portion of the City and block direct access to the Irish Hills in this area.
The Project would exacerbate wildfire risks by developing residential uses in a high fire
hazard area, thereby placing structures and people in a high risk place and contributing to
wildfire hazards that would affect existing people and property, including pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire, uncontrolled spread of wildfire, and post-fire flooding,
debris flows, and drainage changes. The Project would substantially increase the total
number of people and structures within an area designated Moderate FHSZ and adjacent
to a High FHSZ. During periods of maximum occupancy, 1,231 persons could be onsite
within the residential and commercial areas (i.e., employees and residents). Further,
although no development is proposed in the Very High FHSZ, the risk of wildfire remains
high due to Project location at the wildland-urban interface at the base of steep slopes and
ravines in the Irish Hills.
The fact that the Project site itself lies in the Moderate FHSZ does not eliminate the wildfire
risk associated with the Project given its setting in the Irish Hills. For example, the 2017
Thomas Fire in Ventura resulted in the loss of nearly 1,000 homes, including many that
were not within a designated High FHSZ but topographically located in wildfire-
susceptible areas. Additionally, based on the conceptual site plan (see Figure 2-5),
approximately 16 structures within Madonna Froom Ranch and approximately 14
structures within Villaggio would be immediately adjacent to vegetation of Moderate and
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-25
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Very High FHSZ areas. Accounting for those structures within the Project site that are
adjacent to open space areas (that do not necessarily face the Irish Hills), the total number
of structures located within the Moderate FHSZ and thereby subject to wildfire risk would
be approximately 62 structures. These structures would be at risk of fires igniting in the
Irish Hills or elsewhere and burning through Very High FHSZ downslope onto the Project
site, especially considering slopes, prevailing winds and biofuels that have not recently
burned.
Following a wildfire in the Irish Hills, there would be a potential for people and structures
to be exposed to significant risks associated with potential flooding, sedimentation, and
debris flow. Following the 2017 Thomas Fire in Montecito, debris flows flooded creeks,
reshaped watersheds, and resulted in substantial loss of life and property. The Project site
is located at the base of the Froom Creek watershed and the Irish Hills. Denuded hillsides
adjacent to the site in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and in the headwaters of the Froom
Creek watershed may become unstable in post-fire conditions, when rainfall could
mobilize debris to cause landslides, mudflows, and flooding onsite and in the vicinity. In
additional to the direct impact to structures and people, this impact could manifest as
changes to site hydrology, as further analyzed in Section 3.8, Hydrology & Water Quality.
Compliance with Policies 3.1 and 9.18 within the General Plan SE, development standards
with the CFC, and the City Municipal Code would reduce the risk of damage or injury by
ensuring the Project would minimize the potential for ignition and increase structural
resistance to fire. Further, compliance with PRC Section 4291 would require the Project to
establish a 100-foot clearance between structures and highly flammable vegetation to
create a defensible space. This defensible space typically involves fuel modification within
a buffer zone where combustible native or ornamental vegetation is modified or replaced
with drought-tolerant, low-fuel-volume plants. Under the currently proposed Project land
use plan (refer to Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5), approximately 1,000 feet of medium-high
density residential (R-3-SP) immediately borders the Irish Hills Natural Reserve within
Villaggio. Additionally, there is approximately 1,651 feet of R-3-SP within 100 feet of the
Project boundary, which averages approximately 75 feet from the boundary edge
(especially along the Madonna Froom Ranch edge). Considering the minimum 5-foot
backyard setback and the 100-foot defensible space required of PRC 4291, defensible space
would potentially extend up to 95 feet into the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve along
portions that border the Reserve, and average approximately 20 feet into the Reserve along
the portion that averages the R-3-SP land use approximately 75 feet from the boundary
edge. Compliance with these measures, particularly implementation of defensible space
3.7-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
buffers, would ensure impacts associated with the proposed development’s wildfire risk
would be substantially reduced to a less than significant level.
While defensible space requirements would decrease risks associated with wildfire, there
may be secondary impacts to biological resources, potentially impacting several acres of
Irish Hills Natural Reserve habitats. The potential vegetation clearance up to 95 feet outside
the Project site would potentially occur along a 1,000-foot segment of R-3-SP that borders
the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which would potentially modify approximately 2.18 acres
of existing vegetation (Figures 3.7-2 and 3.7-3). Vegetation clearance up to 75 feet outside
the Project site, along a 1,651-foot segment of R-3-SP that borders the Reserve, would
potentially modify approximately 0.76 acres of existing vegetation. Additionally, within
Villaggio, fire buffer clearance within existing grasslands and riparian habitats in the Upper
Terrace to the southwest and along the western boundary of the Lower Terrace would likely
also require additional vegetation clearance. Therefore, fire buffer clearance requirements
would result in potential secondary impacts to biological resources both on and off the
Project site, including potentially rare and sensitive habitats, such as serpentine native
bunch grasslands and areas supporting rare plant species. See Section 3.4, Biological
Resources for a more complete discussion of such impacts.
Emergency Evacuation
The Project would substantially increase the total number of people that may be subject to
evacuation during a wildfire. The Project’s proposed intersection at LOVR is the primary
access and egress route to the site for private vehicles and evacuation. During wildfire,
residents, employees, hotel guests, and potentially visitors may all need to evacuate the
site. Vehicles would contribute to congestion on evacuation routes along LOVR and U.S.
101, contributing to probable evacuation-related congestion, potential road closures, and
exposure of evacuees to traffic-related hazards during evacuation. In extreme events,
evacuees could also be exposed to smoke, flames, ash and embers, and/or downed power
lines and trees. During emergency conditions when a threat such as a wildland fire is
imminent, it may be difficult for the healthcare center to guide panicked individuals to fire
meeting points and shelter-in-place locations as detailed within the Draft FRSP Program
7.4.1a, especially if site conditions quickly change. Further, residents of Villaggio would
constitute a special needs population under the City’s EOP and would require special care
services and resources. Therefore, the Project could impair the implementation of an
existing EOP, a potentially significant impact. See also Impact Section 3.13,
Transportation and Traffic regarding emergency evacuation.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-27
Draft EIR
A-AA-AA-A
EMERGENCYEMERGENCY
ACCESS ROADACCESS ROAD
EMERGENCYEMERGENCY
ACCESSACCESS
ROADROAD
150-Foot Elevation C
ontourLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAY
AUTO PARK WAY
CALLE JOAQUINCALLE JOAQUINCALLE JOAQUINCALLE JOAQUINMOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH LOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAY
CALLE JOAQUINCALLE JOAQUINMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH Realig n e d Froom CreekRELOCATEDRELOCATED
BASINBASIN
RELOCATED
BASIN
150-Foot Elevation C
ontourIRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
101
EMERGENCY
ACCESS ROAD
EMERGENCY
ACCESS
ROAD
Relationship Between Project Site and
Irish Hills Natural Reserve
5-Foot
Rear Yard
Setback
Residence
Beginning of
Irish Hills Natural Reserve
(30’-75’)
100’ Defensible
Space
Setback
A A
LEGEND Proposed Building Heights
Project Site
1- to 2-Foot Berm
Madonna Froom Ranch
Villaggio
100-Foot Buffer
Cross Section Location
(refer to Figure 3.7-3)
1 Story – 18’-20’ High
2 Story – 24’-30’ High
3 Story – 36’-45’ High
Tower – 45’-55’ High
A-AA-AA-A
Minimum Defensible Space Area 3.7-2
LOWER AREALOWER AREA
UPPERUPPER
TERRACETERRACE
LOWER AREA
UPPER
TERRACE
FIGURE
0 550
SCALE IN FEET
N
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
3.7-28
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Figure 3.7-3. Illustrative Defensible Space Setback Cross Section
Emergency Response
The Project would eliminate the existing buffer between the Irish Hills and urban
development in the southern portion of the City and block direct access to the Irish Hills in
this area, forcing responders to navigate through Madonna Froom Ranch or the Upper
Terrace. To respond to a wildfire, emergency vehicle access to the adjacent slopes of the
Irish Hills Natural Reserve under the Project would be limited and would restrict the ability
of firefighters to protect structures within the direct line of fire from damage. As detailed
above, approximately 30 residential units within Villaggio and R-3 units within Madonna
Froom Ranch are proposed adjacent to the Project site boundary with the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve. These units would be especially vulnerable to any wildfire originating from the
hillside. Proposed security fencing and retaining walls along the western edge of the Project
site would potentially limit access for firefighters to attack fires within the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve, which would leave the Project site vulnerable, a potentially significant
impact.
In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, the City of San Luis Obispo Fire
Department (SLOFD) is required to review the Project for compliance with SLOFD
requirements for emergency access. Based on communication with Fire Chief Garret Olson
on June 27, 2018, SLOFD would require fire access routes in two locations from the Project
site to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve on at least 12-foot wide paths, one extending from
Villaggio, and one from Madonna Froom Ranch. See also, Section 3.13, Transportation
and Traffic regarding emergency access.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-29
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Taken together, the Project would result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the
exacerbation of wildfire hazards, considering the surrounding terrain, prevailing winds,
presence of biofuels, and known high fire risk areas. The Project would also impair
emergency evacuation and response. As a result, the Project would result in an increased
risk that people would be exposed to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire, uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire, or post-fire hazards resulting in potential for structural damage,
injuries, or loss of life due to wildfires. Therefore, potentially significant impacts would
occur.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 The Applicant shall prepare and submit a Construction Impact
Management Plan to the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department
(SLOFD) prior to the issuance of grading permits. The Plan shall list
measures taken during construction to reduce the potential for brush or
grass fires from use of heavy equipment, welding, vehicles with catalytic
converters, and other potential activities. The Plan shall include SLOFD
recommended measures including, but not limited to the following:
• All equipment with the potential to work off-road shall be equipped with
appropriate mufflers and have extinguishers mounted on each vehicle;
• In coordination with SLOFD, personnel shall be briefed on the dangers of
wildfire and be able to respond accordingly should the need arise;
• Onsite supervisor(s) shall have a cell phone or other means of initiating a
911 response time in a timely manner in the event of a medical emergency
and/or fire;
• All dead and decadent vegetation immediately surrounding the development
area shall be removed to a minimum perimeter of 30 feet;
• Smoking shall only occur in a designated area;
• A water tender will be available on each construction site during the entire
phase of construction; and
• A water tender operator shall be available onsite during all construction
and remain onsite a minimum of 30 minutes after all construction has
finished for the day.
3.7-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare a
Construction Impact Management Plan in coordination with SLOFD, the
San Luis Obispo County Fire Department, and the City, and submit the Plan
to the SLOFD for approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Provisions for fire protection shall be restated on all grading and building
plans. Fire protection measures shall be implemented throughout
construction and draw upon the CALFIRE and San Luis Obispo County
Fire Department Strategic Fire Plan. The name and telephone number of an
onsite supervisor shall be provided to SLOFD prior to commencement of
construction or grading activities.
Monitoring. The SLOFD shall review the Construction Impact
Management Plan and provide recommended measures as necessary. The
City permit processing planner shall ensure measures are integrated into the
final grading and building plans prior to permit approval. City monitoring
staff shall spot check for compliance during construction for each phase of
development.
MM HAZ-2 In accordance with PRC Section 4291, the Applicant shall hire a City-
qualified team that consists of appropriate specialists (i.e., fire management
professionals, biologists) to prepare a Community Fire Protection Plan to
design the creation and maintenance of required fire buffers and fuel
management zones around developable areas and detail methods for
achieving fire safety around new buildings while preserving the integrity
and function of affected native plant communities to the maximum extent
feasible, and that ensures that consistent fire fuel management practices are
applied throughout the City. The Plan shall incorporate management
strategies in coordination with adjacent property owners, including
Mountainbrook Church and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The Plan shall
outline the removal and control of invasive, non-native vegetation, and
conservation of sensitive habitats and rare species, while developing fire
fuel management practices that will discourage or prevent non-native
grasses and other non-native invasive species from dominating surrounding
areas. Landscaping shall be maintained by the Applicant and periodically
inspected by the SLOFD during fire inspections in each of the fuel
management zones to avoid the buildup of deadwood and leaf litter, which,
if left to accumulate, would reduce the mitigating effect of the Plan.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-31
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Specifically, the Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following
elements:
• Vegetation coverage and type;
• Setbacks between structures, sensitive wildlife species, and access
routes;
• Development plan landscaping and planting standards within the
setback areas;
• Native trees and shrubs, such as coast live oak, coastal scrub, and
grassland shall be thinned and limbed up but left in place;
• All allowable weed abatement techniques, qualifications, and
requirements for weed abatement contractors, as well as measures and
techniques that ensure the required fuel management and vegetation
clearance, shall be designed and implemented to provide adequate
structure protection and avoid degradation of sensitive biological
habitat; and
• Invasive species shall be removed and controlled.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to approval of the final
development plan, the Community Fire Protection Plan shall be prepared
and submitted to the City Natural Resources Manager and SLOFD for
review and approval, with coordination from the San Luis Obispo County
Fire Department. The Plan shall be implemented consistent with the
approved maintenance schedule.
Monitoring. The City-qualified biologist shall submit a monitoring report
to the City Natural Resources Manager and SLOFD at the end of the first
year following Project occupancy documenting the fuel management
activities that took place. Conformance with the Community Fire Protection
Plan shall be demonstrated through the submittal of annual photo
documentation by the Applicant or site visits as necessary at the discretion
of the Compliance monitoring staff.
MM HAZ-3 The Froom Ranch Specific Plan (FRSP) shall designate smoking areas,
located away from onsite fire hazards areas and within acceptable locations
3.7-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
consistent with Chapter 8.16, Smoking Prohibition and Secondhand Smoke
Control, of the City Municipal Code. Otherwise, smoking shall be
prohibited onsite. The Applicant shall amend the FRSP to include policies
to requiring the allowed use of fire resistant landscaping and hardscaping
in areas to reduce mulch/gorilla hair, which is the receptive embers, if
determined appropriate by SLOFD.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to adoption of the Final FRSP, the
Applicant shall amend the Final FRSP to include these policies. The
Applicant shall coordinate with SLOFD to identify appropriate locations for
designated smoking areas and appropriate fire resistant landscaping and
hardscaping features within the Project site.
Monitoring. The Final FRSP shall be reviewed by the SLOFD and City for
inclusion of the above measure.
MM HAZ-4 The Applicant shall prepare and implement an Evacuation Plan, which
shall address both Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch areas. The
Evacuation Plan shall be subject to review by the City and SLOFD, and
shall include, but not be limited to:
• Accommodation for assisted living and special care individuals;
• Shelter-in-place accommodations;
• Specified quantity and capacity of vehicles required to accommodate
residents and employees of Villaggio, and maintenance of those
vehicles;
• Signage that clearly indicates evacuation routes and meeting areas;
• Specified egress points for transportation vehicles;
• A relocation plan from the Project site to a secondary facility, with
associated transportation;
• Contingency plans for changes to the construction schedule or phasing
plan that would affect the primary evacuation plan and routes;
• Periodic updates that would consider potential redevelopment activities
or other roadway alterations; and
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-33
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
• Regular practice drills (e.g., one per year) for implementation of the
Evacuation Plan.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The above Evacuation Plan shall be
prepared in coordination with the SLOFD and the San Luis Obispo County
Fire Department and submitted for approval to the City and SLOFD prior
to adoption of the Final VTTM. The Applicant shall resubmit the Plan to
the City and SLOFD prior to the construction of each phase of development.
Prior to occupancy of the first residential unit, the Applicant shall
implement measures within the Evacuation Plan.
Monitoring. The City and SLOFD shall review the Evacuation Plan and
ensure all recommendations are incorporated. The City Fire Marshall shall
inspect the Project site for compliance prior to the occupancy of the first
residential unit for each phase.
MM HAZ-5 The Froom Ranch Specific Plan (FRSP) shall designate fire access routes
in at least two locations from the Project site to the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve on at least 12-foot wide paths, one extending from Villaggio and
one from Madonna Froom Ranch. Fire access routes shall be designed to
allow emergency response to wildland area in the Irish Hills to support
direct access for firefighting personnel and equipment.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to adoption of the Final FRSP, the
Applicant shall amend the Final FRSP to include the required accessway,
in coordination with SLOFD to identify appropriate locations within the
Project site.
Monitoring. The Final FRSP shall be reviewed by the SLOFD and City for
inclusion of the above measure.
Residual Impacts
Exacerbated fire hazards that could occur during construction and operation of the Project
would require implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-5 to reduce potentially
significant impacts. MM HAZ-1 would be required to reduce impacts from the risk of fire
ignition from construction activities, limiting the potential for fires ignited by construction
activities to the furthest extent feasible. Implementation of mitigating fire protection
measures during construction phases would reduce the risk of fire caused by construction
3.7-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
activities through personnel briefings and provision of fire safety equipment such as
extinguishers, designated smoking areas, and access to water tenders during construction.
MM HAZ-2 would reduce the potential impacts of Project introduction to an area with
biofuels that may cause a wildfire incident, reducing fire hazards associated with vegetation
and biofuel mass. This would require defensible space around the Project’s habitable
structures, which has the potential to affect the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve if the
defensible space is not confined to the Project site. Implementation of MM HAZ-3 would
be required to reduce the risk of wildfire from smoking by residents of the Project. This
mitigation would maintain consistency with the City-wide smoking policies, ensuring that
smoking within privately and publicly maintained spaces does not occur adjacent to areas
with high fire hazards (City Municipal Code Section 8.16).
To ensure that the Project would not substantially impair an emergency operation or
evacuation plan, MM HAZ-4 would require the development and implementation of a
Project-specific Evacuation Plan, ensuring resources are available to safely evacuate
persons within the Project site, with consideration for changes to the anticipated
construction schedule or potential development activities. Finally, MM HAZ-5 would
ensure emergency responders can directly access the Irish Hills through the Project site in
the event of wildfire, including personnel and equipment. However, compared to existing
conditions in which firefighters are currently able to stage at the Project site and are allowed
full, unhindered access to the Irish Hills, the Project with incorporation of this measure
would continue to impair access for fire fighting personnel.
These measures would reduce the range of wildfire risks associated with the Project.
However, given the location of the site at the base of the Irish Hills with slopes, vegetation,
and winds that put the Project site and surrounding areas at risk for wildfire impacts, the
mitigation measures would not reduce the potentially impact to a level of insignificance.
Occupants would still be exposed to wildfire hazards and secondary impacts to the Irish
Hills would continue to occur from offsite fuel management (refer to Section 3.4,
Biological Resources), and emergency response to wildfire in the Irish Hills would
continue to be impaired by the Project as currently designed . Therefore, with
implementation of the above mitigation, impacts related to wildland fires with associated
threat of damage to structures and loss of life, would be significant and unavoidable.
Impact HAZ-2 The Project would potentially expose persons to toxic, hazardous, or
otherwise harmful chemicals through accidental release of hazardous
materials into the environment (Less than Significant).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-35
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Large quantities of hazardous materials would not be introduced to the area as a result of
potential land use changes anticipated to occur under the Project. As detailed below, the
Project would not create new significant hazardous conditions or exacerbate existing
hazardous conditions.
Transport of Hazardous Materials
The transport of potentially hazardous materials would continue to occur on arterial roads
in the area, such as U.S. 101 or LOVR. The transport of large quantities of hazardous
materials is subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations to reduce the risk of
accidental spills, leaks, fire, or other hazardous conditions. Future land uses under the
Project are not anticipated to involve the transport of unusually high volumes of hazardous
materials. Further, documentation for all hazardous materials that are transported for
individual Project site activities would be provided as required for compliance with
existing federal and state hazardous materials regulations. The U.S. Department of
Transportation Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the
safe transportation of hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable regulations, as well
as oversight by the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies tasked with hazardous
materials management, would minimize the risk of hazardous materials exposure during
transport.
Use and Storage of Hazardous Materials
New residential and commercial uses in the Project site would involve the routine use and
storage of common types of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance operations,
such as paints, fuels, solvents, and cleaning products, as well as limited medical supplies
and waste. Potentially hazardous materials that would be used and stored within the Project
site would be typical of those found in urban areas (e.g., paints, fuels/lubricants, cleaning
solvents, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides); however, these hazardous materials
would not pose a significant risk to the public or the environment and would be used in
limited quantities associated with residential and general commercial land uses.
Further, any business that handles or uses hazardous materials above regulatory levels
would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations and standards
established by the U.S. EPA, CalEPA, the County, and the City to protect the public health
and safety. Businesses are required to comply with health and safety and environmental
protection laws and regulations, including the City’s Municipal Code.
3.7-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Because no ASTs or USTs are known to exist within the Project site, there is low potential
for the release of hazardous materials from these sources during Project grading and
excavation activities. However, as described above, the Project site may have residual
hazardous materials from previous land uses, such as fuels, oils, fertilizers, decomposing
construction materials, and limited amounts of pesticides and herbicides. Grading activities
may release these hazardous materials. However, given that the site is largely undeveloped
and was historically used for grazing and dairy operations, the risk of contamination is
extremely low. Further, federal, state, and local regulations govern the disposal of
hazardous wastes. Additionally, asbestos-containing material (ACM), lead-based paint
(LBP), or other hazardous materials encountered during demolition or construction
activities would be disposed of in compliance with all pertinent regulations for the handling
of such waste, including SLO County APCD NESHAP requirements and CCR Title 8,
Industrial Relations.
Operation of the Project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials,
including vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. In addition, operation of residential
and commercial uses within the Project site would entail routine cleaning and maintenance
activities using common hazardous materials, such as cleaning fluids, detergents, solvents,
adhesives, sealers, paints, fuels/lubricants and pesticides/herbicides, etc. However,
applications of such materials would be in limited (i.e., not commercially reportable)
quantities and would be handled in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations
pertaining to their transport, use, or disposal.
Ultimately, the existing Project site conditions do not indicate that substantial safety risks
from hazardous materials are present that may be exacerbated. Additionally,
implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the risk from hazardous
materials to the public within the Project site or within the surrounding area. Therefore,
compliance with standards and regulations would ensure that the risk of hazardous
materials impacts would be less than significant.
Impact HAZ-3 The Project site is located within Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP)
Safety Areas and would potentially result in an airport-related safety
hazard for people residing or working in the Project site (Less than
Significant).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-37
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Airport safety is primarily related to the potential for accidents related to aircraft operations
such as emergency landings or in rare cases crashes, excessive noise levels caused by
frequent aircraft flyover, and ensuring that land use development is carried out in a manner
that minimizes risks associated with aircraft hazards. Minimizing or avoiding risks to
residential and commercial land uses involves designating areas around the ends of
runways that must be free of objects or sensitive land uses, limiting the height of new
structures in the surrounding airspace, and understanding historical accident patterns. The
Project site’s proximity to the Airport would present a potential airport-related safety issue
for future development, if development intensities exceed the standards established by the
ALUC and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The risk of an aircraft
accident increases with proximity to the runway and its approach path.
The Project site is located approximately 1.7 miles away from Runway 7-25, which
supports only 3 percent of Airport aircraft operations. The majority of the Project site is
outside of the general approach areas of Runway 7-25. Although a small portion of
residential and commercial uses in the northeastern corner of the site are within Aviation
Safety Sub-Areas S-1B and S-1C of the existing ALUP, developable land uses proposed
under the Project are largely located within Aviation Safety Area S-2, which generally
indicates areas of overhead aircraft turning movements. The maps prepared as part of the
Johnson Aviation Report depicting Airport hazards based on the Caltrans Handbook Safety
Compatibility Zones depict the Project site as being located entirely outside of the airport
safety compatibility zones and susceptible to airport hazards. The ALUP is currently in the
process of being updated, including the Safety Areas. Further, the ALUC conceptually
reviewed the Project on April 19, 2017 and advised that the Project should comply with
Aviation Safety Area S-2 restrictions at a minimum. Given the ALUC’s preliminary
determination of the Project and the pending ALUP update, the Project is analyzed for
airport safety against the Caltrans Handbook Safety Compatibility Zones identified in the
Johnson Aviation Report.
While small portions of the Project site lie within Safety Sub-Areas S-1B and S-1C of the
2005 ALUP, more recent analysis of Airport hazards indicates the safety risks may differ
from the 2005 ALUP. Using the criteria in the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, the Project site falls outside of the Aviation Safety Areas (Johnson Aviation
2014). While the 2005 ALUP Safety Area maps are adopted by the ALUC, the actual
Airport risks are very low onsite according to the more recent San Luis Obispo Airport
Land Use Compatibility Report prepared by Johnson Aviation in 2014 based on the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Accordingly, no substantial physical
3.7-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
airport-related safety hazard is expected to occur as result of Project implementation.
Further, the Project would be subject to review by the ALUC for consistency with the
ALUP and Airport Safety Areas.
With regard to excessive airport noise, noise from aircraft overflights do not generate
excessive noise levels under current and projected airport operations and would not
substantially affect the health or safety of future Project residents. Therefore, aviation-
related safety impacts to residents and commercial employees or patrons within the Project
site would be less than significant.
3.7.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative hazards from wildfire would be exacerbated by additional construction and
operation of urban uses within the City and region along the wildland-urban interface.
Projects within this area would introduce additional fire hazard-related risks that would
place additional people and structures at risk of damage. Further, the heightened potential
for future fire hazards from the influence of climate change and warmer conditions, as
discussed in Section 3.7.1.3, Wildfire Risk, would contribute to the potential for a higher
frequency, intensity, and size of fires that may occur within the Project site vicinity and
overall region. Adherence to the CFC, City Municipal code, policies within the General
Plan SE, and review of discretionary projects by the SLOFD would reduce potential
wildfire hazards, but given the high potential for wildfire near the City, the potential for
cumulative development to exacerbate wildfire hazards is significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative projects within the City and the Project vicinity would have the potential to
expose future area residents, employees, and visitors to chemical hazards through
development of sites and structures that may be contaminated from either historic or
ongoing uses. The severity of potential hazards for individual projects would depend upon
the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated with
individual sites. Discretionary projects proposed in the City would be required to undergo
individual environmental review, including review of potential impacts related to hazards
and hazardous materials that are applicable to that particular development site and
proposed use. Additionally, projects would also be subject to the local, state, and federal
standards which require the safe removal of potentially hazardous building materials and
the cleanup of contaminated properties, thus reducing the level of risk on a particular site.
Because development standards or remediation requirements would be applied if hazards
or hazardous materials posed a risk to safety, the Project’s cumulative impacts associated
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.7-39
Draft EIR
3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
with exposure to hazards or hazardous materials would not be cumulatively considerable.
Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts are less than significant.
In addition, several cumulative projects listed within Table 3.0-1 are also within the ALUP
Safety Areas, thereby potentially exposing persons to risk of airport safety hazards. These
primarily include residential units and commercial developments near the Airport, such as
the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and Avila Ranch Development Plan projects. However,
these projects are subject to review of airport-related hazards during the environmental
review process and by the ALUC, which would ensure that development does not impose
an aviation-related hazard on structures or people. In addition, the incremental increase in
airport safety hazards at the Project site would be negligible and would not be cumulatively
considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts from airport hazards would be less than
significant.
3.7-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section of the EIR describes the
potential impacts of the Project –
including the realignment of Froom
Creek within the Project site – on
flooding, water quality, and other
hydrologic conditions in the Froom
Creek watershed. The information and
analysis presented in this section is
based largely upon Applicant-prepared
technical studies, particularly for onsite
flooding, which were subject to initial
peer review by EIR consultant
technical specialists, revisions, and
final review and approval by the City. Please refer to Section 3.8.3.2, Impact Assessment
and Methodology for a list of sources of information utilized in this section. For a
discussion of potential impacts to wetland and stream habitats, please refer to Section 3.4,
Biological Resources.
3.8.1 Environmental Setting
3.8.1.1 Regional Hydrology
According to the Central Coast RWQCB, the Project site is located within the San Luis
Obispo Creek Hydrologic Subarea of the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, an area that
corresponds to the coastal draining watersheds west of the Coastal Range. The Estero Bay
Hydrologic Unit stretches roughly 80 miles between the Santa Maria River and the
Monterey County line and includes numerous individual stream systems (Central Coast
RWQCB 2017). Within the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, the San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed drains approximately 83 square miles; Froom Creek is a tributary of San Luis
Obispo Creek. Average seasonal precipitation in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed
ranges from 17 to 33 inches (SLO Watershed Project 2014).
The San Luis Obispo Creek watershed generally drains to the south-southwest via San Luis
Obispo Creek where it meets the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. San Luis Obispo Creek
originates in the Cuesta Grade area north of San Luis Obispo at an elevation of 2,200 feet
above mean sea level, in the western slopes of the Santa Lucia Range. San Luis Obispo
Froom Creek, an approximate 3.5-mile-long stream,
bisects the 116.8-acre Project site and is a tributary to
San Luis Obispo Creek.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-1
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Creek flows south through the City adjacent to U.S. 101 until it reaches the southern extent
of the Irish Hills where it veers west to the Pacific Ocean near Avila Beach.
The Project site is located within the
Froom Creek watershed, which is a
sub-basin of the San Luis Obispo
Creek watershed. Froom Creek is an
approximately 3.5-mile-long tributary
that extends from the confluence of
Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo
Creek, immediately downstream of the
Project site at U.S. 101 and north and
west to the Irish Hills. The Froom
Creek watershed drains approximately
1,162 acres (approximately 1.8 square
miles) and is bordered on the north by the Prefumo Creek and Sycamore Creek watersheds,
on the east by the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed, and on the south by the See Canyon
Creek and Lower San Luis Obispo Creek watersheds (Land Conservancy of San Luis
Obispo County 2002; Appendix J). Land use within the Froom Creek watershed is
predominantly undeveloped open space in the upper reaches and residential and
commercial development and grazing land in the lower reach in the Project vicinity.
Flood Hazards
Flooding occurs in response to heavy rainfall, when creek and drainage channels overflow.
Flooding may also occur in low-lying areas that have poor drainage, or when culverts
become blocked, even during moderate storms. Flood severity can be increased by
structures or fill placed in flood-prone areas, and increased runoff resulting from
development of impervious surfaces (such as parking lots, roads, and roofs). Floods
damage human and natural environments and can have adverse health effects.
Low-lying valleys within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed periodically experience
substantial flood. Flooding within the San Luis Obispo Creek system is generally caused
by intense Pacific storm systems that occur during annually from December through
March. The great topographic variability of the watershed causes these systems to release
large amounts of precipitation, especially along the higher ridgelines. For example, the
Irish Hills, located just west of the Project area and cresting at approximately 1,650 feet in
elevation, can experience twice the rainfall observed in the lower portions of the watershed
Froom Creek drains a 1,162-acre watershed within the
Irish Hills.
3.8-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
at the Project site. This upper-elevation rainfall is ultimately channeled through the Project
site via Froom Creek to connect to San Luis Obispo Creek.
San Luis Obispo Creek water flows can respond very quickly to short high-intensity rainfall
bursts. The San Luis Obispo Creek watershed is steep and is characterized by high-
magnitude, short-duration floods. Floods have been a continuing problem along San Luis
Obispo Creek, and significant flooding along the creek has been recorded in 1884, 1897,
1948, 1952, 1969, 1973, 1978, and 1995. In addition, many minor waterways, including
Froom Creek, drain into one or more of the four major drainage features that create flood
hazards in the City (i.e., San Luis Obispo Creek, Stenner Creek, Prefumo Creek, and Old
Garden Creek). These minor waterways, although having relatively small drainage sheds,
can also present flood hazards to lives and property, due to their steep slopes and high
gradient that can lead to intense, fast moving flood events.
Flood zone mapping and drainage improvements are based on the probability of a certain
amount of rainfall within a defined timeframe, usually 24 hours. From rainfall gauge
records, the size of a storm that has a 1-percent probability of occurring in any one year
within a watershed can be calculated. A storm with this probability is often referred to as
the “100-year storm” or “Q100” since at least one such storm would be expected to occur
in a 100-year period, and the associated overflow termed the “100-year flood.” Similarly,
a storm that has a 4 percent probability of occurring in any one year is referred to as the
“25-year storm,” and flows from this storm are called “Q25” flows or 25-year floods.
Water Quality
All storm drains within the City lead directly to creeks and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean.
None of this stormwater is treated in a municipal treatment plant before entering these
water bodies, although many more recent urban development projects include a variety of
onsite stormwater treatment features designed to protect water quality. According to the
Central Coast RWQCB, the two primary sources of pollutants to the watershed are
uncontrolled sediment and agricultural runoff. The Central Coast RWQCB also notes that
many other sources are also contributors, including pollutants from vehicles (e.g., oil,
gasoline, and other fluids), trash, pharmaceuticals, and household chemicals. Infiltration
and inflow into the wastewater collection mains causes excessive wet weather flows and
can lead to intermittent discharges of partially treated wastewater to San Luis Obispo Creek
(Central Coast RWQCB 2017).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-3
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The City’s Public Works, Utilities, and Community Development Departments are
responsible for coordinating the implementation of the City’s Stormwater Management
Plan (SWMP). This comprehensive program is required under the Phase II Stormwater
Regulations regulated by SWRCB, San Luis Obispo Region. The primary goal of the
program is to minimize urban runoff that enters the municipal storm drain system, and
carries bacteria and other pollutants into the local creeks, watershed, and to the ocean. As
part of these requirements, the City has been mandated to establish a set of minimum
designated BMPs and Pollution Prevention Methods (PPMs). BMPs are steps taken to
minimize or control the amount of pollutants and runoff. PPMs are strategies to eliminate
the use of polluting materials, and/or not exposing potential pollutants to rainwater or other
runoff.
San Luis Obispo Creek below Marsh Street and the City’s Downtown is designated by the
Central Coast RWQCB as having present and potential beneficial uses for municipal
supply; agricultural supply; recreation; groundwater recharge; wildlife habitat; warm and
cold fresh water habitat; migration of aquatic organisms; spawning, reproduction, and/or
early development of fish; and commercial and sport fishing. According to the Central
Coast RWQCB, surface water quality in the San Luis Obispo Creek drainage system is
generally considered to be good. However, the water quality fluctuates along with seasonal
changes in flow rates. In summer months, when the flows decrease, water quality
decreases. Degradation of San Luis Obispo Creek water quality is generally due to
municipal discharge and agricultural runoff, as well as urban runoff. San Luis Obispo
Creek is on the 2010 CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for nutrients and
pathogens, where nitrate-nitrogen and fecal coliform total maximum daily load (TMDL)
levels exceed the Basin Plan numerical targets. As such, the use of National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) permits, and Waste Discharge Requirements permits for irrigated lands and the
City’s Water Reclamation Facility are required (Central Coast RWQCB 2017).
Groundwater Resources
The City is underlain by the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, within which
depth to groundwater is estimated to be 15 to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs). The
majority of recharge to the basin is from precipitation falling in the hills to the west, north,
and east. Refer to Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation, for more discussion on
groundwater supply.
3.8-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
San Luis Obispo Creek
Drainage 4Drainage 4
Drainage 3Drainage 3
Drainage 2Drainage 2
Drainage 1Drainage 1
Froom
CreekPrefumo Creek101
101
CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYAUTO PARK WAYROSEROSE
GARDENGARDEN
INNINN
AUTOAUTO
DEALERSHIPSDEALERSHIPS
IRISH HILLSIRISH HILLS
PLAZAPLAZA
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
MOTEL 6MOTEL 6
MARRIOTTMARRIOTT
HAMPTONHAMPTON
INNINN
WHOLEWHOLE
FOODSFOODS
TJ MAXXTJ MAXXHOMEHOME
DEPOTDEPOT
COSTCOCOSTCO
MOUNTAINBROOKMOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCHCHURCH CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADAUTO PARK WAYROSE
GARDEN
INN
IRISH HILLS
PLAZA
SHOPPING
CENTER
AUTO
DEALERSHIPS
MARRIOTT
MOTEL 6
HAMPTON
INN
WHOLE
FOODS
TJ MAXXHOME
DEPOT
COSTCO
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH San Luis Obispo Creek
Froom
CreekDrainage 3
Drainage 2
Drainage 1
Drainage 4 Prefumo CreekCITY OFCITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY OFCITY OF
SAN LUISSAN LUIS
OBISPOOBISPO
UNINCORPORATEDUNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTYCOUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY
CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY OF
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
LEGEND
Project Site
Froom Ranch Specific
Plan Area
100-Year Floodplain
(approximate)
City of San Luis Obispo
3.2-Acre Existing Detention
Basin for Irish Hills Plaza
Calle Joaquin Wetlands
LOVR Ditch
Approximate Location of
Froom Creek
U.S. 101 Culverts
Isolated 1.77-Acres of the
Project Site Supporting a
1-Acre Wetland
Existing Drainage Conditions
on the Project Site 3.8-1
FIGURE
0 600
SCALE IN FEET
N
3.8-5
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Groundwater quality is determined principally by the chemical nature of the sediments and
rocks within which the groundwater is contained. Groundwater is typically evaluated for
its chemical constituents to assess current conditions and potential beneficial uses, or to
identify possible contamination sources. Chemical constituent sources can be natural (e.g.,
contact with mineralized rock) or human-related (e.g., pesticide or fertilizer
contamination). Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo area is considered suitable for
agricultural water supply, municipal and domestic supply, and industrial use. Groundwater
quality in the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin has been reduced in part due to
the degradation of surface waters in San Luis Obispo Creek. Groundwater in the
unconfined aquifers within the basin contains high levels of nitrates, iron, manganese, and
organic compounds.
3.8.1.2 Project Site Hydrology
Runoff is conveyed on the Project site through natural and man-made drainage features
and infrastructure. Froom Creek flows across the site in a north-to-south trajectory
ultimately passing through two box culverts beneath Calle Joaquin and U.S. 101 before its
confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek. There are four unnamed drainages that flow
through the site from the Irish Hills, including Drainages 1, 2, and 3 in the Upper Terrace,
and Drainage 4 to the south through the Mountainbrook Church property (Figure 3.8-1).
Man-made stormwater infrastructure includes the LOVR ditch and the 3.2-acre existing
stormwater detention basin in the Lower Area. These features receive runoff from the
adjacent Irish Hills Plaza with some runoff from LOVR. Stormwater from the LOVR ditch
and the existing stormwater detention basin either percolates/evaporates in place or under
storm conditions flows to the Calle Joaquin wetlands. As described further below, the site’s
hydrologic setting has related flood hazards, high groundwater, and drainage constraints
during storm events.
Onsite Drainage
Site topography causes onsite drainage to flow east and south across the site toward the
lower elevation of the site near the Calle Joaquin wetlands. Froom Creek flows into the
Project site from the west and then bends sharply to the south to bisect the Project site from
north to south for approximately 0.4 miles (Figure 3.8-1). Froom Creek flows to the
southeast for approximately 0.2 miles toward Calle Joaquin adjacent to the southern
boundaries of the Marriott Hotel and Motel 6 properties before ultimately passing through
a concrete double box culvert that conveys flows for nearly 300 feet under Calle Joaquin,
3.8-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
the main travel lanes of U.S. 101, and the northbound U.S. 101 offramp and ultimately to
San Luis Obispo Creek.
The Froom Creek channel onsite
averages 30 feet in width and
occupies roughly 2.1 acres. Froom
Creek’s alignment appears to have
been substantially altered over
time. Although the exact
alignment of all historic tributaries
and drainages is unknown, based
on historic USGS topographic
maps prior to 1940, Froom Creek
was aligned along the north and
eastern boundaries of the site near
LOVR where it connected with
Prefumo Creek before ultimately
feeding into San Luis Obispo Creek. Since that time, Froom Creek has been realigned and
reinforced through construction of an artificial earthen berm along the eastern bank of the
creek in 2013. In dry weather, the creek bed is generally dry and devoid of vegetation
within the Project site, with seasonal ponding of water in deeply incised segments. During
wet weather, Froom Creek conveys substantial flows through the site, as the channel drains
the 1,162-acre Froom Creek sub-watershed. Alteration of Froom Creek alignment and
confinement to narrow channel has resulted in higher velocity flows, increased erosion,
and significant bank cutting during larger storm events (Appendix J).
Froom Creek traverses the Project site within a narrow
channel composed of rock, gravel, and sand. Evidence of
eroded, undercut banks from high-velocity flows was
observed onsite (January 2018)
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-7
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Another key onsite drainage feature is the LOVR
ditch, a roadside ditch adjacent to LOVR that
conveys surface runoff from the roadway and the
Irish Hills Plaza to the north. This ditch conveys
these flows to the southeast toward the Calle
Joaquin wetlands where they commingle with
high groundwater to help sustain sensitive
wetland and riparian scrub habitats (see Section
3.4, Biological Resources). These waters
eventually flow south to a 36-inch storm drain
that conveys water under Calle Joaquin and
adjacent hotels and under U.S. 101 and into San
Luis Obispo Creek. Based on field observations in January 2019, the Calle Joaquin wetland
may also discharge into a 12-inch and/or 24-inch storm drain that conveys flows under
Calle Joaquin to an isolated 1.77-acre area of the Project site, which is bounded by Calle
Joaquin to the north and west, the Hampton Inn and Suites parking lot to the south, and
LOVR to the east (Figure 3.8-1). These flows support approximately 1.0 acre of existing
wetland, which is hydrologically connected under Calle Joaquin to the larger wetland.
Water in these wetlands either percolates into the groundwater or evaporates.
Four unnamed natural drainages carry surface
runoff from undeveloped upper elevations of
the site and the Irish Hills. These three
drainages – designated Drainage 1, Drainage 2,
and Drainage 3 – generally flow downslope
from northwest to southeast (Figure 3.8-1). The
three drainages are approximately 3,200 feet,
1,400 feet, and 1,100 feet in length,
respectively. These drainages are partially fed
by several on-and offsite seeps or springs,
where water “daylights” out of the ground at fractures in the serpentine bedrock (see also,
Section 3.6, Geology and Soils). Natural runoff and these springs and seeps support
wetland habitat within each of these drainages (refer to Section 3.4, Biological Resources
for more discussion). Drainage 4 flows for approximately 400 feet through the
southernmost portion of the Project site and flows to San Luis Obispo Creek through a
separate culvert; Drainage 4 does not flow to Froom Creek.
The man-made drainage ditch adjacent to
LOVR conveys stormwater runoff from
adjacent development to the north and east.
Prolonged ponding of runoff has resulted in
the establishment of high-quality wetland
and riparian habitats.
The Calle Joaquin wetlands are fed
primarily by surface flows across the site
and from the LOVR ditch, runoff from Irish
Hills Plaza, and high groundwater levels.
3.8-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Offsite Drainage
Runoff from the Irish Hills Plaza to the
north drains onto the site through a 48-
inch underground storm drain. This
pipe runs from the western corner of the
Irish Hills Plaza across the Project site
to an approximately 3.2-acre
stormwater detention basin developed
and sized to contain runoff from the
Irish Hills Plaza. This detention feature
consists of a desiltation forebay, a main
basin, and concrete spillway which,
during large storm events, discharges
runoff into the Calle Joaquin wetlands. A perimeter drain catches dry weather runoff (i.e.,
low flow) and conveys to the Calle Joaquin wetlands via a perimeter drain outlet adjacent
to LOVR. Runoff from the Irish Hills Plaza may also flow onto the Project site via an
existing culvert that discharges water into a low-lying drainage easement where water
ponds and percolates into the ground or evaporates. Lastly, runoff from development to the
north is also conveyed onto the Project site via a storm drain underneath the Irish Hills
Plaza southern access road and into the manmade LOVR ditch located on the Project site’s
eastern boundary and adjacent to LOVR.
Properties adjacent to the east of the Project site include LOVR and automobile
dealerships. Some runoff from LOVR may sheet flow and drain to the LOVR ditch which
flows to the Calle Joaquin wetlands. Other runoff from LOVR and development to the west
drains to storm drains that discharge to Prefumo Creek and/or San Luis Obispo Creek.
Runoff from adjacent Irish Hills Plaza flows to onsite
detention features on the Project site, including a 3.2-
acre basin, and creates pooling in a former infiltration
area adjacent to the existing driveway (pictured).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-9
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.8-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
Peak Flows and Overtopping of Froom Creek Banks
An important component of
the hydrologic analysis of a
watershed is the timing of the
peak flows that result from a
rainfall-runoff event. As
precipitation in a given storm
rises and falls in intensity over
time, the resulting runoff, or
discharge, also rises and falls
over time. Factors that
influence the volume of runoff include: 1) rainfall intensity and pattern; 2) areal distribution
of rainfall over the watershed; and 3) duration of the storm event. Physiographic factors of
importance include: 1) size and shape of the drainage area; 2) nature of the stream network;
3) slope of the land and the main channel; 4) storage detention in the watershed; and 5)
vegetation conditions of the watershed. Existing peak flows were estimated for the Froom
Creek watershed, which includes the Specific Plan area, to the Froom Creek confluence at
the double box culvert at U.S. 101. Peak flow calculations by storm severity are summarized
in Table 3.8-1. Based on these conditions, overbanking of the Froom Creek channel may
occur during at least a 10-year storm event (Appendix J).
Flood Hazards
Given peak flows and capacity of the
existing channel, Froom Creek has a
history of periodic flooding with
estimated overbank flows occurring
every five to six years (Balance
Hydrologics, Inc. 2005; Appendix J).
The potential for overtopping and
flooding of the Lower Area has been
reduced since the 2013 installation of an
artificial earthen berm that confines
Froom Creek to its perched location on
the eastern edge of the site (Appendix J).
However, the existing Froom Creek
An existing double box culvert under U.S. 101 conveys
water from Froom Creek to San Luis Creek. This box
culvert is inadequately sized to convey flows from
storm events larger than 10-year storms.
Table 3.8-1. Existing Peak Flows in Froom Creek
Storm Occurrence
Condition
Total Creek Flow (Overbank
Flowrate) (cfs)
2-year 253.3 (0)
10-year 521.5 (89.4)
25-year 714.3 (282.2)
50-year 867.6 (435.5)
100-year 980.4 (548.3)
Source: Appendix J; Existing Froom Creek Hydrologic Analysis.
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
channel does not have adequate capacity to convey 100-year storm events to the U.S. 101
culverts. Consequently, in a 100-year storm, Froom Creek overtops its existing banks and
sheet flows towards existing the LOVR ditch and the Calle Joaquin wetlands with localized
flooding and ponding onsite. As a result, the Lower Area and portions of Madonna Froom
Ranch include flood hazard areas. Approximately 35 percent of (38.4 acres) of the Specific
Plan area lies within the 100-year floodplain hazard area of Froom Creek (Figure 3.8-1).
These flood prone areas include the channel of Froom Creek and the low-lying areas along
LOVR and Calle Joaquin that fall within Zone A of the 100-year floodplain as mapped by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM).1 The existing concrete box culverts under U.S. 101 east of Calle Joaquin are
inadequately sized to convey flows from storm events larger than 10-year storms. This
physical limitation results in stormwater back-up, localized flooding, and U.S. 101 being
overtopped during a 10-year storm when flows would exceed 547 cubic feet per second
(cfs) (Appendix J). This flooding can require road closures and result in damage to
infrastructure and buildings.
Groundwater Resources
The Project site overlies the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin and flows toward
the east-southeast, following the general gradient of surface topography. The lower areas
of the Project site lie in a valley that is underlain by up to 200-feet-thick alluvium
comprised of shallow alluvial fan deposits near the historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex
and shallow clayey deposits elsewhere by permeable sand and gravel beds. The clayey
deposits confine groundwater in these deeper sand and gravel beds but do allow for gradual
upward leakage contributing water to the Calle Joaquin wetlands. Thus, groundwater levels
are high in the lower elevations of the Project site adjacent to LOVR and portions of Calle
Joaquin.
Groundwater recharge occurs from percolation of runoff where shallow alluvial fan
deposits and stream channel deposits are present.
Groundwater level measurements in the eastern-lower elevations of the site found
groundwater levels of about 10 feet bgs at the Madonna domestic well on the west and at
ground surface at the Artesian Well by Calle Joaquin on July 31, 2018. The depth to water
in the proximity of the existing stormwater detention basin was measured in several
1 Zone A consists of areas of a floodplain where no base flood elevation has been determined; FIRM Number
06079C1330H, 06079C1331G, and 06079C1068G.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-11
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
backhoe pits on September 20, 2018. The depths to water in the backhoe pits around the
basin were between 3 and 6 feet and inside the basin the depths to water were 2.3 feet
(forebay) and 2.6 feet (detention) below the lowest point in the basins. Based on historic
groundwater monitoring at the Calle Joaquin wetlands, the groundwater level at the
wetlands fluctuates seasonally 2 to 4 feet with a range of about 4 feet (from 3 feet bgs to
1+ feet above ground). During wet years during winter, groundwater levels are near ground
surface in the higher topographic areas of the valley and in the lower elevation wetland
area above ground surface. Historically, the groundwater levels declined more than 30 feet
as a result of regional groundwater extraction during the 1987-1991 drought. During the
most recent 2012-2017 drought, groundwater levels remained within 10 feet of ground
surface over most of the Project area (Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc. 2018; Appendix J).
Groundwater has not been observed in the western upper-elevations of the Project site,
though several springs have been mapped in this area, including the confluence of
Drainages 1, 2, and 3 in the Upper Terrace (Appendix J).
No known sources of active groundwater contamination are located within the Project site.
A total of eight groundwater contamination cleanup sites are located within 0.5-mile of the
Project site, seven of these sites are closed leaking underground storage tank sites, and one
is active for potential contamination of soils and groundwater along a crude oil pipeline
within the U.S. 101 right-of-way near the City Waste Water Treatment Plant property
across U.S. 101 to the east (SWRCB 2018). Existing onsite wells are currently idle and no
groundwater pumping occurs onsite. However, in 2014, a total of eight shallow monitoring
wells were installed adjacent to the Calle Joaquin wetlands to document groundwater levels
within the top 18 inches of the soil (Appendix J).
Existing sources of potential groundwater quality contamination or degradation include
percolation of leaked fuels and lubricants originating from staged construction equipment,
equipment mobilization, and equipment refueling activities. In addition, a small outhouse
for the John Madonna Construction Company disposes of wastewater via an existing septic
tank near the barn. Wastewater generated by use of the outhouse is stored within the
existing septic tank and pumped and disposed of offsite via a permitted third-party liquid
waste hauler. There are no known leaks or groundwater contamination issues associated
with this permitted septic system.
Water Quality
Froom Creek within the Project site has present and potential beneficial uses for municipal
supply; recreation; wildlife habitat; rare, threatened, or endangered species; and
3.8-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
commercial and sport fishing (Central Coast RWQCB 2017). The primary beneficial use
of Froom Creek onsite appears to be groundwater recharge, although upstream reaches in
the Irish Hills support perennial flows, riparian habitat, and steelhead trout (Appendix J).
Froom Creek is not listed on the 2010 CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for any
water quality pollutants or constituents.
At the Project site, existing sources of potential surface water quality contamination or
degradation include mobilization of leaked fuels and lubricants into Froom Creek or the
LOVR ditch from construction equipment, and equipment refueling activities. Frequent
disturbance of stockpiled fill materials onsite, particularly within the existing quarry, also
represents a potential source of existing water quality degradation associated with
increased sedimentation, siltation, or erosion. Urban stormwater runoff generated by the
Irish Hills Plaza and conveyed to the Project site via the LOVR ditch also has the potential
to mobilize contaminants that would compromise surface water quality in Froom Creek
and potentially downstream in San Luis Obispo Creek.
3.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Hydrologic resources and water quality are governed primarily by federal, state, and local
laws that would apply to future development under the Project. Some activities under the
Project would require coordination and permits from federal, state, and local agencies.
Federal, state, and local regulations that are directly relevant to potential impacts associated
with the Project are summarized below.
3.8.2.1 Federal
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (later referred to as the CWA) was
amended to require that the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. from any point
source be effectively prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with a NPDES
permit. In 1987, the CWA was again amended to require that the USEPA establish
regulations for the permitting of stormwater discharges (as a point source) by municipal
and industrial facilities and construction activities under the NPDES permit program. The
regulations require that MS4 discharges to surface waters be regulated by an NPDES
permit.
The CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for water bodies and have those
standards approved by USEPA. Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-13
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
uses for a particular water body (e.g., wildlife habitat, agricultural supply, and fishing),
along with water quality criteria necessary to support those uses. Water quality criteria
include quantitative set concentrations, levels, or loading rates of constituents—such as
pesticides, nutrients, salts, suspended sediment, and fecal coliform bacteria—or narrative
statements that represent the quality of water that support a particular use.
CWA Section 303, List of Water Quality Limited Segments: Section 303 of the CWA
requires that the State adopt water quality standards for surface waters. When designated
beneficial uses of a particular water body are being compromised by water quality, Section
303(d) of the CWA requires identifying and listing that water body as impaired. Once a
water body has been deemed impaired, a TMDL must be developed for each impairing
water quality constituent. A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants from point,
non-point, and natural sources that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable
water quality standards (often with a “factor of safety” included, which limits the total load
of pollutants to a level well below that which could cause the standard to be exceeded).
Once established, the TMDL is allocated among current and future dischargers into the
water body.
CWA Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Direct discharges of
pollutants into waters of the U.S. are not allowed, except in accordance with the NPDES
program established in Section 402 of the CWA. Non-point source discharges to
stormwater are regulated under stormwater NPDES permits for municipal stormwater
discharges, industrial activities, and construction activities. These permits require
development of and adherence to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
CWA Sections 404 and 401: Under Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE regulates the
discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., which are those waters that
have a connection to interstate commerce, either directly via a tributary system or indirectly
through a nexus identified in the USACE regulations. Under Section 401 of the CWA, the
SWRCB must certify all activities requiring a permit in accordance with Section 404. The
RWQCB regulates these activities and issues water quality certifications for those activities
requiring a 404 permit.
3.8.2.2 State
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Any work that is within CDFW jurisdiction, which includes the Froom Creek riparian zone,
requires permitting through CDFW. Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code requires an
3.8-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
entity notify the CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may substantially divert or
obstruct the flow of any channel or bank.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
DWR is the state agency that studies, constructs, and operates regional-scale flood
protection systems, in partnership with federal and local agencies. DWR also provides
technical, financial, and emergency response assistances to local agencies related to
flooding.
Several bills were signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007, adding to and amending
state flood and land use management laws. The laws contain requirements and
considerations that outline a comprehensive approach to improving flood management at
state and local levels.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) & Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB)
The Porter-Cologne Act mandates that waters of the state shall be protected such that
activities that may affect waters of the state shall be regulated to attain the highest quality.
The SWRCB is given authority to enforce Porter-Cologne Water Control Act as well as
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and has adopted a statewide general permit that applies
to almost all stormwater discharges. This general permit, which is implemented and
enforced in the San Luis Obispo area, is implemented by the local Central Coast RWQCB
and requires all owners of land where construction activity occurs to:
• Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to stormwater systems and other
waters of the U.S.;
• Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan emphasizing
stormwater BMPs; and
• Perform inspections of stormwater pollution prevention measures to assess their
effectiveness.
In addition, SWRCB regulations mandate a “non-degradation policy” for state waters,
especially those of high quality. Under the authority of the SWRCB, the protection of water
quality in San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries is under the jurisdiction of the Central
Coast RWQCB. The RWQCB establishes requirements prescribing the quality of point
sources of discharge and establishes water quality objectives. These objectives are
established based on the designated beneficial uses for a particular surface water or
groundwater. Within city limits of San Luis Obispo, the jurisdiction for the water quality
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-15
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
of the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed overlaps with the city public works and utilities
agencies.
In accordance with the California Water Code, the Central Coast RWQCB developed a
Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin (2017) designed to preserve and
enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Water quality
objectives for the Central Coastal Basin satisfy state and federal requirements established
to protect waters for beneficial uses and are consistent with existing statewide plans and
policies.
The Central Coast RWQCB has adopted Watershed Management Zones (WMZs) and Post-
Construction Requirements (PCRs) that apply to projects in the Central Coast Region. Four
PCRs are applied by WMZ to reduce pollutant discharges and prevent stormwater
discharges from contributing to or causing violation of water quality standards. The PCRs
address site design and runoff reduction, water quality treatment, runoff retention, and peak
management.
3.8.2.3 Local
The protection of water quality in San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries is under the
jurisdiction of the RWQCB. The City also has the responsibility for regulating water
quality under its NPDES MS4 permits program. This board establishes requirements
prescribing the quality of point sources of discharge and establishes water quality
objectives. These objectives are established based on the designated beneficial uses for a
particular surface water or groundwater. Within the City limits, the jurisdiction for the
water quality of the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed overlaps with the City Public Works
and Utilities agencies.
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The City addresses hydrology and water quality issues through implementation of adopted
General Plan policies and programs. These policies are found in the General Plan LUE,
COSE, and SE. The goals and policies from the existing General Plan relate to protecting
water quality and minimizing flood hazard risk within the City. The City seeks to protect
and enhance creek corridors to promote wildlife and water conservation. The City seeks to
accomplish these goals by promoting responsible stormwater management techniques
including using porous paving, preventing creek bank encroachment, and ensuring new
developments do not decrease flood capacity of waterways. Under the General Plan, any
3.8-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
property within the FIRM defined 100-year flood zone is considered as having a hazard
potential requiring specified controls or protective measures.
Land Use Element (LUE)
The City has adopted a LUE as part of their General Plan. This element contains the
following policies relevant to hydrology and water quality:
Policy LU 6.6.1 Creek and Wetlands Management Objectives. The City shall manage
its lake, creeks, wetlands, floodplains, and associated wetlands to achieve the multiple
objectives of:
B. Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding;
C. Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and
wildlife habitat, flood protection, and use of adjacent private properties.
Policy LU 6.6.5 Runoff Reduction and Groundwater Recharge. The City shall require
the use of methods to facilitate rainwater percolation for roof areas and outdoor hardscaped
areas where practical to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge.
Policy 6.6.6 Development Requirements. The City shall require project designs that
minimize drainage concentrations and impervious coverage. Floodplain areas should be
avoided and, where feasible, any channelization shall be designed to provide the
appearance of a natural water course.
Policy 6.6.7 Discharge of Urban Pollutants. The City shall require appropriate runoff
control measure as part of future development proposals to minimize discharge of urban
pollutants (such as oil and grease) into area drainages.
Policy 6.6.8 Erosion Control Measures. The City shall require adequate provision of
erosion control measures as part of new development to minimize sedimentation of streams
and drainage channels.
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
The City has adopted a COSE as part of their General Plan. This element contains the
following goals and policies relevant to hydrology and water quality:
Program COS 7.7.9 Creek Setbacks. As further described in the Zoning Regulations, the
City will maintain creek setbacks to include: an appropriate separation from the physical
top of the bank, the appropriate floodway as identified in the Flood Management Policy,
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-17
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
native riparian plants or wildlife habitat and space for paths called for by any City-adopted
plan. In addition, creek setbacks should be consistent with the following:
A. The following items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback
line: buildings, streets, driveways, parking lots, above-ground utilities, and outdoor
commercial storage or work areas.
B. Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and
protection of floodways and natural features identified in part A above, whether or
not the setback line has been established.
Goal COS 10.1.3 Water Quality. Protect and maintain water quality in aquifers, Laguna
Lake, streams, and wetlands that supports all beneficial uses, agriculture, and wildlife
habitat.
Policy COS 10.2.1 Water Quality. The City will employ the best available practices for
pollution avoidance and control, and will encourage others to do likewise. “Best available
practices” means behavior and technologies that result in the highest water quality,
considering available equipment, life-cycle costs, social and environmental side effects,
and the regulations of other agencies.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
17.70.030 Creek Setbacks. The City’s Creek Setback requirement applies to all creeks
that are shown on Figure 9 of the COSE in the General Plan, including Froom Creek. A
35-foot setback is required for Froom Creek “from the existing top of bank (or the future
top of bank resulting from a creek alteration reflected in a plan approved by the City), or
from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from
the creek flow line.” The setback along all creeks other than those identified in Section
17.70.030 shall be 20 feet.
City of San Luis Obispo NPDES Phase II Program
The City submitted a their SWMP to the Central Coast RWQCB in July 2013 under the
NPDES Phase II program. Development is required to be undertaken in strict accordance
with conditions and requirements of that program, which includes distinct Post-
Construction Requirements for on-site retention/volume control, treatment of runoff,
channel protection, flood control, and redevelopment.
3.8-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
San Luis Obispo Waterway Management Plan (WMP) (2003)
The WMP incorporates three volumes: the WMP, the Drainage Design Manual (DDM),
and the Stream Management and Maintenance Program. The WMP is a watershed-based
management plan for San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries within the City and County.
The WMP serves as a basis for future project planning, decision-making, and permitting.
Volume III of the WMP is a DDM, providing design guidance and criteria intended to meet
surface water management objectives, which includes revised policies for floodplain and
stream corridor management and new design flows for stream channels within the City.
Procedures for hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and guidelines and criteria for the design
of channels, storm drain systems, stormwater detention facilities, bank repair and stream
restoration, and erosion control are described within this document. The floodplain
management policies in the DDM generally require that fill placed on floodplains be
managed so that there is no adverse impact in terms of flooding or bank stability. These
are referred to as the “Managed Fill” and “No Adverse Impact” policies of the DDM. The
DDM also requires applicants that create adverse hydrologic impacts to fully mitigate
them.
Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulations (Managed Fill Criteria)
The City’s Floodplain Management Regulations require that all building pads within a 100-
year flood zone be raised at least 1 foot above the specified 100-year flood elevation. The
regulations also state that, cumulatively, developments will not displace floodwater
sufficient to raise the flood elevation more than one foot at any point, without causing
damage to any offsite properties. Development of vacant lands in Special Floodplain
Management Zone areas have been determined to have a potentially significant effect on
downstream flooding and bank stability. These potential impacts can be mitigated by
incorporation of the specific floodplain management policies in project design. For any
development or subdivision proposal within the 100-year FEMA floodplain, on individual
parcels or developments larger than 2.5 acres, the development proposal shall include a
Concept Grading Plan and Master Drainage Plan. These Plans shall be submitted to the City
or County Public Works Director for approval and shall meet specific criteria, including:
• The project shall not cause the 100-year flood elevation to increase more than 2.5
inches.
• The project shall not cause stream velocities to increase more than 0.3 feet per
second.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-19
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
• The project shall not cause a significant net decrease in floodplain storage volume
unless several exceptions are met.
City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards
The current Engineering Standards for the City include the following requirements relevant
to water quality:
• All new development or redevelopment shall comply with the criteria and standards
set forth in the WMP – DDM, applicable area specific plans, and the Post-
Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in
the Central Coast Region, adopted by the Central Coast RWQCB, and included in
the appendices. Where requirements conflict, the stricter shall apply. Stormwater
Control Plan, and Operation and Maintenance Plan are required prior to final
approvals.
• Source Control (per 2013 State General Stormwater Permit Section E.12.d):
o Projects with pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to
implement operation or source control measures consistent with
recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality Association
Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment or equivalent, including:
Accidental spills or leaks
Interior floor drains
Parking/storage areas and maintenance
Indoor and structural pest control
Landscape/outdoor pesticide use
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains and other water features
Restaurants, grocery stores, and other food service operations
Refuse areas
Industrial processes
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
Vehicle and equipment cleaning, repair, and maintenance
Fuel dispensing areas
Loading docks
Fire sprinkler test water
Drain or wash water from boiler drain lines, condensate drain lines,
rooftop equipment, drainage sumps, and other sources
Unauthorized non-stormwater discharges
Building and grounds maintenance
3.8-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
o Design should prevent water from contacting work areas, prevent pollutants
from coming in contact with surfaces used by stormwater runoff, or where
contact is unavoidable, treat stormwater to remove pollutants.
o Operations and maintenance activities required to achieve Source Control are
to be included in the Operation and Maintenance Plan submitted for approvals
and recorded with the property as required by ordinance.
3.8.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.8.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
With respect to hydrology and water quality impacts, applicable sections of Appendix G
of the State CEQA Guidelines state that a project would normally have a significant impact
if it would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality;
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin;
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner that would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage system or provide substantia additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows;
d) Be in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation;
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan.
Non-Applicable Threshold(s)
• Threshold (d) (Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow): The Project site is not located within
an area identified as being subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Implementation of the Project is not anticipated to exacerbate effects or damage
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-21
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
from a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow on residents and visitors of the Project and
surrounding development.
• Threshold (b) (Groundwater Quality): Wastewater and sanitary waste services
would be provided via City wastewater infrastructure. The Project does not propose
any onsite waste treatment systems (e.g., septic tanks, leach fields) that could
contribute to degradation of groundwater quality. Potential polluted stormwater
discharges which could percolate into the underlying groundwater system and
degrade groundwater quality would be appropriately managed onsite through
stormwater detention and treatment systems (see Impact HYD-3).
3.8.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
In the City, hydrology impacts would be considered potentially significant if shallow
groundwater encountered building foundations and retaining walls, exposing people or
structures to potentially adverse effects. Flooding impacts would be considered potentially
significant if the development is proposed within an identified flood-prone area, as
determined by the City FIRM, thereby increasing the structures exposed to the existing
flood hazard; or if the new development conflicts with Flood Hazard avoidance policies in
the General Plan SE. Water quality impacts would be considered potentially significant if
development of the proposed Project would result in the increased degradation of surface
water quality, including indirect impacts to threatened and endangered species downstream
of the Downtown area.
This hydrology and water quality impact assessment is based on literature review,
discussions with City staff, and initial peer review of 7 technical studies prepared by the
Project applicant (Appendix J). These include:
• Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. in
April 2017;
• Groundwater Impacts Assessment prepared by Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc. in
September 2018;
• Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California prepared by
KMA in August 2015;
• Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations prepared by RRM Design
Group, updated as of February 2019;
• Existing Froom Creek Hydrologic Analysis prepared by RRM Design Group in
July 2019; and
3.8-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
• Preliminary Sediment Transport Analysis and Calculations prepared by RRM
Design Group in July 2019.
This assessment also included review of the Project’s preliminary VTTM, which includes
preliminary Project grading and drainage information.
The findings of this Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations form the primary
basis for the drainage and flooding analysis in this impact assessment. This report built
upon the watershed-wide hydrologic and hydraulic analysis that was completed for the San
Luis Obispo Creek Watershed for the City and the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control
District Zone 9 as part of the San Luis Obispo Creek WMP and utilizes USACE’s HEC –
HMS digital model (City of San Luis Obispo 2003; Appendix J). This information was
used to establish the locations and extent of drainages, wetland features, and groundwater
resources, and serves as the environmental baseline upon which impacts resulting from the
Project are assessed. These calculations also serve as the basis for impact analysis related
to flooding, water quality, erosion, and groundwater.
In addition, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood) conducted a
reconnaissance-level site visit in January 2018 to assess and document existing conditions
present at the site. Attention was paid to attempting to document or confirm the location,
function, operation, and capacity of existing drainage improvements such as the onsite
detention basins, Calle Joaquin wetlands, and the size of drainage culverts and lines
conveying water to and from these facilities. Wood staff conducted in-depth literature
review of prior plans and hydrologic studies to assess these drainage improvements. These
include: the Final Supplementation Environmental Impact Report for the Madonna / Eagle
Hardware & Garden (SCH No. 1998031015; County of San Luis Obispo 1998) and
associated technical reports; the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Costco / Froom
Ranch (SCH No. 2002051036; City of San Luis Obispo 2003) and associated reports; the
Drainage and Flood Analysis for Calle Joaquin Realignment Public Improvements
(Cannon Associates 2004); the Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for Sustaining a Separated
Wetland Near Calle Joaquin (Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 2005); the Revised Location
Hydraulic Study Report for the LOVR / U.S. 101 Interchange Improvements Project
(WRECO 2010); and the Irish Hills Plaza Detention Basin Report (Wallace Group 2006).
Impacts associated with the disturbance and/or loss of wetlands with regard to habitat and
biological value are assessed in detail in Section 3.4, Biological Resources.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-23
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.8.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses the potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with
the construction and operation of the Project. Hydrology and water quality impacts
associated with the Project are summarized in Table 3.8-2 below.
Table 3.8-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
HYD-1. Project 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
HYD-2. The Project would potentially
exacerbate flooding and erosion hazards onsite
and in areas downstream, particularly related to
the proposed realignment and design of Froom
Creek and developed areas of the site.
MM HYD-4 Less than Significant
with Mitigation
HYD-3. Operation of the Project would
potentially impact water quality of Froom
Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek due to
polluted urban runoff and sedimentation.
No Mitigation Required Less than Significant
HYD-4. The Project would involve
development of new impervious surfaces and
potentially interfere with groundwater
recharge.
No Mitigation Required Less than Significant
Impact HYD-1 Project construction activities would result in impacts to water
quality due to polluted runoff and increased erosion or siltation
(Less than Significant with Mitigation).
Construction would include excavation, grading, and other earthwork that would disturb
soils across the Project site, including construction of a new realigned channel for Froom
Creek and installation of the proposed stormwater basin, along with supporting stormwater
management infrastructure such as the Home Depot ditch and LOVR ditch. During this
time when soils are disturbed or stockpiled onsite, rainfall has the potential to cause
substantial soil erosion and sediment transport into Froom Creek due to runoff waters
moving over exposed areas and newly created slopes and entering the new drainage system
leading to the realigned Froom Creek and the Calle Joaquin wetlands. Construction runoff
flowing into Froom Creek and onsite wetlands would also potentially affect water quality
in San Luis Obispo Creek.
Project construction is assumed to occur over four phases extending for an approximate 5-
year period. The Project would require approximately 160,000 cy of cut soil and
3.8-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
approximately 378,700 cy of fill, with 220,000 cy of fill imported to the site for distribution
and compaction within the Lower Area and Madonna Froom Ranch. This disturbed state
is expected to occur over approximately three years while the Project is constructed in
phases (see Section 2.0, Project Description).
Although mass grading and major creek realignment would be concentrated in Phases 1
and 2, major grading and importation of fill would extend well into Phase 3. Soil would be
redistributed across the site, particularly to fill over 38.4 acres of lower-lying floodplain.
Several disturbed areas, stockpiles, and internal balancing of loose soils would occur onsite
during construction. During storm events, surface runoff from exposed construction areas
could flow into onsite wetlands and Froom Creek, potentially carrying pollutants such as
oils, fuels, lubricants, excess concrete, chemicals, sediments, and construction debris.
Following completion of the realignment of Froom Creek, runoff from exposed
construction areas would primarily be directed into the realigned creek. These construction
activities could impact water quality by exposing disturbed ground to potential erosion,
particularly during major storms and high intensity rainfall events, or by introducing
pollutants into the runoff.
Phase 1 of construction would involve realignment of Froom Creek, installation of
stormwater management infrastructure, and construction activities near or within a
drainage channel. Grading for construction of the Upper Terrace would occur within 5 feet
of unnamed Drainages, 1, 2, and 3, as well as instream construction of four headwall and
pipe culverts. In addition, grading, excavation, and placement of hundreds of thousands of
cubic yards of fill near Froom Creek would occur to increase site elevation by 1 foot to
bring building pads above the floodplain. The presence and use of large construction
machinery within close proximity of drainages has the potential to result in a spill of fluids,
such as oil, gasoline, and hydraulic fluids, which could be mobilized by stormwater runoff.
See Section 3.4, Biological Resources, for additional detail on impacts of stormwater
infrastructure installation and runoff within the creek to biological resources.
In addition, soil erosion could result in the creation of onsite rills and gully systems, clog
existing and planned drainage channels, breach erosion control measures, and transport soil
into down-gradient areas on the Project site. Soil movement would occur in these exposed
graded or excavated areas, as well as in unprotected drainage culverts or basins. These
changes to site hydrology would occur during Phase 1 of Project implementation between
February 2020 to September 2021, which could overlap with winter storms between
October and March.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-25
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
As part of Project construction, erosion control, sediment barriers and temporary sediment
basins would be constructed to minimize the extent of construction site impacts to on- and
offsite surface waters. These measures include, but are not limited to, the requirements of
the City’s NPDES Phase II Program and SWMP, SWRCB’s Construction General Permit
Order 2009-0009-DWQ, Central Coast RWQCB PCRs 1-4, and the City’s Storm Water
Quality Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.08) (Section 3.8.2 above). These state and
local regulations are adopted to ensure the quality of water during construction activities is
not significantly degraded and that appropriate BMPs and control measures are
implemented to ensure adequate management of onsite runoff. However, the potential for
water quality degradation from erosion, sedimentation, and pollutants flowing to Froom
Creek and the Calle Joaquin wetlands would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the
commencement of any clearing, grading, or excavation, the Applicant shall
submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the Project site to the
California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The NOI shall be submitted for review
and approval to the SWRCB. The City will verify that a Waste Discharge
Identification (WDID) number is assigned by the Board prior to the issuance
of grading permits for construction activities. The NOI shall address
discharge during all phases of development of the site until all disturbed
areas are permanently stabilized.
Monitoring. The City will confirm WDID number assignment prior to
approval of the grading permit(s). City monitoring staff will periodically
inspect the site during construction to ensure compliance.
MM HYD-2 For each phase of construction, the Applicant shall require the building
contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) to the City 45 days prior to the start of work for approval. The
contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and
instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction
shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all
construction activity on the Project site in excess of 1 acre, or where the
area of disturbance is less than 1 acre but is part of the Project’s plan of
3.8-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
development that in total disturbs 1 or more acres. The SWPPP shall
identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges
to stormwater and shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of
material from the site, including, but not limited to:
• Temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching,
erosion control blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers shall be used.
• Sufficient physical protection and pollution prevention measures to
prevent sedimentation, siltation, and/or debris from entering the Calle
Joaquin wetlands.
• Soil stockpiles and graded slopes shall be covered after 14 days of
inactivity and 24 hours prior to and during inclement weather
conditions.
• Fiber rolls shall be placed along the top of exposed slopes and at the
toes of graded areas to reduce surface soil movement, as necessary.
• A routine monitoring plan shall be implemented to ensure success of all
onsite erosion and sedimentation control measures.
• Dust control measures shall be implemented to ensure success of all
onsite activities to control fugitive dust.
• Streets surrounding the Project site shall be cleaned daily or as
necessary.
• BMPs shall be strictly followed to prevent spills and discharges of
pollutants onsite (material and container storage, proper trash
disposal, construction entrances, etc.).
• Sandbags, or other equivalent techniques, shall be utilized along graded
areas to prevent siltation transport to the surrounding areas.
Additional BMPs shall be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling
that could occur onsite during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared
in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the SWRCB. The SWPPP
shall be submitted to the City along with grading/development plans for
review and approval. The Applicant shall file a Notice of Completion for
construction of the development, identifying that pollution sources were
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-27
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
controlled during the construction of the Project and implementing a
closure SWPPP for the site.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP
that includes the above and any additional required BMPs addressing each
phase of construction and timing. The SWPPP and notices shall be
submitted to the SWRCB under their Stormwater Multi-Application,
Reporting, and Tracking System (SMARTS). The SWPPP shall be
designed to address erosion and sediment control during all phases of
development of the site until all disturbed areas are permanently stabilized.
The development plans submitted to the City shall include and reflect the
erosion control plan and BMPs submitted to the State.
Monitoring. City monitoring staff shall periodically inspect the site for
compliance with the SWPPP during grading to monitor runoff and after
conclusion of grading activities. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP)
will be retained by the developer for overall management and reporting
responsibility regarding the SWPPP and documentation under SMARTS in
accordance with their permitting requirement. The Applicant will keep a
copy of the SWPPP on the Project site during grading and construction
activities.
MM HYD-3 Installation of the stormwater management system shall occur during the
dry season (May through October), including realignment and restoration
of Froom Creek, installation of hydrological connections for the stormwater
detention basin, construction of onsite retention basins, and the installation
of the Home Depot and LOVR ditches. Stormwater management system
features shall be fully installed and restored to ensure soil stabilization and
adequate stormwater conveyance capacity prior to the storm season
(October through April).
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall demonstrate
compliance within grading and construction phasing plans subject to City
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits for each Project
phase.
3.8-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Monitoring. The City shall review grading and construction plans for all
phases to ensure compliance. City grading monitors shall spot check for
compliance.
Residual Impact
Implementation of MM HYD-1 and MM HYD-2 above would avoid or substantially
reduce the potentially significant construction runoff, erosion, and associated impacts to
water quality. Implementation of MM HYD-3 would prevent construction of the
stormwater management system during the rainy season, thereby reducing the potential for
erosion and construction runoff from installation of the drainage facilities to flow
downstream to San Luis Obispo Creek or to the Calle Joaquin wetlands. As a result,
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact HYD-2 The Project would potentially exacerbate flooding and erosion
hazards onsite and in areas downstream, particularly related to the
proposed realignment and design of Froom Creek and developed
areas of the site (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
Altered Site Drainage and Increased Runoff
Project development would substantially alter onsite drainage patterns through realignment
of Froom Creek, reconstruction of LOVR ditch, installation of the Home Depot ditch,
replacement of the existing onsite detention basin with the proposed stormwater detention
basin on Mountainbrook Church property, increases in development and impervious
surfaces, and fill of the Lower Area and Madonna Froom Ranch areas to raise site elevation
by approximately one foot. In addition, Project construction and proposed stormwater
conveyance systems would substantially alter the volume and velocity of surface water
flows and runoff. Further, the existing stormwater detention basin serving adjacent
development would be removed and a new detention basin would be constructed within
the southern downstream portion of the Project site adjacent to Calle Joaquin to detain
flood flows from the proposed Project, as well as those from Irish Hills Plaza and
Mountainbrook Church. These changes to the creek and proposed new stormwater
conveyance system would substantially alter surface water flows through the site, as well
as peak surface flows downstream.
The direct effects of development of the Project would result from replacement of
approximately 50.7 acres of undeveloped land with residential, commercial, and
recreational development. Substantial areas of new impervious surfaces would increase
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-29
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
both the total volume of stormwater runoff and the peak flow of runoff. Project design
features such as the ditches, retention and detention basins, parks, planted parkways, and
the drainage conveyance system are proposed to avoid flooding and retain runoff to meet
Central Coast RWQCB PCRs for peak flow and water quality. However, considering the
available information considered for this analysis, Project implementation would
substantially increase the amount of surface flows, especially following major storm
events.
Removal of the 2,145 linear feet of Froom Creek through the Project site and construction
of a new 3,745-foot-long realigned creek channel of an average of 65 feet in width and
varying depths are major Project features. At the downstream end of the Project site
adjacent to the proposed stormwater detention basin, the existing creek channel would be
widened to 5 feet with a spill-over feature to allow conveyance of storm flows in excess of
a 10-year event to flow to the stormwater basin. These proposals are developed at a
conceptual level as described in the Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations
report and Draft FRSP (see also Figures 2-5, 2-15, and 2-16). These proposed changes to
site hydrology would occur during Phase 1 of Project implementation between February
2020 to September 2021.
The new creek would feature substantial bioengineered water flow and bank erosion
control features, including restored in-channel and creek bank riparian habitat, installation
of 2,300 cy of boulders along the toe of creek banks to reduce erosion from high-velocity
flows and flooding within the creek channel and Calle Joaquin wetlands, and creation of
pool and riffle sequences in the channel bottom to slow flows and create aquatic habitat,
particularly for the Southern steelhead trout (see also, Section 3.4, Biological Resources).
Although detailed specifications and design are not yet fully developed, the resiliency of
these proposed improvements to survive high-velocity flows and flood volumes during
storm events, reduce or avoid creek bank erosion, and provide habitat mitigation and
benefits are central to successful creek realignment and redesign (see also, Section 3.4,
Biological Resources).
As summarized in Table 3.8-3, based on the preliminary design of the realigned Froom
Creek corridor, the improved and realigned Froom Creek would result in a net increase in
peak flow capacity, increasing the ability of Froom Creek to accommodate flows during
large storm events and resulting runoff caused by increased impervious surfaces at the
Project site. Under the Project, Froom Creek would overbank only after the 2-year peak
flow is achieved. Flows greater than a 2-year storm would overbank to the Calle Joaquin
3.8-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
wetlands or be contained within the channel when not adjacent to the wetland, where the
creek channel would be sized to handle up to a 100-year storm event with a minimum of
one foot of freeboard (Appendix J).
The proposed stormwater detention basin would provide additional “surge” storage for
flows larger than 2-year storm events, where the existing box culverts overtop Calle
Joaquin during 10-year events. The proposed stormwater detention basin would allow for
storage enough to allow the 25-year event to pass entirely through the culverts. The 50-
year and 100-year events are prohibitively large to allow for storage during these events
and overtop Calle Joaquin as safe overflow (Appendix J).
Table 3.8-3. Projected Peak Flow in Realigned Froom Creek
Storm
Reoccurrence
Interval
Total Creek Flow (Overbank Flowrate) (cfs)
Existing Froom Creek Proposed Froom Creek Net Change
2-year 253.3 (0) 518.7 (0) 265.4 (0)
10-year 521.5 (89.4) 707.3 (188.6) 185.8 (99.2)
25-year 714.3 (282.2) 877.2 (358.5) 162.9 (76.3)
50-year 867.6 (435.5) 1,098.1 (579.4) 230.5 (143.9)
100-year 980.4 (548.3) 1,240.8 (722.1) 260.4 (173.8)
Source: Appendix J; Existing Froom Creek Hydrologic Analysis.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-31
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Creek Bank Stability and Erosion
As discussed in Section 3.1 Environmental
Setting above, the Froom Creek watershed
can experience high intensity rainfall events
that can result in short duration high intensity
flows of up to 1,241 cfs under 100-year storm
conditions, with potential for scouring of the
channel bottom and erosion along the banks
of the newly realigned creek (Appendix J).
Similar conditions are frequently experienced
within the existing Froom Creek, which
demonstrated deep incising and scouring of
creek banks. To address this concern for the
proposed alignment, the Project includes use
of 2,300 cy of imported rock to create a series
of channel bottom pools along upper reaches
of the creek within the Specific Plan area.
This creek design would retain and slow
flows and to provide slope protection toe rock (i.e., boulders) along the base of the creek
bank to prevent or minimize bank erosion, along with in-channel and creek bank
revegetation.2 Based on an analysis of sedimentation and erosion of the proposed Froom
Creek realignment, it is anticipated that installation of proposed features to reduce flow
velocity (e.g., channel bottom pools) and stabilize channel banks would be effective at
reducing or preventing scour and bank erosion (Appendix J; Preliminary Sediment
Transport Analysis and Calculations).
The Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations report prepared by RRM Design
Group notes the flow velocities of the proposed Froom Creek channel would range from 2
– 8 feet per second (fps). Based on an analysis of sedimentation and erosion of the proposed
Froom Creek realignment, these proposed velocities, as well as installation of bank
stabilization features, would be effective at reducing scour and bank erosion (Appendix J).
2 It should be noted that the FRSP is a planning document with no detailed engineering drawings; therefore,
specifications regarding the location or design of creek bank stabilization or armoring are not known. As
such, it cannot be determined at this time that design of the realigned Froom Creek would prevent or avoid
bank erosion or scouring.
The proposed Froom Creek channel would
include 2,300 cy of rock and boulders to create
pools and slow flows, as well as some toe rocks
to help stabilize banks during storm events.
3.8-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Where the realigned Froom Creek bends to the south and runs adjacent to the Calle Joaquin
wetlands, the realigned creek channel would be constructed with an approximately 1,500-
foot-long low-flow channel. A low berm would separate the low-flow channel from the
Calle Joaquin wetlands. The low-flow channel would be designed to handle normal flow
events, but flows in excess of a 2-year storm event would overtop the low-flow channel
and spread laterally to and flood the Calle Joaquin wetlands, submerging the low berm.
Effectively, the low-flow channel at the Calle Joaquin wetlands would allow the realigned
creek to expand into a wide floodplain area in the Calle Joaquin wetlands. The frequency
of bank overtopping of the realigned creek channel at this segment is intended to mimic
the historic frequency of bank overtopping of the existing Froom Creek prior to 2013 when
an artificial earthen berm was installed immediately downslope of the existing channel to
reduce potential overtopping (see Table 3.8-3). Flow velocity along this portion of the
creek during large flow events would be less than 1 foot per second, which would not result
in substantial erosion of the low-flow channel, low berm, or the Calle Joaquin wetlands
(refer also to Section 3.4, Biological Resources).
Flood Flow Retention and On and Offsite Flooding Potential
Based on the findings of the Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations prepared
by RRM Design Group, using the City WMZ rainfall mapping, and a 24-hour storm event
which equates to 1.9 inches of rainfall over the WMZ development area, implementation
of the Project would result in generation of an additional 4.9 AF of runoff, which would be
detained and treated within the proposed onsite stormwater treatment areas (see Table 3.8-
4). Based on the combined runoff generated by offsite development during such a storm
event (4.0 AF) and natural Froom Creek flood flows entering the Project site (16.9 AF),
the flows being conveyed via Froom Creek through the site under the Project equates to
20.9 AF (see Table 3.8-5). Based on the analysis prepared by RRM Design Group, all on-
and offsite stormwater detention and control measures are adequately sized to detain on-
and offsite flows, consistent with the City’s Drainage Design Manual requirements for
attenuation of runoff from 2-year through 100-year events. Implementation of these
measures would adequately attenuate all Project stormwater peak flows and even slightly
reduce peak flows at the U.S. 101 double box culvert; however, peak flow at the U.S. 101
double box culvert would continue to exceed capacity during storm events greater than 10-
year event. Projected peak flows accommodated by the realigned Froom Creek channel
summarized in Table 3.8-3.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-33
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 3.8-4. Required Onsite Runoff Retention
Drainage Management Area Development Area (acres) Retention Value Required (AF)
Onsite
Madonna-Froom (Residential /
Park)
12.7 0.9
Madonna-Froom (Commercial) 10.1 1.1
Lower Area 26.9 2.3
Upper Terrace 12.5 0.6
Total 62.2 4.9
Source: Appendix J; Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations.
Table 3.8-5. Required Offsite Runoff Retention
Drainage Management Area Development Area (acres) Retention Value Required (AF)
Offsite
Home Depot 10.1 1.3
Irish Hills 15.2 2.3
Mountainbrook Church 3.7 0.4
Total 29.0 4.0
Froom Creek 100-year Flow - 16.9
Grand Total 29.0 20.9
Note: The grand total of Development Area in Table 1-2 of Appendix J is incorrectly summed to 32.43. The value
presented in this table is the corrected sum; however, it cannot be determined if the total Retention Value Required
reflects the correct sum of Developed Area.
Source: Appendix J.; Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations
The Project would include substantial stormwater retention and treatment facilities to
accommodate runoff from both existing sources (i.e., Froom Creek watershed, Irish Hills
Plaza) and the new impervious areas onsite to avoid on and offsite increases in flooding,
consistent with the requirements of the City’s Drainage Design Manual and the SWRCB’s
Post-Construction Requirements. Attenuation of onsite surface water runoff would be
provided via point and non-point source water retention features to slow and retain
increased flows, including vegetated retention basins and pervious paving, and other
elements designed to promote bio-infiltration. Froom Creek would also be designed with a
low-flow channel in the creek’s centerline to convey flows occurring from flows under a
2-year storm event.
For flows below the intensity of a 2-year storm event, runoff would be directed through the
realigned Froom Creek to the existing box culvert under U.S. 101. Flows greater than a 2-
year storm event would overtop the creek banks and flow to either the Calle Joaquin
3.8-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
wetlands or downstream to the stormwater detention basin. The Calle Joaquin wetlands
would serve as part of the creek corridor and the first line of defense in flood conditions
with the capacity to store up to 11 AF of flood water. It appears that under normal storm
conditions (i.e., 2- to 10-year events) the Calle Joaquin wetlands would not be
hydrologically reconnected to the Froom Creek channel downstream or the proposed
stormwater detention basin, meaning flood waters flowing to the Calle Joaquin wetlands
would not have any outlet other than percolation and evaporation; however, under large
storm conditions (e.g., 25-year to 100-year events) when capacity within the Calle Joaquin
wetland floodplain is reached, the Froom Creek low-flow channel and Calle Joaquin
wetlands would effectively become a single, wide channel, allowing flows to reconnect
and potentially continue downstream within the realigned channel (Appendix J).
Storm flows and runoff exceeding a 2-year storm condition would also be conveyed along
Froom Creek and into the Calle Joaquin wetlands and the proposed stormwater detention
basin when flooding begins to occur at the U.S. 101 box culverts. The Calle Joaquin
wetlands have total storage capacity of 11 AF. The proposed stormwater detention basins
would have a capacity of 28.8 AF to accommodate the anticipated 20.9 AF of post-
development flow generated from the Home Depot, Irish Hills Plaza, Mountainbrook
Church, and Froom Creek watershed during a 100-year storm event and allow for storage
enough to allow the 25-year event to pass entirely through the U.S. 101 box culvert
(Appendix J). Further, the Draft FRSP outlines the following BMPs which, once adopted,
would guide development of the Project to manage stormwater runoff consistent with City
and RWQCB requirements:
• Site and landscape design should integrate sustainable practices to manage
stormwater onsite to the maximum extent practical. These practices may include
bioswales, rain gardens, and detention basins.
• Stormwater retention areas should be designed to be visually attractive and
functional, and fencing should be avoided to the maximum extent possible.
• Stormwater runoff should be diverted from impervious areas such as roofs and
paths, to landscape areas and infiltration basins where water can seep into the
ground.
• Site drainage may be designed to integrate a decentralized system that distributes
stormwater across a project site to replenish groundwater supplies. In addition,
various devices that filter water and infiltrate water into the ground should be
considered.
Considering proposed stormwater management systems improvement and the Preliminary
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations prepared by RRM Design Group, stormwater
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-35
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
would be adequately managed, maintained, and attenuated through on- and offsite
stormwater control features, which are designed consistent with the requirements of the
City Drainage Design Manual and State Post Construction Requirements.
Development Within a Flood Zone
Most of the low elevation areas of the Project site are currently located within a designated
floodplain, Zone A, and development of the Project within this area could pose risk of new
development to flooding hazards. However, as discussed above, the Project would relocate
and redesign Froom Creek to provide additional flood-flow capacity and would fill the
Lower Area and Madonna Froom Ranch portions of the site within these flood zones to
engineered elevations above the 100-year floodplain. Implementation of the proposed
improvements would remove the site development area from the FEMA floodplain and
require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision from FEMA.
Based on the Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations prepared by RRM Design
Group, the proposed stormwater management system would be sized and designed to
accommodate and attenuate 100-year storm event flood waters to ensure proposed
development would lie outside a flood hazard zone and the Project would not change the
potential for flooding offsite; the existing flood risks associated with 10-year storm events
due to the existing box culvert under U.S. 101 would remain under the Project. However,
the proposed design of Froom Creek would not ensure a fixed location and high velocity
flows would potentially cause erosion, scouring, and bank undercutting, which would lead
to creek rerouting and bank destabilization with unpredictable effects on flows, flooding,
and sedimentation. This impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM HYD-4 The Applicant shall submit final Froom Creek Realignment plans and
supporting technical studies that provide a refined bio-engineering
approach to ensure creek bank and channel bottom stability and avoidance
or reduction of further erosion. Final creek design plans and a supporting
engineering study shall address appropriate boulder sizes and bank
protection measures necessary to prevent dislodgement or remobilization
of in-channel or toe-slope protection rock. Natural methods (e.g.,
additional rock) shall be employed as needed to maintain the proposed
creek alignment and downslope bank location between the channel and
LOVR and the Calle Joaquin wetlands, and to protect mid- to upper-bank
3.8-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
areas and top-of-bank from erosion from flood flows and aid in
maintenance of riparian vegetation.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit revised plans
and additional supporting technical studies to the City for review and
approval prior to recordation of the final VTM. The final VTM shall depict
all necessary revisions or improvements identified in the revised Froom
Creek Realignment plans and supporting studies.
Monitoring. City staff shall inspect Froom Creek realignment
improvements and ensure compliance throughout all construction phases.
Permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform periodic site inspections
to verify compliance with planned improvements.
Residual Impact
Implementation of MM HYD-4, requiring revised Froom Creek realignment plans and
additional supporting technical studies would ensure the realigned creek and erosion
protection features are sufficient to prevent or significantly reduce erosion and destruction
of the creek channel and bank. Implementation of this measure would also ensure stability
of proposed in-stream fish habitat improvements (e.g., for Southern steelhead), supporting
the success and longevity of improved habitat; thus, impacts are considered less than
significant with mitigation.
Impact HYD-3 Operation of the Project would potentially impact water quality of
Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek due to polluted urban
runoff and sedimentation (Less than Significant).
Project development would replace approximately 50.7 acres of undeveloped land with a
roughly equivalent area of urban development consisting of new residential units, a senior
life plan community, a 100-room hotel, commercial center, and 2.9 acres of developed
parks and open space. This development would substantially increase the amount of
impervious surface onsite and would involve activities that would generate new sources of
pollutants onsite, such as pesticides, fertilizers, oils, grease, lubricants, and sediment in
urban runoff. New impervious surfaces, including roads and parking lots, collect
automobile derived pollutants such as oils, greases, heavy metals, and rubber. During storm
events, these pollutants would be transported into the proposed stormwater management
system by surface runoff. An increase in point source and non-point source pollution could
result from increases in development intensity that may directly impact water quality
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-37
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
specific to site drainage patterns. Accordingly, disturbed soils, sedimentation, and
contaminants that are mobilized by water flow may ultimately be conveyed to Froom
Creek, and subsequently, San Luis Obispo Creek located 0.3 mile downstream.
However, the Project includes a comprehensive stormwater management system with
approximately five stormwater retention and treatment areas on site, as well as the LOVR
and Home Depot ditches, which would capture and bio-filter runoff before it enters Froom
Creek or the Calle Joaquin wetlands. Additionally, the Draft FRSP outlines the following
BMPs which, once adopted, would guide development of the Project to manage stormwater
runoff consistent with City and Central Coast RWQCB requirements:
• Site and landscape design should integrate sustainable practices to manage
stormwater onsite to the maximum extent practical. These practices may include
bioswales, rain gardens, and detention basins.
• Implementation of BMPs for water quality treatment is required for each
development area prior to discharging to a storm drain system or into the Froom
Creek corridor.
• Stormwater runoff should be diverted from impervious areas such as roofs and
paths, to landscape areas and infiltration basins where water can seep into the
ground.
The Project would be subject to the Central Coast RWQCB’s PCRs and NPDES discharge
permits. Once adopted, implementation of proposed BMP strategies of the FRSP would
reduce impacts from urban runoff. Further, upon compliance with the City’s SWMP,
Engineering Standards, General Plan, and City Municipal Code requirements, adverse
effects to water quality from operation of the Project would be reduced, and impacts are
considered less than significant.
Impact HYD-4 The Project would involve development of new impervious surfaces
and potentially interfere with groundwater recharge (Less than
Significant).
Reduction in Groundwater Recharge
The Project could result in a decrease in percolation to the groundwater basin, due to the
increase in the amount of impervious surface it would create. However, since the City
stopped its reliance on groundwater for drinking water in April 2015, and the San Luis
Obispo Groundwater Basin is not in overdraft and recharges quickly during normal rainfall
3.8-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
years, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge. Further, the Project does not propose the use of
groundwater within the site. There would be an incremental loss of basin-wide groundwater
recharge due to the increase in impervious surfaces. Project impacts related to groundwater
would be offset by implementation of Project BMPs to manage stormwater onsite. The
Draft FRSP outlines the following BMPs which, once adopted, would guide development
of the Project to manage stormwater consistent with City and RWQCB requirements:
• Stormwater runoff should be diverted from impervious areas such as roofs and
paths, to landscape areas and infiltration basins where water can seep into the
ground.
• Site drainage may be designed to integrate a decentralized system that distributes
stormwater across a project site to replenish groundwater supplies. In addition,
various devices that filter water and infiltrate water into the ground should be
considered.
In addition, all surface flows would either percolate within developed areas or flow to the
realigned Froom Creek channel. The realigned Froom Creek channel is anticipated to result
in some increase in recharge to the groundwater basin and extend the period during the
winter when standing water is present in the wetland area. The longer reach and flatter
grade of the realigned stream channel allows for a greater surface area and longer duration
of wetter channel conditions, increasing groundwater recharge when stream flow occurs.
The realigned channel will traverse alluvial fan deposits along portions of the historic
channel alignment and will not flow over Obispo weathered bedrock soils as occurs in the
current channel alignment. The detention basin downstream of the Specific Plan area, when
saturated, is anticipated to result in a higher groundwater level than currently exists and
reduce the groundwater flow gradient in the proximity to the wetlands (Cleath-Harris
Geologists, Inc. 2018; Appendix J). Therefore, the Project would not adversely affect
groundwater levels, even though the Project would increase impervious surfaces within the
Specific Plan area.
Potential to Encounter Shallow Groundwater
The Project would involve the development of one-level subterranean parking structures
within the eastern lower elevations of the site as part of the Lower Area, where groundwater
levels were observed at depths of 2.3 to 10 feet bgs (Appendix J). Investigation of
groundwater levels using soil borings and existing onsite groundwater wells did not
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-39
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
thoroughly measure for groundwater within the areas proposed for construction of
subterranean development – within areas overlying the current alignment of Froom Creek
where surface water seepage may create areas of shallow groundwater. Therefore,
depending on the timing of construction and seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels,
subsurface construction in this area may encounter groundwater or saturated soils.
However, the proposed Project would relocate Froom Creek to the base of the slope within
the Project site and raise the ground surface to at least 1 foot above the 100-year floodplain,
which would eliminate the potential for the proposed development to encounter
groundwater resources. The higher site elevation would increase the depth to water below
grade, assuming the groundwater level elevation will be similar to the recent groundwater
elevations. However, since the Project would not deplete or degrade groundwater resources
or impede or encounter groundwater, groundwater impacts would be less than significant
(see also, Impact GEO-4, Section 3.6, Geology and Soils).
Cumulative Impacts
The Project, in combination with approved, pending, and proposed development within the
City, particularly recently approved large residential development projects (e.g., San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan, Avila Ranch Development Plan) would further contribute to the
increase in development and associated water quality impacts, as well as alter the existing
hydrologic environment, thereby altering the abundance and natural flow of water
resources of the area, including San Luis Obispo Creek. As analyzed in the LUCE Update
EIR, cumulative impacts of the LUE, which includes the Project site, to hydrology and
water quality would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of
and adherence to the policies and requirements discussed above.
Cumulative development would result in a change from agricultural to urban pollutant
discharge to surface water runoff and groundwater percolation. Construction activities
could also result in the pollution of natural watercourses or underground aquifers. The
types of pollutant discharges that could occur as a result of construction include accidental
spillage of fuel and lubricants, discharge of excess concrete, and an increase in sediment
runoff. Storm runoff concentrations of oil, grease, heavy metals, and debris increases as
the amount of urban development increases in the watershed. However, when properly
implemented, water quality requirements of the Central Coast RWQCB and the City and
County of San Luis Obispo would be expected to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting
from new development. Therefore, the proposed Project, in conjunction with pending
cumulative development, would not significantly increase the concentration of urban
3.8-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
pollutants in surface runoff or groundwater. Polluted runoff that may be generated during
construction activities of cumulative development and projects considered in this analysis
would be regulated by the SWRCB under General Construction, NPDES permits, and
would be minimized using standard construction BMPs. Cumulative impacts would
therefore be less than significant for water quality. With adherence to these regulatory
standards, the cumulative contribution from the Project would be less than significant.
Flooding and Site Hydrology
Regarding flooding, several projects included on the cumulative projects list (see Table
3.0-1) are located within the 100-year floodplain associated with San Luis Obispo Creek.
Cumulative development in the City and the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed is
anticipated to contribute to an incremental increase in runoff and peak flood flows. No
planned or pending projects are located upstream or downstream on Froom Creek from the
Project site that would contribute to the risk of flooding on- or offsite. Avila Ranch
Development Plan and San Luis Ranch Specific Plan projects would contribute runoff to
the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed. However, each cumulative project within the City
would be expected to provide its own facilities or other mitigations, where feasible, to
mitigate increased peak flows and exacerbated downstream flooding. The Project, through
the proposed realigned creek design and stormwater detention basin, would adequately
attenuate all Project-related increases in flood flows on- or offsite, such that flooding would
not occur.
Based on post-development flows, capacity of the existing U.S. 101 box culvert would
continue to be exceeded under during a 10-year or greater storm event, resulting in
continued flooding potential downstream of the Project site. However, policies and design
measures of the FRSP would reduce the Project’s contribution to this cumulative flooding
impact to the extent feasible, even such that peak flows experienced at the U.S. 101 box
culvert may be less than existing flood flows. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to
cumulative flood impacts are considered less than significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-41
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section describes existing and proposed land uses within the Project site and vicinity,
and analyzes potential impacts that may result from land use conflicts. It also evaluates
Project consistency with adopted planning goals and policies of the City General Plan, the
County General Plan, and the ALUP for the Airport.
3.9.1 Environmental Setting
3.9.1.1 Regional Land Use and Planning
The Project site is located in the central portion of the County, approximately 5 miles
northeast of the Pacific Ocean and outside of the local coastal zone. The site is currently
unincorporated on the southern edge of the City and is surrounded on three sides by
incorporated City areas. Urban land uses within the City, including commercial
development, surround the site to the north, east, and south. Rural agricultural uses and
open space within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve lie to the west. Allowable land uses on
nearby properties are governed by both the City and County General Plans and respective
Zoning Ordinances,1 which allow a range of retail, commercial, visitor-serving, and open
space uses (Tables 3.9-1 and 3.9-2; Figure 3.9-1).
Table 3.9-1. Existing City and County Land Use within Project Vicinity
Location Land Use Example of Potential Uses
City General Retail Specialty stores, department stores, restaurants,
discount stores, and banks
Open Space Farming and grazing, protected natural open
space, trails, and historic resources
Services and Manufacturing Medical services, storage businesses, lumber
yards, car repair shops, light manufacturing,
caretaker quarters, homeless shelters, and
mixed-use residential
Tourist Commercial Hotels, motels, restaurants, gasoline stations,
recreational uses, and minor retail
County Agriculture (AG) Agricultural processing, animal facilities, crops
and grazing
Rural Lands (RL) Agricultural processing, crop production and
grazing, mines and quarries, energy generating
facilities
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2014b; County of San Luis Obispo 2019.
1 The County’s General Plan is adopted as the County’s Zoning Ordinance.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-1
Draft EIR
LOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADCALLE JOAQUINCALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADCALLE JOAQUIN101
Froom
C
r
eekFroom
C
r
eekLEGEND
Project Site
San Luis Obispo
City/County Boundary
Urban-Rural Line
Onsite Agricultural
Easement
City General Plan Land Use
General Retail
Open Space
Services and Manufacturing
Tourist Commercial
Madonna at LOVR-SP
(Froom Ranch Specific Plan)
County General Plan Land Use
Agriculture
Rural Land
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
Existing Land Use 3.9-1
FIGURE
3.9-2
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-2. Existing City and County Zoning Districts within Project Vicinity
Location Zoning District Example of Potential Uses
City Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) Open Space, agricultural grazing and accessory
structures
Commercial-Retail (C-R) Retail sales, business, personal and
professional services, parks and recreation
facilities, entertainment, hotels, churches,
restaurants, mixed-use developments
Commercial-Service-Special
Considerations
(C-S-S) & Commercial-Service-Planned
Development (C-S-PD)
Limited retail, storage, automobile and vehicle
sales and services, wholesaling, warehousing,
light manufacturing uses
Commercial-Tourist (C-T) Accommodations and services for the traveling
public, parks and recreational facilities, mixed-
use, restaurants
County Agriculture (AG) Agricultural processing, animal facilities, crops
and grazing
Rural Lands (RL) Agricultural processing, crop production and
grazing, mines and quarries, energy generating
facilities
Commercial Retail (CR) Retail sales, business, personal and
professional services, recreation,
entertainment, transient lodging
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2014b; County of San Luis Obispo 2019.
City-designated commercial-retail (C-R) uses border the Project site along LOVR to the
northwest, including Irish Hills Plaza with numerous large-scale “big box” retail
commercial businesses, including Costco and Home Depot, along with additional retail
businesses, such as T.J. Maxx and Whole Foods Market. To the north across LOVR,
commercial-service (C-S) land uses support primarily automobile dealerships, such as
BMW, Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota, and Honda, where structural development is
The Project site is surrounded on three sides by urban development in the City and bordered to the west
by the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (left). Irish Hills Plaza (right) located north of the Specific Plan area
contains retail and commercial businesses.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-3
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
generally modern one-story offices and showrooms. To the southeast adjacent to U.S. 101
and Calle Joaquin, commercial-tourist (C-T) uses include a gasoline station, a restaurant, and
several hotels, including Hampton Inn, Courtyard by Marriott, and Motel 6. To the south,
Mountainbrook Church, a one-story conditionally permitted use, is located in County
agricultural land off Calle Joaquin. To the west, the 1,110-acre Irish Hills Natural Reserve is
located within County-designated rural lands (RL) but is owned and managed by the City.
The nearest residential neighborhoods are 0.3 mile north of Irish Hills Plaza and 0.3 mile east
across U.S. 101.
3.9.1.2 Project Site Land Uses and Planning
The Project site is currently unincorporated and subject to the County’s General Plan. As
described in the County’s General Plan, the Project site is located within the San Luis
Obispo Planning Area, Sub Area North (2014). Figure 2-1 in Section 2.0, Project
Description, shows the regional location of the Project. Approximately 97 acres of the
Project site are designated agriculture, 0.5 acre is designated rural lands, and 19.3 acres are
designated general retail (Figure 3.9-1). Within the Project site, the approximately 110-acre
Specific Plan area is used primarily as grazing land for horses. The approximately 7-acre
developed area on the northern side of the site is developed with the historic Froom Ranch
Dairy complex and a permitted quarry. One of these buildings supports a construction
business office (JM Development Group) in the main ranch house (an office) and other
portions of the property support an equipment storage yard. The Project site also includes
unpaved roads and walking paths, staging and materials storage, and stormwater detention
facilities serving Irish Hills Plaza. The approximately 7.1-acre stormwater basin area on
Mountainbrook Church property is currently undeveloped and is not used for agricultural
uses. See Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, for a discussion of the Project’s agricultural
setting and Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, for a discussion of the
existing structures on the site.
In December 2014, the City adopted the LUCE of the General Plan with programs and
policies to guide private development and public improvements in the City for the next 20
years. The City certified an EIR for the LUCE update in 2014. The Project site lies fully
within the City’s adopted SOI under the LUCE. Approximately 19.3 acres within the
northeastern portion of the Specific Plan area are located within the URL, which includes the
3.9-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
urban areas of the City and a limited portion of unincorporated area within the County.2 The
Specific Plan area within the Project site is designated as the Madonna at LOVR Specific
Plan area in the LUCE. This designation anticipates consideration of future annexation to
the City and eventual development under an adopted specific plan. The LUCE also
identifies the site as a Special Focus Area, SP-3 in Section 8.1.5 of the LUCE, which
provides specific policy guidance for future development within the Specific Plan area (see
Section 3.9.2, Regulatory Setting). Development standards for the Specific Plan area set
forth in the LUCE would allow up to 350 residences and 350,000 sf of neighborhood
commercial and commercial-retail development (Table 3.9-3). The LUCE’s performance
standards for SP-3 include access to trails and protection of wetlands, slopes, historic
structures, open space, and viewsheds.
Table 3.9-3. LUCE Performance Standards for Madonna at LOVR Specific Plan
Area
Type Designations Allowed Minimum1 Maximum
Residential (Mixed-Use) Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
High Density Residential
200 units 350 units
Commercial Neighborhood Commercial
Commercial
50,000 sf 350,000 sf
Parks Park
Open Space/Agriculture Open Space
Agriculture
50 % site
coverage
Public N/A
Infrastructure N/A
N/A – Not Applicable
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2014b.
3.9.1.3 Easements within Project Site
The Project site is encumbered by two recorded easements; one is for agricultural
conservation within the Specific Plan area and the other delineates the proposed stormwater
detention basin area.
2 The URL represents the boundary of the City’s urban reserve, containing the area around the City where
urban development would potentially occur. The City URL is an unincorporated extension of the City in
which residents share City infrastructure and government-operated facilities and services including schools,
libraries, and parks. The URL encompasses approximately 2,300 acres beyond the existing City limit (City
of San Luis Obispo and County of San Luis Obispo 2013).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-5
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
2010 Open Space & Agricultural Conservation Easement
In 2010, a 7.1-acre agricultural easement was dedicated within the Project site as mitigation
for impacts associated with the nearby Prefumo Creek Commons project. The easement is
recorded over the southern areas of the Specific Plan area and includes the Calle Joaquin
wetlands to the north of Calle Joaquin. As part of approval of annexation of that project
site into the City, the San Luis Obispo County LAFCO required dedication of a permanent
agricultural easement of 7.1 acres on Froom Ranch as part of an overall mitigation package.
LAFCO criteria for dedication included the continuation of prior historical agricultural
activities on the property. The resulting easement is managed by the City and may be
amended with written consent of both Irish Hills Plaza, LLC and the City.
2018 Memorandum of Option and Easement Rights
A Memorandum of Option and easement rights is recorded between the owners of the
Mountainbrook Church property and the Project Applicant, and applies to an area between
the Church, the Marriott and Motel 6 hotels, and Calle Joaquin. The Madonna Family Trust
was granted the option to purchase easement rights within the Mountainbrook Church
property to allow development of the proposed stormwater detention basin (see Section
2.0, Project Description).
2001 Open Space Easement
In 2001, an open space agreement was made between the County and the City (co-grantees)
and the Madonna family (owner) for the granting of two easement areas for the preservation
of open space and natural resource protection within the Irish Hills. The easement areas lie
immediately west of the Project site covering a cumulative area of 111.78 acres, but does
not overlie the Project site. Under the agreement, no structures or facilities may be erected
except for agriculture accessory buildings or public service facilities pursuant to approvals,
and the landscape may not be altered that materially changes the site’s attractive scenic
features. Easement alterations may only be conducted with written agreement by all
easement holders.
2010 Deed of Easement for Ingress and Egress
In 2010, the Irish Hills Plaza West, LLC (owner) granted to the City (grantee) an
irrevocable 20-foot-wide easement for ingress and egress for emergency maintenance,
monitoring, and patrol purposes. The easement consists of two routes. One extends from
LOVR along the existing entrance road and disturbed portions of the Project site, southwest
3.9-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
to the Froom Creek Connector Trail. The second easement route extends from the existing
construction operations area and across the Arizona crossing at Froom Creek to connect to
the Neil Havlik Way trail to the south. Easement alterations may only be conducted with
written agreement by all easement holders.
3.9.2 Regulatory Setting
This section summarizes directly relevant state regulations and regional and local land use
plans and procedures. Evaluation of the Project’s consistency with specific goals, policies,
and requirements from relevant land use plans and regulations is provided below in Section
3.9.3, Consistency with Plans and Policies, as well as within referenced EIR sections.
3.9.2.1 State
Government Code Section 63450 (Specific Plans)
State law (Government Code Section 63450) authorizes cities to adopt specific plans for
implementation of their general plans in a defined area. All specific plans must comply
with Sections 65450-65457 of the Government Code. These provisions require that a
specific plan be consistent with the adopted general plan and, in turn, that all subsequent
subdivisions and development, public works projects, and zoning regulations be consistent
with the specific plan. Specific plans are required to include distribution, location and types
of uses, development, and improvements to public facilities and infrastructure. Tailored
regulations, conditions, programs, standards, and guidelines help implement the vision for
long-range development of the specific plan area.
Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California
Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) prescribes a “uniform process” for boundary
changes for both cities and special districts. This Act delegates this process to LAFCOs. A
LAFCO is a state agency that performs growth management functions, and has approval
authority regarding the establishment, expansion, reorganization, and elimination of any
city and most types of special districts. LAFCOs establish SOIs for cities and special
districts that define the appropriate and probable future jurisdictional boundary and service
area of the agency. In addition to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, the San Luis Obispo
County LAFCO (described below) has adopted local policies that it considers in its review
of projects, as further described below.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-7
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Senate Bill (SB) 375
The adoption of California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act SB 375
on September 30, 2008 aligns the goals of regional transportation planning efforts, regional
GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocations. SB 375 requires Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) such as the SLOCOG to adopt a Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy
(APS) within their RTP to demonstrate the achievement of GHG reduction targets. In
compliance with SB 375, SLOCOG has adopted an RTP/SCS that covers the entirety of
the City and County, as well as other cities within the boundaries of the County (see
discussion below and also refer to Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions).
3.9.2.2 Regional
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The 2014 RTP/SCS is the region’s long-term vision for the transportation system. As
required by state and federal law, the SLOCOG prepares, updates and adopts the RTP/SCS
every four years. The RTP facilitates the compliance with the state mandate for
communities to coordinate with state and regional agencies to achieve regional air quality
and GHG emission reduction targets. The key principles of these strategies include:
locating new employment centers and neighborhoods near transit to reduce vehicle trips
and peak congestion; creating communities around transit stations, with small businesses,
housing, and restaurants within walking distance to reduce automobile travel; focusing
future growth in urban centers and existing cities to reduce VMT and preserve rural and
other natural areas; and preserving established single-family neighborhoods and existing
natural and green spaces by accommodating new development within existing urbanized
areas and downtown regions.
San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
A LAFCO is a state agency that performs growth management functions, and has approval
authority regarding the establishment, expansion, reorganization, and elimination of any
city and most types of special districts. LAFCO establishes SOI for cities and special
districts that define the territory that LAFCO independently finds will represent the
appropriate and probable future jurisdictional boundary and service area of the subject
agency. The state legislature has prescribed a “uniform process” for boundary changes for
both cities and special districts that is now embodied in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local
3.9-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code Section 56000 et
seq.). This Act delegates the legislature’s boundary powers to LAFCOs.
The San Luis Obispo County LAFCO is responsible for reviewing and approving proposed
jurisdictional boundary changes in the County, including the annexation and detachment
of territory to and/or from cities and most special districts, incorporations of new cities,
formations of new special districts, and consolidations, mergers, and dissolutions of
existing districts. In addition, the San Luis Obispo County LAFCO would review the
Project’s proposed annexation to the City.
County of San Luis Obispo General Plan
In accordance with California state law, the County’s General Plan guides development on
County land. The General Plan forms the basis for the County’s land use decision-making
by expressing the County’s development goals, setting forth land use policy, and informing
citizens and decision-makers of development related policies. The purpose of the General
Plan is to identify the appropriate location of land uses, including basic design and function
of circulation, open space, and infrastructure policies, and public service needs. The
County’s General Plan consists of nine state-mandated and optional elements: LUE (Inland
Framework for Planning [2015] and Coastal Zone Framework for Planning [2018]);
Housing Element (HE; 2014); Noise Element (NE; 1992); SE (2014); COSE (2015); Parks
and Recreation Element (PRE; 2006); Agriculture Element (2010); Offshore Energy
Element (1992); and an Economic Element (2012).
County of San Luis Obispo Inland Land Use Ordinance
The County’s LUE (Inland Framework for Planning) is adopted as its zoning ordinance
and defines 12 land use categories and 11 combining designations. Residential zones
include: rural residential, suburban residential, and single-family residential. Non‐
residential zones include: agriculture, rural lands, open space, recreation, public facilities,
office and professional, retail commercial, service commercial, and industrial. The
combining designations include: airport review area, energy and extractive resource area,
extractive resource area, flood hazard, geologic study area, historic site, local coastal plan
area, renewable energy area, sensitive resource area, transfer of development credit
receiving site, and transfer of development credit sending site.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-9
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
The ALUP is a key governing land use document regarding safety and noise related
restrictions for land use surrounding the Airport. It was first adopted in December 1973,
most recently amended in 2005, and is currently being updated by the County ALUC. The
ALUP provides guidance for the establishment of compatible land uses within the Airport
Land Use Planning Area (ALUPA). The ALUP contains policies and guidelines which
address public safety and noise exposure within the ALUPA and provides land use
guidance based upon established noise and safety corridors. ALUP policies affect areas
under both City and County jurisdiction.
Small portions of the Project site lie within Safety Sub-Areas S-1B and S-1C of the 2005
ALUP, identifying potential airport risk hazards from airport operations. However, as
discussed further below, recent analysis of Airport hazards based on Caltrans Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook and the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Compatibility Report
criteria (Johnson Aviation 2014) indicates that the safety risks may be significantly lower
than identified in the 2005 ALUP and that Airport hazard risks are very low. The maps
prepared as part of the Johnson Aviation Report depicting Airport hazards based on the
Caltrans Handbook Safety Compatibility Zones depict the Project site as being located
entirely outside of the airport safety compatibility zones and susceptible to airport hazards.
In addition, though two Airport Safety Areas are mapped on the Project site under the
current ALUP, the 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. Further, the ALUC is currently in the process of updating the ALUP to
evaluate airport safety zones consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook. Potential safety policies are discussed more fully in Section 3.7, Hazards,
Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire, while consistency with ALUP polices is discussed in
Section 3.9.3, Consistency with Plans and Policies below. Given the ALUC’s preliminary
review of the Project and the pending ALUP update, the Project is analyzed for airport
safety against the Caltrans Handbook Safety Compatibility Zones identified in the Johnson
Aviation Report.
ALUP Safety Area S-1B is comprised of those portions of Safety Area S-1 which are
not included in Safety Area S-1A, but are within probable gliding distance for aircraft
on expected approach or departure courses. This Safety Area also includes state-
defined sideline safety areas, inner turning zones and outer safety areas for both
Runway 11-29 and Runway 7-25. Aviation safety hazards to be particularly considered
3.9-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
in this area include mechanical failures, fuel exhaustion, deviation from glideslope or
minimum descent altitude during instrument flight rules operations (due to pilot error
or equipment malfunction), loss of control during short approach procedures, stall/spin
incidents during engine-out maneuvers in multi-engine aircraft, loss of control during
“go around” or missed approach procedures, and midair collisions. Under the 2005
ALUP, approximately 34.9 acres of the Specific Plan area are within this area.
Airport Safety Area S-1C is comprised of those portions of Safety Area S-1 which
are not included in Safety Areas S-1A or S-1B, but are adjacent to Runway 11-29
(within 0.5 nautical mile [nm]) frequent or low-visibility aircraft operations at less than
500 feet above ground level. Aviation safety hazards to be considered in this area
include mechanical failures, deviation from localized runaway approach during
instrument flight rules operations (due to pilot error or equipment malfunction),
stall/spin incidents during engine-out maneuvers in multi-engine aircraft, loss of
control during “go around” or missed approach procedures, and loss of visual
references by aircraft performing circle-to-land procedures. The outer border of Safety
Area S-1C is rectangular in shape. Approximately 7.6 acres of the Specific Plan area
are in this area.
ALUP Safety Area S-2 represents the area within the vicinity of the Project where
aircrafts operate frequently or in conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes between
501 and 1,000 feet above ground level. Aviation safety hazards identified in the ALUP
include mechanical failures, fuel exhaustion, loss of control during turns from
downwind to base legs or from base to final legs of the traffic pattern, stall/spin
incidents during engine‐out maneuvers in twin engine aircraft, and midair collisions.
Because aircraft in Safety Area S‐2 are at greater altitude and are less densely
concentrated than in other portions of the ALUPA, the overall level of aviation safety
risk is considered to be lower than that in Area S‐1 or the Runway Protection Zones
(RPZs) (SLO County ALUC 2005). Approximately 107.5 acres of the Specific Plan
area are within Safety Area S-2.
3.9.2.3 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The City General Plan identifies the appropriate location of land uses, basic design and
function of circulation, open space, and infrastructure policies, as well as public service
needs. The City’s General Plan consists of eight state-mandated and optional elements:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-11
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
LUE (2014); CE (2017); HE (2015); NE (1996); SE (2012); COSE (2006); PRE (2001);
and Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME; 2018). Project consistency
with specific policies from the General Plan are analyzed below in Section 3.9.3,
Consistency with Plans and Policies and within specific EIR sections.
In the early 1980s, the City’s LUE was amended to address concerns over hillside
development, including within the Project vicinity. The City has a long history of planning
to protect steeper hillsides within and surrounding the City, including those within and
adjacent to the Irish Hills. The City’s 1982 Hillside Planning Areas Phase I and 1984 Phase
II reports found that for the Project vicinity, among other things, the area above the 150-
foot elevation has steep slopes and a high scenic value while areas below the 150-foot
elevation south of Froom Creek are subject to inundation. The Phase I and II reports
recommend that all areas above the 150-foot elevation in the Irish Hills become part of a
permanent open space easement and that structures, grading, and removal of significant
vegetation be prohibited. These recommendations were adopted in 1984 as an amendment
to the 1977 LUE (Ordinance 1028-1984), including limiting hillside development on slopes
over 15 percent to protect against adverse impacts related to emergency access, unstable
geology, water resources availability, wildfire hazard, and visual resource degradation.
As a result of these previous planning efforts, the LUE prohibits development above the
150-foot elevation contour within the Hillside Planning Area to preserve the open space in
the area’s “steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides.” Specifically, Subsection 6.4.7.H of
the LUE, The Irish Hills Area, states, “The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open
space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation, in conjunction with any
subdivision or development of the lower areas”. This policy applies to the Specific Plan
area and was not amended or altered during adoption of the 2014 LUCE Update.
2014 Land Use Element
The City’s LUE identifies the Project site as a Special Focus Area, SP-3. The LUE includes
policies and the prescribed format and content of regulatory elements of a specific plan for
SP-3 (Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 of the LUE, General Plan). The City also certified an EIR
for the LUE update in 2014. The 2014 LUCE Update EIR addresses potential impacts of
development of the Project site in a programmatic manner, primarily referring to the
location as the “Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area,” but it does not address the
particulars of the Draft FRSP. Accordingly, Project-specific impacts associated with this
development are addressed in detail in this EIR.
3.9-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
The 2014 LUE identifies the Specific Plan area as Special Focus Area, SP-3, with the
following requirements:
Policy 8.1.5 Purpose. The purpose of the specific plan is to provide design flexibility that
will secure the appropriate development of the site while protecting sensitive
environmental resources on the site. Development on the site should be a compact, mixed-
use project that provides workforce housing options and neighborhood commercial uses
that support pedestrian and bicycle access. The specific plan for this area should consider
and address the following land use and design issues:
a. Develop a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints and adjusts
accordingly through design. Constraints include wetland protection, slope protection,
historic structures, and open space protection.
b. Maintain viewshed of surrounding mountains and secure steeper hillsides as
protected open space areas.
c. Variable height limits will be required to protect views of adjacent hills.
d. Provide access to trails.
e. Provide a plan for adequate and safe infrastructure, including appropriate points of
access to LOVR.
f. Address neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhood.
g. Provide connectivity to adjacent development.
LUE Chapter 7, Airport Area
Regulations in Chapter 7 of the LUE, titled Airport Area, apply to all uses, activities, and
existing and proposed development on properties within ALUP Safety Areas S-1B, S-1C,
and S-2 designated in the ALUP. LUE policies relating to airport land use are listed below.
7.3. Airport Land Use Plan. Land use density and intensity shall carefully balance
noise impacts and the progression in the degree of reduced safety risk further away
from the runways, using guidance from the ALUP, State Aeronautics Act, and
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The City shall use the
Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection
of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long-term land use planning purposes.
Prospective buyers of property subject to airport influence should be so informed.
7.4. ALUP Safety Area. Density and allowed uses within the Safety Areas shall be
consistent with the ALUP unless the City overrides a determination of inconsistency in
accordance with Section 21676 and 21676.5 et. seq. of the Public Utilities Code. If the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-13
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
City overrides a determination, all land uses shall be consistent with the State
Aeronautics Act and guidance provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook guidelines, City policies, and noise standards as substantiated by the San
Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan activity forecasts as used for noise planning
purposes.
7.5. Airport Noise Compatibility. The City shall use the aircraft noise analysis prepared
for the Airport Master Plan EIR as an accurate mapping of the long-term noise impact
of the airport’s aviation activity that is tied to the ultimate facilities development
depicted in the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan. The City shall use the 60 dB CNEL
aircraft noise contour (FAA and state aircraft noise planning standard) as the threshold
for new urban residential areas. Interiors of new residential structures shall be
constructed to meet a maximum 45 dB CNEL.
7.12. County Airport Land Use Plan. The City shall continue to work with the ALUC
to strive to achieve consistency between the ALUP and the City’s General Plan. If
consistency cannot be achieved, the City shall preserve and maintain as a plausible
alternative its constitutional land use authority to overrule the ALUC with regard to
adopting General Plan policies that are consistent with the purposes of the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, State Aeronautics Act, and state law. Applicable
sections of the Zoning Regulations and Specific Plans shall be amended accordingly.
7.16. Airport Overlay Zone. The City shall create an AOZ to reflect the boundaries of
the ALUP within the City limits. The purpose of the AOZs are to codify airport
compatibility criteria in areas for which the City may override the ALUP determination
to ensure compliance with the requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act
(Cal. Pub. Utilities Code, Section 21670, et. seq.), which establishes statewide
requirements for airport land use compatibility planning, guidance from the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which is published by the California
Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics to support and amplify the State
Aeronautics Act requirements, and other related federal and state requirements relating
to airport land use compatibility planning. Implementation of the compatibility policies
was intended to be accomplished through the Zoning Regulations.
7.17. Airport Land Use and Zoning Code. The City shall update its Zoning
Regulations to address allowable uses and development standards for areas in which
the City may override a determination of inconsistency. Zoning Regulations shall be
consistent with the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act, use guidance from the
3.9-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Caltrans Airport Handbook, and comply with related state and federal requirements
relating to airport land use compatibility. These development standards will include,
but are not limited to, intensity and density limitations, identification of prohibited uses,
infill development, height limitations, obstructions and other hazards to flight, noise
insulation requirements, buyer awareness measures, nonconforming uses, and
reconstruction. The process for airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City shall
be consistent with these development standards.
City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations
The City’s Zoning Regulations define 15 zoning districts in three categories: residential,
non‐residential, and overlay. The residential zones include: low‐density residential,
medium‐density residential, medium‐high‐density residential, and high‐density residential.
The non‐residential zones include: conservation/open space, office, public facility,
neighborhood commercial, retail commercial, community commercial, Downtown
commercial, tourist commercial, service commercial, manufacturing, and business-park.
The overlay zones include: planned development, specific plan, historic, mixed‐use, and
special considerations.
City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
The City’s Community Design Guidelines, revised in 2010, includes numerous principles
related to site planning, building design, street orientation, and creek side development.
Section 3.1, Aesthetics analyzes the Project’s physical impacts related to principles outlined
in these guidelines.
3.9.3 Consistency with Plans and Policies
This section summarizes relevant adopted goals and policies and evaluates the Project’s
consistency with guidelines and requirements established therein. The following discussion
of General Plan policies and preliminary determinations regarding Project consistency with
these policies is presented for informational purposes. Section 15125(d) of the CEQA
Guidelines requires that an EIR “shall discuss any inconsistencies between the Project and
applicable general plans and regional plans.” Table 3.9-4 discusses a preliminary
determination of the Project’s consistency with applicable policies from the City’s General
Plan. Table 3.9-5 summarizes the Project’s preliminary consistency with applicable
policies from the County’s General Plan. The EIR identifies any feasible mitigation
measures to improve Project consistency with these policies. Final Project consistency
determinations would be made by City decision-makers.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-15
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
Land Use Element (LUE)
1.1.1 – Growth
Management
The City shall manage its growth so that:
A. The natural environment and air quality
will be protected.
B. The relatively high level of services
enjoyed by City residents is maintained or
enhanced.
C. The demand for municipal services does
not outpace their availability.
D. New residents can be assimilated without
disrupting the community’s social fabric,
safety, or established neighborhoods.
Potentially Consistent
As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous
Materials, and Wildfire, Section 3.11, Population
and Housing, Section 3.12, Public Services and
Recreation, Section 3.13, Transportation, and
Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation,
development of the Project would ensure the City
continues to provide essential municipal services to
all residents in a manner that ensures the protection
of the natural environment to the maximum extent
feasible while resulting in consistency and fluidity
with surrounding community development.
1.1.2 –
Development
Capacity and
Services
The City shall not designate more land for
urban uses than its resources can be expected
to support.
Potentially Consistent As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous
Materials, and Wildfire, Section 3.11, Population
and Housing, Section 3.12, Public Services and
Recreation, Section 3.13, Transportation, and
Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation,
resources available within the City would be
sufficient to support the urban uses within the
Project in a manner that ensures the protection of
the natural environment to the maximum extent
feasible.
1.4 – Urban
Edges Character
The City shall maintain a clear boundary
between San Luis Obispo's urban
development and surrounding open land.
Development just inside the boundary shall
provide measures to avoid a stark-appearing
edge between buildings in the City and
adjacent open land. Such measures may
include: using new or existing groves or
Potentially Inconsistent The Project would include development of medium
and higher density residential uses immediately
adjacent to the open land within the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve above the 150-foot elevation line,
creating a stark edge between new buildings and
the adjacent open lands. The Project would be
potentially inconsistent with this policy.
3.9-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
windrows of trees, or hills or other
landforms, to set the edge of development;
increasing the required side-yard and rear-
yard setbacks; and providing open space or
agricultural transition buffers.
1.5 –
Jobs/Housing
Relationship
The gap between housing demand (due to
more jobs and college enrollment) and supply
should not increase.
Potentially Consistent The Project would include construction of 174
multi-family residential dwelling units and 404
senior units, meeting a need identified in the City
General Plan HE. These new units would help
maintain the City’s current jobs/housing ratio. The
Project would contribute to providing housing to
improve this balance.
1.7.3 – Interim
Uses
Expansion areas should be kept in
agriculture, compatible with agricultural
support services, or open space uses until
urban development occurs, unless a City-
approved specific plan provides for other
interim uses.
Potentially Consistent The Project is proposed on land designated for a
specific plan (SP-3) which would provide for urban
development and open space preservation to
implement the City’s General Plan.
1.8.1 – Open
Space Protection
Within the City's planning area and outside
the urban reserve line, undeveloped land
should be kept open. Prime agricultural land,
productive agricultural land, and potentially
productive agricultural land should be
protected for farming. Scenic lands, sensitive
wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime
agricultural land should be permanently
protected as open space.
Potentially Inconsistent The Project site is located within the City’s SOI, is
planned for growth under SP-3, and would be
annexed to the City consistent with adopted policy
and LAFCO review. In accordance with the LUCE
Update EIR, the Applicant must dedicate open
space land or in-lieu fees for newly annexed land at
a ratio of no less than 1:1. The Project would also
be required to provide for permanent conservation
of approximately 7.1 acres of land to maintain the
acreage of an existing open space and agricultural
conservation easement that would be partially
developed under the Project and requires
reconfiguration.
However, proposed development of the Upper
Terrace would impact scenic lands and sensitive
wildlife habitat that supports wildlife movement
and corridors. Loss of these resources would be
potentially inconsistent with this policy.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-17
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
1.8.3 –
Commercial uses
in the Greenbelt
The City shall not allow commercial
development within the greenbelt area unless
it is clearly incidental to and supportive of
agriculture or other open space uses.
Potentially Consistent The Project site is located within the City’s SOI,
within the greenbelt boundary, is planned for urban
growth under the LUCE Update, and
implementation of the Project would result in
annexation of the Project site to the City. The
Project would fill a development gap along LOVR
with residential and commercial development,
consistent with City policy for long-term protection
of agriculture and open space surrounding the City
within the greenbelt.
1.8.5 – Building
Design and
Siting
All new buildings and structures should be
subordinate to and in harmony with the
surrounding landscape. The City should
encourage County adoption of regulations
prohibiting new structures on ridge lines or in
other visually prominent or environmentally
sensitive locations, and allowing transfer of
development rights from one parcel to
another in order to facilitate this policy.
Potentially Inconsistent The FRSP design provides for larger buildings and
structures within the Lower Area of Villaggio and
Madonna Froom Ranch, adjacent to already
developed areas along LOVR such as the Irish
Hills Plaza, and in conformance with the
surrounding development and landscape, consistent
with the intent of this policy. However,
development of the Upper Terrace would place
new multi-story structures in open lands on the
Upper Terrace adjacent to and highly visible from
public roads and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
Such development would be potentially
inconsistent with the intent of this policy that new
buildings and structures should be subordinate to
and in harmony with the surrounding landscape.
1.8.6 – Wildlife
Habitat
The City shall ensure that continuous wildlife
habitat- including corridors free of human
disruption are preserved, and, where
necessary, created.
Consistent Project development would result in disruption of
wildlife movement, particularly to and across the
Upper Terrace through development in close
proximity to key seep and spring water sources for
wildlife and interrupt or prevent wildlife from the
Irish Hills Natural Reserve moving through or
across the Project site. Implementation of
mitigation would reduce Project impacts to a less
than significant degree and ensure continuous
movement through the site can be provided for
3.9-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
wildlife. Refer also to Section 3.4, Biological
Resources.
1.9.1 –
Agricultural
Protection
The City shall support preservation of
economically viable agricultural operations
and land within the URL and city limits. The
City should provide for the continuation of
farming through steps such as provision of
appropriate general plan designations and
zoning.
Potentially Consistent The City has considered the viability of agricultural
operations on the Specific Plan area through past
planning efforts such as the LUCE Update and the
identification of the Project site as SP- 3. The
Project site does not support any prime soils or
economically viable agricultural operations. The
existing open space and agricultural easement
would be replaced through dedication of an
equivalent continuous area of comparable soils.
These measures would mitigate impacts to
agricultural resources. See Section 3.2,
Agricultural Resources, for additional information
regarding the viability of agriculture onsite.
1.9.2 – Prime
Agricultural
Land
The City may allow development on prime
agricultural land if the development
contributes to the protection of agricultural
land in the urban reserve or greenbelt by one
or more of the following methods, or an
equally effective method: acting as a receiver
site for transfer of development credit from
prime agricultural land of equal quantity;
securing for the City or for a suitable land
conservation organization open space or
agricultural easements or fee ownership with
deed restrictions; helping to directly fund the
acquisition of fee ownership or open space
easements by the City or a suitable land
conservation organization. Development of
small parcels which are essentially
surrounded by urbanization need not
contribute to agricultural land protection.
Potentially Consistent The City has considered the protection of
agricultural resources on the Specific Plan area
through past planning efforts, such as the LUCE
Update and through the measures detailed for SP-3.
Therefore, although Project implementation would
result in loss of agricultural soils, which are
considered prime when irrigated, the site is not
currently irrigated, and has not been irrigated in the
past. The existing open space and agricultural
easement would be reconfigured. As discussed in
Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, there is no
prime farmland or farmland of state or local
importance identified within the Project site.
Development of the Project would not result in the
loss of prime agricultural land.
1.10.3 – Public
Access
Areas preserved for open space should
include public trail access, controlled to
protect the natural resources, to assure
Potentially Consistent The Project’s proposed land use plan and
conceptual site plan includes a trailhead park in
Madonna Froom Ranch providing improved public
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-19
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
reasonable security and privacy of dwellings,
and to allow continuing agricultural
operations.
access to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve’s trail
network and a new trail access point associated
with the Lower Area of Villaggio. Existing trails,
proposed public streets, and parking areas would
connect to a multi-use trail that would provide
public access along the 3,000-foot-long reach of
relocated Froom Creek onsite.
1.11.1 – Overall
Intent
The City shall manage the city’s growth rate
to provide for the balanced evolution of the
community and the gradual assimilation of
new residents. Growth must be consistent
with the City's ability to provide resources
and services and with State and City
requirements for protecting the environment,
the economy, and open space.
Potentially Consistent As discussed in Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous
Materials, and Wildfire, Section 3.11, Population
and Housing, Section 3.12, Public Services and
Recreation, Section 3.13, Transportation, and
Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation,
Project design and mitigation measures would
ensure that resources and services provided by the
City would be sufficient to address growth as a
result of the Project.
1.11.2 –
Residential
Growth Rate
The City shall manage the growth of the
City's housing supply so that it does not
exceed one percent per year, on average,
based on thresholds established by LUE
Table 3, excluding dwellings affordable to
residents with extremely low, very low or
low incomes as defined by the HE. This rate
of growth may continue so long as the City's
basic service capacity is assured. Table 3
below shows the approximate number of
dwellings and residents which would result
from the one percent maximum average
annual growth rate over the planning period.
Approved specific plan areas may develop in
accordance with the phasing schedule
adopted by each specific plan provided
thresholds established by Table 3 are not
exceeded. The City Council shall review the
rate of growth on an annual basis in
conjunction with the General Plan annual
Potentially Consistent As discussed in Section 3.11, Population and
Housing, buildout of the FRSP, excluding
inclusionary units, would contribute to an average
0.35 percent annual increase to the City’s total
housing supply. The average annual growth rate
would be below, and consistent with, the 1 percent
annual average increase allowed by this policy.
3.9-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
report to ensure consistency with the City’s
gradual assimilation policy.
1.13.1 – Water
and Sewer
Service
The City shall not provide nor permit
delivery of City potable water or sewer
services to the following areas. However, the
City will serve those parties having valid
previous connections or contracts with the
City.
A. Outside the City limits;
B. Outside the urban reserve line;
C. Above elevations reliably served by
gravity-flow in the City water system;
D. Below elevations reliably served by
gravity-flow or pumps in the City sewer
system.
Potentially Consistent The Project site is located within the City’s SOI
and implementation of the Project would result in
annexation of the Project site to the City.
Development under the FRSP would not occur
above or below elevation reliably served by
gravity-flow or pumps in the City’s water or sewer
system. The site is a designated expansion area that
would be entitled to both City water and sewer
services.
1.13.2 –
Recycled Water
Provision of recycled water outside of City
limits may only be considered in compliance
with WWME Policy A 7.3.4 and the
following findings:
A. Non-potable/recycled water is necessary
to support continued agricultural operations.
B. Provision of non-potable/recycled water
will not be used to increase development
potential of property being served.
C. Non-potable/recycled water will not be
further treated to make it potable.
D. Prior to provision of non-potable/recycled
water, the property to be served will record a
conservation, open space, Williamson Act, or
other easement instrument to maintain the
area being served in agriculture and open
space while recycled water is being provided.
Potentially Consistent The Project site is located within the City’s SOI
and implementation of the Project would result in
annexation of the Project site to the City.
Development under the FRSP would utilize
recycled water in a manner consistent with this
policy.
1.13.8 – Open
Space
The City shall require that each annexation
help secure permanent protection for areas
designated open space, and for the habitat
Potentially Inconsistent The Project would involve annexation of the site to
the City, with dedication of approximately 54
percent of the Specific Plan area (59 acres) as open
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-21
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
types and wildlife corridors within the
annexation area that are identified in the
COSE.
space. This area would include some but not all of
the sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, serpentine
native bunchgrass habitats). In addition, this open
space would be fragmented by proposed
development in the Upper Terrace, with residential
units, roads, driveways and other improvements
disrupting the continuity of this open space. The
Project would also result in direct removal of
wetland habitat with both onsite and offsite
restoration proposed. In addition, development of
the Upper Terrace would impact up to 12 special
status native plant species, disrupt wildlife
movement and corridors, and impact portions of
Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and associated sensitive
spring and seep habitats, with potential for
significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the
Project would be only partially consistent with this
policy (see Section 3.4, Biological Resources).
1.13.10 – Solid
Waste Capacity
In addition to other requirements for
adequate resources and services prior to
development, the City shall require that
adequate solid waste disposal capacity exists
before granting any discretionary land use
approval which would increase solid waste
generation.
Potentially Consistent As discussed in Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy
Conservation, waste produced by the Project would
not substantially affect the landfill’s capacity or
ability to comply with federal, state, or local
regulations. There is adequate capacity at the Cold
Canyon Landfill to support the Project.
1.14.7
Development Fee
Programs
The City shall maintain a development fee
program that covers the costs associated with
serving projects with City services and
facilities. This maintenance will include
periodic review of the fees collected to
ensure they are adequate to cover City costs.
Potentially Consistent The City actively maintains and updates its
development fee programs and the Project would
be subject to City development fees to covers the
costs associated with serving the Project with City
services and facilities.
2.3.1 – Mixed
Uses and
Convenience
The City shall promote a mix of compatible
uses in neighborhoods to serve the daily
needs of nearby residents, including schools,
parks, churches, and convenience retail
stores. Neighborhood shopping and services
Potentially Consistent The Project would be located adjacent to the Irish
Hills Plaza Shopping Center, providing immediate
access to convenience retail stores for food,
clothing, and other necessary goods. Following
mitigation discussed in Section 3.12, Public
3.9-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
should be available within about one mile of
all dwellings. When nonresidential,
neighborhood serving uses are developed,
existing housing shall be preserved and new
housing added where possible. If existing
dwellings are removed for such uses, the
development shall include replacement
dwellings (no net loss of residential units).
Services and Recreation, sufficient access to
schools and parks would be available to Project
residents. Several churches exist within the Project
vicinity, including the immediately adjacent
Mountainbrook Church as well as several churches
in residential areas to the north of the Project site.
No existing housing would be removed.
2.3.7 – Natural
Features
The City shall require residential
developments to preserve and incorporate as
amenities natural site features, such as land
forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife
habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants.
Potentially Inconsistent Project development would result in substantial
changes to onsite natural features through mass
grading, changes in topography and alteration or
elimination of substantial areas of sensitive
habitats, including development in close proximity
to 12 rare plant species; loss and disruption of
sensitive habitats such as serpentine native
grassland, springs, and seeps; and loss or disruption
of wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors with
potential significant and unavoidable impacts.
Therefore, the Project would be potentially
inconsistent with this policy.
6.4.1 – Hillside
Policies
The City shall maintain comprehensive
standards and policies for hillside
development for the following reasons:
A. To protect and preserve scenic hillside
areas and natural features such as the
volcanic Morros, ridge lines, plant
communities, rock outcroppings and steep
slope areas that function as landscape
backdrops for the community.
B. To set the limits of commercial and
residential development in hillside areas by
establishing a permanent open space green
belt at the edge of the community.
C. To protect the health, safety and welfare
of community residents by directing
development away from areas with hazards
Potentially Inconsistent The Project would include development above the
150-foot elevation, subject to a General Plan
Amendment, that would result in significant,
unavoidable impacts to aesthetics including views
from trails within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve
and views from public roads towards the Irish
Hills. Scenic hillside areas and natural features
within the Upper Terrace that serve as landscape
backdrops along the edge of the City would be
fragmented by proposed development. The Project
would also impact and disrupt natural features such
as rare plant communities, including serpentine
native bunch grassland and wetlands and up to 12
special status plant species would also be subject to
direct and indirect impacts. Project development
would also impinge directly on the border of the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-23
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
such as landslides, wildland fires, flooding
and erosion.
Irish Hills Natural Reserve, disrupting the
continuity of open space greenbelt along the edge
of the City. Finally, Project development would
expose new residences to significant wildland fire
hazards. Because many of these impacts would be
significant and unavoidable, the Project would be
potentially inconsistent with this policy. See
Sections, 3.4, Biological Resources, 3.7 Hazards,
Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire, and 3.1,
Aesthetics.
6.4.2 -
Development
Limits
The City shall establish and maintain clear
development limit lines for hillside planning
areas, and special design standards for the
hillside areas. The location of the
development limit and the standards should
cause development to avoid encroachment
into sensitive habitats or unique resources as
defined in the COSE, and public health and
safety problems related to utility service,
access, wildland fire hazard, erosion,
flooding, and landslides and other geologic
hazards. Also, the development limit line and
the standards should help protect the city’s
scenic setting.
6.4.7 – Hillside
Planning Areas
The City shall urge the County to implement
the following hillside policies. Specific
policies to address particular concerns for the
area as shown on Figure 7 are listed below.
For each of these areas, land above the
development limit line should be secured in
open space.
H. The Irish Hills area should secure
permanent open space with no building sites
above the 150-foot elevation, in conjunction
with any subdivision or development of the
lower areas.
6.6.1 – Creek and
Wetlands
Management
Objectives
Maintain and restore natural conditions and
habitats; minimize flooding damage;
recognize sections of creeks which are in
largely natural areas and manage for
maximum ecological value. The City shall
manage its lake, creeks, wetlands,
Potentially Inconsistent Project development would result in large-scale
planned restoration of Froom Creek and
improvements to flood control and public access,
consistent with the intent of this policy. However,
proposed substantial changes to onsite natural
drainage patterns, elimination of some wetland and
riparian features and impacts to the ecological
3.9-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
floodplains, and associated wetlands to
achieve the multiple objectives of:
A. Maintaining and restoring natural
conditions and fish and wildlife habitat;
B. Preventing loss of life and minimizing
property damage from flooding;
C. Providing recreational opportunities which
are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat,
flood protection, and use of adjacent private
properties.
value of Drainages, 1, 2, and 3 would cause
potential inconsistencies as discussed below:
A. Project improvements to Froom Creek would
restore or create riparian habitat along the creek
channel as well as potentially improve passage for
steelhead trout and other wildlife species along the
realigned Froom Creek channel. However,
development within the Upper Terrace in close
proximity to segments of Drainages 1, 2, and 3, as
well as construction of roads across and culverts
within these tributary drainages could substantially
reduce the ecological value of the perennial springs
and seeps to both onsite wildlife and that from the
adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve, potentially
inconsistent with the intent of this policy.
B. Project flood control improvements would
confine Froom Creek floodwaters, reducing onsite
and offsite flooding, consistent with intent of this
policy.
C. The Project would include improved
recreational opportunities through installation of
amenities such as including a 6-foot-wide public
trail and park benches along the bank of Froom
Creek, consistent with the intent of this policy.
6.6.3 –
Amenities and
Access
New development adjacent to creeks must
respect the natural environment and
incorporate the natural features as project
amenities, providing doing so does not
diminish natural values. Developments along
creeks should include public access across
the development site to the creek and along
the creek, provided that wildlife habitat,
public safety, and reasonable privacy and
security of the development can be
maintained, consistent with the COSE.
Potentially Inconsistent The Project would include restoration and
enhancement of both natural resources (e.g.,
riparian habitat) and public access along Froom
Creek. Amenities including a 6-foot-wide trail,
picnic benches, and trash facilities would be
located adjacent to the creek and would be
accessible to the public from public streets. Further,
implementation of MM BIO-1 through -8 would
ensure appropriate replacement of adversely
affected wetland and riparian habitat. However,
development of the Upper Terrace with units, roads
and driveways located proximate to Froom Creek
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-25
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
tributary and Drainages 1, 2, and 3 would disrupt
the natural environment and values of these
tributary drainages and their ability to sustain rare
plants and wildlife movement and access,
potentially inconsistent with the intent of this
policy. Mitigation is identified, including a
requirement for a comprehensive Biological
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP, which
would increase the Project’s consistency with this
policy.
6.6.5 – Runoff
Reduction and
Groundwater
Recharge
The City shall require the use of methods to
facilitate rainwater percolation for roof areas
and outdoor hardscaped areas where practical
to reduce surface water runoff and aid in
groundwater recharge.
Potentially Consistent The Project includes BMPs, including use of
bioswales, rain gardens, and detention basins to
facilitate rainwater percolation, aid in groundwater
recharge, and reduce surface water runoff,
consistent with this policy.
6.6.6 –
Development
Requirements
The City shall require project designs that
minimize drainage concentrations and
impervious coverage. Floodplain areas
should be avoided and, where feasible, any
channelization shall be designed to provide
the appearance of a natural water course.
Potentially Consistent Project development would preserve approximately
54 percent of the site in open space, minimizing
impervious surfaces, and include rain gardens and
bioswales. Much of the area of proposed
development is currently located within a
floodplain; however, implementation of the Project
would elevate lower portions of the site and
reconfigure the floodplain such that no
development would occur in a designated
floodplain area. Froom Creek would be realigned
to confine the floodplain largely within the creek
channel outside developed areas and revegetated to
have the appearance of a natural water course
consistent with the intent of this policy.
6.6.7 – Discharge
of Urban
Pollutants
The City shall require appropriate runoff
control measures as part of future
development proposals to minimize
discharge of urban pollutants (such as oil and
grease) into area drainages.
Potentially Consistent
The Project identifies runoff control measures and
water quality treatment components that would
minimize or eliminate discharge of pollutants,
including oils, grease, erosion, and sedimentation.
In addition, all future development under the Draft
3.9-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
6.6.8 – Erosion
Control
Measures
The City shall require adequate provision of
erosion control measures as part of new
development to minimize sedimentation of
streams and drainage channels.
FRSP would be required to comply with the
Central Coast RWQCB’s Post Construction
Stormwater Requirements.
8.1.5 – SP-3,
Madonna on
LOVR Specific
Plan Area
The purpose of the specific plan is to provide
design flexibility that will secure the
appropriate development of the site while
protecting sensitive environmental resources
on the site. Development on the site should
be a compact, mixed-use project that
provides workforce housing options and
neighborhood commercial uses that support
pedestrian and bicycle access.
Potentially Inconsistent The Project would contain compact mixed-use
workforce housing and commercial development
within Madonna Froom Ranch. Senior housing and
support facilities and private neighborhood
commercial would be more dispersed within the
Lower Area and Upper Terrace of Villaggio.
Conceptual circulation plans are also designed to
support pedestrian and bicycle access within, to,
and from Madonna Froom Ranch and adjacent
commercial development. See Section 3.13,
Transportation. However, the Project would
include a General Plan Amendment to allow for
development above the 150-foot elevation, which
was not initially contemplated in the LUE. The
Upper Terrace would include new residences,
parking garages, roads and driveways constructed
within and immediately adjacent to
environmentally sensitive resources, including
native serpentine bunchgrass and wetland habitats,
serpentine rock outcroppings that support special
status plant species, and springs and seeps that
support wildlife movement. Therefore, the Project
would be potentially inconsistent with this policy.
See Section 3.4, Biological Resources.
9.7 – Sustainable
Design
The City shall promote, and where
appropriate, require sustainable building
practices that consume less energy, water and
other resources, facilitate natural ventilation,
use daylight effectively, and are healthy, safe,
comfortable, and durable.
Potentially Consistent The Project would provide passive heating,
utilization of renewable energy sources (e.g., wind,
solar), and incorporation of native and non-invasive
drought tolerant plant materials that would promote
and require implementation of sustainable design.
These actions would implement City sustainable
design policies and would comply with green 9.13 – Incentive
Program
The City shall consider the feasibility of
providing incentives for new and renovate
Potentially Consistent
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-27
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
projects that incorporate sustainable design
features such as constructing new buildings
that are solar ready, or off-setting significant
operational energy use through use of solar
water heating, photovoltaic systems,
geothermal or wind energy systems.
building certification on the City’s General Plan
COSE and Climate Action Plan.
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
2.2.1 –
Atmospheric
Change
City actions shall seek to minimize
undesirable climate changes and
deterioration of the atmosphere’s protective
functions that result from the release of
carbon dioxide and other substances.
Potentially Consistent Buildout of the Draft FRSP would result in
substantial GHG generation during construction
and operation. Although bicycle and pedestrian
amenities and local-serving commercial uses would
be provided, the site’s distance from downtown and
lack of high-frequency transit routes inhibits
minimization of long-term GHG generation. See
Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. Implementation of air quality mitigation
measures would reduce Project emissions below
adopted thresholds and minimize deterioration of
the atmosphere.
2.2.4 – Promote
walking, biking,
and use of public
transit use to
reduce
dependency on
motor vehicles
City actions shall seek to reduce dependency
on gasoline- or diesel-powered motor
vehicles and to encourage walking, biking,
and public transit use.
Potentially Consistent The Project is designed to enhance and provide for
multi-modal access within, to, and from the site.
The Project would facilitate the development of
new residences and mixed-use development
adjacent to existing developed commercial and
residential areas, supporting walkability and
reducing vehicle trip lengths to and from the home
and workplace.
3.2 – Historic
and Architectural
Resources
The City will expand community
understanding, appreciation, and support for
historic and architectural resource
preservation to ensure long-term protection
of cultural resources.
Potentially Consistent The Project would preserve historic buildings
within the Froom Ranch Historic District.
Consistent with MM CR-8, the Project would
develop and distribute an informational pamphlet
that documents the potential historic district and its
cultural and architectural heritage. The pamphlet
would highlight social (Froom family) and
industrial (dairy industry) factors relevant to the
3.9-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
property and region, and 500 free copies would be
distributed in local museums, heritage
organizations, and the trailhead park. After
distribution of physical copies, a digital copy of the
pamphlet would remain available.
3.3.1 – Historic
Preservation
Significant historic and architectural
resources should be identified, preserved,
and rehabilitated.
Potentially Inconsistent Implementation of MM CR-9 through -13 would
ensure relocation and restoration and/or
reconstruction of the four individually eligible
historical resources would conform with the
Secretary’s Standards, and MM CR-14 would
address potential for construction vibration to
disturb these buildings. Additionally, these
measures would lessen impacts to the potential
historic district by ensuring that relocation and
reconstruction of the main residence, dairy barn,
creamery, and granary would retain character-
defining features that convey the district’s
historical significance, and that demolished historic
structures would be thoroughly documented and
curated. However, because the demolition of
portion of a historical resource represents an
irreversible change to the historical resource, the
Project may be inconsistent with these policies.
3.3.3 – Historical
Documentation
Buildings and other cultural features that are
not historically significant but which have
historical or architectural value should be
preserved or relocated where feasible. Where
preservation or relocation is not feasible, the
resources shall be documented and the
information retained in a secure but publicly
accessible location. An acknowledgement of
the resources should be incorporated within
the site through historic signage and the
reuse or display of historic material and
artifacts.
3.3.4 – Changes
to Historic
Buildings
Changes or additions to historically or
architecturally significant buildings should
be consistent with the original structure and
follow the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Buildings. New buildings in historical
districts, or on historically significant sites,
should reflect the form, spacing and
neighborhood’s architectural character
should be maintained.
3.5.1 –
Archaeological
Resource
Protection
The City shall provide for the protection of
both known and potential archaeological
resources. To avoid significant damage to
important archaeological sites, all available
measures, including purchase of the property
Potentially Consistent The Specific Plan includes policies for the
protection of known and unknown pre-historic
cultural and archaeological resources. Policy 3.3.4
of the Specific Plan, once adopted, would
incorporate Section 4.30 of the City’s
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-29
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
in fee or easement, shall be explored at the
time of a development proposal. Where such
measures are not feasible and development
would adversely affect identified
archaeological or paleontological resources,
mitigation shall be required pursuant to the
Archaeological Resource Preservation
Program Guidelines.
Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,
Mitigation Measures, and Avoidance by reference
to ensure the identification, protection, and
mitigation of archaeological resources occurs
consistent with adopted City standards. With
mitigation included in Section 3.4, Cultural and
Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project would have
less than significant effects on cultural resources
and the Project would be consistent with these
policies. 3.5.2 – Native
American Sites
All Native American cultural and
archaeological sites shall be protected as
open space wherever possible.
3.5.4 –
Archaeological
Sensitive Areas
Development within an archaeologically
sensitive area shall require a preliminary site
survey by a qualified archaeologist
knowledgeable in Native American cultures,
prior to a determination of the potential
environmental impacts of the project.
3.5.5 –
Archaeological
Resources
Present
Where a preliminary site survey finds
substantial archaeological resources, before
permitting construction, the City shall
require a mitigation plan to protect the
resources. Possible mitigation measures
include: presence of a qualified professional
during initial grading or trenching; project
redesign; covering with a layer of fill;
excavation removal and curation in an
appropriate facility under the direction of a
qualified professional.
3.5.6 – Qualified
Archaeologist
Present
Where substantial archaeological resources
are discovered during construction or
grading activities, all such activities in the
immediate area of the find shall cease until a
qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in
Native American cultures can determine the
3.9-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
significance of the resource and recommend
alternative mitigation measures.
3.5.7 – Native
American
Participant
Native American participation shall be
included in the City’s Guidelines for
resource assessment and impact mitigation.
Native American representatives should be
present during archaeological excavation and
during construction in an area likely to
contain cultural resources. The Native
American community shall be consulted as
knowledge of cultural resources expands and
as the City considered updates or significant
changes to its General Plan.
Potentially Consistent The City initiated consultation with the NAHC and
local interested Tribal agencies and representatives
on the presence of sensitive archaeological sites
and resources pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52. The
results of this consultation process have been
incorporated into the design of this Project, and
potential impacts to these sensitive sites and
resources would be avoided or mitigated through
implementation of MM CR-1 through --7, that
provide for monitoring during Project construction
and requirements for incidental discovery of
resources onsite, consistent with these policies. 3.5.8 –
Protection of
Native American
Cultural Sites
The City will ensure the protection of
archaeological sites that may be culturally
significant to Native Americans, even if they
have lost their scientific or archaeological
integrity through previous disturbance; sites
that may have religious value, even though
no artifacts are present; and sites that contain
artifacts which may have intrinsic value,
even though their archaeological context has
been disturbed.
4.3.4 – Use of
Energy-Efficient,
Renewable
Energy
Resources
The City will promote the use of cost
effective, renewable, non-depleting energy
sources wherever possible, both in new
construction projects and in existing
buildings and facilities.
Potentially Consistent The Draft FRSP provides policies promoting and
requiring implementation of sustainable design
including resource conservation and energy
efficiency requirements, photovoltaic systems, EV
charging stations, 100 percent use of carbon-free
energy supplies, and reductions in VMT to the
maximum extent feasible. These policies are
intended to align with City policies for sustainable
design and compliance with green building
certification, including the City’s goal for
achieving carbon neutrality by 2035, promoting
energy efficiency, and the use of renewable energy
supplies.
4.3.6 – Energy-
Efficient and
Green Building
in New
Development
The City shall encourage energy-efficient
“green buildings” as certified by the U.S.
Green Building Council’s Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Program or equivalent certification.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-31
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
4.4.1 –
Pedestrian- and
Bicycle-friendly
Design
Residences, work places and facilities for all
other activities will be located and designed
to promote travel by pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Potentially Consistent The Draft FRSP would facilitate mixed-use
development adjacent to the Irish Hills Plaza and
other existing urban development. The Draft FRSP
land use and circulation plan promotes travel by
pedestrians and bicyclists both onsite and offsite by
providing a new sidewalk and bike lane along
LOVR, pedestrian connections to Irish Hills Plaza,
a new transit stop, and a new multi-use trail along
Froom Creek.
4.4.2 –
Alternative
Transportation
The City’s transportation and circulation
systems shall foster travel by modes other
than motor vehicles, including walking,
bicycles and public transit.
4.5.1 – Solar
Access
Standards
To encourage use of solar energy, reasonable
solar access shall be provided and protected.
The City will protect reasonable solar
exposure for existing collectors and likely
locations of future collectors, both active and
passive. Standards for the subdivision and
development of property should assure
desirable solar access.
Potentially Consistent Section 4.7 Energy Conservation & Sustainability
of the Draft FRSP provides site design and
development practices to maximize solar exposure
and opportunities for passive heating, cooling, and
lighting. Unwanted heat gain would be minimized
through implementation of FRSP policies,
encouraging the use of exterior shading devices,
skylights, daylighting controls, thermal mass
building components, natural ventilation, and
installation of high-performance glazing. FRSP
goals, policies, and regulations developed based on
the City’s COSE and Climate Action Plan would
require the use of photovoltaic solar collectors
where feasible to offset new energy demand.
Vegetation and topography onsite would permit
siting and development of solar collectors. No solar
collectors on adjacent properties would be shaded
as a result of Project implementation.
See Section 2.4.2, Project Design for a complete
list of Project sustainability features.
4.5.2 –
Subdivision
Design for Solar
Access
In subdivisions, the layout of streets and lots
shall provide and protect solar exposure. To
assure the maximum control over potential
shading features, the longest dimension of
each lot should be oriented within 30
degrees of south, unless the subdivider
demonstrates that for certain lots any of the
following applies:
The lots are large enough to allow desirable
solar access, regardless of lot orientation.
Buildings will be constructed as part of the
tract development, and the buildings will be
properly oriented, with adequate solar
access.
Topography makes variations from the
prescribed orientation desirable to reduce
grading or tree removal, or to take advantage
of a setting that would favor greater reliance
3.9-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
on early morning or late afternoon solar
exposure.
Topographical conditions, such as steep,
north-facing slopes or shading by the mass
of a hill, make solar energy infeasible.
The size of the subdivision, combined with
the existing orientation of surrounding
streets and lots, precludes desirable lot
orientation.
4.5.7 –
Unwanted Solar
Heat Gain
Sites and buildings should be designed to
avoid unwanted heat gain from solar
exposure. Features that provide shading at
suitable times of the day and year and
generally should be “passive” or automatic,
avoiding the need for occupants to regularly
monitor or adjust them.
4.6.8 – Energy
Efficient Project
Design
Encourage energy-efficient project design by
emphasizing use of daylight and solar
exposure, shading and natural ventilation, as
opposed to designing a particular image and
relying on mechanical systems to maintain
functionality and comfort. Educate City
staff, citizen advisers, developers and
designers on ways to exceed minimum state
energy standards.
4.6.9 – Solar
Access for New
Development
Address solar access in all plans needing
City discretionary approval, considering
both structures and vegetation. Shading by
vegetation is also subject to the California
Solar Shade Control Act. This act prohibits
the placement of vegetation that would shade
a solar collector on another’s property, if the
collector meets certain height and setback
criteria. The City will advise those seeking
permits for solar collectors to document
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-33
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
vegetation existing when the collector is
installed or built.
4.6.17 – Require
Solar Power for
New Dwellings
Within new single-family residential projects
of 20 or more dwelling units, 5 percent of
the total number of dwellings shall be built
with photovoltaic solar collectors beginning
in 2008; this percentage shall increase 4
percent each year until 2020. Multi-family
residential developments shall be exempt
from this requirement, except for common-
use facilities such as recreation rooms, spas,
or swimming pools. In these cases, the
common facilities shall be built with
photovoltaic solar collectors.
5.5.8 –
Recycling
Facilities in New
Development
Requires facilities in new developments to
accommodate and encourage recycling.
Potentially Consistent The Draft FRSP would designate communal
collection areas for trash, recycling, and food waste
material that would be accessible to municipal solid
waste collectors.
7.3.1 – Protect
Listed Species
City will comply with state and Federal
requirements for listed species; City will
protect listed species through its actions
on…development applications.
Potentially Inconsistent The Project would potentially impact two listed
species, the state and federally-listed endangered
Chorro Creek bog thistle and the federally-
threatened southern steelhead trout. Development
within the Upper Terrace would be located in close
proximity (as close as 15 to 20 feet) to populations
of the Chorro Creek bog thistle known to occur
within Drainages 1 and 2. Development footprints
may avoid direct impacts to known mapped
locations of this species; however, mass grading
and construction in such close proximity to this
endangered species has potential to result in loss of
individuals or take or this species. In addition, there
is a high potential for indirect loss of take during
construction and operation (e.g., landscape
maintenance, fire buffer clearance, resident
activities) as development would closely bracket
populations in Drainage 2 and be located near this
3.9-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
in Drainage 1. Mitigation is identified including
increased buffers and implementation of a
comprehensive Biological Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan, which would further the Project’s
consistency with this policy. However, this impact
could not be fully mitigated without major changes
to current development configuration within the
Upper Terrace. In addition, while potentially
providing long-term habitat improvement benefits,
construction activities during realignment of Froom
Creek could impact southern steelhead trout due to
inadvertent take; however, this impact could be
feasibly mitigated. Because impacts to the
endangered Chorro Creek bog thistle would be
significant and unavoidable, the Project would be
potentially inconsistent with this policy. See
Section 3.4 Biological Resources.
7.3.2 Species of
Local Concern
The City will:
Maintain healthy populations of native
species in the long term, even though they
are not listed for protection under State or
Federal laws. These “species of local
concern” are at the limit of their range in San
Luis Obispo, or threats to their habitat are
increasing.
Identify the location, habitat and buffer
needs of species of local concern. This
information will be developed by qualified
people early in the planning and
development review process.
Protect species of local concern through: its
actions on land use designations,
development standards, development
applications; the location, design,
construction, and maintenance of City
Potentially Inconsistent The Project site supports habitat for several listed
species of local concern, other special-status plants
and wildlife, as well as sensitive riparian, native
bunchgrass, and freshwater marsh habitats. A total
of seven plant species of local concern are known
to occur within the Upper Terrace generally above
the 150-foot elevation. Project development has the
potential to directly or indirectly adversely affect
these species, their range, and/or their habitat.
Although the conceptual land use plan attempts to
avoid direct removal of known locations of such
species, large-scale mass grading of the Upper
Terraces could lead to accidental or inadvertent
loss of such species while Project operation and
occupancy could lead to indirect losses as
residences, roads, parking areas, trails and other
uses areas would be interspersed among known
locations of such species, leading to potential
indirect impacts to such species through fire buffer
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-35
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
facilities; land that the City owns or
manages.
Encourage individuals, organizations, and
other agencies to protect species of local
concern within their areas of responsibility
and jurisdiction.
Protect sensitive habitat, including creeks,
from encroachment by livestock and human
activities.
and landscape management and human activities.
Further, while Froom Creek would be restored and
enhanced, development of the Upper Terrace
would directly and indirectly impact sensitive
creek, seep and spring habitats in Drainage 1, 2,
and 3, as well as native grassland habitats and
wetlands leading to long-term degradation of these
sensitive habitats. While FRSP policies and
mitigation measures in Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, would partially mitigate potential harm
or loss, impacts to species of local concern and
sensitive habitats would remain significant and
unavoidable. Therefore, the Project would be
potentially inconsistent with this policy.
7.3.3 – Wildlife
Habitat and
Corridors
Continuous wildlife habitat, including
corridors free of human disruption, shall be
preserved and where necessary, created by
interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat,
and corridors.
Potentially Inconsistent The Project would include development of housing,
roads, driveways, parking areas and walkways
within the Upper Terrace above the 150-foot
elevation. The Upper Terrace development would
be clustered between Drainages 1 and 3, closely
bracketing both sides of Drainage 2. This clustered
development would be linked to the Lower Area by
an approximately 1,000-foot-long private access
road and lighted walkways that would traverse the
proposed open space area. This road would be
traversed by hundreds of vehicles, pedestrians,
cyclists, and other users per day, with potential for
interruption of wildlife movement and increases in
vehicle strikes. Although substantial areas of open
space would be preserved and continue to be
accessible to wildlife in the Upper Terrace, the
development of medium and higher density
residential units with associated increased noise,
light, and activities in the middle of the proposed
open space adjacent to or astride three drainages
with perennial springs and seeps on the Upper
Terrace adjacent to Irish Hills Natural Reserve
3.9-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
would severely disrupt existing continuous wildlife
habitat. This development would introduce high
levels of human disruption in the middle of an
environmentally sensitive wildlife habitat, with
such development particularly inhibiting wildlife
access to key spring and seep water sources which
would be closely bordered by new residences.
Further, this would greatly increase potential for
urban-wildland conflicts related to trash
management, pesticide impacts to wildlife (e.g.,
rodenticide impacts to predators), predation of
domestic pets by, and/or adverse human interaction
with larger predators (e.g., coyotes, mountain
lions). Therefore, although the Project would
preserve substantial amounts of open space, its
value to wildlife would be diminished and the
Project would be potentially inconsistent with this
policy.
7.5.1 –
Protection of
Significant Trees
Significant trees, as determined by the City
Council upon the recommendation of the
Tree Committee, Planning or Architectural
Review Committee, are those making
substantial contributions to natural habitat or
to the urban landscape due to their species,
size, or rarity. Significant trees, particularly
native species, shall be protected. Removal
of significant trees shall be subject to the
criteria and mitigation requirements in
Chapter 8.6.3 [COSE Policy]. Oak
Woodland communities in the Greenbelt and
in open space areas shall be protected.
Potentially Consistent Mature native and non-native trees would be
potentially removed, trimmed, limbed, or otherwise
adversely affected through Project development.
Implementation of MM BIO-15 requiring daily
surveys during construction by a City-approved
arborist or qualified biologist would protect
remaining native trees by ensuring avoidance and
proper protection. Loss of native or riparian trees
would require replacement, and would ensure
individual discretionary actions mitigate for
impacts to significant trees. Refer to Section 3.4,
Biological Resources.
7.5.2 Use of
Native California
Plants in Urban
Landscaping
Landscaping should incorporate native plant
species, with selection appropriate for
location.
Potentially Consistent Draft FRSP policies would require that landscape
plans use native and non-invasive drought-tolerant
plant materials. These policies would require that
park landscaping consist primarily of drought-
tolerant trees, shrubs, and native grasses.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-37
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
7.5.4 –
Preservation of
Grassland
Communities
and Other
Habitat Types
Grassland communities and other habitat
types in the Greenbelt and in designated
open space areas shall be preserved.
Potentially Inconsistent The majority of the serpentine bunchgrass
grassland onsite would be preserved within the
designated 59 acres of open space. MM BIO-1
through -8 would minimize disturbance of onsite
grassland habitats, but full replacement of 4.74
acres of directly impacted serpentine bunchgrass
grassland may be infeasible due to the difficulty of
reestablishing the full complement of conditions
and grasslands species. Therefore, impacts to this
sensitive habitat would be considered significant
and unavoidable. Therefore, the Project would be
potentially inconsistent with this policy.
7.5.5 – Soil
Conservation
and Landform
Modification
Public and private development projects
shall be designed to prevent soil erosion,
minimize landform modifications to avoid
habitat disturbance, and conserve and reuse
onsite soils.
Potentially Inconsistent The Project would involve significant landform
modification, including major grading on slopes
within the Upper Terrace above the 150-foot
elevation and realignment of 3,000 feet of Froom
Creek. Site grading would include approximately
379,200 cy of fill including 120,000 cy of import;
253,000 cy of cut would be reused and balanced
onsite. Although RWQCB permit requirements and
BMPs would minimize soil erosion during and
following construction, substantial areas of
sensitive wetland, riparian and native grassland
would be disturbed, damaged, or removed. While
much of this disturbed habitat would be restored
onsite or replaced offsite, long-term loss of 4.7
acres of native grassland habitat and potential
ongoing disturbance of wetlands, seeps and springs
in Drainages 1, 2, and 3 would not be fully
mitigated. While grading and development within
Madonna Froom Ranch and the Lower Area of
Villaggio would appear to be consistent with the
intent of this policy, development of the Upper
Terrace in areas above the 150-foot elevation
would require both substantial landform alteration
3.9-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
and disturbance of sensitive habitats. Therefore, the
Project would be inconsistent with this policy.
7.7.6 – Replace
Invasive, Non-
Native
Vegetation with
Native
Vegetation
The City and private development will
protect and enhance habitat by removing
invasive, non-native vegetation and by
replanting it with native California plant
species.
Potentially Consistent The Project would include habitat restoration,
designation of open space, and realignment of
Froom Creek that would involve removal of non-
native species and replanting with native
vegetation. Draft FRSP policies would require
existing invasive plants and noxious weeds
removal prior to landscape installation. See Section
3.4, Biological Resources.
7.7.7 – Preserve
Ecotones
Condition or modify development approvals
to ensure that “ecotones,” or natural
transitions along the edges of different
habitat types, are preserved and enhanced
because of their importance to wildlife.
Natural ecotones of particular concern
include those along the margins of riparian
corridors, marshlands, vernal pools, and oak
woodlands, where they transition to
grasslands and other habitat types
Potentially Inconsistent Project implementation would preserve ecotones
and/or natural transitions between the realigned
Froom Creek and the Calle Joaquin wetlands, as
well as portions of ecotones between Drainages 1,
2, and 3 and surrounding grasslands and between
oak woodlands and surrounding grasslands.
However, ecotones between the riparian woodlands
along the LOVR ditch, Calle Joaquin wetlands and
adjacent grasslands, between Drainage 2 and
adjacent grasslands and coastal sage scrub on the
Upper Terrace and grasslands, around the
confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3, and between
the realigned Froom Creek and adjacent grasslands
would be substantially reduced in extent or in some
cases eliminated. In particular, the Calle Joaquin
wetlands and realigned From Creek would be
isolated from grasslands and drainages in the Upper
Terrace. Therefore, the Project is potentially
inconsistent with the intent of this Policy.
7.7.8 – Protect
Wildlife
Corridors
Condition development permits in
accordance with applicable mitigation
measures to ensure that important corridors
for wildlife movement and dispersal are
protected. Features of particular importance
to wildlife include riparian corridors,
wetlands, lake shorelines, and protected
Potentially Inconsistent The Project would include development of housing,
roads, driveways, parking areas and walkways
within the Upper Terrace above the 150-foot
elevation contour. The Upper Terrace development
would be clustered between Drainages 1 and 3,
closely bracketing both sides of Drainage 2. This
clustered development would be linked to the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-39
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
natural areas with cover and water. Linkages
and corridors shall be provided to maintain
connections between habitat areas.
Lower Area by an approximately 1,000-foot-long
private access road and lighted walkways that
would traverse the open space. This road would be
traversed by hundreds of vehicles, pedestrians,
cyclists, and other users per day, with potential for
interruption of wildlife movement and increases in
vehicle strikes. Although substantial areas of open
space would be preserved and continue to be
accessible to wildlife in the Upper Terrace, the
development of residential units with associated
increased noise, light and activities in the middle of
the proposed open space adjacent to or across three
drainages with perennial springs and seeps on the
Upper Terrace adjacent to Irish Hills Natural
Reserve would disrupt existing continuous wildlife
habitat. This development would introduce high
levels of human disruption in the middle of an
environmentally sensitive wildlife habitat, with
such development particularly inhibiting wildlife
access to key spring and seep water sources which
would be closely bordered by new residences.
Further, this would greatly increase potential for
urban-wildland conflicts related to trash
management, pesticide impacts to wildlife (e.g.,
rodenticide impacts to predators), and predation of
domestic pets by, and/or adverse human interaction
with larger predators (e.g., coyotes, mountain
lions). Therefore, although the Project would
preserve substantial amounts of open space, its
value to wildlife would be diminished and the
Project would be potentially inconsistent with this
policy.
7.7.9 – Creek
Setbacks
As further described in the Zoning
Regulations [Section 17.16.025], the City
will maintain creek setbacks to include: an
appropriate separation from the physical top
Potentially Consistent The Project would establish and maintain a
minimum 35-foot setback from the realigned
Froom Creek top of bank as set forth in City policy.
Planned 20-foot setbacks from Drainages 1, 2, and
3.9-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
of bank, the appropriate floodway as
identified in the Flood Management Policy,
native riparian plants or wildlife habitat, and
space for paths called for by any city-
adopted plan. In addition, creek setbacks
should be consistent with the following:
The following items should be no closer to
the wetland or creek than the setback line:
buildings, streets, driveways, parking lots,
aboveground utilities, and outdoor
commercial storage or work areas.
Development approvals should respect the
separation from creek banks and protection
of floodways and natural features identified
in Part A above, whether or not the setback
line has been established.
3, which are tributaries to Froom Creek, pursuant
to Policy 3.2.2 of the proposed FRSP, would be
insufficient to protect wildlife and endangered
plant habitat or long-term habitat viability,
particularly within Drainage 2. However, because
these tributary drainages are not flood hazards or
specifically identified in City Flood Management
Policy, the Project would be consistent within this
policy.
8.2.2 – Open
Space within the
Urban Area
Within the urban area, the City will secure
and maintain a diverse network of open land
encompassing particularly valuable natural
and agricultural resources, connected with
the landscape around the urban area.
Particularly valuable resources include:
A. Creek corridors, including open channels
with natural banks and vegetation.
C. Wetlands and vernal pools.
D. Undeveloped land within the Urban
Reserve not intended for urban uses.
E. Grassland communities and woodlands.
F. Wildlife habitat and corridors for the
health and mobility of individuals and of the
species.
G. The habitat of species listed as threatened
or endangered by the State or Federal
governments.
Potentially Inconsistent The Project would dedicate 59 acres as open space,
including the realigned Froom Creek corridor,
Calle Joaquin wetlands and grassland and other
habitats above the 150-foot elevation adjacent to
the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which would
support diverse open space with valuable habitats.
However, while the Project would be consistent
with the majority of items listed in A-M, it would
diminish the value to onsite wildlife corridors (F)
as discussed under Policy 7.3.3 Wildlife Corridors
and Habitats, above, and result in significant and
unavoidable impacts to the serpentine bunchgrass
grasslands which correspond to the Nassella
pulchra Herbaceous Alliance, a unique plant
community, as well as impacting several species of
local concern as discussed under Policy 7.3.2
Species of Local Concern (M). Therefore,
development of the Project is potentially
inconsistent with this policy.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-41
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
H. Prime agricultural soils and economically
viable farmland.
I. Groundwater recharge areas.
J. Historically open-space settings for
cultural resources, native and traditional
landscapes.
K. Hills, ridgelines and the Morros.
M. Unique plant and animal communities,
including “species of local concern.”
8.3.1 Open
Space within an
Urban Area
The City will preserve the areas listed in
Goal 8.2.2 (creek corridors, including open
channel with natural banks and vegetation,
wetlands and vernal pools, grassland
communities and woodlands, wildlife habitat
corridors, habitat of listed species, and
unique plant and animal communities
including “species of local concern”) and
will encourage individuals, organizations,
and other agencies to do likewise. The City
will designate these areas as Open Space or
Agriculture in the General Plan.
Potentially Inconsistent As discussed above, although consistent with the
intent of many factors listed in Policy 8.2.2, the
Project would diminish the value of wildlife
corridors and habitat onsite, impact six plant
species of local concern, and eliminate 4.7 acres of
the unique serpentine native bunchgrass habitat
community. Therefore, the Project would be
potentially inconsistent with this policy. Refer to
discussion of consistency with General Plan COSE
Policies 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 7.5.4, above. Refer also to
Section 3.4, Biological Resources.
8.3.2 – Open
Space Buffers
When activities close to open space
resources within or outside the urban area
could harm them, the City will require
buffers between the activities and the
resources. Buffers associated with new
development shall be on the site of the
development, rather than on neighboring
land containing the open space resource.
Buffers shall be adequate for the most
sensitive species in the protected area, as
determined by a qualified professional and
shall complement the protected area’s
habitat values.
Potentially Inconsistent The City’s 1,110-acre Irish Hills Natural Reserve is
adjacent to the north and west of the Project site,
and supports a wide variety of sensitive plant and
animal species, including large predators such as
mountain lions, coyotes and bobcats. Though the
Project would incorporate a buffer between
development in much of the areas adjacent to the
Irish Hills Natural Reserve in the Upper Terrace
through the designation of open space, the Project
could impact open space resources within the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve through creation of
vegetation management fire buffers within the
Reserve and disruption of or impacts to sensitive
wildlife movement. The City has found that
management of vegetation to reduce fire hazards
3.9-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
within a buffer area of up to 100 feet in width
within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve would not
compromise or unduly impact open space or
wildlife resources. However, increased noise, light,
interruption of access to water sources (i.e., springs
and seeps) in Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and indirectly
through increased road kills, use of rodenticides or
pesticides and increased urban-wildland interface
conflicts (e.g., human or domestic pet-wildlife
interactions) as discussed under Policy 7.3.3 –
Wildlife Habitat and Corridors, above could impact
sensitive wildlife. Therefore, the Project is
potentially inconsistent with this Policy.
8.6.1 – Loss of
Open Space
The City may permit loss of an open space
resource as described in Goals 8.2.1 and
8.2.2 only when:
Preserving the resource would permanently
deprive the landowner of all reasonable use,
and acquisition by the City or a conservation
organization is not feasible, or
There is a demonstrated need, based on
public health, safety, or welfare, and there is
no practical alternative to loss of the
resource.
Consistent The Project site is not currently designated as open
space. Implementation of the Project would not
result in the direct loss of City open space;
however, as described in Section 3.7, Hazards,
Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire,
implementation of the Project has the potential to
result in the disturbance of habitat and vegetation
within designated open space areas of the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve through compliance with
state-mandated defensible space requirements.
Impacts associated with the disturbance of these
open space areas would be mitigated through
implementation of MM HAZ-2. Refer to Section
3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire.
8.6.3.G –
Required
Mitigation
Any development that is allowed on a site
designated as Open Space or Agriculture, or
containing open-space resources, shall be
designed to minimize its impacts on open
space values on the site and on neighboring
land.
Hillside development shall comply with the
standards of the LUE, including
minimization of grading for structures and
Potentially Consistent Although the Project site is not currently
designated as open space, the LUCE Special Focus
Area SP-3 requires preservation of a minimum of
50 percent of the site as open space and notes the
one purpose of FRSP is to provide flexibility that
will secure the appropriate development of the site
while protecting sensitive environmental resources.
Based on City policy, sensitive resources on the
Project site include sensitive habitats and plant
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-43
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
access, and use of building forms, colors,
and landscaping that are not visually
intrusive (See also Chapter [COSE Policy]
9.21.1).
Creek corridors, wetlands, grassland
communities, other valuable habitat areas,
archaeological resources, agricultural land,
and necessary buffers should be within their
own parcel, rather than divided among
newly created parcels. Where creation of a
separate parcel is not practical, the resources
shall be within an easement. The easement
must clearly establish allowed uses and
maintenance responsibilities in furtherance
of resource protection.
species, wildlife corridors, slopes, historic
structures, and open space resources. Proposed
housing development would minimize aesthetic
impacts to existing open space or agriculture
through compliance with the LUE, including use of
landscaping, building forms, and colors that are not
visually intrusive. The Project would not include
subdivisions on the underlying parcel, and the
existing 7.1-acre agricultural easement would be
reconfigured predominantly within the site and
maintained through dedication of land or payment
of in-lieu fees.
8.7.2.C –
Enhance and
Restore Open
Space
Remove invasive, non-native species in
natural habitat areas, and prevent the
introduction or spread of invasive, non-
native species and pathogens.
Potentially Consistent The Project would include habitat restoration
efforts through designation of open space and
realignment of Froom Creek that would involve
removal of non-native species and planting of
native vegetation. The Draft FRSP includes
policies which would require the removal of
existing invasive plants and noxious weeds prior to
landscape installation.
9.2.1 – Views to
and from public
places, including
scenic roadways
Preserve and improve views of important
scenic resources from public
places...including streets and roads.
Potentially Inconsistent Proposed development would impact scenic public
views and community character, particularly as
experienced from highly scenic public trails within
the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, and views from
public roads towards the Irish Hills. Existing
development and riparian vegetation along the
borders of the Project site would largely shield
views of the Project from LOVR, and the Project
would generally blend-in or be consistent with
surrounding development when viewed from public
roads. However, as discussed in Section 3.1,
Aesthetics, views from scenic trails and vista points
within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve looking
3.9-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
down on the Upper Terrace and adjacent areas of
Madonna Froom Ranch would be significantly
impacted as a result of the Project. Therefore, the
Project would be potentially inconsistent with this
policy.
9.3.6 – View
blockage along
scenic highways
Determine that view blockage along scenic
roadways is a significant impact.
Potentially Consistent The section of LOVR adjacent to the Project site is
designated as having a moderate scenic value and
the LOVR Overpass is designated as having high
scenic value. U.S. 101 is not designated as a state
scenic highway in the vicinity of the Project,
though it is eligible. Views of the Project site are
currently limited from both of these roadways and
would remain intermittent after development of the
Project. Impacts to scenic views along these
roadways were considered less than significant and
the Project would be consistent with this policy.
10.1.3 – Water
Quality
Protect and maintain water quality in
aquifers, Laguna Lake, streams, and
wetlands that supports all beneficial uses,
agriculture, and wildlife habitat.
Potentially Consistent The Draft FRSP includes BMP strategies and
policies including the use of bioswales, rain
gardens, and detention basins to facilitate rainwater
percolation and reduce surface water runoff to
manage stormwater and runoff onsite. the Project
would be subject to RWQCB regulations and
permitting requiring implementation of BMPs for
erosion control during and following site
construction.
10.2.1 – Water
Quality
The City will employ the best available
practices for pollution avoidance and
control, and will encourage others to do
likewise. “Best available practices” means
behavior and technologies that result in the
highest water quality, considering available
equipment, life-cycle costs, social and
environmental side effects, and the
regulations of other agencies.
10.2.2 –
Ahwahnee Water
Principles
In planning for its water operations,
programs and services, the City will be
guided by the Ahwahnee Water Principles
and will encourage individuals,
organizations, and other agencies to follow
these policies:
Potentially Consistent The Project would generate additional long-term
demands on City water supplies, but the Draft
FRSP contains goals, policies, and regulations
derived from the City’s COSE and Climate Action
Plan that would ensure consistency with this
policy. These policies include the use of natural
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-45
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
A. Community design should be compact,
mixed-use, walkable and transit-oriented so
that automobile generated urban runoff
pollutants are minimized and the open lands
that absorb water are preserved to the
maximum extent possible.
B. Natural resources such as wetlands, flood
plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open
space, and native habitats should be
identified, preserved and restored as valued
assets for flood protection, water quality
improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat,
and overall long-term water resource
sustainability.
C. Water holding areas such as creekbeds,
recessed athletic fields, ponds, cisterns, and
other features that serve to recharge
groundwater, reduce runoff, improve water
quality and decrease flooding should be
incorporated into the urban landscape.
D. All aspects of landscaping from the
selection of plants to soil preparation and the
installation of irrigation systems should be
designed to reduce water demand, retain
runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge
groundwater.
E. Permeable surfaces should be used for
hardscape. Impervious surfaces such as
driveways, streets, and parking lots should
be minimized so that land is available to
absorb storm water, reduce polluted urban
runoff, recharge groundwater and reduce
flooding.
F. Dual plumbing that allows grey water
from showers, sinks and washers to be
reused for landscape irrigation should be
features (e.g., bioswales, retention basins) to
manage stormwater onsite, native and non-invasive
drought tolerant landscaping, high-efficiency
appliances, and use of recycled water in irrigated
areas within the residential and commercial zones.
Project construction would entail expansion of
onsite natural water retention features. Froom
Creek and associated riparian would be realigned
and expanded along the eastern border of the
Project site, and would direct stormwater flows to a
4.5-acre stormwater detention basin located offsite
within the Mountainbrook Church easement. This
proposed stormwater detention basin would include
storage capacity for up to 22 acre-feet of
stormwater and would allow for percolation and
recharge of underlying groundwater.
3.9-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
included in the infrastructure of new
development, consistent with State
guidelines.
G. Community design should maximize the
use of recycled water for appropriate
applications including outdoor irrigation,
toilet flushing, and commercial and
industrial processes. Purple pipe should be
installed in all new construction and
remodeled buildings in anticipation of the
future availability of recycled water.
H. Urban water conservation technologies
such as low-flow toilets, efficient clothes
washers, and more efficient water-using
industrial equipment should be incorporated
in all new construction and retrofitted in
remodeled buildings.
I. Ground water treatment and brackish
water desalination should be pursued when
necessary to maximize locally available,
drought-proof water supplies.
Housing Element (HE)
2.3 For housing to qualify as "affordable" under
the provisions of this 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.
Potentially Consistent While final details would be determined through
Project permitting, the FRSP includes policies that
require the Applicant to provide for deed-restricted
housing for low and moderate-income households,
consistent with the General Plan.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-47
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
2.4 Encourage housing production for all
financial strata of the City's population, in
the proportions shown in the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 -
2019 planning period. These proportions are:
extremely low income, 12 percent, very low
income, 12 percent; low income, 16 percent;
moderate income, 18 percent; and above
moderate income, 42 percent.
Potentially Consistent The Project proposes development of a variety of
residential housing with a minimum of 5 percent
low- and 10 percent moderate-income affordable
dwelling units in accordance with the Expansion
Area Inclusionary Housing Requirements. In other
words, 15 percent of the total units would be
subject to resale and rental restrictions to address
low- and moderate-income household needs within
the City. The Project would also develop 404 units
of senior housing meeting key General Plan HE
objectives.
4.2 Include both market-rate and affordable
units in apartment and residential
condominium projects and intermix the
types of units. Affordable units should be
comparable in size, appearance and basic
quality to market-rate units.
Potentially Consistent The FRSP includes policies that require the
Applicant to provide for deed-restricted housing for
low and moderate-income households, consistent
with the General Plan. The Project The FRSP states
that an affordable housing project is proposed on a
portion of the proposed R-4 site near Los Osos
Valley Road.
Noise Element (NE)
1.3 – New
Development
Design and
Transportation
Noise Sources
New noise-sensitive development shall be
located and designed to meet the maximum
outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of
Table 2.
Potentially Consistent Implementation of mitigation measures would
reduce exterior and interior noise levels for
residential uses resulting from noise sources to
acceptable levels defined by the General Plan NE
Table 2 (See Section 3.10, Noise).
1.4 – New
Transportation
Noise Sources
Noise created by new transportation noise
sources shall be mitigated to not exceed
City-specified indoor and outdoor maximum
noise exposure levels.
Potentially Consistent Implementation of mitigation measures would
reduce exterior and interior noise levels for
residential uses resulting from noise sources to
acceptable levels defined by the General Plan NE
Table 2 (See Section 3.10, Noise).
1.6 – New
Development
and Stationary
Noise Sources
New development of noise-sensitive land
uses may be permitted only where location
or design allow the development to meet the
standards of Table 2 for existing stationary
noise sources.
Potentially Consistent Implementation of mitigation measures would
reduce exterior and interior noise levels for
residential uses resulting from noise sources to
acceptable levels defined by the General Plan NE
Table 2 (See Section 3.10, Noise).
3.9-48 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
1.7 – New or
Modified
Stationary Noise
Sources
Noise generated by new stationary sources,
or by existing stationary noise sources which
undergo modifications that may increase
noise levels, shall be mitigated so as not to
exceed the exposure standards for lands
designated for noise-sensitive uses, as
measured at the property line of the receiver.
The City’s NE lists mitigation strategies in a
descending order of desirability. If preferred
strategies are not implemented, it is the
responsibility of the Applicant to
demonstrate through a detailed noise study
that the more desirable approaches are either
not effective or not practical, before
considering other design criteria contained in
the General Plan.
Potentially Consistent Implementation of mitigation measures would
reduce exterior and interior noise levels for
residential uses resulting from noise sources to
acceptable levels defined by the General Plan NE
Table 2 (See Section 3.10, Noise).
1.10 – Existing
and Cumulative
Impacts
The City shall consider mitigation where
existing or cumulative increases in noise
levels significantly impact noise-sensitive
land uses, including rerouting traffic, noise
barriers, reducing traffic speed, retrofitting
buildings, and exaction of fees.
Potentially Consistent The Project would result in short-term construction
noise impacts but would not significantly
contribute to existing surrounding noise levels.
Long-term FRSP residential buildout would not
result in a considerable contribution to cumulative
significant noise impacts due to the Project’s
negligible contribution to the cumulative noise
environment. See Section 3.10, Noise.
Safety Element (SE)
2.1 – Flood
Hazard
Avoidance and
Reduction
C. No new building or fill should encroach
beyond, or extend over, the top-of-bank of
any creek.
E. Within new development areas, such as
the potential expansion areas shown in
Figure 2 of the LUE, substantial
displacement of flood waters should be
avoided by:
1. Keeping a substantial amount of flood-
prone land in the vicinity as open space;
Potentially Consistent The Project would include a major realignment of
Froom Creek through the Specific Plan area and
the confinement of the flood waters to the newly
widened channel of Froom Creek, the Calle
Joaquin wetlands, and the proposed Mountainbrook
Church flood detention basin. Currently flood-
prone lands would be removed from the floodplain
and become available for development. New
buildings would be sited a minimum of 35 feet
from the top of the bank of Froom Creek and
located above the 100-year flood level; creek
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-49
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
2. Enlarging man-made bottlenecks, such as
culverts, which contribute to flood waters
backing up from them;
3. Accommodating in such places uses
which have relatively low ratios of building
coverage to site area, for which shallow
flooding of parking and landscape areas
would cause minimum damage.
4. Requiring new buildings to be constructed
above the 100-year flood level.
F. Creek alterations shall be considered only
if there is no practical alternative, consistent
with the COSE.
G. Development close to creeks shall be
designed to avoid damage due to future
creek bank erosion. Property owners shall be
responsible for protecting their
developments from damage caused by future
bank loss due to flood flows.
channelization and realignment are necessary to
accommodate development of the site as proposed
in the Draft FRSP and alleviate the bottleneck and
capacity constraints at the U.S. 101 box-culvert.
The Project would be consistent with the intent of
this policy to minimize or avoid flood hazards.
Refer to Section 3.4, Biological Resources, and
Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
3.0 – Adequate
Fire Service
Development shall be approved only when
adequate fire suppression services and
facilities are available or will be made
available concurrent with development,
considering the setting, type, intensity, and
form of the proposed development.
Potentially Consistent The Specific Plan area is within the acceptable 4-
minute response time for fire protection services.
The SLOFD has reviewed the Project has and
determined that adequate fire suppression services
and facilities are available to serve the Project. See
Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation.
3.1 – Wildland
Fire Safety
F. Wildland fire hazard severity zones shall
be classified as prescribed by CAL FIRE.
Areas within the City, including “Very
High” Fire Hazard Severity Zones, if any,
shall be classified by the City’s Fire Code
Official based on findings supported by
substantial evidence in the record as required
by Government Code Section 51179 and
considered by City Council at a public
hearing. Meaningful, early notification and
Consistent The Lower Area and Upper Terrace (a total of
approximately 97 acres) are designated as a
Moderate FHSZ, and the highest elevation area (of
approximately 13 acres) is located within a Very
High FHSZ. No development would be constructed
within the Very High FHSZ (refer to Figure 3.7-1).
The Project does not propose a new subdivision
within areas of Very High FHSZ. The Very High
FHSZ would be designated and preserved for open
space. As discussed in Section 3.7, Hazards,
Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire, a 100-foot-
3.9-50 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
input shall be obtained from nearby
neighborhoods which may be affected.
G. New subdivisions shall be prohibited in
areas of “Very High” wildland fire hazard
unless part of conservation or open space
acquisition program. Development of
existing parcels shall require a development
plan to manage fuels, maintain a buffer zone,
and provide adequate fire protection to the
approval of the Chief Building Official. The
development plan must be consistent with
Policies required by the City’s COSE.
H. The City of San Luis Obispo is
considered a “Community at Risk” due to
the threat of wildfire impacting the urban
community. The City shall continue to
enhance the fire safety and construction
codes for new buildings in order to reduce
the risk of urban fires that may result from
wildfires. Citywide building code
enhancements should include: Fire resistant
exterior wall coverings; Sprinkler protection
in attic areas; and Ember resistant vent
systems for attics and under floor areas and
other provisions identified in CBC Chapter
7A.
wide vegetation and fuel management buffer would
be required around all new development and
implementation of mitigation requiring fire
reduction practices and management strategies
would reduce fire hazards to a less than significant
level.
4.5 – Avoiding
Faults
Development shall not be located atop
known faults. Applications for the following
types of discretionary approvals within 100
meters (330 feet) of any fault that is
previously known or discovered during site
evaluation shall be subject to review and
recommendation by a State-registered
engineering geologist: change to a more
intensive land-use designation; subdivision
into five or more parcels; development of
Potentially Consistent A section of the Los Osos Fault runs through both
the Madonna Froom Ranch and Villaggio portions
of the site. Based on the proposed land use plan,
the fault lines would cross residential (R-3-SP),
open space (C/OS-SP), and public facility (PF-SP)
land uses. The Draft FRSP and land use plan would
incorporate recommendations of the site-specific
subsurface fault investigation. FRSP buildout
would incorporate required setbacks of buildings
from faults identified in the subsurface
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-51
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
multifamily, commercial, industrial, or
institutional buildings.
investigation and outlined in Section 3.2.3, Fault
Lines, of the Draft FRSP. No development would
be located atop any known faults. See Section 3.6,
Geology and Soils.
4.6 – Avoiding
Slope Instability
Development shall not be located on or
immediately below unstable slopes, or
contribute to slope instability. Any
development proposed in an area of
moderate or high landslide potential shall be
subject to review and recommendation by a
State-registered engineering geologist.
Consistent The non-seismic landslide potential at the Project
site is considered to be low based on site-specific
geological investigations prepared for the Project.
The Draft FRSP incorporates site-specific geologic
investigation recommendations regarding slope
stability and liquefaction. Incorporation of these
recommendations would reduce potential for
structural damage and risk from slope instability or
liquefaction to a less than significant level. See
Section 3.6, Geology and Soils.
4.7 – Avoiding
Liquefaction
Hazards
Development may be located in areas of
high liquefaction potential only if a site-
specific investigation by a qualified
professional determines that the proposed
development will not be at risk of damage
from liquefaction. The Chief Building
Official may waive this requirement upon
determining that previous studies in the
immediate area provide sufficient
information.
9.3 Program –
Response
Performance
Standards
The City will evaluate fire-flow capacities
and identify deficiencies through testing and
modeling of the water system. For identified
deficiencies, the Utilities Department will
propose remedies to meet recommended
service levels based on Insurance Service
Organization ratings and other objective
criteria.
Potentially Consistent The Project would provide adequate water flow per
adopted City standards. See Section 3.14, Utilities
and Energy Conservation.
Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME)
2.1.7 –
Annexation
Criteria
Allows annexation of areas outside City
limits if they are infill areas with access to
existing City wastewater service.
Potentially Consistent Following annexation to the City, the Project
would be located within City limits and the City’s
URL; access to existing City services including
water and wastewater would be available. See
Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation.
3.9-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
B 2.2.2 – Service
Capacity
The City's wastewater collection system and
Water Reclamation Facility shall support
population and related service demands
consistent with the General Plan.
Potentially Consistent
The City’s WRRF has adequate capacity to
accommodate dry-weather wastewater flows
generated by the Project; however, peak
wastewater flows may exceed the WRRF capacity
under wet-weather conditions. The Project would
also contribute to cumulative capacity constraints
experienced at the Laguna lift station. However, the
Project, like similar cumulative development
within the City and serviced by these facilities,
would be required to pay fair share fees towards the
improvement of these facilities. See Section 3.14,
Utilities and Energy Conservation
B 2.2.3 –
Wastewater
Service for New
Development
New development shall pay its proportionate
or “fair share” of expanded treatment and
collection system capacity and upgrades.
New development will only be permitted if
adequate capacity is available within the
wastewater collection system and/or Water
Reclamation Facility.
Circulation Element (CE)
1.7.2 – Promote
Alternative
Forms of
Transportation
Complete a network of bicycle lanes and
paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within
existing developed parts of the City and
extend the system to serve new growth
areas; and complete improvements to the
city's transit system serving existing
developed areas and provide service to new
growth areas.
Potentially Consistent The proposed circulation system provides for
development of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities and the connection to existing facilities.
See Section 3.13, Transportation.
3.1.7 – Transit
Service Access
New development should be designed to
facilitate access to transit service.
Potentially Consistent The Project would include installation of a bus stop
and facilitation of the extension of bus service to
the Specific Plan area. However, the Project site is
located at the southwestern extent of the City and
far removed from high-transit service areas. Transit
demand within the vicinity of the Project is
considered low. Implementation of the Project
would increase demand for transit services within
the vicinity of the Project site. However,
implementation of identified mitigation would
ensure adequate transit service is provided. Refer
to Section 3.13, Transportation.
4.1.4 – New
Development
The City shall require that new development
provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage,
Potentially Consistent The Project would provide dedicated bikeways and
would be required to provide bicycle parking per
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-53
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
parking facilities and showers consistent
with City plans and development standards.
When evaluating transportation impacts, the
City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service
analysis.
the City Municipal Code Section 17.16.060, which
mandates that bicycle parking equal to 15 percent
of vehicle parking be provided. The Project would
complete an important gap in the planned regional
Class II bicycle lane along LOVR. See Section
3.13, Transportation.
5.1.2 –
Sidewalks and
Paths
The City should complete a continuous
pedestrian network connecting residential
areas with major activity centers as well as
trails leading into City and County open
spaces.
Consistent The Project would include fully developed
pedestrian facilities within the Specific Plan area
and connections to adjacent development,
including Irish Hills Plaza though the proposed
emergency access connection to Irish Hills Plaza,
LOVR frontage improvements, and mitigation
requiring improvements to pedestrian and bicycle
facilities See Section 3.13, Transportation.
5.1.4 –
Pedestrian
Access
New or renovated commercial and
government public buildings shall provide
convenient pedestrian access from nearby
sidewalks and pedestrian paths, separate
from driveways and vehicle entrances.
Potentially Consistent Sidewalks and pedestrian pathways separate from
driveways and/or vehicle entrances are proposed to
connect residential and commercial development of
the Specific Plan area to the Irish Hills Plaza, along
Froom Creek, to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and
between the Upper Terrace and Lower Area of
Villaggio. Proposed pedestrian connections would
provide convenient pedestrian access through the
site and to adjacent development. See Section 3.13,
Transportation.
15.1.2 –
Development
along Scenic
Routes
The City will preserve and improve views of
important scenic resources from streets and
roads. Development along scenic roadways
should not block views or detract from the
quality of views.
Potentially Consistent Development of the Project would change the
visual character of the area as viewed from the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve. However, important public
views from proximate streets and roads across the
Project site would be preserved by development
setbacks from LOVR and the reestablishment of
riparian vegetation along the LOVR ditch. See
Section 3.1, Aesthetics.
3.9-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Preliminary Consistency Finding Discussion
Parks and Recreation Element (PRE)
3.13.1 – Parks
System
The City shall develop and maintain a park
system at a rate of 10 acres of parkland per
1,000 residents. Five acres shall be dedicated
as a neighborhood park. The remaining five
acres required under the 10 acres per 1,000
residents in the residential annexation policy
may be located anywhere within the City’s
park system as deemed appropriate.
Potentially Consistent Implementation of mitigation providing for and
maintaining 12.31 acres of parkland, including 6.16
acres developed as a neighborhood park, would
ensure consistency with this policy.
The Project would provide a 2.9-acre trailhead park
including benches, picnic tables, and a playground
that are characteristic of a neighborhood park as
defined by the City’s PRE and are within a 0.5- to
1.0-mile walking distance from all new residences. 3.15 –
Neighborhood
Parks
- San Luis Obispo residents shall have
access to a neighborhood park within 0.5 to
1.0-mile walking distance of their residence.
-All residential annexation areas shall
provide developed neighborhood parks at the
rate of five acres per 1,000 residents.
-In neighborhoods where existing parks do
not adequately serve residents, mini-parks
may be considered.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo 1996; 2006; 2014b; 2014a; 2014c; 2015; 2018.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-55
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-5. County General Plan Policy Consistency Summary
Policy/Goal Summary Consistency Finding Discussion
Goal BR5 Wetlands will be preserved, enhanced, and
restored.
Potentially Consistent The Project proposes to relocate an existing 3.2-
acre detention basin to an approximately 4.5-acre
proposed stormwater detention basin within the
Mountainbrook Church easement outside of the
Specific Plan area. This area would remain under
the jurisdiction of the County following
annexation of the Specific Plan area to the City as
part of the Project. Development of the proposed
stormwater detention basin has potential to affect
wetlands, riparian, and grassland habitats. Impact
associated with this aspect of the Project could be
reduced through protection, avoidance, or
restoration of habitat. Once constructed, the
proposed stormwater detention basin would not
inhibit wildlife movement through this portion of
the site. Development of the proposed stormwater
detention basin in this area would not significantly
adversely affect views of the natural landscape
from rural areas of the County. See Section 3.4,
Biological Resources.
Policy BR 1.1-
Protect Sensitive
Biological
Resources
Protect sensitive biological resources such as,
wetlands, migratory species of the Pacific
flyway, and wildlife movement corridors
through:
1. environmental review of proposed
development applications, including
consideration of cumulative
impacts,
2. participation in comprehensive
habitat management programs with
other local and resource agencies,
and
3. acquisition and management of
open space lands that provide for
permanent protection of important
natural habitats.
Policy BR 1.15
Restrict
Disturbance in
Sensitive Habitat
during Nesting
Season
Avoid impacts to sensitive riparian corridors,
wetlands, and coastal areas to protect bird-
nesting activities.
Policy BR 1.10-
Identify and
Protect
Ecologically
Sensitive Areas
Protect and enable management of
ecologically sensitive areas to the maximum
extent feasible.
Policy BR 1.11
Protect Wildlife
Nursery Areas
and Movement
Corridors
Identify, protect, and enable the management
of connected habitat areas for wildlife
movement. Features of particular importance
to wildlife for movement may include, but
are not limited to, riparian corridors,
3.9-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 3.9-5. County General Plan Policy Consistency Summary (Continued)
Policy/Goal Summary Consistency Finding Discussion
shorelines of the coast and bay, and
ridgelines. Identification and designation of
wildlife corridors will not interfere with
agricultural uses on private lands. (Refer to
AGP 29 in the Agriculture Element).
Goal VR1 The natural and agricultural landscape will
continue to be the dominant view in rural
parts of the county.
Policy VR 7.1
Nighttime Light
Pollution
Protect the clarity and visibility of the night
sky within communities and rural areas, by
ensuring that exterior lighting, including
streetlight projects, is designed to minimize
nighttime light pollution.
Potentially Consistent Exterior lighting would not be erected within the
proposed stormwater detention basin area.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with
this policy.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-57
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
3.9.4 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.9.4.1 Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that a project would have a significant
impact on land use if it would:
a) Physically divide an established community; or
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect;
Non-Applicable Threshold(s)
1) Threshold (a) (Divide an established community): The Project would not physically
divide an established community based on the lack of residential land uses within
the Specific Plan area as the site is bordered by existing agricultural and industrial
land.
3.9.4.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
Sources of land use information reviewed for this analysis include the LUCE Update and
associated EIR; the City and County General Plan; SLOCOGRTP/SCS; the ALUP; the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report (Johnson Aviation 2014); and the Draft FRSP, as
well as available geographic data provided by the City and County Geographic Information
Systems (GIS). Recent EIRs, including the LUCE Update EIR and the Avila Ranch
Specific Plan and San Luis Ranch Specific Plan EIRs prepared by the City, were also
reviewed.
The Project’s potential consistency with relevant General Plan policies and programs
(Appendix G Threshold ‘b’) is evaluated in Section 3.9.3, Consistency with Plans and
Policies. Associated land use impact analyses are also provided in Impacts LU-1 and LU-
2 and within individual resource sections of this EIR. Only those Project elements that have
the potential to conflict with a stated goal, policy, or program are highlighted in this section.
A conflict with an adopted plan or policy is typically identified as a potentially significant
impact only if there is a corresponding related averse physical change in the environment,
such as loss of sensitive biological resources.
The EIR land use consistency analysis considers whether the Project would be consistent
with regional and local plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the Project consistent
3.9-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
with Section 15125(d). A project must be consistent with every policy and objective in the
General Plan to be approved. It is considered consistent with the provisions of the identified
regional and local plans if it is compatible with and will further the objectives and policies
of the plans. This discussion primarily focuses on those goals and policies that relate to
avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts and assesses if any inconsistency with these
standards would result in a significant physical impact on the environment.
3.9.4.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Land use impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project are discussed
below and summarized in Table 3.9-6.
Table 3.9-6. Summary of Project Impacts
Land Use Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
LU-1. The Project 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
MM BIO-12
MM BIO-13
MMBIO-14
MM CR-9
MM CR-10
MM CR-11
MM CR-12
MM CR-13
MM CR-14
MM HAZ-2
MM HAZ-3
MM HAZ-4
MM HAZ-5
MM TRANS-21
MM TRANS-22
MM TRANS-23
Significant and
Unavoidable
LU-2. The Project would potentially be inconsistent
with existing easements and setback requirements
onsite.
None Required Less than Significant
Impact LU-1 The Project 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,
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-59
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
biological, and cultural resources and wildfire hazards (Significant and
Unavoidable).
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. These
policies are intended to protect environmentally sensitive resources (such as sensitive
habitats and species) and to reduce adverse impacts related to emergency access, unstable
geology, flooding, wildfire hazards, and visual resource degradation. Implementation of a
General Plan Amendment 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 , as analyzed in Section 3.1,
Aesthetics, Section 3.4, Biological Resources, and Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous
Materials, and Wildfire. Potential impacts due to unstable geology would be less than
significant, as described in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils. Further, the Project would
relocate four historic structures onsite and integrate them in the proposed public park,
which would have a significant impact to historic resources, as described in Section 3.5,
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. Potential environmental impacts resulting from
the Project’s inconsistency with land use plans and policies are summarized below
Aesthetics
The Project site is highly visible to trail users in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve trail system
where sweeping views across the Project site are available, particularly overlooking the
Upper Terrace and the western edge of Madonna Froom Ranch above 150 feet in elevation.
General Plan COSE Policy 9.2.1, Views to and from public places, is designed to protect
public views, including those from such places as the heavily used trail network in the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve. City LUE Policy 6.4.7, Hillside Planning Areas, was intended in
part to protect sensitive hillside views by prohibiting development above the 150-foot
elevation in the Project vicinity. Project development, particularly within the Upper
Terrace and the areas of Madonna Froom Ranch closest to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve
and above the 150-foot elevation would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to
aesthetic resources for recreationalists along trails such as the Ocean View Trail and the
Filipponi Ranch Connector Trail. Such impacts would be in direct conflict with adopted
City policies and would create significant physical environmental impacts.
3.9-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Biological Resources
Proposed development within the
Upper Terrace would impact
sensitive native grassland
communities, seven rare plant
species of local concern (including
populations of a federal endangered
plant), sensitive wetland habitats
along Drainages 1, 2, and 3, and
wildlife corridors and passage
through this area. Such development
would directly impact and degrade
special status species and sensitive
habitats potentially in conflict with
multiple adopted City policies such
as General Plan COSE Polices 7.3.2,
Species of Local Concern, 7.3.3, Wildlife Habitat and Corridors, 7.5.4, Preservation of
Grassland Communities and Other Habitat Types, 7.7.7, Preserve Ecotones, 7.7.8, Protect
Wildlife Corridors, 8.2.2, Open Space within the Urban Area, 8.3.1, Open Space within an
Urban Area, 8.3.2, Open Space Buffers, and 8.6.1, Loss of Open Space. In addition, the
Project would include a General Plan Amendment to LUE Policy 6.4.7, Hillside Planning
Areas, which restricts development above the 150-foot elevation, in part to protect sensitive
habitats and resources. The Project would result in significant and unavoidable physical
impacts to biological resources, potentially inconsistent with adopted City policies.
Historic Resources
As documented in Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project site
contains the historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex (P-40-040991), including seven existing
structures associated with the historic dairy and Froom family constituting a potential
historic district under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the CRHR, and the
NRHP. While four structures (i.e., the main residence, creamery, dairy barn, and granary)
considered significant historic resources as individual structures would be relocated,
restored, and repurposed to maintain their historic integrity, the Project would result in the
demolition and permanent loss of three structures identified as contributing to the Froom
Ranch Dairy historic district (i.e., the shed, bunkhouse, and old barn), which would be a
The Project site provides rich natural communities and
habitats, including wetlands and serpentine bunchgrass
grassland, as well as California bay woodland. The Upper
Terrace is particularly rich in these biological resources
and development in this area is potentially inconsistent
with City policies for resource protection.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-61
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
significant and unavoidable impact following mitigation. This loss would be potentially
inconsistent with City policy.
Emergency Access and Wildfire Hazards
Development of the Upper Terrace of Villaggio would locate residential uses at the
wildland-urban interface where potential fire risks are considered moderate to high. Project
residential buildout would also introduce potential sources of ignition from increased
activity (e.g., individuals smoking on recreational trails, outdoor barbeques, and
malfunctioning landscaping maintenance equipment). The Project proposes a number of
emergency access routes that in the event of fire or other emergency, would provide
adequate ingress/egress for evacuating civilians and emergency response personnel to the
Project site; however, development of the Project would potentially restrict access for
firefighting personnel to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and diminish their ability to combat
fires approaching proposed development from the north and west. Given the potential for
structural damage, injuries, and/or loss of life due to wildland fires, impacts would be
potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 shall apply.
MM BIO-2 shall apply.
MM BIO-3 shall apply.
MM BIO-4 shall apply.
MM BIO-5 shall apply.
MM BIO-6 shall apply.
MM BIO-9 shall apply.
MM BIO-10 shall apply.
MM BIO-11 shall apply.
MM BIO-12 shall apply.
MM BIO-13 shall apply.
MM BIO-14 shall apply.
3.9-62 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
MM CR-9 shall apply.
MM CR-10 shall apply.
MM CR-11 shall apply.
MM CR-12 shall apply.
MM CR-13 shall apply.
MM CR-14 shall apply.
MM HAZ-2 shall apply.
MM HAZ-3 shall apply
MM HAZ-4 shall apply.
MM HAZ-5 shall apply.
MM TRANS-21 shall apply.
MM TRANS-22 shall apply.
MM TRANS-23 shall apply.
Residual Impacts
Despite mitigation to reduce impacts, implementation of a General Plan Amendment to
Hillside Policy 6.4.7, Hillside Planning Areas, and development and operation of the
Project above the 150-foot elevation would result in substantial impacts to biological
resources, aesthetics, and wildfire hazards. Mitigation would also not avoid the significant
loss of historic resources associated with the Froom Ranch Dairy complex. Since
implementation of feasible mitigation measures would not fully mitigate potential impacts
resulting from development above the 150-foot elevation and significant irreversible loss
of biological and historical resources, impacts related to land use policy consistency would
be significant and unavoidable.
Impact LU-2 The Project would potentially be inconsistent with existing easements
and setback requirements onsite (Less than Significant).
Realignment of Froom Creek and associated riparian habitat would potentially conflict
with adopted local and regional water quality and creek corridor protection policies, and
would potentially result in impacts to biological resources and conflict with City creek
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-63
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
setback requirements. The Project would also potentially conflict with the intent of the
onsite agricultural easement.
Setback from Realigned Froom Creek
The Project would realign Froom Creek and would include channel and bank
improvements within the Project site. Consistent with setbacks defined in the City’s Zoning
Ordinance, the FRSP requires 35-foot setbacks from Froom Creek and 20-foot setbacks
from other site drainages, including Drainages 1, 2, and 3. Proposed recreational amenities
within the 35-foot setback area would include a 6-foot-wide pervious multi-use trail,
benches, and trash cans. The trail would not include night lighting. While pervious
walkways and benches are allowed within creek setbacks in accordance with the City’s
Zoning Ordinance, the installation of waste facilities and other proposed amenities within
the setback would require an exception determination and hearing of the Community
Development Department. The Community Development Department has established a set
of required findings that must be met in order to approve an exception to established uses
within designated setback areas. Assuming compliance with existing policies and approval
from the Community Development Department, realignment and revegetation of Froom
Creek would be consistent with City setback policies. Associated impacts would be less
than significant.
Onsite Easements
As discussed above, the Project is encumbered by several easements. The area recorded
under the 7.1-acre open space and agricultural easement is preserved for agricultural
activities and biological restoration and may not be developed as currently recorded. This
easement currently includes a contiguous block of land with soils that are prime if irrigated
This area is not currently, or historically, irrigated and supports limited equestrian grazing.
The Project would reconfigure the 7.1-acre easement into two areas of 5.5 acres and 1.6
acres, which would reduce the viability of existing grazing operations or other agricultural
operations since livestock would be unable to access the 1.6-acre portion of the easement.
However, realignment of the easement would support conservation of habitat and
biological resources, particularly the protection of existing wetlands within this 1.6-acre
portion east of Calle Joaquin, which is consistent with the terms of the easement. Thus,
adjustment of the 7.1-acre easement would continue to meet the objectives and LAFCO
requirements of the 2010 Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Easement agreement.
3.9-64 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Regarding the 2018 Memorandum of Option and easement rights, the Project would entail
purchase of easement rights within the Mountainbrook Church property to develop a
proposed stormwater detention basin. This action would be consistent with the
Memorandum of Option and easement rights currently held by the Madonna Family Trust
(owner) and the Mountainbrook Church. With regard to the 2001 Open Space Easement
and 2010 Deed of Easement for Ingress and Egress, based on the land use plan proposed
under the Draft FRSP, implementation of the Project would not alter these existing
easements. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any conflicts with
these easements or inconsistency with local or regional policies. However, if during
preparation of the final land use plan revisions to the easements are required, the City may
require adjustments of the final site design of the Project or adjustment of these easements
between all applicable parties to ensure continued access and protection prior to final
approval of the Project. Impacts associated with these existing easements would be less
than significant.
3.9.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The Project is one of many planned and/or proposed residential and commercial
developments in undeveloped open or agricultural lands along edges of the City, such as
the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and Avila Ranch Development projects. Construction of
the Project would incrementally contribute to the trend of conversion of the southern end
of the City from undeveloped agricultural land and open lands to developed urban uses,
with resultant losses of open space and habitats, increases in impervious surfaces, night
lighting, noise, and traffic that accompany such development. These changes would both
directly and indirectly affect sensitive habitats and wildlife species. Proposed related
projects, including the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and the Avila Ranch Development
Plan, could result in incremental impacts to biological resources, population and housing,
and aesthetics within the cumulative region of influence. However, all pending/future
projects would be required to comply with development standards and General Plan
policies of the City. Potential impacts would be assessed and mitigated in accordance with
CEQA and applicable City policies prior to approval. Implementation of mitigation
measures would ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan goals and policies and
Zoning Regulations such that the Project would not cumulatively contribute to the loss of
open space or agricultural land beyond that projected in the City’s LUCE Update and EIR.
Project buildout in conjunction with other pending/future projects (see Table 3.0-1) are
considered within the City LUCE buildout by 2057 (see Section 3.11, Population and
Housing). Nevertheless, the Project, in combination with planned buildout of the City’s
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-65
Draft EIR
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
General Plan and implementation of other pending or approved cumulative development
within the City, would continue to incrementally contribute to the loss of biological and
historical resources and inconsistency with City General Plan policies relating to
biological, aesthetic, wildfire, and historic resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts
related to land use and planning would be significant and unavoidable.
While the Project is potentially inconsistent with current ALUP development standards for
Safety Areas, it would not be expected to result in airport-related safety hazards,
particularly when evaluated against the identified Caltrans Handbook Safety Compatibility
Zones for San Luis County Regional Airport, the pending update to the ALUP, and the
ALUC’s preliminary determination of the Project’s compatibility with the redefined safety
areas (see Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire). As such, the Project
is not expected to cumulatively contribute to potential airport noise and/or safety issues.
Implementation of mitigation measures would ensure that the Project would provide
acceptable levels of accessible open space, and that the Project would comply with all
applicable zoning development standards.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to land use caused by the development of the Project in
combination with other related pending/future projects, would be less than significant. The
Project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts would be less than considerable
given implementation of proposed mitigation measures to ensure consistency with General
Plan policies, design standards, and Zoning Ordinance regulations.
3.9-66 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
3.10 NOISE
This section describes the existing noise environment and evaluates the potential noise and
vibration impacts that could result from short-term construction and long-term operation
of the Project.
3.10.1 Environmental Setting
3.10.1.1 Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise
Noise
Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch)
of the sound. Noise is typically defined as unwanted sound that interferes with normal
activities or otherwise diminishes the quality of the environment. Prolonged exposure to
high levels of noise is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing
loss, communication interference, sleep interference, physiological responses, and
annoyance. The noise environment typically includes background noise generated from
both near and distant noise sources as well as the sound from individual local sources.
These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to continuous noise from
sources such as traffic on a major road.
The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the
human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent
rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel
scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner
approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. In terms of human response to noise, studies
have indicated that a noise level increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to most people, a 5-
dBA increase is readily noticeable, and a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a
doubling of loudness. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 to 100 dBA. Examples of
various noise levels in different environments are shown in Table 3.10-1.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise
(a.k.a. environmental noise) on people. Since community noise fluctuates over time, these
scales consider the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day
when the noise occurs. Each noise metric applicable to this analysis is defined as follows:
• Leq (equivalent energy noise level) is the average acoustic energy content of noise
for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady
noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-1
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary,
regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. Leq is one of the
most frequently used noise metrics as it considers both duration and sound pressure
level. Typically Leq is summed over a 1-hour period.
• CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA
“weighting” during the hours of 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dBA “weighting”
added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise
sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of
these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7
CNEL. CNEL is often used due to its utility in identifying noise-related sleep
disturbance effects, often a key community concern for increases in noise levels.
Most California noise laws specify levels using the CNEL metric and most federal
laws use the Leq metric. The City noise thresholds utilize the CNEL and Ldn metric.
• Ldn (day-night average noise level) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA
“weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account
for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is
that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 Ldn. The City
noise thresholds utilize the CNEL and Ldn metric.
• Lmin (minimum instantaneous noise level) is the minimum instantaneous noise level
experienced during a given period of time.
• Lmax (maximum instantaneous noise level) is the maximum instantaneous noise
level experienced during a given period of time.
• Noise levels from a particular source decline (attenuate) as distance to the receptor
increases.1 Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or shielding by
buildings or other structures, intensify or reduce the noise level at a location. A
common method for estimating roadway noise, which dissipates more quickly than
stationary sources as the noise source (vehicle) moves away from the receptor, is
that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by
about 3 dBA at acoustically “hard” locations (i.e., mostly asphalt, concrete, hard-
packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” locations
(i.e., contains natural earth or vegetation, such as grass).
• Noise from stationary or point sources (including construction noise) is reduced by
about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft
locations, respectively. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures.
Generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source
reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm can reduce noise
levels by up to 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were
constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of
about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior noise reduction
of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more (FHWA 2014).
1 With regard to noise, a receptor is defined as a stationary far-field position at which noise or vibration
levels are specified (U.S. Department of Transportation 2012).
3.10-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Table 3.10-1. Representative Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Power Saw —110— Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 1000 feet Crying Baby
Subway —100—
Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet
Rail Transit Horn/ Tractor —90—
Heavy Construction Truck at 50 feet/
Street Sweeper at 50 feet Food Blender at 3 feet
Concrete Mixer Truck at 50 feet —80— Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area during Daytime
Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet —70— Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Rail Transit in Station/ Commercial
Area Normal Speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet —60— Sewing Machine
Air Conditioner Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Area during Daytime —50— Dishwasher in Next Room
Refrigerator
Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime —40— Theater, Large Conference Room
(background)
Quiet Suburban Area during
Nighttime
—30— Library
Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall
(background)
—20—
Broadcast/Recording Studio
—10—
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing —0— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing
Source: Caltrans 1998.
Groundborne Vibration
In the context of noise, groundborne vibration is the vibration, or oscillation, of the ground,
floor, and walls. The vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible vibration, rattling
of items such as windows or dishes on shelves, or a rumble noise. The rumble is the noise
radiated from the motion of the room surfaces. In essence, the room surfaces act like a giant
loudspeaker causing what is called groundborne noise. Groundborne vibration is almost
never annoying to people who are outdoors. Although the motion of the ground may be
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-3
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
perceived, without the effects associated with the shaking of a building, the motion does
not provoke the same adverse human reaction. In addition, the rumble noise that usually
accompanies the building vibration is perceptible only inside buildings. The ground motion
caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second; in the U.S., this
is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB) (Harris Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006).
The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB.
A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely
perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor
vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical
equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of
perceptible groundborne vibration include construction equipment (e.g., heavy haul trucks,
concrete trucks) and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne
vibration from automobile traffic is rarely perceptible, although larger trucks carrying
heavy loads can generate perceptible vibration. The range of interest (velocity level) for
groundborne vibration is from approximately 50 VdB to 100VdB. General human response
to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels are described in Table 3.10-2.
A velocity level of 50 VdB is the typical background vibration velocity level, while a
velocity level of 100 VdB is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile
buildings (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006).
Table 3.10-2. Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration
Vibration Velocity Level Human Response
65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception for many humans.
75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly
perceptible. Many people find transit vibration at this level annoying.
85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per
day.
Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006.
3.10-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
3.10.1.2 Existing Noise Environment
The Project site is bordered by the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve to the west, retail
and commercial businesses within the
Irish Hills Plaza to the north, LOVR and
automobile dealerships to the northeast,
hotels along Calle Joaquin to the
southeast, and Mountainbrook Church to
the south. There are three primary
sources of noise within the area:
roadways such as U.S. 101 which lies 700 to 1,000 feet to the east, and LOVR, which
immediately borders the site to the northeast; the Airport located 2 miles to the east; and
operation of nearby commercial businesses.
Existing noise levels within the Project vicinity fall within typical suburban levels. Higher
noise levels are found proximate to roadway corridors and also near commercial centers
where loud speakers from automobile centers and truck loading bay at shopping centers
create local higher peak noise levels. Quieter areas include those near residential
neighborhoods and the rural Irish Hills, located farther from noise generation sources. The
City’s General Plan Noise Element (NE) generally identifies noise levels at the Project as
being below 60 dB. Overall, airport noise is similarly low given the limited number of
overflights and distance from runways and is considered to be less than 50 dB under the
Airport’s current ALUP (ALUC 2005).
A range of source material was reviewed and utilized in determining the existing noise
setting. The City’s General Plan NE was adopted in 1996 and thus existing noise levels
from that 23-year old document are out of date. Similarly, the ALUP noise contours were
last updated in 2005, are more than 14 years old, and are currently being updated. The two
most recent sources for noise levels on the Project site and vicinity include the 2014 LUCE
Update EIR and the Applicant-prepared Acoustics Assessment, completed in 2017. These
two documents therefore form the primary basis for describing the existing noise setting.
The LUCE Update EIR was a citywide document that utilized general programmatic
information and analysis that may not precisely reflect the physical conditions of the
Project site or vicinity. The Acoustics Assessment utilized six onsite noise measurements
taken on a Saturday morning between 10:00 AM and 12:00 PM. These measurements are
used as a basis for onsite noise modeling analyzed in the Acoustics Assessment. The
Noise generated from vehicular traffic along area
roadways, such as LOVR are substantial contributors to
existing noise levels on the Project site.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-5
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
findings of the LUCE Update EIR and the Acoustics Assessment for existing onsite noise
levels are discussed below (see also below Section 3.10.3.2, Impact Assessment
Methodology).
Roadway Noise
U.S. 101 generates the highest noise levels in the Project vicinity. Located approximately
700 to 1,100 feet east of the Project site, this segment of U.S. 101 carries traffic volumes
between 65,300 and 80,000 average daily trips (ADT) (Caltrans 2017). LOVR also
generates substantial roadway noise in the Project vicinity. LOVR extends immediately
adjacent along the northern Project site boundary for approximately 1,700 feet, and carries
approximately 30,000 ADT (City of San Luis Obispo 2014). Portions of LOVR that are
farther away from the site, as well as Calle Joaquin and other nearby collector roads, carry
relatively low traffic volumes, do not generate substantial noise levels on the Project site,
and, therefore, are not discussed further in this section.
The City’s LUCE Update EIR provides general noise modeling of roadway traffic noise
measured from the centerline of U.S. 101 and LOVR based on roadway traffic volumes,
but does not consider natural or manmade features, such as topography, vegetation, walls,
or buildings, that may block and reduce noise volumes (City of San Luis Obispo 2014,
Table 4.11-1). The LUCE Update EIR indicates that the 60 dBA to 65 dBA noise corridors
(the maximum acceptable exterior noise level generated by transportation noise sources for
sensitive land uses based on City adopted noise guidelines) from the centerlines of U.S 101
and LOVR extend well onto the Project site (Table 3.10-3; Figure 3.10-1).
Table 3.10-3. LUCE Update EIR Projected Roadway Noise Levels within Project Site
Roadway Noise Source
Description U.S. 101 LOVR
Distance to Project site1 (ft) 700 - 1,100 40
Distance of 65 dBA CNEL noise contour
from roadway centerline2 (ft)
1,260 - 1,560 75
Distance of 60 dBA CNEL noise contour
from roadway centerline (ft)
7,140 239
1As measured from roadway centerline.
2As projected in the LUCE Update EIR.
3Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2014. Roadway traffic noise modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental, Inc.
Although U.S. 101 lies between 700 and 1,100 feet to the south and east of the Project site,
noise corridor modeling from the LUCE Update EIR indicates that the entire Project site
may be located within the 60 dBA CNEL generated by traffic along U.S. 101, with well
3.10-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
over 50 percent of the south and east ends of the Project site projected to fall within the 65
dBA CNEL contour. The 60 dBA CNEL for LOVR, which immediately borders the site to
the east, may extend west as far as 240 feet into the Project site; the 65 dBA CNEL may
extend as far as 35 feet into the Project site (see Figure 3.10-1).
However, roadway noise corridor modeling in the LUCE Update EIR does not consider
reductions in noise resulting from nearby topographic or manmade features that block or
redirect sound waves. In the case of the LOVR noise corridor, level topography and a lack
of manmade barriers appear to render the programmatic LUCE Update EIR noise corridor
modeling generally accurate. However, for U.S. 101, the outlying flank of the Irish Hills
that support Mountainbrook Church and the KSBY radio station, four hotels along Calle
Joaquin between U.S. 101 and the Project site, and the elevated LOVR overpass likely
result in substantial reductions to noise from U.S. 101 to levels well below those modeled
in the LUCE Update EIR. This conclusion is also substantiated by the results of the
Acoustic Assessment, as further discussed below.
Mountainbrook Church sits on a hill that rises over 200 feet in elevation and largely or
entirely blocks noise generated by vehicles on U.S. 101 to the south. The LOVR overpass
has a similar noise attenuating effect for vehicular noise to the north. Of the Project site’s
approximately 1,700 feet of frontage directly facing U.S. 101 between the Mountainbrook
Church hill and the LOVR overpass, the four-story Hampton Inn and Suites, three-story
Courtyard by Marriot, two-story Motel 6, and one-story Rose Garden Inn provide
additional substantial barriers to noise generated by U.S. 101. As noted in Section 3.10.1.1
Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise, a single row of buildings between the
receptor and the noise source generally reduces the noise level by approximately 5 dBA,
while a solid wall or berm (e.g., LOVR overpass) can result in noise level reductions
between 5 to 10 dBA. While gaps between hotel buildings may have potential for exposure
to noise from U.S. 101, LUCE Update EIR noise modeling was general and did not
consider site-specific features or conditions; therefore, the LUCE Update EIR likely
overestimates noise levels within the Project site from U.S. 101 by 5 to 10 dBA. However,
conservatively, the southern portion of the site along Froom Creek may remain potentially
exposed to noise levels of approximately 60 dBA (Figure 3.10-1).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-7
Draft EIR
55
58
54
61
50
55 ROSE GARDEN INN
MOTEL 6
HAMPTON INN
MARRIOTT6565606070
657070WHOLE
FOODSLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADCALLE JOA Q UINT.J.
MAXX
AUTO
DEALERSHIPSWHOLE
FOODS
HOME
DEPOT
IRISH HILLS
NATURAL RESERVE
IRISH HILLS
NATURAL RESERVE
6565707065606070ROSE GARDEN INNMARRIOTT
MOTEL 6
HAMPTON INN
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH
101
101
2
3
4
5
6
1
55
58
54
61
50
55
MOUNTAINBROOK
CHURCH HILL
# ##
LEGEND
Roadway Noise Distances
(feet from roadway centerline)
Project Site
60 CNEL (dBA) Level Roadway
Noise Contour (approximate)
65 CNEL (dBA) Level Roadway
Noise Contour (approximate)
70 CNEL (dBA) Level Roadway
Noise Contour (approximate)
Noise Sensitive Receptor
Truck Delivery and Loading Area
Loudspeaker
Approximate Noise Monitoring
Station Location and Number
with dBA Level Indicated (Station
numbers correspond to those
presented in Table 3.10-1)
Irish Hills Natural Reserve
City of San Luis Obispo
County of San Luis Obispo
U.S. 101
60 65 70
7,140 2,258 714
L.O.V.R. 239 75 24
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, LUCE
Update EIR Table 4.11-1, 2014.
6060
6565
7070
0 700
SCALE IN FEET
N
Noise Environment 3.10-1
FIGURE
3.10-8
3.10 NOISE
The Applicant-prepared Acoustics Assessment includes onsite noise measurements and
noise modeling based upon these measurements (Appendix I). Onsite noise measurements
were conducted for the Acoustics Assessment at six locations within the Project site
between 10:00 AM and 12:00 PM on Saturday, April 22, 2017. These measurement
locations recorded noise levels of 61 dBA adjacent to LOVR and 55 dBA in the south-
central area of the site, approximately 300 feet north of the Courtyard by Marriott hotel
(see Table 3.10-4; Figure 3.10-1).
Although the Acoustics Assessment briefly mentions other noise sources in the Project
vicinity (e.g., airport noise, commercial businesses), it focuses on noise generated by
traffic, particularly from LOVR and U.S. 101 as these generate the greatest level of noise
at the Project site and are the most subject to change under the Project (Appendix I).
Table 3.10-4. Measured Noise Levels within the Project Site1
Station No. Location2 Ldn /CNEL
1 Along Calle Joaquin and the southeastern boundary of the site 55 dBA
2 South central site approximately 200 feet north of Marriot Hotel 55 dBA
3 Northeastern interior of the site; 200 feet from LOVR 58 dBA
4 Northeastern interior of the site; 300 feet from LOVR 54 dBA
5 Along the boundary of Project site and LOVR 61 dBA
6 Southeastern interior of the site; 300 feet from Calle Joaquin 50 dBA
Source: Lord and Taubitz 2017.
1Roadway noise measurements conducted on Saturday, April 22, 2017, between 10:00 AM and 12:00 PM.
2See Figure 3.10-1 for precise locations.
As part of the Acoustics Assessment, an acoustic model with noise level contours was
generated for the site based on topography, noise sources, and measured noise level values
(Appendix I). The Acoustics Assessment found that the interior areas of the site generally
fall within the 50 to 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, primarily generated by vehicular traffic
on LOVR and more distant U.S. 101.
Airport Noise
The Airport is located approximately 1.8 miles east of the Project site; aircraft flying in the
vicinity at above 1,000 feet in elevation several times a day generate intermittent low-level
noise. The Project site is approximately 1,000 feet from the 50 dBA CNEL contour mapped
within the ALUP, representing the noise environment from aircraft flying in the vicinity of
the Project site (ALUC 2005). The General Plan NE indicates the Project site lies over 1
mile from the projected 60 dBA CNEL noise contour within the ALUP. Thus, Airport
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-9
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
activities only generate episodic noise on the Project site from aircrafts flying overhead,
and overall noise levels resulting from Airport operations are less than 50 dBA CNEL.
Stationary Sources
Noise is also generated from commercial uses that border the Project site, particularly Irish
Hills Plaza to the north, as well as automobile dealerships along Auto Park Way to the
northeast, and four hotels to the east. Operational noise generated by these commercial uses
includes semi-truck deliveries (85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet) and associated backup alarms,
parking lot sweeping (82 dBA Lmax at 50 feet), landscape maintenance, rooftop heating and
cooling equipment, and loudspeakers from automobile dealerships (89 dBA Lmax at 50 feet)
(FHWA 2013; see Table 3.10-1). Noise generated from such adjacent uses primarily affects
the northern area of the Project site associated with Madonna Froom Ranch. Given
proximity and types of activities, loading dock activity at the Irish Hills Plaza likely
generates the highest levels of noise adjacent to the Project site. Although these operational
activities are periodic in nature and do not typically result in high levels of continuous
noise, noise levels of 65 dB Lmax would extend as far as 95 feet into the Project site, with
noise levels increasing with proximity to the activity.
Businesses adjacent to the Project site within Irish Hills Plaza include Home Depot, TJ
Maxx, and Whole Foods. The loading docks of these businesses are located approximately
60 to 70 feet from the Project site’s northern boundary and directly face the Project. These
businesses receive regular deliveries by large semi-trucks, as well as deliveries from
smaller vendors with variable schedules and frequency. TJ Maxx typically has one semi-
truck delivery that occurs from 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM on weekdays, with occasional
deliveries on Saturdays and during holidays (TJ Maxx 2019). Home Depot typically has
10 to 15 daily weekday deliveries by semi-trucks that occur between 6:00 AM and 9:00
PM (Home Depot 2019). Whole Foods receives between 5 to 7 deliveries every day of the
week by refrigerated semi-trucks that can occur from 5:00 AM to 1:30 PM Whole Foods
2019). In total, TJ Maxx, Whole Foods, and Home Deport receive a combined average of
82 weekly deliveries via semi-trucks to loading docks adjacent to the Project site, as well
as multiple smaller deliveries (e.g., UPS, FedEx). In addition to the noise resulting from
operation of semi-trucks, deliveries generate additional noises from equipment such as
refrigeration units, forklifts, and loudspeakers. Additionally, backup alarms are required
by law to be audible above background noise levels.
3.10-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
While vehicular noise identified in the Acoustics Assessment from LOVR and U.S. 101
constitute the main source of ambient noise levels onsite, periodic high noise levels
generated by adjacent commercial uses also extend into the Project site.
3.10.1.3 Sensitive Receptors
Noise sensitive uses, or sensitive receptors, generally include single- and multi-family
residences, schools, libraries, medical care facilities, retirement/assisted living homes,
guest lodging, recreational areas, and places of worship. Such uses can be sensitive to
increases in both short-term and long-term noise due to a range of issues, such as sleep
disturbance and disruption of conversations, lectures or sermons, or decreased
attractiveness of exterior use areas, such as patios, backyards, outdoor pool decks, or parks.
Of particular concern is exposure of sensitive receptors to long-term elevated interior noise
levels and sleep disturbance, which can be associated with health concerns.
No sensitive land uses are currently located within the Project site. Sensitive land uses in
the Project vicinity include Mountainbrook Church and the hotels along Calle Joaquin.
Mountainbrook Church is located approximately 75 feet from the southern boundary of the
Project site and 580 feet from the Upper Terrace. The church is open daily and offers
religious services throughout the week, including classes and programs for children and
youth, with most programs offered during evenings and weekends. Four hotels (Rose
Garden Inn, Courtyard by Marriott, Hampton Inn & Suites, and Motel 6), three of which
have outdoor pools (Rose Garden Inn, Courtyard by Marriott, and Motel 6), are located
approximately 40 to 160 feet to the east of the site boundary. These facilities lie along Calle
Joaquin with setbacks of 75 to 230 feet between the roadway and the noise-sensitive uses
(hotel rooms or pools). The closest school is Pacific Beach High School, which is
approximately 0.27 mile northwest of the Project site. The closest existing residential area
is approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the Project site.
Additionally, the Project site is located adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, an
approximately 1,110-acre City-owned natural open space area supporting substantial
public recreational trails, as well as a wide variety of native habitats and wildlife species.
Irish Hills Natural Reserve supports over 8 miles of trails, including Neil Havlik Way and
the Froom Creek Trail, segments of which closely border the Project site. Although the
exact distance from the Project boundary varies along these trails, the shortest distance is
approximately 70 feet at the Project’s northwest boundary. These trails draw hikers, trail
runners, mountain bikers, and school groups attracted to the Reserve’s natural and
undeveloped character. This area also supports several special status wildlife species that
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-11
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
can be sensitive to noise – for discussion of possible noise impacts on wildlife (e.g.,
foraging, nesting, and reproductive activities), see Section 3.4, Biological Resources.
3.10.2 Regulatory Setting
Noise is governed primarily by federal, state, and local laws that would apply to future
development under the Project. Federal, state, and local regulations that are directly
relevant to the Project are summarized below.
3.10.2.1 Federal
Federal Transit Administration Criteria
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) developed methodology and significance
criteria to evaluate vibration impacts from surface transportation modes (i.e., passenger
cars, trucks, buses, and rail) in the Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (Harris
Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006). For residential buildings (Category 2), the threshold
applicable to these projects is 80 VdB.
Federal Noise Control Act (1972)
Public Law 92-574 regulates noise emissions from operation of all construction equipment
and facilities; establishes noise emission standards for construction equipment and other
categories of equipment; and provides standards for the testing, inspection, and monitoring
of such equipment. This Act gives states and municipalities primary responsibility for noise
control.
3.10.2.2 State
State of California’s Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Element of the
General Plan (1987)
These guidelines reference land use compatibility standards for community noise
environments as developed by the California Department of Health Services, Office of
Noise Control. Noise levels up to 60 Ldn or CNEL are determined to be normally acceptable
for single-family residential land uses. Noise levels up to 65 Ldn or CNEL are determined
to be normally acceptable for multi-family residential land and transient lodging (e.g.,
hotels) land uses. Noise levels up to 70 CNEL are normally acceptable for nursing homes,
hospitals, neighborhood parks, and business commercial land uses.
3.10-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
The California Administrative Code Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards
These standards regulate interior noise levels for all new residences to 45 Ldn or below. If
exterior noise levels exceed 60 Ldn, Title 24 requires the preparation of an acoustical
analysis showing that the proposed design would limit the noise level to or below the
interior 45 Ldn requirement.
3.10.2.3 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Noise Element and Noise Guidebook (1996)
According to state law, a Noise Element is required in all city and county general plans.
The City’s maximum noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land use (specific to
transportation noise sources) are shown in Table 3.10-5. Since residential land uses are
considered noise-sensitive, there are recommended maximum noise exposure guidelines.
Policy 1.3. New Development Design and Transportation Noise Sources. New noise-
sensitive development shall be located and designed to meet the maximum outdoor and
indoor noise exposure levels of Table 3.10-5.
Policy 1.4. New Transportation Noise Sources. Noise created by new transportation noise
sources, including road, railroad, and airport expansion projects, shall be mitigated to not
exceed the levels specified in Table 3.10-5 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of
noise-sensitive land uses which were established before the new transportation noise
source.
Policy 1.6. New Development and Stationary Noise Sources. New development of noise-
sensitive land uses may be permitted only where location or design allow the development
to meet the standards of Table 3.10-5 for existing stationary noise sources.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-13
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Table 3.10-5. City Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas
Due to Transportation Noise Sources
Land Use
Outdoor
Activity Areas1 Interior Spaces
Ldn2 or CNEL Ldn2 or CNEL Leq3 Lmax
Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing
homes
60 45 -- 60
Theaters, auditoriums, music halls -- -- 35 60
Churches, meeting halls, office building,
mortuaries
60 -- 45 --
Schools, libraries, museums -- -- 45 60
Neighborhood parks 65 -- -- --
Playgrounds 70 -- -- --
1 If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown in the column, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the
property line of the receiving land use.
2 Ldn (day-night average noise level) is the is the energy-averaged noise level measured over a 24-hour period, with a
10-dB penalty assigned to noise events occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM and a 5-dB penalty assigned to noise
events occurring between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM.
3 Leq (equivalent noise level) is the constant or single noise level containing the same total energy as a time-varying
sound, over a certain time. If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply
at the property line of the receiving land use.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 1996.
Policy 1.7. New or Modified Stationary Noise Sources. Noise generated by new stationary
sources, or by existing stationary noise sources which undergo modifications that may
increase noise levels, shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the exposure standards for lands
designated for noise-sensitive uses, as measured at the property line of the receiver.
The City’s General Plan NE lists mitigation strategies in a descending order of desirability.
If preferred strategies are not implemented, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to
demonstrate through a detailed noise study that the more desirable approaches are either
not effective or not practical, before considering other design criteria contained in the
General Plan.
Policy 1.8. Preferred Noise Mitigation Approaches. When approving of new development
of noise-sensitive uses or noise sources, the City will require noise mitigation in the
descending order of desirability shown below.
1.8.1. Mitigating Noise Sources
A. Arrange activity areas on the site of the noise-producing project so
project features, such as buildings containing uses that are not noise-
sensitive, shield neighboring noise-sensitive uses;
B. Limit the operating times of noise-producing activities;
3.10-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
C. Provide features, such as walls, with a primary purpose of blocking
noise.
1.8.2. Mitigating Outdoor Noise Exposure
A. Provide distance between noise source and recipient;
B. Provide distance plus planted earthen berms;
C. Provide distance and planted earthen berms, combined with sound walls;
D. Provide earthen berms combined with sound walls;
E. Provide sound walls only;
F. Integrate buildings and sound walls to create a continuous noise barrier.
1.8.3. Mitigating Indoor Noise Exposure
A. Achieve indoor noise level standards assuming windows are open;
B. Achieve indoor noise level standards assuming windows must be closed
(this option requires air conditioning or mechanical ventilation in
buildings).
Policy 1.10. Existing and Cumulative Impacts. The City would consider the following
mitigation measures appropriate where existing noise levels significantly impact noise-
sensitive land uses, or where cumulative increases in noise levels resulting from new
development significantly impact existing noise-sensitive land uses:
A. Rerouting traffic onto streets that can maintain desired levels of service,
consistent with the Circulation Element, and which do not adjoin noise-
sensitive land uses;
B. Rerouting trucks onto streets that do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses;
C. Constructing noise barriers;
D. Reducing traffic speeds through street or intersection design methods;
E. Retrofitting buildings with noise-reducing features;
F. Establishing financial programs, such as low-cost loans to owners of a noise-
impacted property, or developer fees to fund noise-mitigation or trip-reduction
programs.
New development of noise-sensitive land uses may only be permitted where standards are
met via location or design, as outlined in Table 3.10-6.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-15
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Table 3.10-6. City Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas
Due to Stationary Noise Sources
Daytime
(7:00 AM to 10:00 PM)
Nighttime2
(10:00 PM to 7:00 AM)
Hourly Leq in dB1, 2 50 45
Maximum level in dB1, 2 70 65
Maximum impulsive noise in dB1, 3 65 60
1 As determined at the property line of the receiver. When determining effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the
standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property-line noise mitigation measures.
2 Noise level measurements shall be made with slow meter response.
3 Noise level measurements shall be made with fast meter response.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 1996.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control)
The City’s Municipal Code (Section 9.12.060) specifies noise standards for various
categories of land use. These limits, shown in Table 3.10-7, would apply to long-term
operation of the site, and are not applicable during construction. Prohibitions applied to
creating noise for maximum time periods from any source within the City are shown in
Table 3.10-8.
Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities shall be conducted so
that maximum noise levels at affected properties would not exceed 75 dBA for single-
family residential, 80 dBA for multi-family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed
residential/commercial land uses, as shown in Table 3.10-9 and Table 3.10-10 (Municipal
Code, Section 9.12.050). Except for emergency repair of public service utilities, or where
an exception is issued by the City Community Development Department, no operation of
tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall
occur daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays or
holidays, such that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial
property line.
3.10-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Table 3.10-7. City of San Luis Obispo Exterior Noise Limits
Zoning Designation1 Time Period Maximum Acceptable
Noise Level (dBA2)3
Low- and Medium-Density Residential (R-1 and R-
2); Conservation/Open Space (C/OS)
10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 50
7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 55
Medium- and High-Density Residential (R-3 and R-
4)
10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 50
7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 55
Office and Public Facility (O and PF) 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 55
7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 60
Neighborhood, Retail, Community, Downtown and
Tourist Commercial (C-N, C-R, C-C, C-D, C-T)
10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 60
7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 65
Service Commercial (C-S) Any Time 70
Manufacturing (M) Any Time 75
1 The classification of different areas of the community in terms of environmental noise zones shall be determined by
the Noise Control Office(r) based upon community noise survey data. Additional area classifications should be used as
appropriate to reflect both lower and higher existing ambient levels than those shown. Industrial noise limits are
intended primarily for use at the boundary of industrial zones rather than for noise reduction within the zone (Ord. 1032
§ 2 [part] 1985)
2 dBA (A-weighted decibel scale) emphasizes the range of sound frequencies that are most audible to the human ear
(between 1,000 and 8,000 Hertz).
3 Levels not to be exceeded more than 30 minutes in any hour.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2008.
Table 3.10-8. Maximum Time Periods for Increased Noise Levels
Noise Standard for
Existing Land Use
Maximum Time Period
Allowed
+0 dB 30 minutes/hour
+5 dB 15 minutes/hour
+10 dB 5 minutes/hour
+15 dB 1 minute/hour
+20 dB Any time
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 1996.
Table 3.10-9. Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-Term
Operation (Less than 10 Days) of Mobile Equipment at Residential
Properties
Zoning Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA)
Single-Family Residential Daily 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, except
Sundays and legal holidays
75
Multi-Family Residential 80
Mixed Residential/Commercial 85
Single-Family Residential 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM, all day Sunday
and legal holidays
50
Multi-Family Residential 55
Mixed Residential/Commercial 60
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2008.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-17
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Table 3.10-10. Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled, Relatively Long-
Term Operation (10 Days or More) of Stationary Equipment at
Residential Properties
Zoning Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA)
Single-Family Residential Daily 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, except
Sundays and legal holidays
60
Multi-Family Residential 65
Mixed Residential/Commercial 70
Single-Family Residential Daily 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM, including all
day Sunday and legal holidays
50
Multi-Family Residential 55
Mixed Residential/Commercial 60
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2008.
3.10.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.10.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
Noise levels for the Project must comply with relevant noise policies, standards, and
ordinances. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a set of screening questions that
address impacts related to noise. Specifically, the Guidelines state that a proposed project
may have a significant adverse impact related to noise if the project would:
a) Result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established
in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies;
b) Result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels; and
c) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted within 2 miles of a public airport or public
use airport, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels.
3.10.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
This analysis was based on review and analysis of the City General Plan NE, the 2014
LUCE Update EIR, the County General Plan NE, the ALUP, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108; FHWA
Model), the Applicant-prepared Acoustics Assessment for the Project (Appendix I), and
3.10-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
third party peer review of this Acoustics Assessment by the EIR consultant’s technical
noise specialist.
Construction Noise
Noise impacts related to construction traffic are assessed against noise levels permitted in
in the City Municipal Code Section 9.12.060. Noise associated with construction trips is
considered an intermittent rather than ongoing noise source, and impacts are accordingly
assessed in relation to Table 3.10-8, Maximum Time Periods for Increased Noise Levels.
Projected construction noise levels are analyzed based on typical construction equipment
required for Project development, construction BMPs, and distance between sensitive
receptors and anticipated construction activities.
The construction noise impact analysis assumes that Project development would occur over
a five-year period in four phases as detailed in Table 2-7, Section 2.0, Project Description.
Each phase of construction would involve different equipment and activities that would at
times overlap and potentially amplify noise levels. For example, the Project would require
import of 220,000 cy of soil and 2,300 cy of rock over five years. Utilizing a conservative
worst-case approach, the analysis assumes the use of smaller haul trucks and determined
Project development could require up to 22,000 heavy haul truck trips.2 Construction
traffic would also include earth and rock export/import, construction material deliveries,
and cement trucks.
Although precise numbers are not known, most of the approximately 22,000 heavy truck
trips, particularly those associated with hauling of earth and rock, are assumed to access
the site directly via the proposed main entrance at LOVR and Auto Park Way during the
21 months of Phase 1 and much of the 29 months of Phase 2. However, after occupancy of
residential units in Villaggio’s Lower Area toward the end of Phase 2, construction traffic,
including a smaller portion of heavy trucks, would access the proposed stormwater
detention basin area from Calle Joaquin and the Upper Terrace via Mountainbrook
Church’s private roadway. Potential impacts of haul trucks traffic on sensitive receptors
are analyzed based on the estimated noise level generated by a heavy haul or cement trucks
and the estimated distance of sensitive receptors from roadways carrying heavy haul truck
2 Estimated trips are based on a worst-case estimate for use of single box trucks. Haul truck capacities
typically range from 10 cy with a single box to 20 cy with a double box; use of larger single box trucks
with a 14-cy capacity is also common. Although major haul projects typically use larger load, 14 to 20 cy
load trucks, the final mix of truck sizes cannot be known and will be based on economics, availability,
and access routes, making precise numbers difficult to forecast.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-19
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
traffic. Analysis of noise impacts from construction traffic trips are considered for two
potential construction haul routes:
1. Primary heavy haul truck trip access during Phase 1, much of Phase 2 and all of
Phase 4 would be through the main Project site entry at LOVR and Auto Park Way,
via LOVR. Trucks would use internal Local Road “C” or an interim road along this
alignment to access the site and the Upper Terrace during rough grading, but not
after the occupancy of units in the Lower Area of Villaggio in the later stages of
Phase 2. Construction traffic for the Madonna Froom Ranch residential and
commercial development would use the main Project entrance off LOVR.
2. Deliveries of construction materials and heavy equipment along with cement trucks
for foundation pours at the Upper Terrace would use the Mountainbrook Church
access route.
Construction noise levels were estimated using data published by the FHWA regarding the
noise-generating characteristics of typical construction equipment (see Table 3.10-11).
Construction noise levels diminish rapidly with distance, at a rate of approximately 6 dBA
per doubling of distance as equipment is generally stationary or confined to specific area
or access routes during construction. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured at 50
feet from the noise source would be reduced to 80 dBA at 100 feet from the source, and by
another 6 dBA (to 74 dBA) at 200 feet from the source. The noise levels from construction
at the offsite sensitive uses can be determined with the following equation from the High-
Speed Ground Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report:
Lmax at sensitive use= Lmax at 50 feet – 20 Log(D/50)
Where: Lmax = noise level of noise source, D = distance from the noise source to the
receiver, and Lmax at 50 feet = noise level of source at 50 feet (U.S. Department of
Transportation 2012).
3.10-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Table 3.10-11. Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment
Construction Equipment Noise Levels in dBA Leq at 50 Feet
Back Hoe 73–95
Backup Alarm 88
Compressors 75–87
Concrete Mixer 75–88
Concrete Mixer Truck 79
Concrete Pump Truck 81
Concrete Pumps 81–85
Cranes (derrick) 86–89
Cranes (moveable) 75–88
Forklift 80
Generators 71–83
Haul Trucks (operation) 82–95
Haul Trucks (transportation) 85
Jackhammers 81–98
Paver 85–88
Pneumatic Tools 85
Pumps 68–72
Saws 72–82
Scraper/Grader 80–93
Semi-truck 85
Tractor 77–98
Vacuum Street Sweeper 82
Vibrator 68–82
Note: Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise-reducing design features does not generate the
same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table.
Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation 2013; FHWA 2006.
As set forth in the City Municipal Code, Section 9.12.050, construction activities within
the City are generally permissible between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays and
Saturdays. During these hours, the City permits long-term construction noise (in excess of
10 days) up to 70 dBA for commercial sensitive receptors, and 65 dBA for residential
sensitive receptors (refer to Table 3.10-9) or up to 20 dBA above normally acceptable
levels for any instantaneous noise event (refer to Table 3.10-8). Construction noise in
excess of these levels would be considered significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-21
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Vibration Levels Associated with Construction Equipment
Construction-related groundborne vibration levels were estimated using the 2013 Caltrans
Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Caltrans provides thresholds
of significance for vibration and a methodology for calculating vibration levels at a certain
distance from the generating source. Table 3.10-12 indicates vibration levels at which
humans would be affected. Table 3.10-13 identifies anticipated vibration velocity levels in
inches per second (in/sec) for standard types of construction equipment based on distance
from the receptor. Vibration impacts are assessed by estimating the vibration levels of
Project construction equipment and the distance of sensitive receptors to the vibration
source. Vibration impacts include those from excavation and other onsite construction
activities, as well as those associated with heavy haul trucks and concrete trucks.
Vibration levels at sensitive uses are determined using the following equation:
PPVProjected = PPVRef (25/D)n
Where: PPVRef = reference Peak Particle Velocity (in/sec) at 25 feet; D = distance from
equipment to the receiver in feet; n = 1.1 (a recommended conservative value pertaining
to attenuation rate of vibration through ground).
Table 3.10-12. Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Human Response Condition Maximum Vibration Level (in/sec)
for Transient Sources1
Maximum Vibration
Level (in/sec) for
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Severe 2.0 0.4
1 Transit sources are defined as temporary sustained vibration of a mechanical system.
Source: Caltrans 2013.
Table 3.10-13. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Construction
Equipment
Vibration Level (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Vibration Level (in/sec)
at 50 feet
Vibration Level (in/sec)
at 100 feet
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks
(e.g., cement truck)
0.076 0.035 0.017
Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.008
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0004
Source: Caltrans 2013.
3.10-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Operational Roadway Noise
Policy 1.4 of the City’s General Plan NE sets maximum noise exposure standards for noise-
sensitive land use specific to transportation noise sources (refer to Table 3.10-5). Noise in
excess of these levels would be considered significant. Project-generated increases in
roadway noise levels are considered in terms of potential to increase traffic volumes above
existing conditions. Project implementation would increase traffic and traffic-generated
noise on nearby roadways. In addition, future Project residents could be exposed to noise
generated on adjacent roadways.
Analysis of mobile source noise impacts includes review of LUCE Update EIR estimated
roadway noise levels in the Project vicinity for U.S. 101 and LOVR, and the Acoustics
Assessment prepared for the Project for existing and future roadway noise level estimates
within the Project site (Appendix I). As discussed in Section 3.10.1.2, Existing Noise
Environment, the LUCE Update EIR noise modeling does not account for physical
features, such as the Mountainbrook Church hill or hotels along Calle Joaquin, and
therefore overstates onsite noise levels from U.S. 101. The Acoustics Assessment appears
to most accurately reflect roadway noise levels from LOVR and is therefore used for
assessment of those impacts.
Stationary Noise Sources
Commercial operation noise levels are estimated using data regarding the noise-generating
characteristics of typical commercial equipment published by the FHWA, Environmental
Health Perspectives, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (see Table 3.10-14). The
City’s Municipal Code (Section 9.12.060) specifies noise exposure standards for future
uses within the Project site (Table 3.10-7). Noise generated from residential or other non-
commercial uses within and adjacent to the Project site are estimated based on the typical
dBA levels generated from urban uses, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) equipment, delivery trucks, and other common uses, as well as the distance of
major adjacent noise generating sources (e.g., loading docks).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-23
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Table 3.10-14. Noise Ranges of Typical Commercial Equipment
Construction Equipment Noise Levels in dBA Leq at 50 Feet
Backup Alarm 881
HVAC 552
Forklift 80
Loudspeakers 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Semi-truck 85
Vacuum Street Sweeper 82
Note: Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise-reducing design features does not generate the
same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table.
1While this represents typical backup alarm levels, alarms are required by law to be audible above ambient noise levels.
2This represents noise levels following typical attenuation methods including fitting with noise shielding cabinets or
placement on a roof or mechanical equipment room.
Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation 2013; FHWA 2006; Holzman 2011.
Assessment of potential impacts to future residents from roadways and adjacent uses
accounts for existing measured and mapped noise levels, as well as Project design features
intended to minimize impacts to future residents (e.g., inclusion of noise-reducing building
materials).
3.10.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially sensitive uses that could be affected by Project construction noise and vibration,
as well as Project operational noise impacts include Mountainbrook Church, hotels along
Calle Joaquin, passive recreational uses within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, and future
noise-sensitive Project components, particularly residential uses in Villaggio’s Lower
Area, which are proposed to be occupied during intensive construction activities associated
with later phases. In addition, future Project residents could be exposed to existing and
future roadway noise and noise generated from adjacent commercial operations. Noise
from aircraft overflights do not generate high noise levels under current and projected
airport operations. Short-term construction and long-term operational impacts are analyzed
for the existing and future noise environment, and appropriate noise-control mitigation
measures are recommended below.
3.10-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Table 3.10-15. Summary of Project Impacts
Noise Impacts Mitigation
Measures
Residual Significance
NO-1. Project construction, including site grading and
heavy truck trips, would generate noise levels that
exceed thresholds established in the City’s General
Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook resulting in
potentially significant impacts to proximate sensitive
receptors.
MM NO-1
MM NO-2
MM NO-3
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
NO-2. Project 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
NO-3. Long-term operational noise impacts would
include higher roadway noise levels from increased
vehicle traffic generated by the Project, Project
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
NO-4. Future residents and occupants of the Project
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
Impact NO‐1 Project construction, including site grading and heavy truck trips,
would generate noise levels that exceed thresholds established in the
City’s General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook resulting in
potentially significant impacts to proximate sensitive receptors (Less
than Significant with Mitigation).
Project construction would extend over a five-year period and include approximately
570,000 cy of grading, with 220,000 cy of imported fill for the construction of proposed
development within the Project site, including 404 senior housing units within Villaggio
and up to 174 multi-family residential units, with over 2 miles of new roads and driveways,
utilities, and major drainage improvements, including realignment and widening of Froom
Creek. Each phase of construction would involve different equipment and activities that
would at times overlap and potentially amplify construction-related noise levels. Utilizing
a conservative worst-case approach, it is assumed that Project construction would utilize
smaller haul trucks, requiring up to 22,000 heavy haul truck trips for import/export of fill
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-25
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
material.3 Construction traffic would also include earth and rock export/import,
construction material deliveries, and cement trucks. The analysis assumes these trips would
occur within the Project site. However, after occupancy of residential units in Villaggio’s
Lower Area toward the end of Phase 2, construction traffic, including a smaller portion of
heavy trucks, would access the proposed stormwater detention basin area from Calle
Joaquin and the Upper Terrace via Mountainbrook Church’s private roadway.
Construction activities would generate increased noise that could impact surrounding uses,
particularly the use of earth moving equipment (e.g., bulldozers) and heavy haul trucks.
Construction noise levels vary depending on the amount and types of equipment used,
timing, and location of the activity in relation to the receptor (refer to Table 3.10-11).
Site preparation and grading would involve roughly 60 acres and occur in different
locations in Phases 1 through 3. Rough grading and transport of excess material within the
site, as well as import of more than 220,000 cy of fill and rock by heavy haul trucks during
these phases, would generate increased onsite and offsite noise levels. High levels of
construction noise would be generated by excavation equipment, internal haul truck trips,
and importation of fill from offsite. Grading and importation of fill would initially precede
and then be overlapped with construction of roadways, building pads, and utilities.
Rough grading and site preparation during Phases 1 through 3 would generate the highest
construction noise levels due to operation of heavy equipment and heavy haul trucks.
Specifically, rough grading, heavy truck trips, and construction in areas of the site
proximate to sensitive receptors (such as hotels along Calle Joaquin, the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve, and Mountainbrook Church) would generate potential impacts. Noise would also
occur from sources such as backup warning devices, which would be audible offsite.
Construction activities proximate to Calle Joaquin, including realignment of Froom Creek
and construction of the proposed stormwater detention basin and Lower Area of Villaggio
could impact sensitive receptors, such as hotel guests. Periodic maximum construction
noise levels are estimated to be as high as 85 dB at the nearest hotel building and 81 dB at
the nearest hotel pool. Construction close to Mountainbrook Church (e.g., the emergency
access road, haul truck trips) could generate noise levels of up to 91 dB (Table 3.1-16).
3 Estimated trips are based on a worst-case estimate for use of single box trucks. Haul truck capacities
typically range from 10 cy with a single box to 20 cy with a double box; use of larger single box trucks
with a 14-cy capacity is also common. Although major haul projects typically use larger load 14- to 20-
cy load trucks, the final mix of truck sizes cannot be known as it will be based on economics,
availability, and access routes, making precise numbers difficult to forecast.
3.10-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Generally, noise levels generated by construction activities would be reduced by 20 to 30
dB within structures, depending on building materials.
Hikers, mountain bikers, and other users of the trails in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve
would also be exposed to noise impacts from all phases of Project construction. Depending
upon the phase of the Project, noise levels for trail users could reach 90 dBA with users
exposed to such noise levels for 15 to 30 minutes depending upon the trail and mode of use
(e.g., walking vs. mountain bike).
In addition, the Project phasing would allow occupancy of the Lower Area of Villaggio to
be occupied as early as 2022. Occupancy would precede later construction phases of the
Upper Terrace and Madonna Froom Ranch. While grading of the site would be complete
by 2022, fine grading and vertical construction of the Upper Terrace and Madonna Froom
Ranch would continue between 2022 and 2025, which would generate noise from trucks
and heavy construction equipment. Senior independent living residences, the Villaggio
Health Care Administration building, and senior assisted living facilities occupied in 2022
would be considered sensitive receptors to noise from Project construction. Grading, onsite
transport of cut material between the Upper Terrace and Madonna Froom Ranch areas, and
import of offsite fill to the Madonna Froom Ranch Area would potentially generate
excessive noise levels from heavy construction equipment and heavy haul trucks.
To protect future residents in Villaggio’s Lower Area from excessive construction noise
generated during Phases 3 and 4 (see Section 2.0, Project Description), the Applicant
proposes to strategically schedule grading of the Upper Terrace (Phase 3) to occur at the
same time as grading activities associated with Phase 1 and 2. All major grading and
earthmoving, including balancing soils within the Project site, would occur prior to
occupancy of any units within the Specific Plan area. Once occupancy begins, the Project
would reroute construction trips to the Upper Terrace, including any heavy haul or
materials delivery trips, along Calle Joaquin to the Mountainbrook Church driveway and
parking lot instead of through the local roads constructed to serve the Project. This
circulation approach would move sources of substantial construction noise offsite and away
from sensitive receptors residing onsite within the Lower Area once it is constructed. This
proposed construction phasing would therefore reduce the potential for exposure of
sensitive elderly populations to the most intensive construction activities and noise levels
associated with development under the Project.
Overall, Project construction maximum noise levels could reach as high as 89 to 92 dBA
at surrounding sensitive uses, including hotels along Calle Joaquin, Mountainbrook Church
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-27
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
and within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (see Table 3.10-16). The City Municipal Code
permits construction noise up to 70 dBA for commercial sensitive receptors and up to 20
dBA above normally acceptable levels for any instantaneous noise event. Project
construction activities could exceed these thresholds both in peak noise and duration;
therefore, impacts are potentially significant.
Table 3.10-16. Maximum Estimated Outdoor Construction Peak Noise Levels at
Sensitive Receptors (Unmitigated)
Mountainbrook
Church
Nearest Hotel
Building
Nearest Hotel
Pool
Neil Havlik Way
Trail
Minimum distance
from construction
activity (feet)
60 100 140 70
Construction Noise
(dBA Lmax) 91 92 89 90
Note: Noise levels at sensitive uses were determined with the following equation from the High-Speed Ground Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report: Lmax = Lmax at 50 feet. – 20 Log(D/50), where Lmax = noise level of
noise source, D = distance from the noise source to the receiver, Lmax at 50 feet = noise level of source at 50 feet. Noise
levels represent the lower and upper limits of graders as displayed in Table 3.10-11. Noise levels have been rounded up
to the nearest whole number.
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation 2012.
Mitigation Measures
MM NO-1 Except for emergency repair of public service utilities, or where an
exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no
operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair,
alteration, or demolition work shall occur between the hours of 7:00 PM
and 7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, such that
the sound creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single-family
residential uses, 80 dBA for multi-family residential uses, and 85 dBA for
mixed residential/commercial land uses, as shown in Table 3.10-9 and
Table 3.10-10, across a residential or commercial property line.
Requirements and Timing. Plans submitted for grading and building
permits shall clearly indicate construction hours and shall be submitted to
the City for approval prior to grading and building permit issuance for each
Project phase. To ensure response to and resolution of potential public noise
nuisance complaints, plans submitted for grading and building permits shall
clearly identify the Project’s construction manager (or similar) and 24-hour
contact information. At the pre-construction meeting required for all phases
of grading and development, all construction workers shall be briefed on
3.10-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
restricted construction hour limitations. A workday schedule shall be
adhered to for the duration of construction for all phases.
Monitoring. The Applicant’s permit compliance monitoring staff shall
perform periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity
schedules and respond to complaints.
MM NO-2 For all construction activity at the Project site, noise attenuation techniques
shall be employed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels
allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter
9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include:
Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment.
Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above
65 dBA at the Project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier
that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise
barriers attenuate sound) of 25.
All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and
shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between
construction sites and affected uses.
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall designate the proposed
area of operation of stationary construction equipment and depict acoustic
shielding around these areas on building and grading plans. Equipment and
shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the
designated location throughout construction activities. Construction plans
shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented
during construction. All construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-
construction meeting on how, why, and where BMP measures are to be
implemented. BMPs shall be identified and described for submittal to the
City for review and approval prior to building or grading permit issuance.
BMPs shall be adhered to for the duration of the Project. Construction plans
shall include truck routes and shall be submitted to the City prior to grading
and building permit issuance for each Project phase.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-29
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout all construction
phases. The Applicant’s permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform
periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity schedules.
MM NO-3 The Applicant shall inform landowners and business operators at
properties within 300 feet of the Project site of proposed construction
timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance
or nuisance complaints related to construction noise no less than 10 days
prior to initiation of any grading and construction activity for any Phase.
The notice shall include the name and contact information of the Project’s
construction manager and contact information for the City’s Community
Development Department.
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall provide and post signs
stating these restrictions and the Project’s construction manager’s name and
contact information at construction site entries. Signs shall be posted prior
to commencement of construction and maintained throughout construction
of any Phase. The construction schedule and mailing list shall be submitted
to the City Community Development Department 10 days prior to initiation
of any earth movement.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout all construction
phases. The Applicant’s permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform
periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity schedules and
respond to complaints.
Residual Impact
Noise from construction activities associated with Impact NO-1 would be reduced with
implementation of MM NO-1 through -3. These measures require that the Applicant limit
certain construction activities, provide noise attenuation measures to reduce perceived
interior and exterior noise levels, and notice nearby landowners of construction activities
and establish methods for addressing complaints. These measures, particularly MM NO-2,
would ensure construction noise levels are reduced to levels acceptable under City
standards. Therefore, residual impacts to Impact NO-1 would be less than significant.
3.10-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Impact NO-2 Project construction activities (e.g., excavation, transportation of heavy
equipment) could result in exposure of sensitive receptors and
buildings to excessive groundborne vibration (Less than Significant).
Project construction could increase exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive vibration
levels. Based on Caltrans vibration criteria in Table 3.10-12 and Table 3.10-13, sensitive
receptors within 100 feet of construction activities could be subject to excessive vibration
from construction equipment. Sensitive receptors would include Mountainbrook Church
and hotels along Calle Joaquin.
Based on the distance and type of anticipated construction equipment and activities, these
sensitive receptors could experience periodic vibrations up to 0.047 in/sec. As construction
would be a frequent source of vibration for extended periods, this would be distinctly
perceptible. However, vibration levels experienced by offsite sensitive receptors would not
exceed the threshold of 0.10 in/sec. These vibrations would be temporary and intermittent
due to the nature of construction, and would only occur during the hours of construction,
generally 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM except for Sundays and holidays.
With regard to onsite sensitive receptors, as discussed above, to protect future residents in
Villaggio’s Lower Area from excessive construction noise and vibrations generated during
Phases 3 and 4 (see Section 2.0, Project Description), the Applicant proposes to
strategically schedule grading of the Upper Terrace (Phase 3) to occur at the same time as
grading activities associated with Phase 1 and 2, to avoid construction-related impacts of
later phases on Lower Area Villaggio occupants. Once occupancy begins, the Project
would reroute construction trips to the Upper Terrace via Calle Joaquin to the
Mountainbrook Church driveway and parking lot instead of through the local roads
constructed to serve the Project. This circulation approach would move sources of
construction vibration offsite and away from sensitive receptors residing onsite within the
Villaggio Lower Area once it is constructed. This proposed construction approach would
reduce potential for exposure of sensitive elderly populations to the most intensive
construction activities and groundborne vibrations associated with development under the
Project.
Because anticipated vibration levels would be substantially lower than thresholds
established by Caltrans (See Table 3.10-12), vibration impacts to offsite sensitive receptors
as a result of construction would be less than significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-31
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Impact NO-3 Long-term operational noise impacts would include higher roadway
noise levels from increased vehicle traffic generated by the Project,
Project 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 (Less than
Significant).
Increased Roadway Noise
The Project would increase traffic on U.S. 101 and LOVR and could contribute to increased
noise levels from traffic. Under typical circumstances, projected traffic volumes generally
need to double over existing volumes in order for associated noise levels to increase by
approximately 3 dBA – the increase in noise level that is generally perceptible to the human
ear. As depicted in Table 3.10-17, projected ADT on LOVR are estimated to increase by
approximately 16.7 percent as a result of this Project, with an associated increase of less
than 1.0 dBA along this roadway. Project generated trips on U.S. 101 are expected to
increase by approximately 2.4 percent, which is similarly associated with a less than 1.0
dBA increase. Increased traffic ADTs along Calle Joaquin would be negligible with no
perceptible increase in noise levels. Given marginal Project-generated increases in traffic
and associated roadway noise levels along U.S. 101, LOVR, and Calle Joaquin, the Project
would not result in a significant contribution to the existing noise environment which
would result in exceedance of noise standards at nearby offsite receptors. Further, given
the Project would not expose future residents to unacceptable noise levels generated at
nearby roadways, traffic-related noise impacts are considered less than significant.
Table 3.10-17. Projected Traffic and Noise Level Increases along Adjacent
Roadways
Roadway Segment Existing ADT Projected ADT (%
increase)
Projected Noise Level
Increase (dBA)
LOVR 31,000 5,183 (16.7%) < 1
U.S. 101 80,000 1,555 (2.4%) < 1
Notes: Projected noise level increases were estimated from projected increases in ADT based on the following formula:
dBA=10Log10 (Projected ADT/Existing ADT).
Source: Caltrans 2017; City of San Luis Obispo 2016.
Exposure of Future Project Residents to High Noise Levels
Roadways near the Project site experience high levels of traffic that could result in noise
impacts to future sensitive receptors onsite. The portion of U.S. 101 adjacent to the Project
3.10-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
site carries up to 80,000 ADTs and is located approximately 940 feet from the nearest
proposed residential building (in the Lower Area of Villaggio). LOVR also lies adjacent to
the Project site and carries approximately 31,000 ADTs. LOVR is located approximately
170 feet from the nearest residential unit in Villaggio’s Lower Area, approximately 300
feet from proposed health care facilities within Villaggio’s Lower Area, and approximately
170 feet from the nearest proposed multi-family residential unit in Madonna Froom Ranch.
Maximum allowable noise exposure resulting from transportation sources for residences,
hotels, and office buildings within the City is 60 dBA in exterior areas and 45 dBA within
interior spaces (See Table 3.10-5). Maximum allowable exposure of neighborhood parks
within the City is 65 dBA. The Acoustics Assessment prepared for the Project site modeled
the 60 dBA noise contour to be outside of these residential areas and proposed
neighborhood park and estimates that residential land uses would be approximately 42 to
57 dBA. Noise levels at the proposed neighborhood park are estimated to be 42 to 51 dBA
(Appendix I). Therefore, roadway noise levels would not exceed City standards for exterior
and interior noise levels under implementation of the Project. Associated impacts are
considered less than significant.
Operational Activities
Under the Project, long-term operational noise impacts would include noise from operation
of HVAC systems, landscaping and maintenance activities, and other typical residential
and commercial noise-generating uses.
Noise levels from commercial HVAC equipment can reach 100 dBA at a distance of 3 feet
U.S. EPA 1971); however, these units are typically fitted with noise shielding cabinets,
placed on the roof or in mechanical equipment rooms to reduce noise levels. Noise from
mechanical equipment associated with operation of the Project is required to comply with
the CBC requirements pertaining to noise attenuation. Therefore, with the application of
these noise reduction techniques, noise from these pieces of equipment does not typically
exceed 55 dBA at 50 feet, and would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room as
required by Title 24 of the CBC. As such, the operation of HVAC systems would not
exceed City exterior noise limits (see Table 3.10-7).
Landscaping and maintenance activities may include the use of equipment such as noise-
compliant leaf blowers or hedge trimmers, which would reach levels of 65 dBA at 50 feet.
Maximum permissible noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short-term operation of
mobile equipment on multi-family residential properties from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-33
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
excepting Sundays and holidays, ranges from 80 to 85 dBA (see Table 3.10-9). Expected
noise levels of equipment would be further reduced due to the fact that the nearest noise-
sensitive receptor is located 100 feet away.
The noise impacts from operation of the proposed development would be typical of similar
uses and would not constitute a substantial increase in ambient noise levels at offsite
locations and therefore would not exceed interior or exterior ambient noise thresholds at
offsite locations. Therefore, impacts related to the operation of stationary equipment and
site maintenance activities resulting from the Project would be less than significant.
Impact NO-4 Periodic high noise levels from nearby commercial uses (e.g., delivery
trucks, forklifts, backup alarms) may exceed City thresholds for
residential land uses (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
Residential uses of the Madonna Froom Ranch neighborhood could be exposed to periodic
high noise levels from commercial operations in the Irish Hills Plaza Shopping Center,
particularly from loading dock operations. Commercial facilities within the Irish Hills
Plaza support regular deliveries by large semi-trucks that can occur from 6:00 AM to 9:00
PM and generate noise from semi-trucks, refrigeration units, forklifts, and loudspeakers.
Additionally, backup alarms are required and would also create intermittent high noise
levels. General maintenance activities for the Irish Hills Plaza, including vacuum street
sweeping and dump truck circulation, would also generate intermittent peak noise.
Sensitive receptors that would be potentially affected by intermittent high noise levels from
adjacent commercial uses include the proposed neighborhood park, hotel, retail/office
spaces, and residents in the Madonna Froom Ranch neighborhood. Proposed residences
along the northwestern Project boundary and the proposed park would be located within
80 to 220 feet of the Home Depot loading dock and garden shop. The proposed hotel and
retail and office spaces are located within 175 to 250 feet of the TJ Maxx and Whole Foods
loading docks, while proposed multi-family residences are within 440 feet. Given these
intervening distances and noise levels from commercial operations, intermittent exterior
noise levels could reach up to 76 dBA at some of the proposed Madonna Froom Ranch
residences, 85 dBA within the proposed public park, 77 dB at the proposed hotel, and 74
dB at the proposed retail and office spaces (see Table 3.10-18). While noise levels from
HVAC equipment for offsite commercial facilities can reach up to 100 dBA, units
compliant with CBC noise attenuation requirements do not typically exceed 55 dBA at 50
feet and would not have a notable impact on the Project site.
3.10-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Automobile dealerships and associated automobile repair facilities located across LOVR
also have the potential to generate noise impacts. Noise sources resulting from these
facilities include outdoor loudspeakers and automobile service activities (e.g., pneumatic
air guns). Future onsite sensitive receptors potentially impacted by automobile dealership
generated noise would include the proposed Villaggio Lower Area health care facilities
located approximately 550 feet away and Madonna Froom Ranch multi-family housing
located approximately 370 feet away. Given intervening distances and maximum
equipment noise levels, periodic exterior noise levels from these sources could reach up to
68 dBA at the proposed Health Care Administration Building and 72 dBA at the proposed
multi-family housing units. However, given its intermittent nature and distance from the
site, automobile dealership noise would be considered a nuisance, but less than significant.
Irish Hills Plaza loading dock receives regular deliveries by large semi-trucks, as well as
deliveries from smaller vendors with variable schedules and frequency. Approximately 82
average weekly deliveries via semi-trucks to loading docks adjacent to future sensitive
receptors, as well as multiple smaller deliveries (e.g., UPS, FedEx) could lead to substantial
noise impacts in excess of adopted City standards. In addition to the noise resulting from
operation of semi-trucks, deliveries generate additional noises from equipment such as
refrigeration units, forklifts, loudspeakers and backup alarms. As presented in Table 3.10-
18, typical noise generated by such activities could range from 68 to 85 dB throughout the
Madonna Froom Ranch development. While noise generated by loading dock operations
would be heard in exterior areas of the proposed hotel, retail/office uses, and health care
facilities, the maximum noise level is not projected to exceed City standards. However,
loading dock operational noise could exceed exterior noise standards for the public park
and multi-family residential uses. Given the potential for these noise activities to exceed
exterior noise limits for park and residential uses within Madonna Froom Ranch, impacts
are considered potentially significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-35
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
Table 3.10-18. Maximum Noise Level Estimates and Thresholds Resulting from
Nearby Commercial Activities
Park Hotel
MFR R-3-
SP
Residences
MFR R-4-
SP
Housing
Health
Care
Facilities
Retail/
Office
Maximum Noise Level
(dB) 85 77 76 72 68 74
City Exterior Noise
Limit – 30 minutes or
more1 (dBA)
60 65 60 55 55 60
City Exterior Noise
Limit – 1 minute2 (dBA) 75 80 75 70 70 75
1 Noise Standard for Land Use within Section 9.12.060 of the City Municipal Code. Levels not to be exceeded more
than 30 minutes in any hour.
2 Noise Standard for Land Use within Section 9.12.060 of the City Municipal Code. Levels not to be exceeded for more
than one minute in any hour.
MFR - Madonna Froom Ranch
Mitigation Measures
MM NO-4. Prior to approval of park and residential development within the Madonna
Froom Ranch area of the Specific Plan, the Applicant shall submit a
project-specific noise study that evaluates the potential for noise exposure
from adjacent commercial uses and identifies project-specific design
measures to attenuate exterior and interior noise consistent with the City’s
Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. If necessary to reduce noise within
acceptable levels, noise reduction measures may include a planted earthen
berm, sound wall, or similar noise attenuating feature along the site
boundary with Irish Hills Plaza, consistent with Policy 1.8.2 of the Noise
Element.
Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall incorporate the above
mitigation within the final FRSP prior to adoption.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance with required site design
and noise reduction measures within the final FRSP prior to adoption and
shall confirm any required noise attenuation measures are shown on
construction plans prior to issuance of building permits.
Residual Impact
MM NO-4 would attenuate noise from adjacent commercial deliveries and loading areas,
ensuring that proposed residential and park uses would not be exposed to noise exceeding
3.10-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
levels identified within Section 9.12.060 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, residual
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
3.10.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Development of the Project in conjunction with future cumulative projects would
potentially result in an increase in construction-related and traffic-related noise sources in
the City.
Construction Impacts
The potential for cumulative construction-related impacts to occur is increased with the
Project’s five-year construction period. Construction-related noise and groundborne
vibration associated with the Project would potentially overlap with some cumulative
projects within Table 3.0-1 (that have not yet been approved or constructed). This includes
development of two automobile dealerships along Auto Park Way, Towne place Suites,
and the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area. Construction noise generated by the Project
and other future development would be localized within the vicinity of the proposed
development areas. Project-related construction noise and vibration would be removed
from other construction activities and proposed projects pending in the vicinity. The
Project, along with other cumulative development projects, would be required to
implement site-specific measures to reduce construction-related noise to reduce impacts on
surrounding development. Implementation of such measures would ensure noise generated
from an individual site is adequately attenuated and would not contribute to cumulatively
significant impacts on surrounding uses. Larger cumulative development projects such as
the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project, located approximately 1,800 feet north of the
Project site, are located far enough from the Project site that concurrent development
activities would not contribute to a cumulative substantial increase in ambient noise due to
distance of the noise generators and attenuation from intervening development. Therefore,
the Project’s construction-related noise and vibration impacts would not considerably
contribute to cumulative noise and vibration impacts from construction activities.
Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Impacts
The Project, in combination with approved, pending, and proposed development within the
City, would contribute to an increase of long-term traffic and associated traffic noise, as
well as operational noise from the proposed new development. The Project does not
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.10-37
Draft EIR
3.10 NOISE
propose any uses that would generate noise which would result in a perceptible increase in
ambient noise levels offsite, and the Project contribution to the cumulative noise
environment would be negligible. Implementation and buildout of the LUCE Update and
pending projects in the vicinity would increase traffic volumes and associated noise levels
along major transportation routes. The Project would also increase traffic and associated
noise levels with approximately 5,183 additional ADT along surrounding roadways such
as LOVR, Calle Joaquin, and U.S. 101, although these increases in ambient noise levels
would not result in a noticeable increase in noise levels (less than 1 dBA increase). As
discussed above, a perceptible increase in roadway noise levels would require traffic
volumes to nearly double over existing volumes. Cumulative projects in the area would
increase traffic levels and subsequent noise levels primarily on arterials and major
roadways by approximately 20 percent (Appendix J); therefore, the noise-related impacts
to residential and local streets would be nominal. Development of the Project and
implementation of the LUCE Update could cumulatively increase stationary source noise
levels; however, the City’s Noise Element and Municipal Code contain policies and
programs that would address and mitigate potential site-specific impacts for individual
projects in the future, including Noise Guidebook Policy 1.4 which requires noise created
by all new development be individually mitigated by each project so as not to exceed
acceptable outdoor noise levels. Due to requirement for compliance with existing
regulations, implementation of project-specific noise mitigation measures, and nominal
increases in the ambient noise environment from proposed cumulative development, this
cumulative impact would be considered less than significant.
3.10-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section provides information on the existing population, employment characteristics,
and housing availability in the City and evaluates the potential effect of the proposed
Project on these resources.
3.11.1 Environmental Setting
3.11.1.1 Population
A range of population forecasts for existing population levels and the rate and total amount
of projected future growth within the City is available from different sources. As discussed
below, there is some variation for both existing population levels and projected rates of
growth between available sources.
Existing Population Characteristics
Total Population
San Luis Obispo is one of seven cities located within the County, and is the largest in terms of
population. In 2018, the City had a population of 46,548 residents, comprising
approximately 16 percent of the County’s population of 280,101 (see Table 3.11-1;
Department of Finance 2019).1 Overall, the City has experienced an average annual
increase in population of 0.3 percent since 1990. Comparatively, the County has
experienced a 0.9 percent average annual increase since 1990.
Table 3.11-1. Population Growth between 1990 and 2019
Population 1990 2000 2010 2019
City of San Luis Obispo 41,958 44,148 45,119 46,548
Average Annual Growth (%) -- 0.5 0.2 0.3
County of San Luis Obispo 217,162 246,681 269,637 280,101
Average Annual Growth (%) -- 1.4 0.9 0.3
Source: Department of Finance 2019; City of San Luis Obispo 2015a.
1 The California Department of Finance provides population estimates for the City and County. The
Department of Finance provides population counts every year, exclusive of residents on federal military
installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutes, state and federal correctional institutions,
and veteran homes. The most recent annual population data was published in May 2019.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-1
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Age Distribution
According to the City’s General Plan HE, the City has substantially lower percentages of
children/teens aged 1-17 and adults in the primary childbearing years of 25-44 (33 percent)
compared to the County (42 percent) and the state (42 percent). Due to the concentration
of students attending Cuesta College and California Polytechnic State University – San
Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), young adults aged 18-24 are by far the largest age group in the
City (35 percent) and greatly exceed the County (15 percent) and the state (11 percent).
The City has a slightly higher proportion of senior citizens older than 65 years (12 percent)
compared to the state (11 percent). (City of San Luis Obispo 2015).
Population Projections
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Based on the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, SLOCOG projects a continuation of the low
to moderate growth rates experienced by the City since 2010, with a medium growth rate
of 0.46 percent annual growth projected to 2050.2 According to SLOCOG’s medium
growth population projections, the City would experience a population increase of 1,264
residents between 2015 and 2020, and the addition of 1,387 new residents between 2020
and 2025. Between 2015 and 2050, the total populations for the City and the County are
projected to increase by 5,722 residents and 44,107 residents, respectively (Table 3.11-2).
Table 3.11-2. SLOCOG Medium Growth Population Projections
Population 2015 2020 2025 2040 2050
City 45,950 47,214 48,601 51,105 51,672
County 276,375 286,657 297,095 315,922 320,482
Increase in City Population
(% Annual Growth)
1,264 (0.5%) 1,387 (0.6%) 2,504 (0.3%) 567 (0.1%)
Increase in County
Population (% Annual
Growth)
10,282 (0.7%) 10,438 (0.7%) 18,857 (0.4%) 4,560 (0.1%)
Source: SLOCOG 2017. Figure 116.
2 As part of its long-range planning efforts, SLOCOG develops socioeconomic estimates and growth
projections including population, households, and employment for cities in the County of San Luis Obispo
through enhanced forecasting methods and interactive public outreach. These estimates and projections
provide the foundation for SLOCOG’s transportation planning and other programs at the regional and small
geographic area level, including the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The most recent
projections were released in the agency’s 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. These growth forecasts are based
on 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data.
3.11-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
City of San Luis Obispo
According to the General Plan HE, between 1990 and 2000, the City’s population grew 0.5
percent annually, and between 2005 and 2019, the City’s population grew by 2,140
persons, a total increase of 4.8 percent, or annual increase of 0.3 percent (Table 3.11-3;
City of San Luis Obispo 2015; California Department of Finance 2019).
Table 3.11-3. Population Growth, 2005-2019, San Luis Obispo City, County, and
State of California
City County California
Population Rate of
Change (%) Population Rate of
Change (%) Population Rate of
Change (%)
2005 44,662 - 261,558 - 35,278,768 -
2006 44,522 -0.31 263,727 0.83 36,457,549 3.34
2007 44,389 -0.3 265,786 0.78 36,553,215 0.26
2008 44,521 0.3 268,290 0.94 36,756,666 0.56
2009 44,750 0.51 270,429 0.8 36,961,664 0.56
2010 45,119 0.82 269,637 -0.29 37,253,956 0.79
2011 45,269 0.33 271,969 0.86 37,691,912 1.18
2012 45,312 0.1 271,502 -0.17 37,668,804 -0.06
2013 45,541 0.51 272,177 0.25 37,966,471 0.79
2014 45,950 0.90 276,248 1.50 38,662,601 1.83
2015 46,331 0.83 277,219 0.35 38,952,462 0.75
2016 46,363 0.07 278,405 0.43 39,214,803 0.67
2017 46,705 0.74 279,538 0.41 39,504,609 0.74
2018 46,741 0.08 280,048 0.18 39,740,508 0.60
2019 46,802 0.13 280,393 0.12 39,927,315 0.47
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2015; California Department of Finance 2019.
Note: The adopted General Plan HE applies to the 2014 to 2019 RHNA cycle and, accordingly, only includes population
data through 2013.
The General Plan LUE includes land use designations, policies, and projected levels of
development that would accommodate an anticipated maximum City population of 57,200
(with an estimated population of 56,686 in 2035).
3.11.1.2 Employment
As of 2017, there were an estimated 24,213 jobs in the City (U.S. Census Bureau 2017).3
Of these jobs, educational services, and health care and social assistance sectors accounted
3 The number of jobs refers to the number of employed persons over the age of 16 within the City.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-3
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
for 26.8 percent of the jobs. Retail trade jobs comprised 12.6 percent of jobs, and arts,
entertainment, recreation, and accommodation, and food services sectors made up 17.7
percent of the total jobs. Top employers within the City include the French Hospital
Medical Center, the County, the City, Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center, and Pacific
Gas and Electric Company (San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 2018).
Comparatively, total jobs within San Luis Obispo County was estimated at 129,280 in 2017
and 23.6 percent of County employment was provided by educational services, health care,
and social assistance sectors (Table 3.11-4). Based on these estimates, in 2017, the City’s
jobs constituted roughly 18.7 percent of the County’s total employment (U.S. Census
Bureau 2017). Some of the County’s largest employers are situated in areas immediately
outside the City, including Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and the California Men’s Colony (San
Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 2018).
Table 3.11-4. Division of Labor by Industry within the City and County (2017)
Industry
City County
Number of
Jobs
Percent
(%)
Number of
Jobs
Percent
(%)
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining 269 1.11% 4,480 3.47%
Construction 886 3.66% 10,235 7.92%
Manufacturing 1,585 6.55% 8,841 6.84%
Wholesale trade 509 2.10% 2,820 2.18%
Retail trade 3,044 12.57% 14,851 11.49%
Transportation and warehousing, and
utilities 731 3.02% 5,845 4.52%
Information 457 1.89% 2,012 1.56%
Finance and insurance, and real estate
and rental and leasing 846 3.49% 5,845 4.52%
Professional, scientific, and
management, and administrative and
waste management services
2,879 11.89% 13,821 10.69%
Educational services, and health care
and social assistance 6,486 26.79% 30,501 23.59%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and
accommodation, and food services 4,292 17.73% 16,229 12.55%
Other services, except public
administration 1,281 5.29% 6,676 5.16%
Public administration 948 3.92% 7,124 5.51%
Total 24,213 100.00% 129,280 100.00%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2017.
3.11-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
As of July 2018, the City’s total labor force is estimated at 25,900, of which 25,200 were
employed, resulting in an unemployment rate of 2.7 percent (California Employment
Development Department 2018a). The annual average unemployment rate in the City was
3.2 percent in 2017 (California Employment Development Department 2018b). These rates
are low in comparison to rates from the past decade, which included the effects of the
national economic recession from 2008 to 2013. The unemployment rate in the City
reached up to 10.9 percent in 2010 (Table 3.11-5).4 Subsequently, the City has seen a
steady decrease in annual unemployment rates since the height of the recession.5 In July
2018, the County’s unemployment rate was 3.1 percent, but during the peak of the
recession in 2010, unemployment levels in the County were approximately 10.1 percent
and have been historically 2 percent lower than the state’s levels, which was 12.2 percent
in 2010 (California Employment Development Department 2018a).
Table 3.11-5. City of San Luis Obispo Labor Force and Unemployment 2000-2017
Year Employed Unemployed Total Unemployment Rate (%)
2000 23,500 1,100 24,600 4.5
2001 24,200 1,100 25,300 4.4
2002 24,600 1,300 25,900 5.2
2003 24,500 1,300 25,800 5.2
2004 24,900 1,300 26,200 5.1
2005 25,400 1,300 26,700 4.7
2006 25,800 1,200 27,000 4.4
2007 26,200 1,300 27,500 4.7
2008 25,900 2,000 27,900 6.3
2009 24,800 2,700 27,500 9.9
2010 24,900 3,000 27,900 10.9
2011 25,200 2,900 28,100 10.3
2012 26,300 2,600 28,800 8.9
2013 26,300 2,100 28,400 7.3
2014 24,200 1,500 25,700 5.9
2015 24,300 1,300 25,600 5.0
2016 24,500 1,200 25,700 4.5
2017 25,100 800 26,000 3.2
Source: California Employment Development Department 2018b.
4 Unemployment rate is unemployed labor force divided by total size of the labor force.
5 Labor force is defined as the number of residents within the City that are currently employed or residents
that are unemployed looking for employment. Those who choose not to work or are unable to work typically
are not calculated as members of the labor force. This differs from the number of jobs available within the
City, which also relies on labor force populations outside the City that commute to the City for work.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-5
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
According to the Regional Growth Forecast, the City had 34,073 jobs as of 2015 (SLOCOG
2017). This employment estimate is 9,860 more jobs than reported by the U.S. Census
Bureau and California Employment Development Department data. As noted in Table
3.11-6, SLOCOG anticipates an increase of 10,160 jobs in the City over a 40-year period
between 2010 and 2050. This equates to an annual projected employment growth rate of
1.03 percent for the City. In the County, employment is projected to grow by 0.5 percent
annually.
Table 3.11-6. SLOCOG Medium Employment Projections
Planning
Area
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
City 33,686 37,536 37,798 39,353 40,804 41,933 42,691 43,238 43,846
County 99,964 114,304 115,842 120,605 125,054 128,512 130,837 132,511 134,375
Source: SLOCOG 2017.
3.11.1.3 Housing
Housing Supply and Number of Households
According to the General Plan HE, the City had 20,553 housing units and 19,193
households with an average household size of 2.29 persons in 2010.6 Average household
size in the City declined from 2.32 persons per household in 2000 to 2.29 in 2010, a decline
of approximately 1.3 percent. Based on the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, the City’s
average persons per household has increased approximately 1.7 percent since 2010, to 2.33
persons per household as of 2015 (SLOCOG 2017).7
Based on the City’s maximum 1.0 percent annual growth rate, housing supply within the
City is estimated to increase by approximately 5,065 units from 2013 supplies, to a total of
25,762 by the year 2035, an increase of approximately 24.5 percent (Table 3.11-7).
6 By definition, a household consists of all persons occupying a dwelling unit, whether or not they are related.
7 Though not reflected in the most current General Plan HE which will guide housing actions through 2019,
data provided in the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast prepared in 2017, including the updated City persons
per housing ratio of 2.33, will inform the General Plan HE update.
3.11-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 3.11-7. 1.0 Percent City Population Growth Projection
Year Approximate Maximum
Number of Dwelling Units
Anticipated Number of People
2013 20,697 45,541
2015 21,113 46,456
2020 22,190 48,826
2025 23,322 51,317
2030 24,512 53,934
2035 25,762 56,686
Estimated Urban Reserve Capacity 57,200
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2014a; Table 3..
Housing Demand and Availability
Currently, the demand for housing in the City is extremely high, both for rental and
homeownership. As of 2017, the homeowner vacancy rate is 0.7 percent and the rental
vacancy rate is 4.0 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). For comparison, the City’s housing
vacancy rate in 2010 was 7.3 percent with a rental market vacancy rate estimated at 4.5
percent in 2015 (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2017).8 As of 2015,
City vacancy rates were estimated at only 7.93 percent – a negligible increase above the 2010
rate (SLOCOG 2017). Historically, in 1990, the City’s vacancy rate remained at just over
5.0 percent; however, between 2001 and 2003, the rate dropped steeply to 3.5 percent. By
comparison, in the 1990s the County vacancy rate hovered at around 11 percent (City of San
Luis Obispo 2015).
Natural population increase and formation of new households from the local population
have historically accounted for only a small part of the overall demand for housing (City
of San Luis Obispo 2015). As average households grow smaller, the existing housing stock
accommodates fewer people, exacerbating housing needs, particularly for families and
larger households. Three- and four-bedroom houses can be occupied by one or two persons,
such as by “empty-nesters” who have remained in larger family homes after grown children
have moved out (City of San Luis Obispo 2015). Further, full-time college students, a large
portion of the City’s population, exert a strong influence on the local housing market. Cal
8 The housing vacancy rate is one measure of general housing availability. A low vacancy rate, less than 5
percent, suggests that households will have difficulty finding housing within their price range. Conversely, a
high vacancy rate may indicate a high number of housing units that are undesirable for occupancy, a high
number of seasonal units, or an oversupply of housing. By maintaining a “healthy” vacancy rate of between
5 and 8 percent, housing consumers have a wider choice of housing types and prices to choose from. As
vacancy rates drop, shortages generally raise housing costs and limit choices.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-7
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Poly had an enrollment of approximately 20,944 students and Cuesta College had an
enrollment of approximately 15,572 students in the 2015-2016 academic year (SLOCOG
2017). This high population of college students and associated high demand for student
rental housing near these college campuses has resulted in and is often attributed to the
consistently low vacancy rates within the City. However, demand for all types of housing
remains high throughout the City, as demonstrated by low vacancy rates for both
homeowners and renters discussed above.
Housing Affordability
The State of California defines five income categories for the purposes of determining
housing affordability and need in communities.9 These categories are:
• Extremely Low Income: 30 percent or less of the County median income
• Very Low Income: 31-50 percent of the County median income
• Low Income: 51 to 80 percent of the County median income
• Moderate: 81 to 120 percent of the County median income
• Above Moderate: 121 percent or higher than the County median income
The median household income in 2019 for a four-person household was $87,500 for the
City (City of San Luis Obispo 2019). In 2018, the median sales price for housing in the
City was $749,950. This median sales price would generally be affordable only to above
moderate-income categories based on the estimated mortgage payments. Table 3.11-8
identifies the income categories and affordable rents and purchase prices in the City. As
the City has a large student population, 33.2 percent of City household incomes were less
than $26,950, which fall within the extremely-low income category; however, this group
may be inflated as many student households, including families headed by students, are
nominally in the lower income categories but have significant financial resources due to
parental support, loans, or savings that are not reflected in their current income levels.
9 A disparity between monthly housing cost and monthly income is referred to as a housing affordability gap.
Housing affordability is determined by its cost and by the occupant’s income and other sources of purchasing
power. Affordability is often described in terms of what portion of household income should be spent on
housing. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the California Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and many lending institutions, households should spend
no more than 30 percent (25 percent or less for extremely low, very low, and low income groups) of their
gross monthly income on housing (City of San Luis Obispo 2016).
3.11-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 3.11-8. Affordable Rent and Purchase Prices for All Income Categories
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
1Annual incomes are based on median income of four-person households which is $87,500 for the City.
2Affordable rent is defined as 30 percent or less of gross income spent on rent for studio and one-bedroom through four-
bedroom households.
3Affordable 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.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2019.
Based upon data from the General Plan HE, average market rate rent for a studio apartment
was affordable for some of the City’s very low income households (refer to Table 3.11-9).
However, as average rent would fall in the middle of the very low range, households at the
lower half of the very low income bracket could not afford average market rate rents for a
studio unit. Further, large very low income households (i.e., more than two persons) would
be overcrowded in studio units. Average market rents for a one-bedroom apartment would
be affordable for a small segment of very low income households and all low income
households, although overcrowding would be an issue for larger households. Extremely
low income families are essentially priced out of the City’s housing market. The average
two-bedroom rental unit is affordable for a small segment of the City’s low income
households and all, moderate and above moderate income households, while average rent
for three-bedroom homes leaves these affordable for some moderate and all above
moderate income households (City of San Luis Obispo 2015).
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
During the General Plan HE’s planning period from 2014 to 2019, the City is responsible
for accommodating a net increase of 1,144 dwelling units. The quantified objectives
promote the development of housing that meets affordability standards for the income
groups in the same proportion as the RHNA allocation, and emphasize production of multi-
family, higher density housing, where appropriate.10
10 Under state law, each city and county is required to develop programs designed to meet its share of the region’s housing
needs for all income groups, as determined by the region’s council of governments. HCD identifies housing needs for all
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-9
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Consistent with state law, the City’s RHNA is reduced based on the number of dwelling
units approved, under construction, or built between January 1, 2014 and June 30, 2014.
These units are deducted from the RHNA number for each income category to establish
the City’s housing construction objectives for the General Plan HE’s planning period, 2014
to 2019. The City’s adjusted RHNA housing need for the five-year period from 2014 to
2019 is 525 dwelling units, and of these, 386 are needed for low, very low or extremely
low income categories (Table 3.11-9).
Table 3.11-9. Remaining RHNA Need Based on Dwelling Units Approved, Under
Construction, or Built, 2014 to 2019
(Percent of Area Medium
Income)
New Construction
Need (RNHA)
Dwelling Units
Approved, Under
Construction or
Built (2014)
Remaining
RHNA Need,
Dwelling Units
Extremely Low Income (0-30%) 142 5 119 Very Low Income (31-50%) 143 161
Low Income (51-80%) 179 31 148
Moderate Income (81-120%) 202 13 189
Market Rate (120%+) 478 801 0
Total 1,144 1,011 456
Percent Affordable 40.5% 19.5% 57.5%
Total Need for Newly Constructed Units 525
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2018.
As reported in the City’s 2018 General Plan Annual Report (GPAR), 267 affordable housing
units have been added to the City since 2014, which aids in fulfilling the Quantified Housing
Objectives for the extremely low, very low, and low income categories. Combined with the
addition of 189 moderate and 801 above moderate units, the City has made meaningful
contributions to the housing stock per the General Plan HE. As of 2018, the City is roughly 60
percent of achieving its Quantified Housing Objectives through 2019. Achieving the quantified
objective is not a requirement, yet it is a way to measure how effective the City has been in
terms of housing programs and policies to advance the construction of affordable housing. It
regions of the state. Councils of governments then apportion the regional housing need among their member jurisdictions.
The RHNA process seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility, within its physical and financial
capability to do so, for the housing needs of its residents and for those people who might reasonably be expected to move
there. State housing law recognizes that housing need allocations are goals that jurisdictions seek to achieve; however,
they are not intended as production quotas. The allocations are included in each jurisdiction’s HE so that plans, policies
and standards may be created to help meet housing needs within the HE’s planning term.
3.11-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
should be noted, however, that market conditions and the financing environment are the
primary drivers that determine the production of affordable housing.
Jobs-to-Housing Ratio
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. This
balance may be impacted by the match between wage levels and housing costs; whether all
workers in a house have employment in the community in which they live; whether
preferences are met within the community for either housing or employment; and whether
options are available nearby for either housing or employment. According to the 2018
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 (City of San Luis Obispo 2018).
General Plan LUE Policy 1.5 states that the City’s housing stock should keep pace with the
growth in employment so that the jobs-housing balance would not worsen.
The 2018 GPAR estimates there were 54,132 jobs and 21,416 housing units in the City. As
shown in Table 3.11-10, 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 (City
of San Luis Obispo 2018; SLOCOG 2017).
Table 3.11-10. City and Regional Jobs-to-Housing Ratio
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2018; SLOCOG 2017.
Planning
Area
Jobs (in
City limits)
Housing
Units
Jobs–to-
Housing Ratio
Jobs (including
neighboring
major employers)
Jobs-to-Housing
Ratio (including
neighboring
major employers)
City 54,132 21,416 2.5:1 4,660 2.7:1
County 103,584 119,697 0.87:1 - -
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-11
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Projected Housing Development and Buildout Capacity
SLOCOG Regional Growth Forecast
SLOCOG Regional Growth Forecasts project an increase 1,981 housing units, and 8,247
jobs between 2010 and 2035 (SLOCOG 2017). Assuming 550 commercial square feet (sf)
per job as estimated in the LUCE Update EIR, there is a demand for 4,535,850 sf of non‐
residential floor area between 2010 and 2035 within the City.
City General Plan LUE
Potential future development within the City permitted under the land use designations and
policies of the LUE could result in approximately 4,904 additional housing units, 11,230
new residents, and 5,081,708 sf of non‐residential uses that would support 11,346 new
jobs. As of 2019, development within the City has increased by 1,157 housing units, 1,429
residents, and 240,275 sf of non-residential uses since 2014. This results in an estimated
remaining 3,747 housing units, 9,801 residents, and 4,841,433 sf of non-residential uses
that could be constructed under the adopted LUE. Although the LUE is a long range
planning document with a planning horizon of 2035, the total future development capacity
under the LUE exceeds the SLOCOG Regional Growth Forecast in population, housing
units, and employment (see Table 3.11-11; City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). However, the
City’s LUE is considered to be more accurate and representative of General Plan buildout
projections than those provided by SLOCOG.
Table 3.11-11. SLOCOG Projections vs. LUCE Buildout Capacity for 2035
SLOCOG Forecast in 20351 LUE Development Capacity
in 20352
Population 50,656 57,200
Housing Units 20,771 25,762
Employment 41,933 44,346
New Non-Residential Square
Footage from 2010 to 20353
4,535,850 5,081,708
1 See Table 2.3‐4 of LUCE Update EIR.
2 See Table 3 of LUE
3 Estimated using 550 commercial sf per job estimated in the LUCE Update EIR.
Sources: SLOCOG 2017; City of San Luis Obispo 2014b.
3.11-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.11.2 Regulatory Setting
Population and housing for this Project are governed primarily by federal, state, and local
regulations that would apply to future development under the Project. Relevant state and
local regulations that are directly relevant to the Project are summarized below.
3.11.2.1 State
State Housing Law
State law (Government Code Section 65580-65589.8) recognizes the vital role local
governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. Local governments in
California are required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical
development of the jurisdiction, including an HE. The HE law, enacted in 1969, mandates
that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs
of all economic segments of the community. The law acknowledges that, in order for the
private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must
adopt land use plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not
unduly constrain, housing development. HE law also requires the California Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review local HEs for compliance with
state law and to report its written findings to the local government.
Regional Housing Needs Plan
The Regional Housing Needs Plan is required under California Government Code Section
65584 to enable regions to address housing issues and meet housing needs based on future
growth projections for the area. The State of California determines the number of total
housing units needed for each region. The allocation comes after projection modeling based
on current General Plan policies and established land use zonings. The allocations are
based on “smart growth” assumptions in the modeling and aim to shift development
patterns from historical trends towards better jobs-to-housing balance, increased
preservation of open space, and development of urban and transit-accessible areas.
Regional housing needs are based on the local and regional distribution of income, the need
for housing generated by local job growth, the projected growth in the number of
households, and the vacancy rate in each community.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-13
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.11.2.2 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Land Use Element
Policy LU 1.5 Jobs/Housing Relationship. The gap between housing demand (due to more
jobs and college enrollment) and supply should not increase.
Policy LU 1.11 Growth Rates & Phasing.
Policy LU 1.11.1 Overall Intent. The City shall manage the city’s growth rate to
provide for the balanced evolution of the community and the gradual assimilation
of new residents. Growth must be consistent with the City’s ability to provide
resources and services and with state and City requirements for protecting the
environment, the economy, and open space.
Policy LU 1.11.2 Residential Growth Rate. The City shall manage the growth of
the City’s housing supply so that it does not exceed 1.0 percent per year, on average,
based on thresholds established by LUE Table 3, excluding dwellings affordable to
residents with extremely low, very low, or low incomes as defined by the HE. This
rate of growth may continue so long as the City’s basic service capacity is assured.
Table 3 of LUE Policy 1.11.2 (summarized in Table 3.11-7 above) shows the
approximate number of dwellings and residents which would result from the 1.0
percent maximum average annual growth rate over the planning period. Approved
specific plan areas may develop in accordance with the phasing schedule adopted
by each specific plan provided thresholds established by Table 3.11-7 are not
exceeded. The City Council shall review the rate of growth on an annual basis in
conjunction with the General Plan annual report to ensure consistency with the
City’s gradual assimilation policy.
Housing Element
The City’s 5th Cycle (2014-2019) General Plan HE sets forth the City’s policies and
detailed programs for meeting existing and future housing needs, for preserving and
enhancing neighborhoods, and for increasing affordable housing opportunities for
extremely low, very-low, low, and moderate income persons and households. It is the
primary policy guide for local decision-making on all housing matters. The General Plan
HE also describes the City´s demographic, economic, and housing factors, as required by
state law.
3.11-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
State housing law requires that each jurisdiction identify the number of housing units that
can be built, rehabilitated, and preserved during the General Plan HE’s planning period,
which ended June 30, 2019. These projections are termed “quantified objectives.” Chapter
3 of the General Plan HE includes goals, policies, and programs to accommodate affordable
housing programs that meet the City’s quantified objectives (City of San Luis Obispo
2015a).
The General Plan HE Goal 2 objective is to accommodate affordable housing production
that helps meet the City’s quantified objectives. In particular, the following policies and
program address the inclusion of affordable units in new residential development:
Policy HE 2.3 For housing to qualify as “affordable” under the provisions of this
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.
Policy HE 2.4 Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City’s
population, in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation,
for the 2014 - 2019 planning period. These proportions are: extremely low income,
12 percent, very low income, 12 percent; low income, 16 percent; moderate income,
18 percent; and above moderate income, 42 percent.
Program HE 2.5 Continue to manage the Affordable Housing Fund so that the fund
serves as a sustainable resource for supporting affordable housing development.
The fund shall serve as a source of both grant funding and below market financing
for affordable housing projects; and funds shall be used to support a wide variety
of housing types at the following income levels: extremely low, very low, low, and
moderate, but with a focus on production efficiency to maximize housing benefits
for the City’s financial investment, and to support high quality housing projects that
would not be feasible without Affordable Housing Fund support.
The General Plan HE Goal 4 Mixed-Income Housing includes policies directed towards
preserving and accommodating existing and new mixed-income neighborhoods. In
particular, the following policy and program address the inclusion of affordable units in
new residential development:
Policy HE 4.2 Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and
residential condominium projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units
should be comparable in size, appearance and basic quality to market-rate units.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-15
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Program HE 4.6 Consider amending the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
and Affordable Housing Incentives to require that affordable units in a development
be of similar number of bedrooms, character and basic quality as the non-restricted
units in locations that avoid segregation of such units.
The City, along with the County and all six other cities within the San Luis Obispo region,
entered into their 6th Cycle (2018-2028) planning period on December 31, 2018 for a 10-
year production period that will end on December 31, 2028. The City is currently preparing
the 6th Cycle General Plan HE update, which is required to be submitted to HCD on
December 31, 2020. HCD finalized its RHNA allocation determination for the San Luis
Obispo region at 10,810 units for the 10-year production period, and the SLOCOG Board
voted unanimously to accept the distribution allocation projection. The number of housing
units allocated to the City has been identified as 3,354, which the City anticipates can be
accommodated based on existing land use capacity created through the 2014 LUCE
Update.
Inclusionary Housing Program
Adopted in 1999 and amended in 2004, the Inclusionary Housing Program implements two
core housing programs of the General Plan – that of providing affordable housing for
extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households, and establishing an
Affordable Housing Fund. The program requires that most new development projects help
meet affordable housing needs by: 1) building the required number of affordable dwelling
units as part of a development project (Table 3.11-12a and Table 3.11-12b); 2) dedicating
real property, improved or not, for development of affordable housing by the City’s
Housing Authority or by a non-profit housing provider; 3) paying an in-lieu fee which is
used to fund affordable housing throughout the City; or 4) using a combination of the above
methods, to the approval of the City Council (City of San Luis Obispo 2015a).
All affordable dwelling units must meet the City’s affordable housing standards and be
consistent with affordability policies in the General Plan. In addition, the required
inclusionary units shall be constructed concurrent with market rate units unless the
developer and the City council agree within an affordable agreement to an alternative
development schedule. Table 3.11-12a below displays the Inclusionary Housing
Requirements and Table 3.11-12b details the associated inclusionary housing adjustment
factors.
3.11-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 3.11-12a. Inclusionary Housing Requirements
Type of Development Project1
Residential – Adjust base requirement per Table 2A below
Location
In City Limits
(applies to Project)
Build 3% low4 or 5% moderate income Affordable Dwelling Units2,
but not less than 1 Affordable Dwelling Unit per project;
or
Pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of building valuation.3
In Expansion Area Build 5% low4 – and 10% moderate income Affordable Dwelling
Units2, but not less than 1 Affordable Dwelling Unit per project;
or
Pay in-lieu fee equal to 15% of building valuation.
1 Residential developments of four or less dwellings are exempt from these requirements.
2 Affordable Dwelling Units must meet the City affordability criteria.
3 “Building Valuation” shall mean the total value of all construction work for which a permit would be issued, as
determined by the Chief Building Officer.
4 Low income includes the subsets of extremely low and very low incomes categories.
Table 3.11-12b. Inclusionary Housing Adjustment Factors
Table 2A
Project
Density
(du/ac)1
Average Unit Size (sf and associated Adjustment Factor2
Up to 1,100 1,101-1,500 1,501-2,000 2,001-2,500 2,501-3,000 >3,000
36 or more 0 0 .75 1 1.25 1.5
24-35.99 0 0 .75 1 1.25 1.5
12-23.99 0 .25 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
7-11.99 0 .5 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
<7 0 .5 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
1 Including allowed density bonus, where applicable.
2 Multiply the total base Inclusionary Housing Requirement (either housing or in-lieu percentage) by the adjustment
factor to determine requirement. At least one enforceably-restricted affordable unit is required per development of five
or more units.
The Project site is subject to the Expansion Area Inclusionary Housing Requirements
which require the Project to build 5 percent low and 10 percent moderate income affordable
dwelling units. The developer may, at his or her discretion, choose to pay an in-lieu fee to
the City or dedicate real property in lieu of constructing affordable dwellings to meet the
requirement. The fee amount and method of payment are subject to approval by the City
Community Development Department Director. All in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to
release of occupancy of the first dwelling within a residential development. All in-lieu fees
are deposited into the Affordable Housing Fund. The Affordable Housing Fund is
administered by the City finance director and shall be used exclusively to provide funding
for the provision of affordable housing and for reasonable costs associated with the
development of affordable housing, at the discretion of the City Council.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-17
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.11.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.11.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The Project would have a significant impact if it would generate substantial unplanned
population growth or substantially change the population, housing, and employment
compositions in the City or regionally. Significance thresholds for population and housing
are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts to population and housing are
considered significant if the Project would:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads
or other infrastructure); or
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Impacts are also considered significant if the Project is found inconsistent with adopted
housing goals and policies described in the regulatory setting. Growth inducing impacts
relating to installation of new roadways and utility infrastructure are addressed in Section
4.0, Other CEQA Issues.
Non-Applicable Thresholds
• Thresholds (b) (Displace Existing People or Housing): The Project site does not
currently contain a residential population or housing and would not involve offsite
impacts within any residential area. Therefore, the Project would not displace
substantial numbers of persons or housing and threshold ‘b’ would not apply. As
such, there would be no potentially significant adverse impacts related to these
thresholds and this issue will not be analyzed further in this EIR.
3.11.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
Sources utilized in the development of this section include the City’s General Plan LUE
and HE, LUCE Update EIR and supporting appendices, SLOCOG projections, the City’s
2018 GPAR, U.S. Census Bureau data, and California Department of Finance data.
Analysis of population and housing impacts is based on data from the City’s LUE and HE
and U.S. Census Bureau. Demographic and socioeconomic data from these sources are
relatively consistent; however, since each of these organizations uses different methods of
data collection and analysis, data do not always have the same results and may not represent
3.11-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
the same data year. Accordingly, the population, housing, and employment numbers used
in this analysis may vary somewhat, depending upon the source cited. Despite the
variations, the data used represents the best available information and provides a
meaningful description of the population and housing characteristics of the City and
County.
This analysis reviews potential land use changes and future development that would occur
under the Project and considers whether these changes would result in substantial adverse
impacts on population, housing, and/or employment growth, particularly in relation to
existing conditions and to cumulative growth estimated in the LUCE Update EIR. The LUE
projections are considered to be the most accurate for defining buildout of the City under
the current General Plan, and are considered more representative than SLOCOG growth
projections; therefore, SLOCOG growth projections for the City are not utilized in analysis
of Project impacts on local growth. This analysis does, however, utilize SLOCOG’s
persons-per-household projection of 2.33 as it is more recent and more conservative than
the City’s 2010 estimate of 2.29 persons-per-household. The LUCE Update EIR also
considers potential for changes in population and the general effect on the City’s jobs-
housing balance. Potential related impacts of population and employment growth on issues
such as transportation, public services, and other issues are addressed in respective sections
of this EIR.
3.11.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts related to population and housing are discussed further below and
summarized in Table 3.11-13.
Table 3.11-13. Summary of Project Impacts
Population and Housing Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Significance
PH-1. Residential and commercial development
associated with the Project would induce population
growth.
None required Less than Significant
PH-2. The Project would provide additional
housing for the City, assisting the jobs-to-housing
ratio.
None required Less than Significant
PH-3. The Project would provide additional
affordable housing for the City
None required Less than Significant
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-19
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact PH-1 Residential and commercial development associated with the Project
would induce population growth (Less than Significant).
The Project is expected to generate new population onsite by facilitating the construction
of up to 174 multi-family units and 404 senior residential units, 100,000 sf of commercial
retail uses, and health care facilities and operations. This development would potentially
increase population within the City by 1,231 residents, including 825 residents of Villaggio
and 406 residents of Madonna Froom Ranch. The Project would increase the City’s
population by approximately 2.6 percent. The Project would also create an estimated 332
new jobs, including 150 jobs in Villaggio associated with proposed health care and resident
services and 182 jobs in Madonna Froom Ranch associated with proposed retail
commercial and hotel uses (see Table 3.11-14). SLOCOG and the City anticipate that
population growth will occur in the region, including the City, as a result of natural births,
people moving into the region, and other factors. The Project would provide additional
dwelling units and amenities to help accommodate projected growth, including senior
populations.
Population growth is considered significant only if it is unplanned or unanticipated by the
City. The total increase in population under the Project would be well below the projected
population under the LUE by 2035, which plans for a future additional population of
10,652 (from 46,248 in 2018 to 57,200 in 2035; refer also to Table 3.11-11 above).
Therefore, population increases resulting from the Project would remain within planned
growth under the LUE.
The age distribution of the population increase would comprise a greater percentage of
senior citizens, in comparison to the existing City population. For instance, of the 1,231
new residents anticipated under the Project, potentially new senior citizens would comprise
approximately 825 individuals within Villaggio and 49 individuals of the Madonna Froom
Ranch component (approximately 12 percent are estimated to be senior citizens, per
existing City population percentage). In total, approximately 874 new senior citizens would
be accommodated with implementation of the Project, or 71 percent of the total anticipated
population increase. The Villaggio component would therefore help to accommodate the
relatively high proportion of senior citizens in the City.
3.11-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 3.11-14. Summary of Estimated Population Generated by the Project
Proposed Zones Housing Units/sf Population
Factor
Projected
Population/
Employment
VILLAGGIO
R-3-SP Medium-High Density Residential 404 units/ 51 beds - -
Independent Living Units 366 units 2.0 732 people
Assisted Living Units 38 units 1.0 (and two
units would
have double
occupancy)
40 people
Health Care Units (Skilled Nursing &
Memory Care)
51 beds 1.0 (and two
units would
have double
occupancy)
53 people
Health Care Administration Building 85,670 sf Supplied by
Applicant
150 jobs
Ancillary Uses (wellness center,
restaurants, theater, etc.)
84,078 sf
Total (Villaggio) 825 people
150 jobs
MADONNA FROOM RANCH
R-3-SP Medium-High Density Residential 130 multi-family
units
2.331 303 people
R-4-SP High Density Residential 44 multi-family units 2.331 103 people
C-R-SP Retail-Commercial 100,000 sf 1 job per
550sf2
182 jobs
Total (Madonna Froom Ranch) 406 people
182 jobs
TOTAL (TOTAL) 1,231 people
332 jobs
1 SLO County 2050 regional growth factor
2 LUCE Update EIR job factor
Employment requirements for Villaggio are anticipated to generate 150 full-time
equivalent jobs, with a maximum of 95 employees onsite at any given time. Madonna
Froom Ranch would facilitate development of 100,000 sf of retail-commercial space,
which would generate employment. The number of employees at a business is typically a
factor of the particular operations of a business and, as such, varies greatly. As an example,
retail and hotel uses would have different numbers of employees per square footage than
office uses. For the purposes of this EIR and due to variability in employment factors,
employment generation is quantified based on applying the existing factor of one job per
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-21
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
550 sf.11 When this factor is applied to proposed retail commercial uses within Madonna
Froom Ranch, it is anticipated that retail commercial uses could generate approximately
182 jobs.
The Project would not result in or substantially contribute to a significant housing impact,
or a related population impact, because the Project would be consistent with the LUE
projected population forecasts and with the residential unit growth requirements specified
by LUE Policy 1.10.2. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial housing or
population growth either directly or indirectly and housing and population impacts would
be less than significant.
Impact PH-2 The Project would provide additional housing for the City, assisting the
jobs-to-housing ratio (Less than Significant).
An imbalance between jobs and housing, particularly affordable housing, may result in a
range of undesirable environmental impacts and social effects, including:
• Increased commute distances and time;
• Increased energy consumption, GHG, and air pollutant emissions from additional
commuters;
• Critical service workers living outside the area (e.g., firefighters, law enforcement
personnel, nurses, school teachers);
• Increased business costs and difficulty retaining and recruiting employees;
• Change in demographic composition and impacts to the quality of life and
community participation; and
• Indirect impacts on other communities that build housing, such as loss of habitat.
As stated above, as of 2018, the City had an unemployment rate of 2.7 percent. Increased
population growth without adequate housing growth could exacerbate the City’s existing
jobs-to-housing ratio and displace labor force from the City to other areas of the County.
This could result in increases in long-distance commuting and associated adverse effects
According to the 2018 GPAR, the City currently has a jobs-to-housing ratio of 2.5:1 based
on jobs and housing within City limits, which is well above the City’s target ratio of 1.5:1.
Policy LU 1.5 states the gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college
enrollment) and supply should not increase. For the purposes of this analysis, the effect of
the Project is compared with local estimates provided in the City’s 2018 GPAR. Further,
11 LUCE Update EIR job factor.
3.11-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
the LUCE Update EIR noted that the Project has the potential to improve the jobs-to-
housing balance within the City.
The Project’s proposed construction of 174 units within Madonna Froom Ranch would
provide additional housing for the existing and growing labor force. Since the units
proposed within Villaggio would provide specialized housing for seniors, the 404 units and
51 beds within Villaggio would not be utilized by the City’s labor force, and therefore are
not counted as part of the City’s housing supply. Further, the Project would also add jobs
within the City by facilitating the creation of 332 jobs within proposed retail and
commercial uses and within Villaggio health care and service sectors. Overall, the Project
would result in both an increased housing supply and an increase in jobs.
With 332 new jobs added to the City’s existing 54,132 jobs and 174 multi-family units
added to the existing 21,416 housing unit stock, the jobs-to-housing balance would be
approximately 54,464 jobs to 21,590 housing units, or similarly remaining at 2.5 to 1.
Given this negligible change in the jobs-to-housing ratio, the Project would maintain the
City’s current jobs-to-housing ratio of 2.5 to 1, ensuring consistency with Policy LU 1.5.
The Project would provide a substantial increase in the City’s housing supply, including a
range of housing types and affordability as well as long-term job growth both within
Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch. Therefore, impacts relating to the City’s jobs-to-
housing ratio, would be considered less than significant.
Impact PH-3 The Project would provide additional affordable housing for the City
(Less than Significant).
The FRSP includes policies that require the Applicant to provide for deed-restricted
housing for low and moderate-income households, consistent with the General Plan. In
accordance with Municipal Code 17.91, inclusionary affordable units are those in which
extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households can afford to purchase or
rent, assuming 30 percent of their annual income is spent on housing (25 percent of income
for extremely low income households). As the Project is located in SP-3 under the LUE, it
is subject to the Expansion Area Inclusionary Housing Requirements which require the
Project to build 5 percent low and 10 percent moderate income affordable dwelling units
or pay in-lieu fees equal to 15 percent of building valuation. Policy HE 4.1 requires new
development to build housing that is affordable to various economic strata intermixed with
other housing rather than segregated into separate enclaves; and Policy HE 4.2 requires
both market-rate and inclusionary units to be included in apartment and residential
condominium projects and intermixed with all type of units. This policy also requires that
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-23
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
inclusionary units are built to be comparable in size, appearance, and basic quality to
market-rate units. Further, the Project would be required to comply with Tables 2 and 2A
of the Inclusionary Housing Program as described in the regulatory setting. . As such,
impacts would be less than significant.
3.11.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative buildout permitted under the LUE would include development of areas within
existing City boundaries, as well as identified expansion areas. Overall, development under
the LUE would increase both the supply of jobs and housing within the City and would
maintain the City’s jobs-to-housing balance of 2.5:1 (see Impact PH-2). As of 2018,
potential future development within the City as allowed under the land use designations
and policies of the LUE could result in eventual construction of approximately 3,652
additional dwelling units, and creation of 4,841,433 sf of new non‐residential development
which would support an estimated 10,810 new jobs. This could result in 8,509 additional
residents and 10,810 new jobs. In comparison, over the long-term, full buildout under the
LUE is anticipated to increase the jobs-to-housing ratio to 1.8 jobs per residential unit,
according to the 2018 GPAR.
A comparison of population and housing unit characteristics conditions in 2010 and those
at projected buildout of the LUE in 2035 for the City and County shows that projected
population and housing unit growth in the City is anticipated to be commensurate with
anticipated growth throughout the County (Table 3.11-15).
Table 3.11-15. City and Countywide Population and Housing Projections, 2010-2035
Population Housing Units
2010 2035 2010 2035
County of San Luis Obispo 252,631 304,736 117,315 141,888
Average Annual Growth (%) -- 0.8 -- 0.8
City of San Luis Obispo 43,937 56,686 20,553 25,762
Average Annual Growth (%) -- 1.1 -- 0.6
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2014c.
Much of the potential residential unit growth identified by the LUE would occur in areas
identified for preparation of specific or area plans. In addition to the 174 units within
Madonna Froom Ranch, the Avila Ranch Development Project would add approximately
720 units to the City’s housing supply, and the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan would add
approximately 580 residential units. Moreover, future development proposed under the
South Broad Street Area Plan would have the potential to provide approximately 355
3.11-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
additional dwelling units. In total, these projects could result in the development of
approximately 1,829 new dwelling units.
In addition to the proposed specific and area plans described above, the LUE identifies six
potential future development sites that could provide approximately 412 new housing units.
These sites include the Foothill at Santa Rosa area (80 units); Caltrans site (53 units);
General Hospital site (41 units); Pacific Beach site (38 units); LOVR Creekside area (159
units); and the Broad Street at Tank Farm Road site (41 units).
While development of these projects would be consistent with the residential unit growth
requirements specified by LUE Policy 1.11.2 and Table 3.11-7, there may be pressure to
exceed the annual 1.0 percent rate allowed under Policy LUE 1.11.2. However, the Project
contribution would remain consistent with LUE and HE policies and would not result in
significant cumulative contribution. Further, existing LUE policies requiring that the City
manage its housing supply so that it does not exceed a growth rate of 1.0 percent per year,
on average, would help to ensure population growth does not exceed planned growth or
result in significant cumulative impacts associated with increases in population and
housing within the City. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.11-25
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
This section describes existing and
planned public services and evaluates
the operation and capacity of these
services with the development of the
Project. Public services provided within
the Project vicinity would include
police, fire protection services, schools,
and public libraries. Recreation and
parks facilities in the area include
surrounding neighborhood parks, as
well as City owned and maintained
open space areas, such as the adjacent
Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Table 3.12-
1 describes those public agencies providing public services to the Project site and
surrounding vicinity.
Table 3.12-1. Public Services Serving the Project Vicinity
Public Services Serving Froom Ranch
Fire Protection SLOFD, San Luis Obispo County Fire Department (CALFIRE through a contract
with the County)
Law
Enforcement
City of San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD), San Luis Obispo County
Sheriff’s Office (County Sheriff)
Public Schools San Luis Coastal Unified School District
Public
Libraries San Luis Obispo County Library
Public Parks City of San Luis Obispo Department of Parks and Recreation
For information regarding public transportation and roadways please refer to Section 3.13,
Transportation and Traffic and for public utilities such as water, wastewater, solid waste,
and energy utilities, please refer to Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation.
3.12.1 Environmental Setting
Figure 3.12-1 shows the key existing public facilities operated by the City and County,
which are located in the vicinity of the Project site.
Adjacent to the Project site in unincorporated San
Luis Obispo County are trails and open space within
the City owned and maintained Irish Hills Natural
Reserve. Photo: sanluisobispo.com
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-1
Draft EIR
CF
CF
F
F
F
F
HP
P
HP
Fire StationFire Station
No. 4No. 4
San LuisSan Luis
ObispoObispo
CalCal
PolyPoly
San Luis
Obispo
Cal
Poly
Bishop
Peak
LagunaLaguna
Lake ParkLake Park
OpenOpen
SpaceSpace
Laguna
Lake Park
Open
Space
Johnson Ranch
Open Space
JESPERSON ROADJESPERSON ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADO’CONNER WAYO’CONNER WAY
TANK FARM ROADTANK FARM ROAD
HIGUERA STREETHIGUERA STREETSUBURBANSUBURBAN
ROADROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADBUCKLEY ROAD
JESPERSON ROADTANK FARM ROAD
HIGUERA STREETSUBURBAN
ROADO’CONNER WAY
101
101
227
227
227
1
Laguna
Lake
C.L. SmithC.L. Smith
ElementaryElementary
LagunaLaguna
Middle SchoolMiddle School
San Luis
High School
Laguna
Middle School
Pacific Beach
High School
Fire Station
No. 4
C.L. Smith
Elementary
SAN LUIS OBISPOSAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY REGIONALCOUNTY REGIONAL
AIRPORTAIRPORT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY REGIONAL
AIRPORT
LEGEND
Project Site
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area
San Luis Obispo City Fire Station
CalFire Station
San Luis Obispo City Police Station
California Highway Patrol Office
San Luis Obispo Library
School
Park/ Open Space
Irish Hills Natural Reserve
Incorporated City
San Luis Obispo County
F
CF
P
HP
0 3,500
SCALE IN FEET
N
Public Services within the Region 3.12-1
FIGURE
3.12-2
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.12.1.1 Police Services
The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides law enforcement and
community services within the City, and the County of San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Office
(County Sheriff) operates within unincorporated areas of the County. The SLOPD operates
out of one main police station located at 1042 Walnut Street, southeast of the intersection
of Santa Rosa Street (Highway 1) and U.S. 101. Full-time SLOPD staff include 89.5
employees, 61 of whom are sworn police officers who provide law enforcement,
supervision, and management duties. The Department supports the City with new
development and hires as appropriate based on service requirements (Personal
Communication with SLOPD Watch Officer 2018). The SLOPD increased from 59 to 61
sworn police officers in 2019 by adding one School Resource Officer (SRO) and one
Cannabis Detective position. The SRO was added to police staffing after the Police
Department and City signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with San Luis Coastal
Unified School District. Under the MOA, San Luis Coastal Unified School District agreed
to fully fund one full-time police officer position that will be dedicated to the schools within
the City of San Luis Obispo. The Cannabis Detective position was established to help
manage the cannabis industry being established in the City. This position will conduct
background checks on all business applications and owners, prior to the approval of their
application. They will also background check all employees, once the business has been
approved to operate within the City. As businesses become operational, the Cannabis
Detective will conduct regular compliance checks to ensure these businesses are in
compliance with their use permits.
Prior to these planned increases, the SLOPD had not increased staffing numbers in over 30
years (SLOPD 2019). Neither the General Plan nor the SLOPD establishes staffing ratio
goals for the Department; instead, the SLOPD uses the International Association of Chiefs
of Police Model (not a per-capital model) to assess the need for officers and equipment
based on many factors related to the amount of police officer time spent on different
activities. Additionally, the last time a new SLOPD facility was determined to be necessary
was 1987. The City is currently working on design plans for a facility redesign, which is
estimated to be a seven- to eight-year process, based on projected demand for size and
staffing (SLOPD 2019). The SLOPD is divided into two police bureaus, with a Police
Captain commanding each. The Operations Bureau includes Patrol Services, the Traffic
Safety Unit, downtown bike officers, the Community Action Team, and Neighborhood
Services. The Administration Services Bureau includes the Investigations Unit, Special
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-3
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Enforcement Team, Communications Division, the Records Unit, Property, Administrative
Training/Hiring, and the Department Chaplains (SLOPD 2018).
The nearest County Sheriff’s office is at 1050 Monterey Street, located about six minutes
from the Project site (typical driving time), and is primarily focused on civil enforcement.
According to the General Plan SE, the SLOPD has a 30 percent available time objective
for patrol response. Available time is the portion of total time that a patrol unit is not
previously assigned or otherwise unavailable for response to a new emergency call for
service. Potential changes in needs for the SLOPD staffing plan are considered as part of
overall City budget priorities. Additionally, equipment enhancement programs exist and
are also considered in the context of the City budget process and available grants.
The ratio of officers to 1,000 persons in the City of 1.15, which represents a decrease from
1.27 per 1,000 persons in 2014 (Governing 2016). However, based on the City’s current
2019 population of 46,802, the ratio of officers to 1,000 persons in the City is currently
approximately 1.30.
In 2016, police officers responded to 32,738 calls for service with a permanent population
of 45,950 and a daily service population of approximately 90,000 (SLOPD 2017).1 A five-
year average of calls for service and permanent population equates to each resident
requiring a rate of 0.67 calls for service per resident per year. One officer responds to an
average of 925 calls per year. A new or replaced police station has been identified as
important by City voters, particularly due to the age of the existing facility, and would
require approximately $43.7 million in funds. The new police facility is expected to follow
a seven-year planning period with 20 percent design plans anticipated in the near future.
3.12.1.2 Fire Protection Services
The majority of the Project site is located in a Moderate FHSZ, and the highest elevation
areas within the southwestern region of the Project site are located in a High FHSZ within
the County LRA (see Figure 3.7-1).2 As discussed further in Section 3.7, Hazards,
Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire, high wildfire hazards are identified in the highest
elevation areas and are associated with highly flammable chaparral, grassland, and
1 Daily service population includes residents of the City, as well as the estimated number of workers and
visitors present within the City on a given day.
2 The SRA is the area in the state where the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for
the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. The LRA is an area where local agencies have primary
financial responsibility for fire suppression.
3.12-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
woodland habitats in areas of steep slopes from the Irish Hills with no recent history of
burn and high amounts and concentrations of biofuel accumulation.
The SLOFD provides emergency and non-emergency fire, rescue, and medical services,
through an agreement with CALFIRE, which supports all County firefighting activities
through mutual aid agreements, as described below. Emergency services include fire
response, advanced life support (“paramedic”) emergency medical response, hazardous
materials response, technical rescue response, and public assistance. All City engine crews
include paramedic staff and equipment capabilities. Non-emergency services include fire
and life safety inspections, building inspections, fire code investigations, code compliance,
and public education. The SLOFD currently operates four fire stations with a total of 54
full-time employees. Four of these employees are administrative personnel, two are vehicle
and equipment mechanics, five are fire prevention and educational staff, and the remaining
45 are firefighters with emergency response capabilities (City of San Luis Obispo 2018).
Based on the City’s population of 46,802 in 2019 (California Department of Finance 2019),
the City currently has a firefighter-to-population ratio of 1:866.
Fire Station One: Constructed in 1996, this station is located south of downtown at 2160
Santa Barbara Avenue. This is the newest fire station in the City and houses the Fire
Administrative staff, the Fire Prevention Bureau, the Department’s apparatus maintenance
shop, the City’s Emergency Operations Center, as well as emergency response personnel
and apparatus. On the emergency response side, this station is staffed by a Battalion Chief
and a four-person paramedic company which responds on a 100-foot tillered quint ladder
truck. Also housed at this station is a Type VI wildland response vehicle (Patrol 1), a non-
transport medical response unit (Squad 1), and a state-owned Type 1 pumper/engine.
Fire Station Two: Constructed in 1954, this station is located near the Cal Poly campus at
126 North Chorro Street. This is the oldest station in the City and is staffed with a 2017
75-foot quint ladder truck and a reserve Type I pumper/fire engine.
Fire Station Three: Constructed in 1960, this station is located at 1280 Laurel Lane and is
the only fire station on the east side of the Southern Pacific Railroad line. The station is
staffed with a three-person paramedic engine crew (Type I pumper/fire engine). Additional
equipment housed at Fire Station Three includes the reserve Type I pumper/fire engine.
Fire Station Four: This fire station is the closest to the Project site, approximately 0.5 mile
northwest of the site at the intersection of Madonna Road and LOVR. Constructed in 1978,
this station is the western-most station in the City. The station is staffed with a three-person
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-5
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
paramedic engine crew (Type I pumper/fire engine). Additional equipment housed at Fire
Station Four includes an unstaffed Type III fire apparatus.
Existing SLOFD Response Times
According to the General Plan SE, sufficient
Fire Department resources should be deployed
to facilitate a travel time of emergency
response apparatus to all City emergencies
requiring the use of lights and siren of 4
minutes or less, 95 percent of the time. In
2016, the City Council directed staff to adopt
the more recognized standard of a travel time
of 4 minutes or less, 90 percent of the time.
Fire Station Four is located at 1395 Madonna
Road, approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the Project site. According to Geographic
Information System (GIS) analysis and confirmation with SLOFD, the response time for
emergencies to the Project site would be approximately 3 minutes, within the General Plan
SE minimum travel time goal of 4 minutes or less of travel time (Personal Communication
With SLOFD Fire Chief 2018).
Mutual Aid Agreements between SLOFD and CALFIRE
In California, virtually all fire departments are signatories to the California Master Mutual
Aid Agreement. SLOFD has current interagency plans in partnership with CALFIRE and
is a participant in the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement within Mutual Aid Region
1.The California Master Mutual Aid Agreement establishes a formal process where
jurisdictions can give and receive fire or emergency assistance to other members within
their mutual aid region when it is needed (CALFIRE 2016a). CALFIRE Fire Station 21
would be the nearest County jurisdictional station to provide responses for the Project site.
Fire Station 21 is located approximated 2.7 miles to the east and would have a 9- to 11-
minute response time to the Project site along 3.6 miles of roadway (Google Earth 2019).
CALFIRE Fire Station 21: This station is located at the Airport on 4671 Broad Street and
is one of the newest fire service facilities in the County. This fire station is staffed with a
two-person basic life support engine crew and a single-person airport crash rescue truck.
This station does not provide advanced life support (paramedic) services. This station
provides other reserve and non-staffed apparatus. The station is also staffed by a Paid Call
Fire Station Four is located at 1395 Madonna
Road and is the closest station to the Project
site.
3.12-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Fire Company (non-full time) to service the Heavy Rescue and Water Tender (water truck)
(CALFIRE 2016b).
3.12.1.3 Schools
The San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) provides educational services for
the City of San Luis Obispo, the City of Morro Bay, and a portion of the unincorporated
areas of the County surrounding Avila Beach, Los Osos, the City, and Morro Bay. The
SLCUSD operates a variety of educational programs and schools, which include 10
elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one continuation school, and
one adult school (SLCUSD 2018a). The closest schools to the Project site are C. L. Smith
Elementary School (0.8 mile north), Laguna Middle School (1.1 mile northwest), and
Pacific Beach High School (0.2 mile north). The Project site is located within the
enrollment boundary for the Pacheco Elementary School, C.L. Smith Elementary School,
Bishop’s Peak/Teach Elementary School, Laguna Middle School, and San Luis Obispo
High School; however, families within the SLCUSD can apply for intra-district transfers
to request enrollment at a different school (SLCUSD 2019). Table 3.12-2 summarizes
existing capacity and enrollment at SLCUSD schools from the 2016 to 2017 school year.
Table 3.12-2. Existing Capacity and Enrollment at SLCUSD Schools (2016-2017)
School Capacity Enrollment % Utilization Remaining Capacity
(Percent Remaining)
Elementary
Baywood Elementary 432 305 71 127 (29%)
Bellevue-Santa Fe Charter 154 160 104 -6 (-4%)
Bishop’s Peak/Teach
Elementary
542 468 86 74 (14%)
Del Mar Elementary 477 375 79 102 (21%)
Hawthorne Elementary 390 372 95 18 (5%)
Los Ranchos Elementary 460 457 99 3 (1%)
Monarch Grove Elementary 470 347 74 123 (26%)
Pacheco Elementary 528 551 104 -23 (-4%)
Sinsheimer Elementary 467 376 81 91 (19%)
C.L. Smith Elementary 452 367 81 85 (19%)
Elementary School Total 4,372 3,778 86 594 (14%)
Middle School
Laguna Middle School 1,118 817 73 301 (27%)
Los Osos Middle School 1,073 599 56 474 (44%)
Middle School Total 2,191 1,416 65 775 (35%)
High School
San Luis Obispo High School 2,034 1,526 75 508 (25%)
Morro Bay High School 1,400 821 59 579 (41%)
Pacific Beach High School 140 53 38 90 (62%)
High School Total 3,574 2,400 67 1,174 (33%)
Source: CA Department of Education 2018.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-7
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
SLCUSD currently provides open enrollment, which allows parents a request to enroll their
children at any district school; the district approves requests on a space-available basis.
The ideal utilization of an elementary school site is 90 percent, and 85 percent for a middle
school site (SLCUSD 2015). While three elementary schools are operating either at or over
capacity, C.L. Smith Elementary, the nearest elementary school to the Project site, retains
some room for growth (refer to Table 3.12-2; CA Department of Education 2018).
3.12.1.4 Recreation and Parks
The City Parks and Recreation
Department is responsible for providing
the community with park facilities,
recreational programs, planning new
park facilities, and managing City open
space that is accessible to the public.
There are 28 parks and recreational
facilities located throughout the City, in
addition to 10 designated Natural
Reserves and open space areas and two
bike trails (City of San Luis Obispo
2019). The City contains over 55 miles of open space trails within approximately 3,800
acres of open space. There are at least four designated parks within 1.0 mile of the Project
site, including Vista Lago Park (0.9 mile north), Smith Park (0.8 mile north)3, Laguna Lake
Park (0.7 mile north), and De Vaul Park (0.4 mile northwest). Hiking and walking trails
are located within the Laguna Lake Park Open Space (located in the City 0.7 mile north),
Johnson Ranch City Open Space (located in the County 0.4 mile south), and Irish Hills
Natural Reserve (City Open Space located in the County immediately west, and beyond
within the City boundary).
The City General Plan Parks and Recreation Element (PRE), Policy 3.13.1 requires that
neighborhood and community park facilities be provided at a ratio of 10 acres of parkland
per 1,000 persons in expansion areas, of which five acres are required to be neighborhood
parks. The City Parks and Recreation Department maintains a total of 205.6 acres of
community parks, mini parks, recreation centers, and special recreational features, of which
34.7 acres are neighborhood parks (City of San Luis Obispo 2019). Based on existing
3 Smith Park is not a City-operated or maintained and is instead operated and maintained as part of the
SLCUSD.
The Irish Hills Natural Reserve is located
immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the
Project site, offering miles of hiking and biking trails.
3.12-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
population (approximately 46,802 persons) and parks acreage conditions, this results in
approximately 3.65 acres of total parkland per 1,000 residents, and 0.74 acre of
neighborhood parks per 1,000 residents. Under these conditions, the City needs
approximately 297.12 acres of parkland to meet the recreational demand for existing
residents, of which 199 acres should be neighborhood parks, to meet the City per capita
parkland standard.
3.12.2 Regulatory Setting
Public services and recreational resources are governed primarily by local jurisdictions and
state regulations. Regulations that are directly relevant to the Project are summarized
below.
3.12.2.1 Federal
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Under 29 CFR 1910.38, when required by an OSHA standard, an employer must have an
Emergency Action Plan in writing, kept in the workplace, and available to employees for
review. An employer with ten or fewer employees may communicate the plan orally to
employees. Minimum elements of an Emergency Action Plan include the following
procedures: reporting a fire or other emergency; emergency evacuation, including type of
evacuation and exit route assignments; employees who remain to operate critical plant
operations before they evacuate; accounting for all employees after evacuation; and
employees performing rescue or medical duties.
Under 29 CFR 1910.39, an employer must have a Fire Prevention Plan. A Fire Prevention
Plan must be in writing, be kept in the workplace, and be made available to employees for
review; an employer with ten or fewer employees may communicate the plan orally to
employees.
Under 29 CFR 1910.155, Subpart L, Fire Protection, employers are required to place and
keep in proper working order, fire safety equipment within facilities.
3.12.2.2 State
California Code of Regulations Sections
Under this section Title 19 of the CCR, the California State Fire Marshal develops
regulations relating to fire and life safety. These regulations have been prepared and
adopted to establish minimum standards for the prevention of fire and for protection of life
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-9
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
and property against fire, explosion, and panic. The California State Fire Marshal also
adopts and administers regulations and standards necessary under the California Health
and Safety Code to protect life and property.
CCR Section 17620 authorizes school districts to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other
requirement against any construction of new residential, commercial, and industrial uses
within their boundaries to fund the construction of new schools or school facilities. CCR
Section 65995 limits the maximum fee that school districts can assess. Section 65996
designates Section 17620 of the Education Code and Section 65970 of the Government
Code to be the exclusive method for considering and mitigating development impacts on
school facilities.
California Occupation Safety and Health Administration
The California OSHA (CAL-OSHA) requires that a minimum of two firefighters, operating
as a team, conduct interior firefighting operations while a minimum of two firefighters
must be positioned outside and remain capable of rapid intervention and rescue if needed
pursuant to the State of California’s “Two-In, Two-out” law [29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4)]. If
there are only three firefighters assigned to a fire engine, the engine company must wait
for back-up to arrive before being able to engage in interior firefighting operations to be in
compliance with CAL-OSHA regulations.
Quimby Act (1975)
The Quimby Act gives cities and counties the authority, by ordinance, to require the
dedication of land or payment of in‐lieu fees, or a combination of both, for park and
recreation purposes as a condition of approval of a tract map or parcel map. The Quimby
Act allows fees to be collected for up to five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents to serve
the needs of residents of the subdivision and the greater public residing in the City.
3.12.2.3 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The City provides public services, emergency protection services, and public parks and
recreational facilities to residents of the City. Applicable regulations that would affect the
provision of public services are based on local policies and other regulations that place
requirements on the level of service that must be provided. Established local policies that
would apply to the Project are contained in the plans and policies section of the following
General Plan Elements.
3.12-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Safety Element (SE)
Policy 3.0 Adequate Fire Service. Development shall be approved only when
adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available or will be made
available concurrent with development, considering the setting, type, intensity, and
form of the proposed development.
Policy 9.3 Program: Response Performance Standards. The City will evaluate
fire-flow capacities and identify deficiencies through testing and modeling of the
water system. For identified deficiencies, the Utilities Department will propose
remedies to meet recommended service levels based on Insurance Service
Organization ratings and other objective criteria.
The following response-time programs are intended to apply to recurrent types of
emergencies, not rare, area-wide disasters.
a)The Fire Department has set a response-time objective of 4 minutes. The
Fire Department’s standard of coverage recommends that a three-person
engine company, with paramedic, meet this standard 95 percent of the time.
b)The Police Department has set a 30 percent available-time objective for
patrol response. “Available time” is the fraction of total time that a patrol
unit is not previously assigned or otherwise unavailable for response to a
new emergency call for service.
c)The Public Works Department and the Utilities Department will set
response-time objectives, based on the values at risk and acceptable levels
of risk, and will work to achieve the objectives. Typical incidents requiring
timely response are water main breaks and large tree downs in the street.
Policy 9.21 Program: Development Review. City fire, police, public works, and
utilities personnel will review applications for subdivisions and development
projects, for consistency with safety objectives.
Parks and Recreation Element (PRE)
Policy 3.13.1 The Parks System. The City shall develop and maintain a park system
at a rate of ten acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Five acres shall be dedicated
as a neighborhood park. The remaining five acres required under the ten acres per
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-11
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
1,000 residents in the residential annexation policy may be located anywhere within
the City’s park system as deemed appropriate.
Policy 3.14.4 New significant residential developments and annexations, shall
provide sufficient athletic fields to meet the demands of the youth who will reside
in the development.
Policy 3.15.1 Neighborhood Parks. San Luis Obispo residents shall have access to
a neighborhood park within 0.5 to 1.0 mile walking distance of their residence.
Policy 3.15.3 Neighborhood Parks. All residential annexation areas shall provide
developed neighborhood parks at the rate of five acres per 1,000 residents.
Policy 3.15.4 Neighborhood Parks. In neighborhoods where existing parks do not
adequately serve residents, mini-parks may be considered.
Policy 3.16.4 Community Center. While major facilities shall be designed to meet
multi-generational needs, there shall also be space available to address the unique
needs of the senior population.
Policy 5.0.1 Facilities. The City shall continue to acquire and develop parkland
through the development review and annexation process.
Policy 5.0.2. Facilities. For annexation areas, at least ten acres of developed
parkland for each 1,000 new residents shall be provided by the developer.
3.12.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.12.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance listed below are based on Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. The effects of the Project on public services would be considered a significant
impact if the Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a)Fire protection;
b)Police protection;
c)Schools;
3.12-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
d)Parks; and/or
e)Other public facilities.
The effects of the Project on recreation would be considered a significant impact if the
project would:
a)Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated; or
b)Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
3.12.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
This section evaluates the adequacy of existing police and fire protection services, public
schools, parks and recreational facilities to serve the Project, including any planned
improvements to these services. The analysis identifies Project-related increases in demand
for such services, the adequacy of existing and planned services or facilities to meet such
demand and the possible indirect effects on existing residents as a result of such increases
in demand. Finally, this section reviews whether Project increases in demand for such
services would create a need for new or physically altered facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts.
Public Services
To assess impacts on public service systems, existing and forecast capacities of service
providers were obtained from the LUCE Update EIR, SLCUSD, SLOFD and SLOPD
management personnel, and General Plan documents. The goals and policies of the General
Plan SE provided additional information used to establish thresholds for levels of
significance for public services. SLOFD and SLOPD provided guidelines for determining
potential impacts to police and fire protection services, specifically staffing and service
demands. For determining impacts, the Project is evaluated for its likelihood to reduce the
City’s 30 percent available-time sworn officer objective established in the General Plan
SE. Impacts to fire protection services are evaluated in the context of SLOFD’s adequate
response time and anticipated number of calls for emergency services based on the type of
development proposed under the Project. Information and personal communications from
CALFIRE and SLCUSD contributed to the analysis.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-13
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
As the Project site would be annexed into the City, development of the Project site with
residential and commercial uses would increase demand on City services, including fire
protection, police protection, and other City-supported public services. The City has a
system of required developer impact fees and dedications established to address direct
demand for new facilities associated with new development, while potential increases in
property tax revenue associated with valuation of new residential units, businesses, and
other revenues (e.g., sales tax) would help offset the increased ongoing cost of provision
of public services to new residential and commercial uses. As discussed in Section 3.11,
Population and Housing, population estimates are based on the most recent SLOCOG 2050
regional growth factor, as detailed in Table 3.11-14, Summary of Estimated Population
Generated by the Project.
Recreation
Information and forecast capacities of the City’s recreational facilities were obtained from
the 2014 LUCE Update EIR, City Parks and Recreation Department staff, and General Plan
documents. Project-related increases in population were assessed to identify increased
demand for parks and recreational facilities. The goals and policies of the General Plan
PRE provide additional information used to establish thresholds for levels of significance.
Because Villaggio would serve an older population (60 years and older), the unique needs
of senior populations were reviewed and researched to identify potential unique or different
recreational demand reflective of the needs of a senior population. Other environmental
documents associated with senior living facilities were also examined, including projects
in the cities of Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Buellton as well as the County of Monterey
(City of Buellton 2013; City of Los Angeles 2003; 2008; County of Monterey 2018; City
of Sacramento 2016). These environmental documents found that residents in assisted
living facilities, which are not as active as residents in independent living facilities, are
served by onsite recreational facilities and generally do not require additional offsite
amenities beyond those provided at the facility. However, these documents found that
independent living residents required a mix of recreational amenities, including
recreational facilities within the senior living center and offsite recreational facilities
consistent with the standards of the local jurisdiction’s parks and recreation department.
Senior citizen interest associations and action plans from the U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services and American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) were also reviewed
to determine the interests and needs of senior populations (U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services 2018; AARP 2016). These associations generally advocate for the needs
3.12-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
of senior citizens to remain active in a variety of recreational pursuits, though they did not
provide quantified data on the recreational demand of senior populations.
3.12.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the Project has the potential to increase population and associated
demand on public services and parks and recreational facilities. The Project would result
in the following impacts to public services, parks, and recreational facilities. Impacts are
described further below and summarized in Table 3.12-3.
Table 3.12-3. Summary of Project Impacts
Impacts on Public Services, Parks, and
Recreational Facilities
Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
PS-1. The Project would increase demand on
the SLOPD for police protection services.
None required Less than Significant
PS-2. The Project would increase the demand
on SLOFD and CALFIRE for fire protection
services and create potential declines in
firefighter-to-population ratios; however, the
Project would be located within the accepted
response time performance area.
Development of senior residential uses,
which are associated with higher than
average calls for emergency medical service,
would increase emergency calls for service
None required Less than Significant
PS-3. The Project would generate increases
in enrollment at public schools (especially
C.L. Elementary and Laguna Middle
Schools).
None required Less than Significant
PS-4. The Project 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
Impact PS-1 The Project would increase demand on the SLOPD for police
protection services (Less than Significant).
The Project would annex the Project site to the City, placing the site under the jurisdiction
of the SLOPD for providing law enforcement services, and would result in development of
578 residential units, 100,000 sf of retail-commercial space, a 2.9-acre public park, and
additional facilities within Villaggio such as health care facilities, a recreation center,
restaurants, and theaters. At full buildout, the Project site would support a population of
approximately 1,231 residents, as well as patrons or users of the 100,000-sf retail-
commercial space, public park, and other amenities and facilities within the Specific Plan
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-15
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
area. New residential and non-residential development as part of the Project would increase
the existing City population of 46,802 people by approximately 2.6 percent to 48,033
people, increasing demand for SLOPD police protection services and responses to
incidents. Because the Project would be implemented over approximately five years,
increases in call volumes for SLOPD services would occur incrementally over that period
of time. Without additional resources, such increases in call volumes could incrementally
affect levels of service to both future Project residents and existing City residents.
Existing SLOPD staff levels are adequate to meet the General Plan SE standard of 30
percent available-time sworn officer objective for patrol response. According to SLOPD
response records, SLOPD staff has exceeded this standard and has achieved a 32 to 24
percent available-time objective for patrol response (SLOPD 2016), which the SLOPD
continues to strive to maintain (Personal Communication with SLOPD Watch Officer
2018). Project-created increases in population may necessitate the need to hire additional
officers or purchase new police equipment to maintain adequate response time objectives.
The City currently has a ratio of 1.30 officers per 1,000 residents. Based on the current City
population of 46,802, the addition of 1,231 residents as a result of implementation of the
Project (total population of 48,033) would incrementally reduce this ratio to 1.27.
Therefore, the Project would not reduce the available-time sworn officer objective below
the General Plan SE’s target goal.
For long-term police staff planning, the SLOPD and the City Council would address
departmental budget, staffing, and equipment needs as part of the annual budgetary
process. This review allows for SLOPD to determine any increases in police resources and
equipment if needed. The SLOPD is funded through general fund revenues generated by
property, sales, and transient occupancy taxes, all of which are expected to increase in
proportion to new development within the City. Such increases in revenues could be used
to hire additional officers and purchase equipment to maintain or improve SLOPD service
levels over time to meet changing demands, if determined appropriate by the City Council.
While changes in police staffing would largely address this impact, recruiting and hiring
additional sworn officers requires allocation of funding and would need to be implemented
in a timely manner during Project construction over the next decade.
Measures have been included in the Draft FRSP to decrease Project demand for police
protection services, which would help reduce any indirect impacts to City residents
associated with such increased demand and allow more flexibility for City allocation of
resources. For instance, the Draft FRSP includes Section 4.8, Security Planning, which
3.12-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
details security initiatives designed to be consistent with SLOPD’s Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design Principles. Additionally, Program 4.8a of the Draft FRSP
assures coordination with SLOPD in the preparation of a security plan prior to issuance of
building permits, including consideration for onsite first responders and private security
staff. Villaggio’s proposed perimeter fencing, gated entry, and onsite security personnel
would also be considered in the security plan, which would likely reduce the number of
police calls and associated demand on police services.
While the Project would incrementally increase demand for police services, the increase
would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities the construction of
which would cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts to police
protection services would be adverse but less than significant.
Impact PS-2 The Project would increase the demand on SLOFD and CALFIRE for
fire protection services and create potential declines in firefighter-to-
population ratios; however, the Project would be located within the
accepted response time performance area. Development of senior
residential uses, which are associated with higher than average calls for
emergency medical service, would increase emergency calls for service
(Less than Significant).
Project development of approximately 578 residential units with an estimated 1,231 new
residents, as well as additional employees and patrons of new commercial-retail
development, the proposed public park, and other onsite facilities would alter the existing
firefighter-to-population ratio of 1:862.
Fire protection for this Project would be provided by the SLOFD and CALFIRE. The first
responders to a structural fire would consist of SLOFD, while response to a wildfire would
consist of both SLOFD and CALFIRE resources. SLOFD would also respond to
emergency medical (paramedic) and assistance calls within the Project site. In addition,
new development would be subject to the SLOFD standards and California Fire Code in
all proposed buildings, including installation of fire hydrants, building sprinklers, provision
of adequate water supply and pressure, placement of fire extinguishers, provision of
adequate fire access to buildings, and other requirements. According to the SLOFD and the
General Plan SE, response times (travel times) to urban development should be a maximum
of four minutes, 90 percent of the time under General Plan SE Policy 9.3(A). In terms of
response times, the closest SLOFD fire station (Station Four) is located at 1395 Madonna
Road, approximately 0.5 mile west of the Project site with a three-minute response time
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-17
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
(Google Earth 2019). Therefore, the Project would be within the City’s and SLOFD’s
established adequate response time of four minutes.
Buildout of the Project would incrementally reduce the City’s existing firefighter-to-
population ratio from 1:862 to 1:885. To maintain the existing firefighter-to-population
ratio, the Project would require approximately 1.2 new firefighters. However, the SLOFD
currently anticipates adequate resources exist to serve the Project consistent with its
established 4-minute response time goal without the need for additional personnel. Further,
the 2016 SLOFD Master Plan also requires construction of a permanent station when the
entire southern area of the City reaches 90 percent buildout. The new station would likely
be constructed on the east side of U.S. 101, but would serve the southern portions of the
City and help ensure the SLOFD is able to continue to meet its response time goal (SLOFD
2016). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the need for
construction of a new fire station or similar facilities.
Based on the Project’s location within the adequate safe response time area of service,
standard residential and commercial land uses proposed under the Project are considered
to be reasonably served by existing SLOFD resources with payment of the City’s
appropriate capital facilities fees. The Project, however, would also develop 404 units of
new senior housing, assisted living, and health care uses (e.g., senior residential uses). The
SLOFD considers certain development and uses, including senior residential development,
to be uses which would result in a higher than normal amount of calls for service compared
to other types of development. Senior residential uses in the City have historically
generated higher levels of calls for service. The SLOFD believes the Project would not
result in a significant increase in demand for fire or emergency response services, and that
adequate resources and staff exist to serve the proposed development (SLOFD 2019).
Given adequate staffing and response times exist to serve the Project and no expansion of
existing facilities would be required as a result of Project implementation, impacts would
be adverse but less than significant.
Impact PS-3 The Project would generate increases in enrollment at public schools
(especially C.L. Elementary and Laguna Middle Schools) (Less than
Significant).
The Project would result in the development of approximately 578 residential units.
However, Villaggio is not expected to generate school-aged populations. Therefore, this
analysis only considers the 174 multi-family units proposed for Madonna Froom Ranch.
Based on SLCUSD student generation rates used in the SLCUSD Enrollment Projections
3.12-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Capacity Analysis, it is estimated that Project development would generate approximately
37 additional school‐age children (see Table 3.12-4; CA Department of Education 2018).
Table 3.12-4. Project Student Generation
Grade Level
Generation Rates Proposed Units Additional
Students1 Multi-Family Units (students per
unit) Multi-Family Units
K-6 0.116 174 20
7-8 0.032 174 6
9-12 0.066 174 11
TOTAL (K-12) 0.214 174 37
Source: CA Department of Education 2018.
1 Rounded to the nearest whole value.
Assuming that the increase of students attributable to the Project would attend the schools
for which the Project site is located within the enrollment boundary at the respective
education levels, all respective schools for each grade level would have remaining capacity
to accommodate an increase in student population from the Project, with the exception of
Pacheco Elementary (see Table 3.12-5). While Pacheco Elementary enrollment currently
exceeds its capacity, alternative elementary schools with which the Project site is located
within the enrollment boundary (e.g., C.L. Smith Elementary and Bishop’s Peak/Teach
Elementary) have available capacity to accommodate new students associated with the
Project. Although proximate schools have adequate capacity for the generated student
population, the students may attend schools in the area that are over 90 percent capacity,
resulting in a potential exceedance of SLCUSD’s ideal school utilization rates (90 percent
capacity for elementary schools and 85 percent capacity for middle schools). In these
instances, schools may require increased classroom space, new teachers, and additional
equipment at the school serving the Project vicinity. Nevertheless, enrollment and capacity
have the potential to vary by school year, and the district currently accepts open enrollment,
and students could be accommodated at other district schools upon request and availability.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-19
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Table 3.12-5. Student Accommodation by Nearest Schools
Nearest School Remaining
Capacity at Schools
Project
Contribution
Capacity to
Accommodate?
Pacheco Elementary (K-6) -23 20 No
C.L. Smith Elementary (K-6) 85 20 Yes
Bishop’s Peak/Teach Elementary 74 20 Yes
Laguna Middle School (7-8) 301 6 Yes
San Luis Obispo High School (9-12) 508 11 Yes
Source: CA Department of Education 2018.
1 Rounded to the nearest whole value.
In addition, the SLCUSD currently requires all new residential and commercial
development to pay developer fees to offset potential impacts of increased enrollment on
City school facilities (Government Code Section 65996), which is considered to be full
mitigation for potential impacts. These fees are currently assessed at $3.79 per sf of
residential development and $0.61 per sf of commercial development (SLCUSD 2018b).
Fees would be estimated for residential development when building plans and sizes are
finalized; the proposed 100,000 sf of commercial uses would require approximately
$61,000 in fees. Given district-wide capacity and the payment of impact fees for school
facilities, impacts on school facilities associated with the Project would be adverse but less
than significant.
Impact PS-4 The Project would increase the demand for public parkland and
neighborhood parks from increased residential population (Less than
Significant with Mitigation).
As detailed within Section 3.11, Population and Housing, the Project is anticipated to
generate approximately 1,231 new residents (including 37 school-age children), which
would utilize Project-proposed recreational facilities, as well as existing parks and
recreational facilities within the City and surrounding area (e.g., Irish Hills Natural
Reserve). Increased use of existing neighborhood parks or parkland in the City and County,
including trails in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, would accelerate physical deterioration
of existing facilities. The Project proposes a 2.9-acre public park and a public trail along
realigned Froom Creek that would potentially affect existing resources onsite as described
in this EIR, including impacts to aesthetic, biological, cultural, and soil resources. Further,
the City’s General Plan PRE requires Expansion Areas and all residential annexation areas
such as the Project site to provide developed neighborhood parks at the rate of five acres
per 1,000 residents and at least ten acres of developed parkland for each 1,000 new
3.12-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
residents. The Project site is an Expansion Area defined by the General Plan and would be
an annexation to the City. As such, City policies would require additional parkland to serve
the Project’s future residential populations. As described in Section 3.12.3.2, Villaggio
would serve an older population with unique needs from typical residential uses. Therefore,
the Madonna Froom Ranch and Villaggio components of the Project are discussed
separately in the following sections.
Villaggio
Senior citizen populations generally seek recreational facilities such as gyms and exercise
rooms, outdoor/indoor pools, indoor socialization centers, walking paths, and similar
facilities that may facilitate persons with reduced mobility (AARP 2016). The Project
includes a variety of resident-only recreational facilities onsite to serve the needs of senior
citizens. Recreational opportunities and facilities such as an outdoor swimming pool, gym,
pickle ball, bocce ball, community gardens, theater, outdoor seating areas, library, and craft
rooms would be included within Villaggio. Additionally, Villaggio would provide walking
paths, including the proposed Froom Creek Trail and internal trails throughout the
developed areas. Access would also be available to the existing public trails within the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve for Villaggio residents via gated access points.
As detailed within Section 3.11, Population and Housing, the anticipated increase in
residential population by 825 persons within Villaggio would incrementally increase use
of and demand for parks and recreational facilities. Villaggio would contain 38 assisted
living units and 51 skilled nursing and memory care beds, totaling approximately 93
persons that would require special recreational needs with facilities that would
accommodate persons needing mobility support and transportation. The onsite recreational
amenities would provide the range of amenities to serve these special recreational needs
for 93 residents. Villaggio would also support an estimated 732 independent living/active
senior residents. Both groups of residents would be able to utilize onsite recreational
facilities provided within Villaggio, but active seniors would also likely use offsite parks
and open spaces, hiking trails, and other outdoor amenities, including the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve, City-owned and maintained trails and open spaces, City parks, community centers
(e.g., SLO Senior Center), and sports facilities such as tennis courts. Increased demand
generated by the Project and use of existing public recreational facilities by Villaggio
would contribute to the use and physical deterioration of existing facilities.
As described above, Villaggio’s proposed onsite amenities are considered adequate to
serve up to 93 senior residents with special recreational needs, so recreation demands of
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-21
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
the Project would be reduced from that typically anticipated under City standards. To meet
the goals and policies of the General Plan PRE and decrease the rate of deterioration of
existing facilities from increased demand, the Project’s increase of 732 independent living
population would require development of an additional 7.32 acres of parkland including at
least 3.66 acres of neighborhood park within the City, which would be partially satisfied
by the proposed public park within Madonna Froom Ranch and proposed public
recreational facilities such as the Froom Creek Trail, as described below. As this
requirement would not be met entirely with onsite recreational facilities, the potential
impact associated with Villaggio’s residents contribution to increased rates of physical
deterioration of existing facilities offsite and the need for additional recreational facilities
to adequately serve this population consistent with City policy is considered potentially
significant.
Madonna Froom Ranch
As detailed within Section 3.11, Population and Housing, Madonna Froom Ranch is
anticipated to generate approximately 406 new residents, including approximately 37
school-age children. Based on the anticipated increase in new residents of Madonna Froom
Ranch, increased use and demand by Project residents may result in accelerated physical
deterioration of existing facilities.
The Project would provide onsite public amenities that would partially offset the impact of
increased demand for City park and recreational facilities generated by Madonna Froom
Ranch. This includes a 2.9-acre public park that would provide the basic elements of a
neighborhood park as defined within the General Plan PRE, including benches, picnic
tables, restrooms, and a playground. In addition, the Project would develop a publicly
accessible Froom Creek Trail that would extend from the existing trail system in the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve through the Specific Plan area with a terminus near the Calle Joaquin
wetlands.
Based exclusively on the population anticipated for Madonna Froom Ranch, at least 4.06
acres of public park would be required to meet the General Plan PRE Policies 3.13.1,
3.15.1, and 5.0.2, of which approximately 2.03 acres would need to be a neighborhood
park. The Project would provide 2.9 acres of neighborhood park, thereby meeting the
City’s standard, but would be deficient in approximately 1.16 acres of required public
parkland. As this requirement would not be met with onsite recreation facilities, Madonna
Froom Ranch residents would contribute to increased rates of physical deterioration of
3.12-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
existing facilities and the need for additional recreational facilities to adequately serve this
population consistent with City policy.
In total, the Project would increase demand for recreation area and amenities from an
increase in 1,138 residents (discounting 93 assisted living residents that would be served
by onsite amenities provided by Villaggio). This residential population increase would
require an additional 11.38 acres of public parkland with 5.69 acres dedicated as
neighborhood park, consistent with General Plan PRE Policies 3.13.1, 3.15.1, and 5.0.2. A
portion of the total requirement for parkland would be satisfied by the 2.9-acre public park
proposed within Madonna Froom Ranch, leaving an unmet requirement of 8.48 acres of
parkland with at least 2.79 acres of dedicated neighborhood park area. Without this
required parkland, the Project’s residents would substantially increase demand and use of
recreation facilities in the City, contributing to accelerated deterioration and need for
maintenance of existing recreation areas and facilities. Therefore, the Project would result
in a potentially significant impact to recreational facilities.
This EIR evaluates maximum build-out potential under the FRSP; ultimate development
within the Specific Plan area and associated populations may fall below levels analyzed in
this EIR. Because the exact number of units and residents that will ultimately populate the
Specific Plan area is currently unknown, mitigation has been identified to ensure
development under the Specific Plan is consistent with General Plan PRE policies.
Mitigation Measures
MM PS-1 Public Parkland Requirements for Villaggio. Mitigation shall be
calculated based on actual buildout populations within Madonna Froom
Ranch. At the discretion of the Community Development Department and
City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department, and to ensure
that parkland would satisfy the needs of the proposed population of
Villaggio, the Applicant shall either:
a. Identify, purchase, and develop up to 7.32 acres of parkland, including
2.79 acres of neighborhood park, within the City’s Sphere of Influence,
consistent with City General Plan PRE Policies 3.13.1, 3.15.1, 5.0.1,
and 5.0.2. If feasible, land for development of neighborhood park space
should be identified within interior areas of the City Sphere of Influence
to maximize use and access; or
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-23
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
b. Provide a contribution of fees in-lieu of dedication of parkland,
restricted solely for parkland acquisition and improvement.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The development of parkland and/or
dedication of fees shall be completed by the Applicant prior to issuance of
building permits. While coordinating with the City Parks and Recreation
Department, the Applicant shall modify the FRSP to demonstrate the
provision of recreational facilities to meet the demand of Villaggio residents
if an onsite option is selected.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with General Plan PRE
Policies 3.13.1, 3.15.1, 5.0.1, and 5.0.2, and shall ensure the above measure
is implemented prior issuance of building permits.
MM PS-2 Public Parkland Requirements for Madonna Froom Ranch. The
Applicant shall identify, designate, dedicate, and/or develop up to 1.16
acres of public parkland into the Froom Ranch Specific Plan to be
operational at the time of buildout of the Project. Mitigation shall be
calculated based on actual buildout populations within Madonna Froom
Ranch and may be implemented using one of the following options, at the
discretion of the Community Development Department and City Parks and
Recreation Department:
a. The Applicant shall designate an additional area of up to 1.16 acres of
public facilities land use with the intention of providing parkland, within
the Specific Plan area, consistent with City General Plan PRE Policies
3.13.1, 3.15.1, 5.0.1, and 5.0.2, or
b. The Applicant shall identify and purchase or dedicate up to 1.16 acres
of parkland within the City’s Sphere of Influence, or
c. The Applicant shall provide a contribution of fees in-lieu of dedication
of up to 1.16 acres of parkland, restricted solely for parkland
acquisition and improvement.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The development of parkland and/or
dedication of fees shall be completed by the Applicant prior to issuance of
building permits. While coordinating with the City Parks and Recreation
Department, the Applicant shall modify the FRSP to demonstrate the
3.12-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
provision of recreational facilities to meet the demand of Madonna Froom
Ranch residents if an onsite option is selected.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with General Plan PRE
Policies 3.13.1, 3.13.1, 5.0.1, and 5.0.2, and shall ensure the above measure
is implemented prior to issuance of building permits.
Residual Impacts
With the implementation of MM PS-1, the Project would ensure that adequate recreational
resources exist within the City to serve the additional demands generated by the proposed
residential population of Villaggio following Project implementation. This would ensure
that in aggregate, ten acres per 1,000 independent-living senior residents would be
provided in park and recreational improvements and/or payment of fees would occur to
meet the standards of the City Parks and Recreation Department as well as the requirements
of Policies 3.13.1, 3.15.1, 5.0.1, and 5.0.2 within the General Plan PRE. With the
implementation of MM PS-2, the Project would provide either the dedication of needed
parkland or proportionate in-lieu fees to the City for public park space or community
facilities for the Madonna Froom Ranch residential population. This dedication of parkland
or payment of in-lieu fees for additional parkland would ensure the Project meets City
requirements for the development of parkland and offsets the Project’s demand on parks
and recreational facilities. In addition, provision of this parkland would help alleviate
overuse of any existing recreational facilities within the City or surrounding County areas,
such that use of such facilities by new residents of the Project would not result in substantial
physical deterioration of existing facilities. Provision and development of additional offsite
parkland may have secondary environmental effects that would be subject to separate
environmental review and approvals. Therefore, the Project site would result in impacts to
parks that are less than significant with mitigation.
3.12.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Public services within the Project vicinity are primarily provided by the City, supplemented
by interagency mutual aid agreements between SLOFD and CALFIRE for fire protection
services and a Memorandum of Understanding between SLOPD, the County Sherriff’s
Department, and Cal Poly’s California State University (CSU)-operated University Police
Department. Cumulative impacts to public services are largely related to citywide
population growth. Please refer to Section 3.11, Population and Housing for a detailed
growth forecast.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-25
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
In addition to resident population growth, new employment associated with commercial,
retail, and recreational uses would increase daytime populations and visitation with
associated demand for public services and recreational facilities. Planned and pending
development in the City includes multiple mixed-use commercial and residential projects.
These projects are also expected to expand residential space and contribute to additional
population increases in the City, thereby cumulatively increasing demand for the City’s
public services and recreational facilities.
The Project, in conjunction with approved, pending, or proposed development projects in
the City, proposed land use changes under the LUCE Update, and associated population
growth, would incrementally increase overall demand for public services including fire
protection, police protection, schools, and parks. The Project’s contribution to potential
cumulative impacts to public services and recreation is described below.
Police Protection
New development proposed as part of the Project would contribute to cumulative citywide
population growth and associated increases in demand for police protection provided by
the SLOPD. Overall growth within the City is anticipated to cause an increase in demand
for police services that may conflict with General Plan goals for available-time for patrol
response.
Existing SLOPD staffing levels exceed the officer per 1,000 resident ratio. Per the LUCE
Update EIR, if no additional police officers were hired by the City’s General Plan buildout
year of 2035 (projected resident population of 56,686), cumulative growth and increased
population would decrease the officers-to population ratio in the City from the ratio of 1.30
to a ratio of 1.06. To meet increased demand for police protection services and maintain
30 percent available time objective, SLOPD may be required to hire additional law
enforcement officers. Though the Project would not individually result in the demand for
any new officers due to it’s associated incremental increase in demand for service and
existing sufficiency of services, the Project, in addition to all cumulative development
within the City, would contribute to the potential increase in demand for added police
staffing. However, as noted above, the City Council would address SLOPD departmental
budget, staffing, and equipment needs as part of the annual budgetary process. This review
allows SLOPD to determine whether any increases in police resources and equipment is
needed. The SLOPD is funded through general fund revenues generated by property, sales,
and transient occupancy taxes, all of which are expected to increase in proportion to new
development within the City. Such increases in revenues could be used to hire additional
3.12-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
officers and purchase equipment to maintain or improve SLOPD service levels over time
to meet changing demands, if determined appropriate by the City Council. Though not
directly attributed to an increase in demand for services, the new or replaced police station
that was identified as important by City voters due to the age of the existing facility is
anticipated to be completed in the near future and may also help to accommodate these
future cumulative demands. Therefore, the Project’s contribution towards cumulative
impacts would be less than significant for police services.
Fire Protection
Development proposed under the Project would contribute to cumulative citywide
population growth and associated increases in demand for fire protection services provided
by the SLOFD from the four existing fire stations. As the Project would be adequately
served by existing fire protection facilities and services, the Project’s contribution to
cumulative impacts would not be considerable. However, as several future developments
in the City would be located in the vicinity of the Project, including the Avila Ranch
Development Plan and the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, additional demands would be
placed on the SLOFD and the mutual aid agreement with CALFIRE. As indicated by the
2016 Fire Department Master Plan, a fifth fire station in the southern portion of the City
would be required to maintain adequate fire protection services within the City under
buildout of the LUCE Update (SLOFD 2016). Upon development of the fifth fire station,
cumulative impacts to fire protection services on the southern side of the City would
continue to be less than significant. Further, an Interim Fire Station is planned under the
approved Avila Ranch Development Plan and would provide fire protection services within
the southern extent of the City until the fifth fire station becomes operational. Therefore,
the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts to fire
protection services and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Schools
Per the LUCE Update EIR, the total estimated enrollment generation that would result from
LUE buildout, based on development of approximately 4,904 new dwelling units (2,420
single‐family dwellings and 2,484 multi-family units), is projected to be 911 new students.
Land use changes anticipated to occur under the Project could add up to 37 new school-
aged residents, contributing to future over-capacity at certain schools and potentially
requiring increased classroom space, new teachers, and additional equipment at the schools
serving the Project site. Thus, the Project and other projected growth in the City would
contribute incrementally to increased enrollment demands within the SLCUSD.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-27
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Due to district budget constraints, new dwellings will have serious adverse consequences
for school staffing, facilities, and programs unless new development adequately mitigates
the adverse impact on school facilities. Mitigation in the form of development fees ($3.79
per square foot of residential development and $0.61 per square foot of commercial
development) is assessed with issuance of construction permits. School district fees are
collected by the City and used by the district to fund school infrastructure needs (SLCUSD
2018). Given the payment of developer fees for school facilities under the Project (which
constitutes full mitigation pursuant to SB 50), the Project’s contribution to cumulative
impacts would not be considerable and potential cumulative impacts would be less than
significant.
Parks and Recreation
The Project would contribute to increased demand for parks and recreational facilities due
to approved, pending, or proposed citywide development and associated population growth
(refer to Table 3.0-1). The implementation of cumulative development projects in the City,
in combination with the Project, would result in substantial increased use of, and demand
for, parks and recreational facilities.
The General Plan PRE requires that neighborhood and community park facilities be
provided at a ratio of ten acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Under existing conditions,
the City Parks and Recreation Department maintains a total of 28 parks and sports facilities,
10 designated Natural Reserves and open spaces, two bike trails, and landscape areas
totaling approximately 206 acres to support the current estimated City population of 46,802
(City of San Luis Obispo 2019). This equates to 4.4 acres per 1,000 residents, which is
significantly less than what is required under City standards. The future population of
56,868 individuals as projected under development of land uses permitted under the LUE
would require a projected need of approximately 363 acres of additional parkland.
However, with the implementation of MM PS-1 and PS-2, the Project would not result in
a considerable contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts as the Project would
mitigate its potential impact and provide adequate parkland consistent with City standards
along with payment of development impact fees to accommodate the recreational needs of
future Project residents. Further, other projects in the area, such as the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan and Avila Ranch Development Plan projects, would also be contributing
additional parkland for the City to support the associated population increases in each area.
Ultimately, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable deterioration of
3.12-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
existing facilities or service levels and this impact would be less than significant with
mitigation.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.12-29
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This section describes transportation facilities and operations and analyzes the potential
environmental effects of the Project on transportation as defined by CEQA and City
regulations and policies. This analysis summarizes the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the
Project, which considers transportation services and infrastructure that may be affected by
Project implementation, referred to as the study area.
3.13.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site lies at the western edge of
urban development within the City and is
bound by LOVR to the east, Calle Joaquin
and Mountainbrook Church to the south,
Irish Hills Plaza to the north, and Irish Hills
Natural Reserve to the west. The Project
site’s location at the urban edge and the
configuration of existing development and
open space provides relatively little
connectivity with the surrounding roadway
system. Given existing development
patterns, wetlands, and drainage and roadway
configuration, direct access to the Project site
is limited to a single driveway off LOVR.
Roads immediately adjacent to the Project site include LOVR and Calle Joaquin. LOVR
has approximately 1,700 feet of frontage along the eastern site boundary. LOVR is a four-
lane roadway with a center median/turning lane and provides Class II bicycle lanes in both
directions. The northbound (NB) side of LOVR is striped for parallel parking and provides
a 10-foot-wide sidewalk. The southbound (SB) side of LOVR along the Project site
frontage does not provide parking or a sidewalk and is curbed adjacent to an open drainage
ditch that supports large stands of willow riparian vegetation that runs the length of the
Project site.
Calle Joaquin runs through the southeastern corner of the Project site but is generally
separated from much of the Project site by the Calle Joaquin wetlands and four existing
hotels. Calle Joaquin is a two-lane roadway that extends south from LOVR for
approximately 2,400 feet along the southern boundary of the Specific Plan area, providing
The Project’s main entrance would be installed
on LOVR at Auto Park Way and LOVR
improvements would include sidewalks, a new
signalized intersection, and a new transit stop.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-1
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
access to four hotels, Mountainbrook Church, and the KSBY offices and transmitter before
terminating at Filipponi Ranch almost 1 mile south of LOVR. From LOVR and along the
segment adjacent to the hotels, Calle Joaquin is bordered with sidewalks and planter strips
on both sides. From the hotels to KSBY, Calle Joaquin is a two-lane rural road with
unimproved shoulders along either side. Calle Joaquin does not provide access to the
Project site.
3.13.1.1 Existing Roadway Network
Roadway facilities in the vicinity include
regional freeways and highways managed
by Caltrans and local-serving roads and
arterials managed by either the City or the
County (Figure 3.13-1). U.S. 101 is located
approximately 0.15 mile east of the Project
site. Regional motor vehicle access to the
Project site is provided via U.S. 101 at an
interchange with LOVR. Local access to the
vicinity is provided via LOVR, South
Higuera Street, and Madonna Road. Direct
access to the Project site is provided from a single dirt driveway located approximately 150
feet south of the edge of Irish Hills Plaza and 225 feet north of the intersection of LOVR
and Auto Park Way. Roadways that provide access to the Project site and vicinity are
further described below. Roadways are functionally classified in the City General Plan CE
depending on their existing or planned configuration and role in the transportation network.
U.S. 101 is a north-south, four-lane freeway through the City. Outside of the City,
U.S. 101 provides access to the City of Paso Robles to the north and the Five Cities
area to the south. U.S. 101 is functionally classified as an Urban Principal Arterial
and is part of the National Truck Network. It is a primary route for all vehicular
traffic leaving from and coming to the City.
LOVR is a north-south arterial street that extends from South Higuera Street in the
City to Pecho Valley Road in the City of Los Osos. This roadway provides motor
vehicle access to U.S. 101 approximately 0.5 mile west of South Higuera Street and
is functionally classified as an Arterial or a Parkway Arterial. LOVR provides four-
to-six lanes with Class II bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides for the majority of
The existing driveway to the Project site would
be improved to provide access to both Madonna
Froom Ranch and Villaggio.
3.13-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
11
44
66
77
88
55
99
101010
111111 141414
151515
161616
171717
181818
191919
202020
212121
121212
131313
22
33 101
101
101
101 HIGUERA STREETHIGUERA STREETVACHELL LAVACHELL LANEVENTUREVENTURE
DR.DR.HORIZONHORIZONLANELANEELKS LANEELKS LANESOUTH STREETSOUTH STREET
PRADO ROADPRADO ROAD
SUBURBAN ROADSUBURBAN ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADMADO
N
N
A
R
O
A
D
MADO
N
N
A
R
O
A
D
JESPERSON ROADJESPERSON ROADTANK FARM ROADTANK FARM ROAD
BUCKLEY ROADBUCKLEY ROADBUCKLEY ROADHIGUERA STREETSUBURBAN ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADMADO
N
N
A
R
O
A
D
W EST FOOTHILL ROA D
VACHELL LANEHORIZONLANEVENTURE
DR.JESPERSON ROADTANK FARM ROAD
SOUTH STREET
PRADO ROADELKS LANEDavenport C ree kSan Lu isObispo CreekTank F arm Creek
E ast Fork San Luis Obis p o Cre e kLaguna
Lake
CHEVRON
SAN LUIS OBISPO
TANK FARM
U.S. 101
Operates at
LOS D
3
3
3
32
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
#
LEGEND
Project Site
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area
Study Intersection and Number
Intersection Exceeds Queuing Capacity
Bus Route and Number
Bus Stop
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County
Study Intersection A.M./P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service
Acceptable Auto Level of Service (A-C)
Unacceptable Auto Level of Service: (D) Caltrans
Roadways; (E-F) City Roadways
AM PM
Analyzed Road Segments*
Unacceptable Auto Level of Service
*Based on PM and/or AM conditions; all other roadway
segments in the Project vicinity operate at acceptable levels.
#
0 2,500
SCALE IN FEET
N
Existing Traffic Conditions 3.13-1
FIGURE
3.13-3
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
the study area, although sidewalks are lacking along the Project site frontage. Since
2014, improvements associated with the LOVR/U.S. 101 Interchange Traffic Relief
Project have been constructed. Completed improvements to the interchange include
widening LOVR to four lanes from south of Calle Joaquin Road to approximately
500 feet west of South Higuera Street as well as constructing sidewalks and Class
II bike lanes along both sides of LOVR.
Calle Joaquin is a two-lane east-
west roadway that runs through the
southern corner of the Project site to
connect LOVR with the four hotels
adjacent to the site and
Mountainbrook Church uphill from
the site to the west. Calle Joaquin
has sidewalks on the westbound
(WB) side between LOVR and the
existing hotels, but sidewalks
terminate west of the existing hotels.
Madonna Road is an east-west
roadway that extends from Devaul Ranch Road west of LOVR to across U.S. 101
to Higuera Street to the east. Madonna Road is functionally classified as a Local
roadway west of LOVR, and as an Arterial street east of LOVR. Throughout its
span, Madonna Road provides two, four or six travel lanes, and Class II bike lanes
with sidewalks on one or both sides. This roadway also provides motor vehicle
access to U.S. 101 approximately 1 mile east of LOVR and 0.5 mile west of Higuera
Street.
Froom Ranch Way is an east-west roadway that connects LOVR to the Prefumo
Creek Shopping Center to the east and the Irish Hills Plaza to the west. Froom
Ranch Way is four lanes west of LOVR and two lanes east of LOVR with sidewalks
on both sides and Class II bicycle lanes on the east side. Planned improvements to
Froom Ranch Way as part of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan include construction
of a bridge across Prefumo Creek and extension of the roadway through the San
Luis Ranch site as a two-lane collector street with Class II bike lanes and a Class I
multi-use path on the north side from LOVR for approximately 0.5 mile east to
Calle Joaquin presents a frontage to the
proposed stormwater detention basin area, with
potential secondary access alongside Froom
Creek.
3.13-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Dalidio Drive. Improvements to Froom Ranch Way are required as part of the
pending San Luis Ranch Specific Plan.
South Higuera Street is a north-south arterial located south of U.S. 101 within the
vicinity of the Project site. Higuera Street connects to downtown to the north and
U.S. 101 to the south. South of Madonna Road, it provides a four-lane roadway
with Class II bike lanes and continuous sidewalks immediately adjacent to LOVR.
Prado Road is an east-west two-lane road that extends eastward from the U.S. 101
NB Ramps to South Higuera Street. Prado Road is functionally classified as a
Highway/Regional Route. Prado Road is a two-lane roadway with sidewalks on
both sides and on-street parking at various locations. Planned improvements to
Prado Road include:
• Replacement of the Prado Road Bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek just west
of South Higuera Street;
• Traffic capacity and pedestrian/bicycle crossing improvements at the Prado
Road/South Higuera Street intersection;
• Construction of a grade-separated interchange across U.S. 101;
• Extension of Prado Road as a four-lane roadway 700 feet west from U.S. 101
to Dalidio Drive through the pending San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
development, and 3,000 feet east to Broad Street through undeveloped land as
a four-lane roadway with Class II bike lanes, a center median/left-turn lane, and
Class I multi-use paths on one or both sides.
Improvements to Prado Road west of U.S. 101 are required as part of the pending
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. The U.S. 101 overpass/interchange project is
programmed and funded through a combination of direct developer contributions,
Traffic Impact Fees and local funds. The Prado Road extension east to Broad Street
is planned and funds are being collected incrementally through the City’s Traffic
Impact Fee program.
Tank Farm Road is an east-west roadway that connects South Higuera Street to
Broad Street to the east, and continues as Orcutt Road east of the Orcutt Area. In
the vicinity of the Project site, Tank Farm Road is a four-lane roadway with Class
II bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-5
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.13.1.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paths, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at
signalized intersections that are generally managed by the City, except at freeway
interchanges such as LOVR/U.S. 101, which are managed by Caltrans. In the vicinity of
the Project site, sidewalks are discontinuous on portions of both sides of LOVR. There are
no sidewalks along the Project frontage on LOVR. Continuous sidewalks are provided on
Auto Park Way, and Froom Ranch Way and Calle Joaquin from 2,000 feet south of LOVR
to Motel 6, after which the road becomes a narrow two-lane rural road with no sidewalks.
All of the signalized intersections along LOVR are equipped with marked crosswalks and
pedestrian signals. Informal pedestrian access currently exists between the Project site and
the Irish Hills Plaza shopping center through the center’s parking lot.
The Irish Hills Natural Reserve supports an extensive off-road network of multi-use trails
immediately west of the Project site, with the Neil Havlik Way and Froom Creek Connector
trails bordering the Project site; the nearest formal trailhead is the Froom Creek trailhead
located immediately adjacent to the northwestern corner of the Project site.
3.13.1.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities in the Project vicinity include on- and off-road bicycle paths, lanes, and
routes. Class I bicycle paths are paved pathways separated from roadways. Class II bicycle
lanes are lanes adjacent to the road shoulder outside vehicle travel lanes, with lane
markings, pavement legends, and signage. Class III bicycle routes are generally located on
low-traffic-volume streets. These facilities are designed for bicycle use, but have no
separated bicycle right-of-way or lane striping, but may in some instances be signed or
have “sharrow “markings on the roadway. A Class IV separated bikeway, often referred to
as a cycle track or protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically
separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. Bicycle facilities provide routes for
recreational, commuter, and in some cases school children cyclists.
Within the Project vicinity, Class I bicycle paths include the current southern terminus of
the Bob Jones Trail, a regional bike path that currently connects to the north side of LOVR
at the intersection with the U.S. 101 NB ramps. Within the City, the trail currently extends
for approximately 1.1 miles from LOVR north to Prado Road, with another segment within
the County of roughly 3 miles extending from Ontario Road near the Avila Beach Drive
interchange with U.S. 101 to Avila Beach. Future plans call for extending the trail from
downtown San Luis Obispo to this existing Avila Beach segment. Class II bicycle lanes
3.13-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
are provided in both directions on portions of LOVR and South Higuera Street within the
Project vicinity, as well as the WB direction of Madonna Road from Oceanaire Drive to
about 600 feet east of LOVR. The South Higuera Street bicycle lanes are provided between
LOVR and Madonna Road, except for a gap in the NB direction near South Street. The
LOVR bicycle lanes are provided from the western City limit to South Higuera Street.
Class III bicycle routes are designated along portions of Oceanaire Drive, Atascadero
Street, Elks Lane, Calle Joaquin, and Dalidio Drive within Laguna Lake Park.
In addition, as noted above, an extensive multi-use off-road recreational trail system is also
located adjacent to the Project site within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, including
designated mountain biking trails, as well as within the Laguna Lake Open Space to the
east.
3.13.1.4 Existing Transit Facilities
Public transit service to the Project vicinity is provided by the City of San Luis Obispo
Transit Division (SLO Transit) via bus routes 2A and 2B, which provide service to and
from the Downtown Transit Center located on Osos Street. Route 2A operates in a
clockwise loop with 60-minute headways (frequency of service) from 6:15 AM to 10:00
PM and stops near the Project site on the east side of LOVR, north of the Auto Park Way
intersection. This stop is within a roughly five- to eight-minute walk from the Project site.
Currently, signalized pedestrian crossings on LOVR in the Project vicinity are limited to
those at Froom Ranch Way and Calle Joaquin, a distance of over 0.5 mile; no marked or
controlled pedestrian crossings on LOVR currently exist at the intersection of LOVR/Auto
Park Way. Route 2B operates in a counterclockwise loop with 60-minute headways from
6:45 AM to 6:35 PM and stops near the Project site on the west side of LOVR, south of the
Froom Ranch Way intersection. This stop is within a two- to five-minute walk from the
Project entry at LOVR/Auto Park Way. Transit service is relatively infrequent to the
Project vicinity with headways of roughly 60 minutes. This compares to industry standards
of ideal peak hour headways of 10 to 15 minutes required to attract non-transit-dependent
users and provide reasonable commute times.
3.13.1.5 Existing Collision History
Documented collisions along the selected study locations were obtained from the City for
a period of three years from January 2014 to December 2016. Most recent statewide
collision averages for 2015 were obtained from Caltrans. Quantitative review of collision
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-7
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
history for the selected roadway segments and the study intersections are summarized in
Appendix J.
LOVR between Froom Ranch Way and Calle Joaquin
During the three-year study period, there were a total of 29 collisions reported for LOVR
between Froom Ranch way and Calle Joaquin and a total of 17 injuries. During the study
period, no crashes involving pedestrians were reported, and one collision involving a
bicyclist was reported. Fatal-plus-Injury rate for this study segment is higher when
compared to the statewide average rate for similar facilities. Further, this segment has been
identified as being a high-collision-rate location compared to similar arterial streets in the
City’s most recent Annual Traffic Safety Report (2017).
South Higuera Street between LOVR and Clover Ridge Lane
During the study period, there were a total of ten collisions reported for the study segment
of South Higuera Street between LOVR and Clover Ridge Lane and a total of six injuries
were reported. During the study period no crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists were
reported. One fatal injury was reported at Higuera Street and Clover Ridge Lane due to
improper turning. Fatal-plus-Injury rate for this study segment is higher when compared to
the statewide average rate for similar facilities. This segment is located within the County
and has not been studied as part of the City’s Annual Traffic Safety Report (2017).
3.13.1.6 Multi-Modal Transportation System Operations
Multi-modal transportation system operations include vehicular traffic characteristics and
congestion, adequacy of pedestrian and bicycle facilities to safety accommodate demand,
and transit operations including headways and facilities such as bus stops. In order to
evaluate existing operational characteristics of the transportation system, recent traffic
volume data was obtained (automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles, transit ridership), and study
area transportation facilities were observed, including intersections, roadway segments,
sidewalks, bike paths, transit routes and stops. For vehicular traffic, intersection turning
movement volumes for weekday AM and PM peak periods and roadway segment volumes
collected during February 2016 and March 2016 were obtained from the City. For the
intersection of Foothill Boulevard and LOVR, turning movement volumes collected in
September 2014 were obtained from the County. Volumes at this intersection were adjusted
to reflect growth through 2016. For freeway mainline and ramp traffic analysis, AM and
PM peak period traffic volumes were obtained from 2017 PeMS data. All traffic data was
collected during typical weekday conditions when schools were in session.
3.13-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Detailed traffic flow analyses focus on operating conditions of critical intersections and
segments during peak travel periods, which are typically the weekday AM and PM peak
hours. The AM peak hour is defined as the highest one-hour of traffic flow counted between
7:00 AM and 9:00 AM on a typical weekday, the PM peak hour is defined as the highest
one-hour of traffic flow counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a typical weekday. .
Pedestrian and bicycle volume data was obtained from the City based on recent counts
during this same time period. This was supplemented by field observations of these
facilities. For transit operations, SLO Transit was contacted to obtain relevant transit line
ridership data and for information on any planned improvements.
The study intersections and roadway segments were evaluated according to the
methodology required by the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines. The
operation of intersections and roadway segments was evaluated based on methodologies
established in the Transportation Research Board’s 2016 Highway Capacity Manual 6th
(HCM 6th) Edition Multi-modal Level of Service (LOS) criteria. LOS is a qualitative
measure of traffic operating conditions ranging from LOS A to LOS F, with LOS A being
the highest functioning and LOS F being the lowest functioning.
Automobile Intersection LOS Methodology
In terms of operations and deficiencies for automobiles, intersection LOS is based on the
estimated control delay per vehicle, and can be affected by factors such as turn lane
capacity, the number of vehicle lanes, and traffic control device characteristics, such as
traffic signal phasing/timings. In rating intersection operations, LOS A indicates free-flow
operations and LOS F indicates congested operations (see Table 3.13-1). Table 3.13-2 and
Table 3.13-3 summarize the HCM 6th Edition automobile segment LOS and the freeway
segment LOS methodologies, respectively.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-9
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-1. LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
LOS Description
Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds)
Signalized Unsignalized
A Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a single cycle. ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a single cycle. 10.1 – 20 10.1 – 15
C Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches. 20.1 – 35 15.1 – 25
D Congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional.
Vehicles wait through more than one cycle during short peaks.
No long-standing lines formed.
35.1 – 55 25.1 – 35
E Severe congestion with some long-standing lines on critical
approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal
does not provide for protected turning movements.
55.1 – 80 35.1 – 50
F Total breakdown with stop-and-go operations. > 80 > 50
Source: TRB 2010.
Table 3.13-2. Automobile Segment LOS Methodology
LOS Travel Speed Threshold by Base Free-Flow Speed (mph) V/C Ratioa
55 50 45 40 35 30 25 ≤1.0
A >44 >40 >36 >32 >28 >24 >20
B >37 >34 >30 >27 >23 >20 >17
C >28 >25 >23 >20 >18 >15 >13
D >22 >20 >18 >16 >14 >12 >10
E >17 >15 >14 >12 >11 >9 >8
F ≤17 ≤15 ≤14 ≤12 ≤11 ≤9 ≤8
F Any >1.0
Source: HCM 6th Edition 2016.
mph – miles per hour
Notes: a The critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio is based on consideration of the through movement V/C ratio at
each boundary intersection in the subject direction of travel. The critical V/C ratio is the largest ratio of those
considered.
Table 3.13-3. Freeway Segments LOS Methodology
Segment Type Freeway Facility Density (pc/mi/h)1
A ≤11
B >11-18
C >18-26
D >26-35
E >35-45
F >45 or any component segment V/C >1.00
Source: HCM 6th Edition 2016.
1Density is a measurement of the passenger car flow rate, as pc/mi/h, or passenger cars per mile per hour.
3.13-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Operations
Bicycle, transit, and pedestrian LOS can be affected by a lack of or incomplete bicycle
lanes, infrequent or inaccessible transit service, or poor continuity of sidewalks or crossing
facilities. The City General Plan CE defines LOS for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
facilities and services using a LOS rating system similar to roadway LOS criteria but based
on conditions described in Table 3.13-4. Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities are
evaluated using the HCM 6th Edition 2016 methodology and multi-modal thresholds
established in the City’s General Plan CE. Table 3.13-5 and Table 3.13-6 summarize HCM
6th Pedestrian and Bike/Transit LOS Standards.
Table 3.13-4. LOS Criteria for Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities/Services
Facility Description
LOS* Bicycle Links Pedestrian Links Transit Segments
A - Bike lane with ample width
- Excellent pavement
condition
- Separation from vehicle
traffic
- Low vehicle volumes/speeds
- Low heavy truck mix
- No on-street parking
- Wide walkways allowing
side-by-side walking and
easy passing
- Buffer from vehicle traffic
(landscaping, parking, bike
lanes)
- Low vehicle volumes/speeds
- 15-minute or less headways
- Higher transit travel speeds
- High quality walkways to
transit stops
- Numerous transit stops with
benches, shelters, trash cans,
transit maps
- Easy availability of seats
onboard
B - Narrower bike lane width
- On-street parking allowed
- One-way street allows
higher vehicle volumes/
speeds
- Less buffer between
sidewalk and vehicle traffic
- Fewer transit stops or stop
amenities
- Narrower walkways close to
vehicle traffic
C - Higher vehicle volumes/
speeds adjacent to bike lane
- Less distance between
sidewalk and vehicle traffic
- Higher vehicle volumes/
speeds adjacent to sidewalk
- Less frequent or reliable
transit service
- Lower travel speeds
D - Higher vehicle volumes/
speeds adjacent to bike lane
- Higher heavy truck mix
- Higher vehicle volumes/
speeds adjacent to sidewalk
- Less frequent or reliable
transit service
- Lower travel speeds
- Fewer transit stops or stop
amenities
E - No bike lane
- Narrow roadway shoulder
width
- No sidewalk
- Bike lane serves as roadway
shoulder
- Higher vehicle volumes/
speeds adjacent to sidewalk
- Infrequent or unreliable
transit service
- Unattractive or inaccessible
stops
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-11
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-4. LOS Criteria for Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities/Services
(Continued)
Facility Description
LOS* Bicycle Links Pedestrian Links Transit Segments
F - No bike lane
- Poor pavement condition
- High vehicle
volumes/speeds
- Higher heavy truck mix
- High on-street parking
- No walkway or roadway
shoulder
- No buffer between
pedestrians and vehicle
traffic
- High vehicle volumes/
speeds adjacent to sidewalk
- No transit service
* Each LOS description is compared to the LOS immediately above (e.g., LOS B is described compared to LOS A).
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2014a, General Plan CE, Appendix B.
Table 3.13-5. Pedestrian Segment LOS Methodology
Pedestrian LOS Score LOS by Average Pedestrian Space (sf/p)
>60 >40-60 >24-40 >15-24 >8.0-15a ≤8.0a
≤2.00 A B C D E F
>2.00-2.75 A B C D E F
>2.75-3.50 A B C D E F
>3.50-4.25 A B C D E F
>4.25-5.00 A B C D E F
>5.00 A B C D E F
Source: HCM 6th Edition 2016.
a In cross-flow situations, the LOS E/F threshold is 13 sf/person (sf/p).
Table 3.13-6. Bicycle and Transit Segment LOS Methodology
LOS LOS Score
A ≤2.00
B >2.00-2.75
C >2.75-3.50
D >3.50-4.25
E >4.25-5.00
F >5.00
Source: HCM 6th Edition 2016.
Study Facilities
Study Intersections
Multi-modal operations were evaluated at the following 24 study intersections:
1. LOVR / Foothill Boulevard*
2. LOVR / Prefumo Canyon Road
3.13-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3. LOVR / Laguna Lane
4. LOVR / Oceanaire Drive
5. LOVR / Royal Way
6. LOVR / Madonna Road
7. LOVR / Froom Ranch Way
8. LOVR / Auto Park Way (Project Driveway)
9. LOVR / Calle Joaquin
10. LOVR / U.S. 101 SB Ramps**
11. LOVR / U.S. 101 NB**
12. LOVR / South Higuera Street
13. South Higuera Street / Vachell Lane
14. South Higuera Street / Suburban Road
15. South Higuera Street / Tank Farm Road
16. Prado Road / South Higuera Street
17. Prado Road – Elks Lane / U.S. 101 NB Ramps**
18. Madonna Road / Oceanaire Drive
19. Madonna Road / Dalidio Drive
20. Madonna Road / U.S. 101 SB Ramps**
21. Madonna Road / U.S. 101 NB Ramps**
22. Dalidio Drive / Froom Ranch Way (future intersection)
23. Prado Road / U.S. 101 SB Ramps (future intersection)**
24. Collector “A” / Collector “B” (onsite) (future intersection)
*Under County jurisdiction
**Under Caltrans jurisdiction
Study Roadway Segments
Multi-modal operations were evaluated on the following 13 study roadway segments:
1. LOVR (Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive)
2. LOVR (Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road)
3. LOVR (Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way)
4. LOVR (Froom Ranch Way to Calle Joaquin)
5. LOVR (U.S. 101 SB Ramps to U.S. 101 NB Ramps)
6. LOVR (U.S. 101 NB Ramps to South Higuera Street)
7. South Higuera Street (City Limit south to U.S. 101/Clover Ridge Lane)
8. South Higuera Street (LOVR to Tank Farm Road)
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-13
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
9. South Higuera Street (Tank Farm Road to Prado Road)
10. Tank Farm (South Higuera Street to Broad Street)*
11. Madonna Road (LOVR to Dalidio Drive)
12. Froom Ranch Way (LOVR to Dalidio Drive) [future extension]
13. Commercial Collector “A” (LOVR to Commercial Collector “B”) [onsite, future
roadway]
*Portion of segment under County jurisdiction
U.S. 101 Study Segments
Traffic operations were evaluated on the following six Caltrans facilities, consisting of
three U.S. 101 mainline roadway segments and three U.S. 101 intersection on-ramps and
off-ramps:
1. U.S. 101 Mainline (NB / SB) – from South Higuera Street to LOVR
2. U.S. 101 Mainline (NB / SB) – from LOVR to Dalidio Drive/Prado Road
3. U.S. 101 Mainline (NB / SB) – from Prado Road to Madonna Road
4. U.S. 101 On- / Off-Ramps (NB / SB) at LOVR
5. U.S. 101 On- / Off-Ramps (NB) at Prado Road (SB future)
6. U.S. 101 On- / Off-Ramps (NB / SB) at Madonna Road
Existing Conditions LOS
Automobile Intersection LOS
Provided in Section 3.13.3.1, Thresholds of Significance, is a summary of the City’s LOS
objectives and standards for operation of automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
facilities (see Table 3.13-3). Under existing conditions, three intersections are currently
exceeding the applicable City minimum acceptable automobile LOS threshold. The
following three unsignalized intersections — all with side-street stop-control — were
found to operate at unacceptable LOS (see Appendix J; Table 3.13-7):
• LOVR and Oceanaire Drive, which operates at LOS F (Delay 52.5) during AM and
LOS E (Delay 42.2) during PM peak hours
• LOVR and Auto Park Way, which operates at LOS E (Delay 37.1) during PM peak
hour
• South Higuera Street and Vachell Lane, which operates at LOS F (Delay 67.8)
during AM and LOS E (Delay 43.8) during PM peak hours
3.13-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-7. Existing Intersection LOS – Automobile
ID Study Intersections Control LOS
Target
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions
Delay1 LOS2 V/C3
1 LOVR / Foothill Boulevard Signal D AM 23.9 C
PM 37.0 D
2 LOVR / Prefumo Canyon Road TWSC4 D AM 18.7 C
PM 20.9 C
3 LOVR / Laguna Lane Signal D AM 13.7 B
PM 8.2 A
4 LOVR / Oceanaire Drive TWSC4 D AM 52.5 F 0.57
PM 42.2 E 0.42
5 LOVR / Royal Way Signal D AM 34.8 C
PM 17.6 B
6 LOVR / Madonna Road Signal D AM 37.4 D
PM 37.7 D
7 LOVR / Froom Ranch Way Signal D AM 19.5 B
PM 35.3 D
8 LOVR / Auto Park Way TWSC4 D AM 14.6 B
PM 37.1 E 0.52
9 LOVR / Calle Joaquin Signal D AM 5.3 A
PM 7.0 A
10 LOVR /U.S. 101 SB Ramps Signal C AM 12.2 B
PM 12.9 B
11 LOVR /U.S. 101 NB Ramps Signal C AM 23.4 C
PM 23.5 C
12 LOVR / South Higuera Street Signal D AM 13.5 B
PM 14.4 B
13 South Higuera Street / Vachell Lane TWSC D AM 67.8 F 0.84
PM 43.8 E 0.84
14 South Higuera Street / Suburban Road Signal D AM 5.9 A
PM 11.2 B
15 South Higuera Street / Tank Farm
Road Signal D AM 22.2 C
PM 27.7 C
16 South Higuera Street / Prado Road Signal D AM 18.5 B
PM 28.9 C
17 Prado Road/U.S. 101 NB Ramps / Elks
Lane AWSC5 C AM 9.1 A
PM 13.5 B
18 Madonna Road / Oceanaire Drive6 Signal D AM 39.3 D
PM 27.2 C
19 Madonna Road / Dalidio Drive Signal D AM 19.9 B
PM 53.2 D
20 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 SB
Ramps/Madonna Inn Signal C AM 30.7 C
PM 31.7 C
21 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 NB Ramps Signal C AM 14.7 B
PM 32.4 C
1Delay – Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-
way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop-
controlled intersections.
2LOS – Level of Service
3 V/C ratio reported for worst movement, for locations with unacceptable LOS only.
4TWSC – Two-way-stop controlled intersection.
5AWSC – All-way stop controlled intersection.
6HCM 6th Methodology does not support intersections with more than four approaches. Hence HCM 2000
methodology used for Intersection 18.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-15
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-7. Existing Intersection LOS – Automobile (Continued)
Bold indicates unacceptable operations.
Delay and LOS results for Intersections 22, 23 and 24 are excluded from existing conditions analysis as these
intersections are evaluated in Near-Term and Cumulative Scenarios.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Pedestrian Intersection LOS
Under existing conditions, the following intersections are currently exceeding the City’s
minimum pedestrian LOS threshold, all of which represent locations with uncontrolled
crossings of multi-lane arterial streets (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; refer to
Table 3.13-8):
• LOVR and Prefumo Canyon Road NB and SB directions, which operate at LOS F
during AM and PM peak hours
• LOVR and Oceanaire Drive NB direction, which operates at LOS F during AM and
during PM peak hours
• LOVR and Auto Park Way NB and SB directions, which operate at LOS F during
AM and PM peak hours
• South Higuera Street and Vachell Lane NB and SB directions, which operate at
LOS F during AM and PM peak hours
Table 3.13-8. Existing Intersection LOS – Pedestrian
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
1 LOVR / Foothill Boulevard
EB C 1.75 B 1.75 B
WB C 2.45 B 2.39 B
NB C 2.70 C 2.75 C
SB C 2.74 C 2.87 C
2 LOVR / Prefumo Canyon Road1
EB C N/A WB C
NB C >5 F >5 F
SB C >5 F >5 F
3 LOVR / Laguna Lane
EB C n/a
WB C 2.39 B 2.22 B
NB C 2.82 C 2.79 C
SB C 2.87 C 2.98 C
4 LOVR / Oceanaire Drive1
EB C N/A WB C
NB C >5 F >5 F
SB C N/A
5 LOVR / Royal Way
EB C 2.01 B 2.01 B
WB C 2.00 B 1.98 B
NB C 3.09 C 3.11 C
SB C 3.09 C 3.11 C
3.13-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-8. Existing Intersection LOS – Pedestrian (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
6 LOVR / Madonna Road
EB C 2.13 B 2.13 B
WB C 2.97 C 3.05 C
NB C 2.98 C 3.16 C
SB C 3.36 C 3.40 C
7 LOVR / Froom Ranch Way
EB C 2.50 C 2.64 C
WB C 2.39 B 2.44 B
NB C 3.08 C 3.22 C
SB C 3.07 C 3.21 C
8 LOVR / Auto Park Way1
EB C N/A WB C
NB C >5 F >5 F
SB C >5 F >5 F
9 LOVR / Calle Joaquin
EB C 2.48 B 2.48 B
WB C 2.09 B 2.09 B
NB C 3.09 C 3.34 C
SB C 2.96 C 3.21 C
10 LOVR / U.S. 101 SB Ramps
EB C 1.90 B 2.21 B
WB C 2.25 B 2.21 B
NB C 2.89 C 3.02 C
SB C 2.94 C 3.26 C
11 LOVR / U.S. 101 NB Ramps
EB C 2.45 B 2.54 C
WB C 1.43 A 1.43 A
NB C 2.78 C 2.80 C
SB C 2.89 C 3.00 C
12 LOVR / South Higuera Street
EB C 2.70 C 2.73 C
WB C n/a
NB C 2.30 B 2.36 B
SB C 2.76 C 2.82 C
13 South Higuera Street / Vachell
Lane1
EB C N/A WB C
NB C >5 F >5 F
SB C >5 F >5 F
14 South Higuera Street / Suburban
Road
EB C N/A
WB C 2.18 B 2.25 B
NB C 2.92 C 3.05 C
SB C 2.71 C 2.83 C
15 South Higuera Street / Tank
Farm Road
EB C 2.03 B 2.04 B
WB C 2.94 C 3.03 C
NB C 3.29 C 3.47 C
SB C 2.67 C 2.96 C
16 South Higuera Street / Prado
Road
EB C 2.46 B 2.58 C
WB C 2.38 B 2.45 B
NB C 2.71 C 2.96 C
SB C 2.75 C 2.89 C
17 Prado Road/U.S. 101 NB
Ramps / Elks Lane
EB C
N/A WB C
NB C
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-17
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-8. Existing Intersection LOS – Pedestrian (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
SB C
18 Madonna Road / Oceanaire
Drive
EB C 2.75 C 2.90 C
WB C 3.21 C 3.30 C
NB C 2.01 B 2.02 B
SB C 2.04 B 1.97 B
SE C 1.75 B 1.75 B
NE C 1.77 B 1.75 B
19 Madonna Road / Dalidio Drive
EB C 2.99 C 3.13 C
WB C 3.02 C 3.11 C
NB C 2.07 B 2.13 B
SB C 1.99 B 2.00 B
20 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 SB
Ramps/Madonna Inn
EB C 2.96 C 3.11 C
WB C 3.00 C 3.03 C
NB C 2.81 C 2.84 C
SB C 2.17 B 2.19 B
21 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 NB
Ramps
EB C 2.96 C 2.98 C
WB C 2.79 C 2.79 C
NB C 2.00 B 2.02 B
SB C 2.09 B 2.13 B
Notes: N/A - Pedestrian intersection LOS methodology excludes crossings of stop-sign controlled approaches.
1For unsignalized AWSC intersections, pedestrian delay is reported as pedestrian LOS and methodology is not
supported for crosswalks that intersect stop-sign controlled approaches. For unsignalized TWSC intersections,
pedestrian LOS methodology is limited to the uncontrolled crossings.
NB – northbound
SB – southbound
WB – westbound
EB - eastbound
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Bicycle Intersection LOS
Under existing conditions, the following intersection is currently exceeding the City’s
minimum bicycle LOS threshold (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; refer to
Table 3.13-9):
• South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road, which operates at LOS E (Bicycle LOS
Score 4.56) in the WB direction during PM peak hour, reflecting the lack of a WB
bicycle lane at the intersection approach. An existing WB bicycle lane on Tank
Farm Road terminates east of the intersection.
3.13-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-9. Existing Intersection LOS – Bicycle
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Bicycle
LOS
Score
LOS
Bicycle
LOS
Score
LOS
1 LOVR / Foothill Boulevard
EB D 2.71 C 2.71 C
WB D 3.27 C 3.92 D
NB D 2.77 C 3.03 C
SB D 2.56 C 1.89 B
3 LOVR / Laguna Lane
EB D N/A
WB D 3.26 C 2.80 C
NB D 1.90 B 2.22 B
SB D 1.44 A 1.28 A
5 LOVR / Royal Way
EB D 3.13 C 2.96 C
WB D 3.30 C 2.94 C
NB D 2.67 C 3.01 C
SB D 2.20 B 1.87 B
6 LOVR / Madonna Road
EB D 3.38 C 3.21 C
WB D 3.62 D 4.28 D
NB D 1.66 B 2.08 B
SB D 2.79 C 2.47 B
7 LOVR / Froom Ranch Way
EB D 3.43 C 4.28 D
WB D 2.04 B 2.34 B
NB D 1.77 B 2.09 B
SB D 1.72 B 1.76 B
8 LOVR / Auto Park Way
EB D
N/A WB D
NB D
SB D
9 LOVR / Calle Joaquin
EB D 3.07 C 3.01 C
WB D 3.13 C 3.21 C
NB D 1.57 B 1.96 B
SB D 1.77 B 0.71 A
10 LOVR /U.S. 101 SB Ramps
EB D N/A
WB D 2.72 C 2.57 C
NB D 1.66 B 2.12 B
SB D 1.52 B 1.86 B
11 LOVR /U.S. 101 NB Ramps
EB D 3.74 D 3.77 D
WB D 1.39 A 1.39 A
NB D 1.73 B 2.05 B
SB D 2.22 B 2.18 B
12 LOVR / South Higuera Street
EB D 1.86 B 1.62 B
WB D N/A
NB D 1.97 B 1.75 B
SB D 2.21 B 3.22 C
14 South Higuera Street / Suburban
Road
EB D N/A
WB D 1.21 A 1.93 B
NB D 2.20 B 1.91 B
SB D 1.95 B 2.35 B
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-19
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-9. Existing Intersection LOS – Bicycle (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Bicycle
LOS
Score
LOS
Bicycle
LOS
Score
LOS
15 South Higuera Street / Tank Farm
Road
EB D 2.71 C 2.71 C
WB D 3.64 D 4.56 E
NB D 2.00 B 2.12 B
SB D 1.76 B 2.17 B
16 South Higuera Street / Prado Road
EB D 2.48 B 2.34 B
WB D 2.84 C 3.50 D
NB D 1.65 B 2.32 B
SB D 1.94 B 1.89 B
18 Madonna Road / Oceanaire Drive
EB D 2.77 C 2.82 C
WB D 1.26 A 1.76 B
NB D 2.82 C 2.79 C
SB D 2.70 C 2.22 B
SE D 2.62 C 2.62 C
NE D 2.20 B 2.20 B
19 Madonna Road / Dalidio Drive
EB D 2.15 B 2.04 B
WB D 1.58 B 1.94 B
NB D 3.05 C 3.28 C
SB D 2.87 C 2.95 C
20 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 SB
Ramps/Madonna Inn
EB D 1.94 B 2.00 B
WB D 1.62 B 1.91 B
NB D 3.70 D 3.66 D
SB D 2.94 C 2.99 C
21 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 NB Ramps
EB D 2.71 C 2.30 B
WB D 1.58 B 2.05 B
NB D 2.25 B 2.33 B
SB D N/A
Notes: Bicycle LOS summary excludes unsignalized intersections and locations where no bicycle facilities are provided
as HCM 6th Bike LOS Methodology do not model segments bounded by unsignalized intersections.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Vehicle Queuing Analysis
Intersection LOS alone may not fully represent traffic operations at congested
intersections, which can be affected by queuing vehicles backing up and blocking access
to the intersection, increasing vehicular delay. For analysis of turn pocket operations,
vehicle queues are typically evaluated based on the calculated 95th-percentile queue, which
is defined as the queue length that has only a 5 percent probability of being exceeded during
the analysis time period. Several intersections in the Project vicinity experience 95th-
percentile queues that are estimated to exceed the available turn pocket storage. Under
existing conditions, the following seven intersections have vehicle queues that exceed turn
pocket capacity during AM or PM peak hours (see Appendix J; refer to Table 3.13-10):
3.13-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-10. Existing Conditions – 95th-Percentile Queuing
ID Study Intersections Lane Group
Storage
Length Per
Lane (ft)
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
1 LOVR/Foothill Boulevard
WBR 180 AM 0
PM 0
NBL 120 AM 0
PM 5
NBR 370 AM 35
PM 120
SBL 490 AM #485
PM #248
3 LOVR/Laguna Lane
WBL Trap Lane AM 90
PM 40
WBR Trap Lane AM 0
PM 0
NBR 80 AM 10
PM 35
SBL 120 AM 45
PM 25
5 LOVR/Royal Way
EBR 70 AM 10
PM 0
WBR 70 AM 0
PM 0
NBL 110 AM 25
PM 60
SBL 160 AM 15
PM 15
SBR 50 AM 0
PM 0
6 LOVR/Madonna Road
EBL 230 AM #255
PM #145
WBL Trap Lane AM 70
PM 190
WBR 170 AM 45
PM 75
NBL 200 AM 70
PM 140
NBR 175 AM 35
PM 50
SBL 350 AM #330
PM 185
7 LOVR/Froom Ranch Way
EBL 250 AM 60
PM #240
WBL 295 AM 75
PM 195
WBR 50 AM 0
PM 45
NBL 300 AM 110
PM 255
SBL 160 AM 30
PM 100
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-21
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-10. Existing Conditions – 95th-Percentile Queuing (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Lane Group
Storage
Length Per
Lane (ft)
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
8 LOVR/Auto Park Way (Project
Driveway)
EBL 100 AM -
PM -
EBR 100 AM -
PM -
WBL Trap Lane AM -
PM -
WBR 175 AM -
PM -
NBL 200 AM -
PM -
SBL 100 AM -
PM -
SBR 100 AM -
PM -
9 LOVR/Calle Joaquin
EBL 260 AM 25
PM 35
EBR 260 AM 10
PM 10
WBL 100 AM 50
PM 105
NBL 130 AM 10
PM m5
NBR 130 AM 20
PM m5
SBL 120 AM 20
PM 10
SBR 120 AM 0
PM 5
10 LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps
WBR 190 AM 110
PM 245
NBL 220 AM m25
PM m60
SBR 120 AM 50
PM #220
11 LOVR/U.S. 101 NB Ramps
EBL 610 AM 290
PM #330
NBL 400 AM 75
PM 120
SBR 133 AM m0
PM 0
12 LOVR/South Higuera Street
EBL Trap Lane AM #315
PM 215
EBR 100 AM 40
PM 40
NBL 200 AM 15
PM 20
SBR Trap Lane AM 65
PM 200
3.13-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-10. Existing Conditions – 95th-Percentile Queuing (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Lane Group
Storage
Length Per
Lane (ft)
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
14 South Higuera Street/Suburban
Road
WBL 170 AM 80
PM 270
WBR Trap Lane AM 30
PM 70
SBL 170 AM 25
PM 25
15 South Higuera Street/Tank Farm
Road
EBR Trap Lane AM 0
PM 0
WBL Trap Lane AM 165
PM 340
WBR 250 AM 55
PM 180
NBL 140 AM 40
PM 55
NBR 100 AM 85
PM 30
SBL 165 AM #410
PM #760
16 South Higuera Street/ Prado Road
EBL Trap Lane AM 60
PM 75
EBR 100 AM 15
PM 20
WBL 105 AM 70
PM 120
WBR 200 AM 0
PM 15
NBL 100 AM 195
PM #525
SBL 200 AM #210
PM 110
18 Madonna Road/Oceanaire Drive
EBL 115 AM 40
PM 40
WBL 115 AM #55
PM #155
WBR 100 AM 0
PM 0
NBR 50 AM 0
PM 0
19 Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive
EBL 120 AM 40
PM 55
WBL 280 AM 70
PM 150
NBR 150 AM 10
PM 45
SBR 50 AM 0
PM 0
20 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 SB
Ramps/Madonna Inn EBL 100 AM 50
PM 55
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-23
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-10. Existing Conditions – 95th-Percentile Queuing (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Lane Group
Storage
Length Per
Lane (ft)
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
WBL 260 AM 145
PM m#215
NBL Trap Lane AM 185
PM #425
NBR 275 AM 125
PM 25
SBL Trap Lane AM 20
PM 30
SBR 100 AM 0
PM 0
21 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 NB
Ramps
EBL 435 AM 125
PM #295
NBL 185 AM 90
PM 180
Notes: Queue length rounded to nearest 5 feet. Queuing analysis is reported for signalized intersections only.
Bold: 95th-percentile volume exceeds capacity.
m queue is metered by upstream intersection.
# 95th-percentile queue exceeds capacity.
Trap - denotes design where the thru-lane terminates in a turn lane.
ft – feet
- = no data available
Westbound thru-lane (WBL); westbound right-turn lane (WBR); eastbound thru-lane (EBL); northbound thru-lane
(NBL); northbound right-turn lane (NBR); northbound trap (NBT); southbound thru-lane (SBL); southbound trap
(SBT); southbound right-turn lane (SBR); eastbound right-turn lane (EBR).
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
• LOVR and Madonna Road (eastbound thru-lane [EBL] during AM peak hour)
• LOVR and Calle Joaquin (westbound thru-lane [WBL] during PM peak hour)
• LOVR and U.S. 101 SB Ramps (southbound right-turn lane [SBR] and westbound
right-turn lane [WBR] during PM peak hour)
• South Higuera Street and Suburban Road (WBL during PM peak hours)
• South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road (southbound thru-lane [SBL] during
both the AM and PM peak hour)
• South Higuera Street and Prado Road (northbound thru-lane [NBL] during both the
AM and PM peak hour and SBL during AM peak hour)
• Madonna Road and Oceanaire Drive (WBL during PM peak hour)
Automobile Roadway Segment LOS
Under existing conditions, the following roadway segments currently exceed the applicable
minimum automobile LOS threshold (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; refer to
Table 3.13-11):
3.13-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
• LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road operates at LOS F during AM and
PM peak hour in the SB direction
• LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps to U.S. 101 NB Ramps operates at LOS E during
PM peak hour in the SB direction
• South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road operates at LOS E during
PM peak hour in the NB direction
Pedestrian Roadway Segments LOS
Under existing conditions, the following roadway segments exceed the City’s minimum
pedestrian LOS threshold, largely due to sidewalk gaps or minimal buffer between
pedestrians and heavy vehicular traffic lanes (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J;
refer to Table 3.13-12):
• LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive operates at LOS D during
AM peak hour in the SB direction and LOS D during PM peak hour in the NB
direction.
• LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road operates at LOS D during AM peak
hour in the SB direction.
• LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way operates at LOS F during AM
peak hour and at LOS D during PM peak hour in the NB direction.
• LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to Calle Joaquin operates at LOS D during AM
and PM peak hours in the SB direction.
• LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps to U.S. 101 NB Ramps operates at LOS D during
AM peak hour in the SB direction and operates at LOS D during PM peak hour in
the NB direction.
• LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to South Higuera Street operates at LOS D during
AM and PM peak hours in the SB direction and operates at LOS D during AM peak
hour in the NB direction.
• South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road operates at LOS D during
PM peak hour in the SB direction.
• South Higuera Street from Tank Farm Road to Prado Road operates at LOS F
during AM and PM peak hours in the SB direction.
• Madonna Road from LOVR to Dalidio Drive operates at LOS F during AM peak
hour in the eastbound (EB) direction and operates at LOS F during AM peak hour
in the WB direction and at LOS D during PM peak hour in the WB direction.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-25
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Bicycle Roadway Segment LOS
Under existing conditions, none of the studied roadway segments exceed the City’s
minimum bicycle LOS thresholds (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; refer to
Table 3.13-13).
Transit Roadway Segment LOS
Transit service headways or frequency of service to the Project vicinity is approximately
60 minutes. Under existing conditions, none of the studied roadway segments exceed the
City’s minimum transit LOS thresholds (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; refer
to Table 3.13-14).
U.S. 101 Roadway Segments and On-/Off-Ramp Intersections
Under existing conditions, the following freeway segments currently exceed Caltrans
minimum LOS thresholds (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; refer to Table 3.13-
15):
• U.S. 101 SB, north of South Higuera Street operates at LOS D during PM peak
hour
• U.S. 101 NB, south of Madonna Road operates at LOS D during PM peak hour
• U.S. 101 NB, Madonna Road Off-amp operates at LOS D during AM and PM peak
hour
• U.S. 101 SB Madonna Road On-Ramp operates at LOS D during PM peak hour
3.13-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-11. Existing Segment LOS – Automobile
ID Roadway Segment Direction LOS
Threshold
AM Peak PM Peak
Travel
Speed BFFS
Travel
Speed/
BFFS LOS
Travel
Speed BFFS Travel
Speed/BFFS LOS
(mph) (mph) (%) (mph) (mph) (%)
1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road
to Oceanaire Drive
SB D 31.91 45.67 69.87 B 23.56 45.73 51.5 C
NB D 34.47 45.97 74.98 B 30.82 45.77 67.3 B
2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to
Madonna Road
SB D 11.22 42.64 26.31 F 11.61 42.64 27.2 F
NB D 23.25 45.68 50.90 C 23.03 45.68 50.4 C
3 LOVR from Madonna Road to
Froom Ranch Way
SB D 27.17 44.82 60.62 C 19.51 44.83 43.5 D
NB D 20.84 44.82 46.50 D 20.85 44.82 46.5 D
4 LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to
Calle Joaquin
SB D 39.24 44.80 87.59 A 35.99 44.80 80.3 A
NB D 33.43 45.22 73.93 B 28.47 45.22 63.0 C
5 LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps
toU.S. 101 NB Ramps
SB D 22.43 46.41 48.33 D 17.79 45.33 39.2 E
NB D 21.41 46.42 46.12 D 23.07 45.36 50.9 C
6 LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to
South Higuera Street
SB D 22.51 40.64 55.39 C 24.06 40.78 59.0 C
NB D 27.58 41.19 66.96 C 32.02 45.77 70.0 B
7
South Higuera Street from City
Limit south to U.S. 101/Clover
Ridge Lane
SB D 44.67 45.72 97.70 A 44.02 45.72 96.3 A
NB D 40.60 45.73 88.78 A 42.49 45.73 92.9 A
8 South Higuera Street from LOVR to
Tank Farm Road
SB D 24.76 45.33 54.62 C 23.36 45.34 51.5 C
NB D 20.23 45.68 44.29 D 15.04 45.69 32.9 E
9 South Higuera Street from Tank
Farm Road to Prado Road
SB D 32.70 45.21 72.33 B 25.66 45.23 56.7 C
NB D 29.99 45.21 66.33 C 28.19 45.24 62.3 C
10 Tank Farm Road from South
Higuera Street to Broad Street
EB D 34.11 43.15 79.05 B 34.37 43.15 79.7 B
WB D 33.95 42.40 80.07 A 34.66 42.38 81.8 A
11 Madonna Road from LOVR to
Dalidio Drive
EB D 25.85 38.92 66.42 C 26.36 39.14 67.3 B
WB D 21.51 38.84 55.38 C 21.21 39.15 54.2 C
Bold indicates unacceptable operations
mph – miles per hour
BFFS – base free-flow speed
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-27
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-12. Existing Segment LOS – Pedestrian
ID Roadway Segment Direction LOS
Threshold
AM Peak PM Peak
Segment
Score LOS Segment
Score LOS
1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive SB C 3.54 D 3.13 C
NB C 3.22 C 4.05 D
2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road SB C 3.65 D 3.13 C
NB C 2.74 B 3.32 B
3 LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way SB C 3.29 C 3.34 C
NB C 3.12 F 3.51 D
4 LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to Calle Joaquin SB C 4.03 D 4.17 D
NB C 3.30 C 3.36 C
5 LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps to U.S. 101 NB Ramps SB C 3.61 D 3.43 C
NB C 3.45 C 3.65 D
6 LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to South Higuera Street SB C 4.18 D 3.62 D
NB C 3.51 D 3.17 C
7 South Higuera Street from City Limit south to U.S.
101/Clover Ridge Lane
SB C - - - -
NB C - - - -
8 South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road SB C 3.10 C 3.66 D
NB C 2.71 C 2.81 C
9 South Higuera Street from Tank Farm Road to Prado Road SB C 3.32 F 4.41 F
NB C 2.45 C 3.19 C
10 Tank Farm Road from South Higuera Street to Broad
Street
EB C - - - -
WB C - - - -
11 Madonna Road from LOVR to Dalidio Drive EB C 4.17 F 3.05 C
WB C 3.58 F 3.93 D
Bold indicates unacceptable operations.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
3.13-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-13. Existing Segment LOS – Bicycle
ID Roadway Segment Direction LOS Threshold
AM Peak PM Peak
Segment
Score LOS Segment
Score LOS
1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive SB D 2.10 B 2.13 B
NB D 1.72 A 2.23 B
2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road SB D 2.37 C 2.20 B
NB D 1.57 A 1.76 A
3 LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way SB D 2.60 C 2.61 C
NB D 1.41 A 1.77 A
4 LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to Calle Joaquin SB D 2.39 C 3.34 C
NB D 1.84 A 1.55 A
5 LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps to U.S. 101 NB Ramps SB D 2.80 C 2.69 C
NB D 2.58 C 2.87 C
6 LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to South Higuera Street SB D 2.36 C 2.29 C
NB D 1.80 A 1.84 A
7 South Higuera Street from City Limit south to U.S.
101/Clover Ridge Lane
SB D 1.49 A 1.72 A
NB D 1.60 A 1.48 A
8 South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road SB D 2.49 C 2.85 C
NB D 2.82 C 2.84 C
9 South Higuera Street from Tank Farm Road to Prado Road SB D 2.38 C 2.65 C
NB D 1.98 A 2.36 C
10 Tank Farm Road from South Higuera Street to Broad Street EB D 2.67 C 2.64 C
WB D 2.90 C 2.94 C
11 Madonna Road from LOVR to Dalidio Drive EB D 3.04 C 2.97 C
WB D 2.16 B 2.45 C
Bold indicates unacceptable operations.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-29
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-14. Existing Segment LOS – Transit
ID Roadway Segment Direction LOS Threshold
AM Peak PM Peak
Segment Score LOS Segment Score LOS
1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive SB D 4.12 D 3.06 C
NB D 3.07 C 3.09 C
2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road SB D 3.76 D 2.43 C
NB D 2.43 B 2.86 C
3 LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way SB D 3.53 D 3.74 C
NB D 2.34 B 2.12 B
4 LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to Calle Joaquin SB D 2.95 C 3.05 C
NB D 3.21 C 3.37 C
6 LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to South Higuera Street SB D 3.86 D 3.34 C
NB D 3.59 D 3.29 C
8 South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road SB D 3.13 C 3.96 D
NB D 4.06 D 4.14 D
9 South Higuera Street from Tank Farm Road to Prado Road SB D 3.51 D 3.96 D
NB D 3.21 C 4.14 D
11 Madonna Road from LOVR to Dalidio Drive EB D 3.21 C 3.13 C
WB D 3.29 C 3.35 C
Segments with no transit stops are excluded from the analysis.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
3.13-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-15. Existing Segment LOS – Freeway Mainline, Ramps and Weaving Sections
Interchange Location Target
LOS
Segment
Type Lanes
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume Density
(pc/mi/h) LOS Volume Density
(pc/mi/h) LOS
U.S. 101 NB
U.S. 101 NB, south of South Higuera Street C Freeway 2 2,336 19.8 C 2,374 20.2 C
U.S. 101 NB, south of LOVR C Freeway 2 2,601 22.1 C 1,991 16.9 B
U.S. 101 NB LOVR Off-Ramp C Diverge 1 546 26.8 C 634 20.6 C
U.S. 101 NB LOVR On-Ramp C Merge 1 215 26.9 C 392 22.5 C
U.S. 101 NB, north of Prado Road C Freeway 2 2,311 19.6 C 2,224 18.9 C
U.S. 101 NB Prado Road Off-Ramp C Diverge 1 225 23.5 C 145 22.5 B
U.S. 101 NB Prado Road On-Ramp C Merge 1 250 24.4 C 495 26.1 C
U.S. 101 NB, south of Madonna Road C Freeway 2 2,843 24.3 C 3,097 26.9 D
U.S. 101 NB, Madonna Road Off-Ramp C Diverge 1 279 28.9 D 349 31.6 D
U.S. 101 SB
U.S. 101 SB, north of Madonna Road C Freeway 2 1,968 20.4 C 2,926 25.1 C
U.S. 101 SB Madonna Road On-Ramp C Merge 1 179 22.0 C 348 32.4 D
U.S. 101 SB, north of Prado Road C Freeway 2 1,828 15.5 B 2,976 25.6 C
U.S. 101 SB, south of LOVR C Freeway 2 1,213 14.8 B 2,211 18.8 C
U.S. 101 SB LOVR Off-Ramp C Diverge 1 587 12.5 B 557 22.7 C
U.S. 101 SB LOVR On-Ramp C Merge 1 359 17.4 B 667 27.0 C
U.S. 101 SB, north of South Higuera Street C Freeway 2 2,177 18.5 C 3,519 31.9 D
Bold indicates unacceptable operations.
pc/mi/h - passenger cars per mile per hour
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-31
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Near-Term (2025) Conditions LOS
Near-Term conditions represent conditions with approved and pending developments and
roadway improvement projects in place. For the purposes of the TIS, this is estimated at
roughly Year 2025, the year when the Project would be fully operational. This includes
approved/pending land development projects, such as buildout of the San Luis Ranch and
Avila Ranch Specific Plan, transportation infrastructure, improvement projects, as well as
pro-rated regional growth increments consistent with the City’s model forecasts. Based on
the list of approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable projects, future transportation
demands were estimated (see Table 3.0-1 and Appendix J). It should be noted that for the
purposes of providing a comprehensive analysis, two potential scenarios are considered in
the TIS for Near-Term Conditions: one with completion of the U.S. 101/Prado Interchange
Project (Scenario 1), and one without (Scenario 2). For the purposes of evaluating potential
project impacts, results from Scenario 2 are presented below to provide a conservative
analysis of conditions in the case that the Prado Interchange project is not yet completed
within the Near-Term planning horizon. Table 3.13-16 provides a summary of those Near-
Term transportation projects assumed in the analysis.
Table 3.13-16. Near-Term Transportation Project List
# Project Description
1 Prado Road Bridge
Replacement
Replace existing bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek; widen to four
thru-lanes plus center turn lane. Includes width for bike lanes and
sidewalk-level Class I Path on both sides of Prado Road.
2
Prado Road/South
Higuera Street
Improvements
Install second NB left-turn lane.
EB approach to remain as exists now (one left, one through, one right).
Extend WB right-turn storage.
Additional bicycle/pedestrian safety improvements include protected
intersection at northwest and southwest corners, bike box at WB
approach and two-stage left-turn box for NB to WB movement.
3
Prado Road Interchange
and Dalidio Drive/Prado
Road Widening
Two Near-Term Scenarios considered for FRSP analysis:
• Scenario 1: New interchange with overcrossing at U.S.
101/Prado Road with NB Ramps
• Scenario 2: No overcrossing or modifications to Prado
Road/U.S. 101 NB Ramps
Interchange Improvements include:
• Widen Dalidio Drive/Prado Road to four lanes with center
turn lane/median from Madonna Road to South Higuera
Street, including bike lanes and Class I Paths on both sides of
Prado Road.
For Near-Term, assume Class II bike lanes only between U.S. 101/NB
Ramps and San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge.
Elks Lane to be realigned approximately 700 feet to the southeast.
4 Froom Ranch Way
Extension
Extend Froom Ranch Way from LOVR to Dalidio Drive as two-lane
collector with bike lanes and Class I Bike Path from Perfumo Creek to
Dalidio Drive.
3.13-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-16. Near-Term Transportation Project List (Continued)
# Project Description
5 LOVR/Froom Ranch Way
Improvements
Install dedicated EBR.
Extend storage of WBR.
Install second WB left-turn lane.
Construct protected intersection for bicycle/pedestrian safety.
6
Froom Ranch
Way/Dalidio Drive
Roundabout
Construct two-lane roundabout at Froom Ranch Way/Dalidio Drive.
7 Madonna Road/Dalidio
Drive Improvements
Extend WB left-turn storage
Install second WB left-turn lane.
Install EBR.
Install split phasing for NB/SB and optimize timing.
Install second NB left-turn lane.
8 LOVR/South Higuera
Street Extend EB right-turn storage.
9 South Higuera
Street/Vachell Lane Restrict Vachell Lane access to right-in/right-out only.
10 South Higuera Street/
Suburban Road
Restripe WB approach to provide left-turn lane and shared left/right-
turn lane.
11 Buckley Road Extension Extend Buckley Road west to new signalized intersection with South
Higuera Street.
EBR – eastbound right-turn lane
WBR – westbound right-turn lane
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Automobile Intersection LOS
Under Near-Term conditions, 18 intersections meet the adopted intersection LOS threshold
for automobiles (vehicle queuing or backup is discussed below), the following three
intersections are projected to exceed the adopted minimum automobile LOS threshold (see
Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; Table 3.13-17):
• LOVR and Oceanaire Drive, which is projected to operate at LOS F (Delay 129.6)
during AM and LOS F (Delay 104.0) during PM peak hours
• Madonna Road and U.S. 101 SB Ramps, which is projected to operate at LOS D
(Delay 43.6) during PM peak hour
• Madonna Road and U.S. 101 NB Ramps, which is projected to operate at LOS D
(Delay 54.4) during PM peak hour
Table 3.13-17. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS – Automobile
ID Study Intersections Control LOS
Target
Peak
Hour
Delay1 LOS2 V/C3
1 LOVR / Foothill Boulevard Signal D AM 32.7 C
PM 55.0 D
2 LOVR / Prefumo Canyon Road TWSC D AM 21.9 C
PM 29.6 D
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-33
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-17. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS – Automobile (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Control LOS
Target
Peak
Hour
Delay1 LOS2 V/C3
3 LOVR / Laguna Lane Signal D AM 14.1 B
PM 8.9 A
4 LOVR / Oceanaire Drive TWSC D AM 129.6 F 1.08
PM 104.0 F 0.94
5 LOVR / Royal Way Signal D AM 41.6 D
PM 19.3 B
6 LOVR / Madonna Road Signal D AM 34.6 C
PM 46.6 D
7 LOVR / Froom Ranch Way Signal D AM 20.8 C
PM 37.3 D
8 LOVR / Auto Park Way Signal D AM 6.5 A
PM 9.4 A
9 LOVR / Calle Joaquin Signal D AM 5.9 A
PM 9.5 A
10 LOVR /U.S. 101 SB Ramps Signal C AM 16.3 B
PM 21.4 C
11 LOVR /U.S. 101 NB Ramps Signal C AM 23.8 C
PM 29.1 C
12 LOVR / South Higuera Street Signal D AM 19.4 B
PM 34.3 C
13 South Higuera Street / Vachell Lane TWSC D AM 22.6 C
PM 16.1 C
14 South Higuera Street / Suburban
Road6 Signal D AM 9.2 A
PM 14.4 B
15 South Higuera Street / Tank Farm
Road Signal D AM 29.9 C
PM 47.9 D
16 South Higuera Street / Prado Road Signal D AM 27.5 C
PM 43.9 D
17 Prado Road/U.S. 101 NB Ramps /
Elks Lane AWSC C AM 12.0 B
PM 22.9 C
18 Madonna Road / Oceanaire Drive6 Signal D AM 45.8 D
PM 34.4 C
19 Madonna Road / Dalidio Drive Signal D AM 21.6 C
PM 28.8 C
20 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 SB
Ramps/Madonna Inn Signal C AM 33.2 C
PM 43.6 D 1.21
21 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 NB Ramps Signal C AM 17.8 B
PM 54.4 D 1.15
22 Dalidio Drive / Froom Ranch Way Roundabout D AM 3.3 A
PM 3.5 A
1Delay – Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-
way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop-
controlled intersections.
2LOS – Level of Service
3 V/C ratio reported for worst movement only.
4TWSC – Two-way-stop controlled intersection.
5AWSC – All-way stop controlled intersection.
6HCM 6th Methodology does not support intersections with more than four approaches. Hence HCM 2000
Methodology used for intersections 14 and 18.
Bold indicates unacceptable operations.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
3.13-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Pedestrian Intersection LOS
Under Near-Term conditions, the following intersections are projected to exceed the City’s
minimum pedestrian LOS threshold (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and TIS Appendix J; Table
3.13-18):
• LOVR and Prefumo Canyon Road NB and SB directions, which is projected to
operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours
• LOVR and Oceanaire Drive NB direction, which is projected to operate at LOS F
during AM and during PM peak hours
• LOVR and Madonna Road in the SB direction, which is projected to operate at LOS
D during the PM peak hour
• South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road in the NB direction, which is projected
to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour
Table 3.13-18. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Pedestrian
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
1 LOVR / Foothill Boulevard
EB C 1.75 B 1.75 B
WB C 2.50 C 2.44 B
NB C 2.76 C 2.82 C
SB C 2.83 C 2.97 C
2 LOVR / Prefumo Canyon
Road
EB C N/A WB C
NB C >5.0 F >5.0 F
SB C >5.0 F >5.0 F
3 LOVR / Laguna Lane
EB C N/A
WB C 2.40 B 2.22 B
NB C 2.87 C 2.86 C
SB C 2.93 C 3.08 C
4 LOVR / Oceanaire Drive
EB C N/A WB C
NB C >5.0 F >5.0 F
SB C >5.0 F >5.0 F
5 LOVR / Royal Way
EB C 2.02 B 2.02 B
WB C 2.00 B 1.99 B
NB C 3.16 C 3.22 C
SB C 3.14 C 3.19 C
6 LOVR / Madonna Road
EB C 2.14 B 2.15 B
WB C 3.00 C 3.13 C
NB C 3.04 C 3.28 C
SB C 3.41 C 3.53 D
7 LOVR / Froom Ranch Way
EB C 2.63 C 2.75 C
WB C 2.55 C 2.59 C
NB C 3.15 C 3.32 C
SB C 3.12 C 3.30 C
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-35
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-18. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS – Pedestrian (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
8 LOVR / Auto Park Way
EB C N/A
WB C 2.02 B 2.04 B
NB C 3.03 C 3.47 C
SB C 2.99 C 3.38 C
9 LOVR / Calle Joaquin
EB C 2.49 B 2.49 B
WB C 2.10 B 2.11 B
NB C 3.18 C 3.46 C
SB C 3.05 C 3.22 C
10 LOVR / U.S. 101 SB
Ramps
EB C 1.95 B 2.32 B
WB C 2.30 B 2.24 B
NB C 3.05 C 3.18 C
SB C 3.09 C 3.39 C
11 LOVR / U.S. 101 NB
Ramps
EB C 2.50 C 2.61 C
WB C 1.43 A 1.43 A
NB C 2.95 C 2.97 C
SB C 3.05 C 3.15 C
12 LOVR / South Higuera
Street
EB C 2.88 C 2.98 C
WB C N/A
NB C 2.40 B 2.45 B
SB C 2.91 C 3.06 C
13 South Higuera Street /
Vachell Lane
EB C
N/A WB C
NB C
SB C
14 South Higuera Street /
Suburban Road
EB C N/A
WB C 2.20 B 2.30 B
NB C 3.05 C 3.28 C
SB C 2.81 C 3.02 C
15 South Higuera Street / Tank
Farm Road
EB C 2.04 B 2.05 B
WB C 3.01 C 3.16 C
NB C 3.39 C 3.65 D
SB C 2.73 C 3.08 C
16 South Higuera Street /
Prado Road
EB C 2.61 C 2.73 C
WB C 2.48 B 2.57 C
NB C 2.86 C 3.11 C
SB C 2.82 C 3.00 C
17 Prado Road/U.S. 101 NB
Ramps
EB C
N/A WB C
NB C
SB C
18 Madonna Road / Oceanaire
Drive
EB C 2.78 C 2.95 C
WB C 3.29 C 3.44 C
NB C 2.01 B 2.02 B
SB C 2.04 B 1.98 B
SE C 1.82 B 1.86 B
NE C 1.78 B 1.79 B
3.13-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-18. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS – Pedestrian (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
Ped.
Crosswalk
Score
LOS
19 Madonna Road / Dalidio
Drive
EB C 3.11 C 3.24 C
WB C 3.17 C 3.28 C
NB C 2.52 C 2.64 C
SB C 1.99 B 2.00 B
20 Madonna Road / U.S. 101
SB Ramps/Madonna Inn
EB C 3.01 C 3.16 C
WB C 3.06 C 3.10 C
NB C 2.85 C 2.87 C
SB C 2.17 B 2.19 B
21 Madonna Road / U.S. 101
NB Ramps
EB C 3.02 C 3.06 C
WB C 2.86 C 2.91 C
NB C 2.00 B 2.01 B
SB C 2.09 B 2.17 B
1For unsignalized AWSC intersections, pedestrian delay is reported as pedestrian LOS methodology is not supported
for crosswalks that intersect stop-sign controlled approaches. For unsignalized TWSC intersections, pedestrian LOS
methodology is limited to the uncontrolled crossings.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Bicycle Intersections LOS
Under Near-Term conditions, the following intersections are projected to exceed the City’s
minimum bicycle LOS threshold (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; Table 3.13-19):
• LOVR and Madonna Road in the WB direction, which is projected to operate at
LOS E (Bicycle LOS Score 4.60) during PM peak hour
• South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road in the WB direction, which is projected
to operate at LOS E (Bicycle LOS Score 5.16) during PM peak hour
Table 3.13-19. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Bicycle
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Bicycle
LOS
Score
LOS
Bicycle
LOS
Score
LOS
1 LOVR / Foothill Boulevard
EB D 2.71 C 2.71 C
WB D 3.34 C 4.05 D
NB D 2.92 C 3.22 C
SB D 2.73 C 2.00 B
3 LOVR / Laguna Lane
EB D N/A
WB D 3.26 C 2.82 C
NB D 1.99 B 2.36 B
SB D 1.54 B 1.45 A
5 LOVR / Royal Way
EB D 3.17 C 2.99 C
WB D 3.30 C 2.96 C
NB D 2.73 C 3.13 C
SB D 2.32 B 2.05 B
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-37
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-19. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Bicycle (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Bicycle
LOS
Score
LOS
Bicycle
LOS
Score
LOS
6 LOVR / Madonna Road
EB D 3.42 C 3.26 C
WB D 3.68 D 4.60 E
NB D 1.72 B 2.25 B
SB D 2.92 C 2.67 C
7 LOVR / Froom Ranch Way
EB D 3.49 C 4.33 D
WB D 2.25 B 2.49 B
NB D 1.89 B 2.45 B
SB D 1.79 B 1.91 B
8 LOVR / Auto Park Way
EB D N/A
WB D 2.61 C 2.76 C
NB D 3.12 C 3.73 D
SB D 3.45 C 3.80 D
9 LOVR / Calle Joaquin
EB D 3.11 C 3.09 C
WB D 3.16 C 3.32 C
NB D 1.71 B 2.17 B
SB D 1.92 B 0.87 A
10 LOVR / U.S. 101 SB Ramps
EB D N/A
WB D 2.90 C 2.69 C
NB D 1.89 B 2.38 B
SB D 1.71 B 2.02 B
11 LOVR / U.S. 101 NB Ramps
EB D 3.94 D 3.93 D
WB D 1.39 A 1.39 A
NB D 1.94 B 2.31 B
SB D 2.43 B 2.38 B
12 LOVR / South Higuera Street
EB D 2.07 B 1.88 B
WB D N/A
NB D 2.23 B 1.87 B
SB D 2.48 B 3.92 D
14 South Higuera Street / Suburban
Road
EB D N/A
WB D 1.17 A 1.57 B
NB D 2.44 B 2.19 B
SB D 2.09 B 2.69 C
15 South Higuera Street / Tank Farm
Road
EB D 2.73 C 2.74 C
WB D 3.88 D 5.16 E
NB D 2.25 B 2.43 B
SB D 1.81 B 2.37 B
16 South Higuera Street / Prado Road
EB D 2.14 B 1.98 B
WB D 2.07 B 3.00 C
NB D 1.77 B 2.51 C
SB D 2.30 B 2.23 B
18 Madonna Road / Oceanaire Drive
EB D 2.78 C 2.84 C
WB D 1.54 B 2.22 B
NB D 2.87 C 2.86 C
SB D 2.73 C 2.31 B
SE D 2.62 C 2.62 C
NE D 2.20 B 2.20 B
3.13-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-19. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Bicycle (Continued)
ID Study Intersections Approach Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Bicycle
LOS
Score
LOS
Bicycle
LOS
Score
LOS
19 Madonna Road / Dalidio Drive
EB D 2.18 B 2.24 B
WB D 1.73 B 2.14 B
NB D 2.02 B 2.63 C
SB D 1.59 B 1.94 B
20 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 SB
Ramps/Madonna Inn
EB D 2.00 B 2.07 B
WB D 1.73 B 2.05 B
NB D 3.86 D 3.78 D
SB D 2.94 C 2.99 C
21 Madonna Road / U.S. 101 NB Ramps
EB D 2.81 C 2.44 B
WB D 1.77 B 2.30 B
NB D 2.27 B 2.32 B
SB D N/A
Bicycle LOS summary excludes unsignalized intersections and locations where no bicycle facilities are provided as
HCM 6th Bike LOS Methodology do not model segments bounded by unsignalized intersections.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Vehicle Queueing Conditions
Under Near-Term conditions, the following seven intersections have vehicle queues that
are projected to exceed lane capacity during AM or PM peak hours (see Appendix J; Table
3.13-20):
• LOVR and Foothill Boulevard (SBL during AM peak hour)
• LOVR and Froom Ranch Way (EBL and NBL during PM peak hour)
• LOVR and Calle Joaquin (WBL during PM peak hour)
• LOVR and U.S. 101 SB Ramps (SBR and WBR during PM peak hour)
• South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road (WBR and northbound right-turn lane
[NBR] during PM peak hour and SBL during both the AM and PM peak hours)
• South Higuera Street and Prado Road (WBL during both the AM and PM peak
hours and SBL during the AM peak hour)
• Madonna Road and Oceanaire Drive (WBL and WBR during both the AM and the
PM hours)
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-39
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95th-Percentile Queuing
ID Study Intersections Lane Group
Storage
Length Per
Lane (ft)
Peak
Hour
Near-Term
Conditions
- Scenario 2
1 LOVR / Foothill Boulevard
WBR 180 AM 0
PM 0
NBL 120 AM 0
PM 15
NBR 370 AM 30
PM 150
SBL 490 AM #585
PM #280
3 LOVR / Laguna Lane
WBL Trap Lane AM 90
PM 40
WBR Trap Lane AM 0
PM 15
NBR 80 AM 10
PM 40
SBL 120 AM 45
PM 25
5 LOVR/Royal Way
EBR 70 AM 15
PM 0
WBR 70 AM 0
PM 0
NBL 110 AM 30
PM 70
SBL 160 AM 15
PM 15
SBR 50 AM 0
PM 0
6 LOVR / Madonna Road
EBL 230 AM 135
PM 80
WBL Trap Lane AM 95
PM 220
WBR 170 AM 50
PM 85
NBL 200 AM 90
PM #190
NBR 175 AM 50
PM 80
SBL 350 AM 280
PM #240
3.13-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95th-Percentile Queuing
(Continued)
I
D Study Intersections Lane Group Storage Length Per Lane
(ft)
Peak
Hour
Near-Term
Conditions -
Scenario 2
7 LOVR / Froom Ranch Way
EBL 250 AM #70
PM #260
EBR 250 AM 0
PM 65
WBL 295 AM 55
PM 100
WBR 50 AM 0
PM 35
NBL 300 AM #125
PM #310
SBL 160 AM 35
PM #120
8 LOVR/Auto Park Way
(Project Driveway)
EBL 100 AM -
PM -
EBR 100 AM -
PM -
WBL Trap Lane AM 30
PM 80
WBR 175 AM 15
PM 30
NBL 200 AM -
PM -
SBL 100 AM 40
PM 60
SBR 100 AM -
PM -
9 LOVR/Calle Joaquin
EBL 260 AM 30
PM 45
EBR 260 AM 15
PM 25
WBL 100 AM 55
PM 130
NBL 130 AM m10
PM m10
NBR 130 AM m15
PM m50
SBL 120 AM 25
PM 20
SBR 120 AM 5
PM 10
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-41
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95th-Percentile Queuing
(Continued)
I
D Study Intersections Lane Group Storage Length Per Lane
(ft)
Peak
Hour
Near-Term
Conditions -
Scenario 2
10 LOVR / U.S. 101 SB
Ramps
WBR 190 AM 125
PM 230
NBL 220 AM m50
PM m100
SBR 120 AM 100
PM #375
11 LOVR / U.S. 101 NB
Ramps
EBL 610 AM #395
PM #415
NBL 400 AM 90
PM 175
SBR 133 AM m0
PM 0
12 LOVR / South Higuera
Street
EBL Trap Lane AM #460
PM #470
EBR 100 AM 45
PM 50
NBL 200 AM 55
PM 30
SBR Trap Lane AM 120
PM #585
14 South Higuera Street /
Suburban Road
WBL Trap Lane AM 50
PM 185
SBL 170 AM #100
PM #140
15 South Higuera Street / Tank
Farm Road
EBR Trap Lane AM 0
PM 0
WBL Trap Lane AM 230
PM 540
WBR 250 AM 55
PM 295
NBL 140 AM 55
PM 60
NBR 100 AM 90
PM 140
SBL 165 AM #570
PM #860
16 South Higuera Street /
Prado Road
EBL 300 AM 75
PM #90
EBR 300 AM 0
PM 0
3.13-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95th-Percentile Queuing
(Continued)
I
D Study Intersections Lane Group Storage Length Per Lane
(ft)
Peak
Hour
Near-Term
Conditions -
Scenario 2
WBL 105 AM #165
PM #175
WBR 410 AM 0
PM 10
NBL 300 AM 120
PM #250
SBL 200 AM #355
PM #180
18 Madonna Road / Oceanaire
Drive
EBL 115 AM 40
PM #50
WBL 115 AM #125
PM #280
WBR 100 AM 205
PM #505
NBR 50 AM 0
PM 0
19 Madonna Road / Dalidio
Drive
EBL 145 AM 40
PM #60
EBR 100 AM 20
PM 85
WBL 350 AM #125
PM #240
NBL 150 AM 40
PM 135
NBR 150 AM 10
PM 60
SBR 50 AM 0
PM 0
20 Madonna Road / U.S. 101
SB Ramps/Madonna Inn
EBL 100 AM #55
PM #75
WBL 260 AM 195
PM m185
NBL Trap Lane AM #210
PM #515
NBR 275 AM 150
PM 50
SBL Trap Lane AM 20
PM 30
SBR 100 AM 0
PM 0
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-43
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95th-Percentile Queuing
(Continued)
I
D Study Intersections Lane Group Storage Length Per Lane
(ft)
Peak
Hour
Near-Term
Conditions -
Scenario 2
21 Madonna Road / U.S. 101
NB Ramps
EBL 435 AM m160
PM m#320
NBL 185 AM 100
PM 170
Queue length rounded to nearest 5 feet. Queuing analysis is reported for signalized intersections only.
Bold: 95th-percentile volume exceeds capacity.
m queue is metered by upstream intersection.
# 95th-percentile queue exceeds capacity
Trap - denotes design where the thru-lane terminates in a turn lane.
ft – feet
- data not available
Westbound thru-lane (WBL); westbound right-turn lane (WBR); eastbound thru-lane (EBL); northbound thru-lane
(NBL); northbound right-turn lane (NBR); northbound trap (NBT); southbound thru-lane (SBL); southbound trap
(SBT); southbound right-turn lane (SBR); eastbound right-turn lane (EBR).
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Automobile Roadway Segment LOS
Under Near-Term conditions, the following roadway segments are projected to exceed the
City’s minimum automobile LOS threshold (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J;
Table 3.13-21):
• LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road operates at LOS E during AM peak
hour and LOS F during PM peak hour in the SB direction.
• LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way operates at LOS E in the NB
direction during PM peak hour.
• LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps to U.S. 101 NB Ramps operates at LOS E in the
SB direction during PM peak hour.
• South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road operates at LOS E during the
PM peak hour in NB direction.
Pedestrian Roadway Segments LOS
Under Near-Term conditions, the following roadway segments are projected to exceed the
City’s minimum pedestrian LOS threshold, as under existing conditions in which the lack
of sidewalks and minimal buffer between pedestrians and heavy vehicular traffic lanes
contribute to the LOS exceedance (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; Table 3.13-
22):
3.13-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
• LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive operates at LOS D during
AM and PM peak hour in the SB direction and operates at LOS D during PM peak
hour in NB direction.
• LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way operates at LOS F during AM
peak hour in the NB direction and operates at LOS D during PM peak hour in the
NB and SB direction.
• LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to Calle Joaquin operates at LOS D during PM
peak hour in the SB direction.
• LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps to U.S. 101 NB Ramps operates at LOS D in SB
direction during AM and PM peak hours and operates at LOS D in NB direction
during PM peak hour.
• LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to South Higuera Street operates at LOS E during
AM peak hour and operates at LOS D during AM peak hour in the SB direction
and NB direction, the segment is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak
hour.
• South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road operates at LOS D during
PM peak hour in the SB direction.
• South Higuera Street from Tank Farm Road to Prado Road operates at LOS F
during AM and PM peak hours in the SB direction.
• Madonna Road from LOVR to Dalidio Drive operates at LOS F in EB direction
during AM peak hour and in the WB direction, the segment is projected to operate
at LOS F during AM peak hour and at LOS D during PM peak hour.
Bicycle Roadway Segment LOS
Under Near-Term conditions, none of the studied roadway segments exceed the City’s
minimum bicycle LOS thresholds (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; Table 3.13-
23).
Transit Roadway Segment LOS
Under Near-Term conditions, none of the studied roadway segments exceed the City’s
minimum transit LOS thresholds (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; Table 3.13-
24).
U.S. 101 Roadway Segments and On-/Off-Ramp Intersections
Under Near-Term Conditions, the following freeway segments are projected to exceed
Caltrans minimum LOS thresholds (see Section 3.13.3.1 below and Appendix J; Table
3.13-25):
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-45
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-21. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment Level of Service – Automobile
ID Roadway Segment Direction LOS
Threshold
AM Peak PM Peak
Travel
Speed BFFS Travel
Speed/BFFS LOS
Travel
Speed BFFS Travel
Speed/BFFS LOS
(mph) (mph) (%) (mph)
(mph) (%)
1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road
to Oceanaire Drive
SB D 31.83 45.46 70.02 B 33.38 45.46 73.4 B
NB D 28.93 45.45 63.65 C 27.79 45.45 61.1 C
2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to
Madonna Road
SB D 13.33 42.64 31.26 E 9.70 42.64 22.7 F
NB D 24.01 45.68 52.56 C 22.08 45.68 48.3 D
3 LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom
Ranch Way
SB D 26.48 44.82 59.08 C 19.37 44.83 43.2 D
NB D 19.87 44.83 44.32 D 16.93 44.82 37.8 E
4 LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to
Calle Joaquin
SB D 36.56 44.80 81.61 A 33.98 44.80 75.8 B
NB D 32.56 45.22 72.00 B 28.03 45.22 62.0 C
5 LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps to
U.S. 101 NB Ramps
SB D 19.66 45.33 43.37 D 17.83 45.33 39.3 E
NB D 19.54 40.66 48.06 D 24.03 45.36 53.0 C
6 LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to
South Higuera Street
SB D 21.59 4,064.00 0.53 C 22.32 40.78 54.7 C
NB D 27.45 41.19 66.64 C 31.07 45.77 67.9 B
7 South Higuera Street from City Limit
south to U.S. 101/Clover Ridge Lane
SB D 45.53 45.72 99.58 A 43.72 45.72 95.6 A
NB D 40.74 45.73 89.09 A 45.27 45.73 99.0 A
8 South Higuera Street from LOVR to
Tank Farm Road
SB D 23.63 45.33 52.13 C 20.47 45.34 45.1 D
NB D 19.83 45.68 43.40 D 14.99 45.69 30.2 E
9 South Higuera Street from Tank Farm
Road to Prado Road
SB D 31.44 45.21 69.54 B 24.58 45.23 54.3 C
NB D 27.80 45.21 61.49 C 25.87 45.24 57.2 C
10 Tank Farm Road from South Higuera
Street to Broad Street
EB D 34.08 43.15 78.98 B 34.15 43.15 79.1 B
WB D 33.87 42.40 79.88 B 33.74 42.38 79.6 B
11 Madonna Road from LOVR to
Dalidio Drive
EB D 22.96 38.92 58.99 C 21.33 39.14 54.5 C
WB D 21.02 38.84 54.12 C 20.21 39.15 51.6 C
12 Froom Ranch Way from LOVR to
Dalidio Drive
EB D 39.55 41.09 96.25 A 38.09 41.09 92.7 B
WB D 31.11 41.08 75.73 B 28.18 41.08 68.6 B
Bold indicates deficient LOS
BFFS - Base Free-Flow Speed
mph – miles per hour
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
3.13-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-22. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment Level of Service – Pedestrian
ID Roadway Segment Direction LOS
Threshold
AM Peak PM Peak
Segment
Score LOS Segment
Score LOS
1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive SB C 3.67 D 3.54 D
NB C 3.29 C 4.11 D
2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road SB C 3.36 C 3.25 C
NB C 2.84 C 3.25 C
3 LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way SB C 3.38 C 3.50 D
NB C 3.23 F 3.70 D
4 LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to Calle Joaquin SB C 3.45 C 3.67 D
NB C 3.41 C 3.49 C
5 LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps to U.S. 101 NB Ramps SB C 3.85 D 3.60 D
NB C 3.48 C 3.84 D
6 LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to South Higuera Street SB C 4.56 E 3.93 D
NB C 3.55 D 3.39 C
8 South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road SB C 3.25 C 3.89 D
NB C 2.87 C 3.05 C
9 South Higuera Street from Tank Farm Road to Prado Road SB C 3.45 F 4.31 F
NB C 2.57 C 3.33 C
11 Madonna Road from LOVR to Dalidio Drive EB C 4.26 F 3.14 C
WB C 3.78 F 4.14 D
12 Froom Ranch Way from LOVR to Dalidio Drive EB C 2.48 C 2.50 C
WB C 2.84 C 2.77 C
Bold indicates deficient LOS.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-47
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-23. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS – Bicycle
ID Roadway Segment Direction LOS
Threshold
AM Peak PM Peak
Segment
Score LOS Segment
Score LOS
1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive SB D 2.04 B 1.99 A
NB D 1.61 A 1.89 A
2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road SB D 2.32 C 2.26 C
NB D 1.57 A 1.82 A
3 LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way SB D 2.67 C 2.66 C
NB D 1.49 A 1.84 A
4 LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to Calle Joaquin SB D 2.52 C 2.64 C
NB D 1.87 A 2.05 B
5 LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps toU.S. 101 NB Ramps SB D 2.86 C 2.82 C
NB D 2.59 C 2.96 C
6 LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to South Higuera Street SB D 2.44 C 2.45 C
NB D 1.83 A 1.99 A
7 South Higuera Street from City Limit south to U.S. 101/Clover
Ridge Lane
SB D 1.56 A 1.78 A
NB D 1.60 A 1.48 A
8 South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road SB D 2.55 C 2.95 C
NB D 2.90 C 2.95 C
9 South Higuera Street from Tank Farm Road to Prado Road SB D 2.46 C 2.72 C
NB D 2.06 B 2.41 C
10 Tank Farm Road from South Higuera Street to Broad Street EB D 2.74 C 2.71 C
WB D 2.90 C 2.99 C
11 Madonna Road from LOVR to Dalidio Drive EB D 3.07 C 3.01 C
WB D 2.23 C 2.52 C
12 Froom Ranch Way from LOVR to Dalidio Drive EB D 0.63 A 0.65 A
WB D 0.89 A 0.43 A
Bold indicates deficient LOS.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
3.13-48 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-24. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS – Transit
ID Roadway Segment Direction LOS
Threshold
AM Peak PM Peak
Segment
Score LOS Segment
Score LOS
1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive SB D 2.91 C 2.88 C
NB D 1.75 A 1.96 A
2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road SB D 2.49 C 2.61 C
NB D 2.78 C 2.92 C
3 LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way SB D 3.56 D 3.77 D
NB D 2.06 B 2.16 B
4 LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to Calle Joaquin SB D 3.04 C 3.14 C
NB D 3.24 C 3.41 C
6 LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to South Higuera Street SB D 3.98 D 3.51 D
NB D 3.61 D 3.36 C
8 South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road SB D 4.13 D 4.17 D
NB D 3.25 C 4.07 C
9 South Higuera Street from Tank Farm Road to Prado Road SB D 3.57 D 4.02 D
NB D 3.27 C 4.18 D
11 Madonna Road from LOVR to Dalidio Drive EB D 3.29 C 3.45 C
WB D 3.35 C 3.28 C
12 Froom Ranch Way from LOVR to Dalidio Drive EB D 0.33 A 0.28 A
WB D 0.82 A 0.96 A
Segments with no transit stops are excluded from the analysis.
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-49
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-25. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS – Freeway Mainline, Ramps and Weaving Sections
Interchange Location Target
LOS
Segment
Type Lanes
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume Density
(pc/mi/h) LOS Volume Density
(pc/mi/h) LOS
U.S. 101 NB
U.S. 101 NB, south of South Higuera Street C Freeway 2 2,530 21.5 C 2,571 21.8 C
U.S. 101 NB, south of LOVR C Freeway 2 2,817 24.0 C 2,156 18.3 C
U.S. 101 NB LOVR Off-Ramp C Diverge 1 688 29.0 D 724 22.3 C
U.S. 101 NB LOVR On-Ramp C Merge 1 179 28.9 C 496 25.2 C
U.S. 101 NB, north of Prado Road C Freeway 2 2,491 21.1 C 2,564 21.8 C
U.S. 101 NB Prado Road Off-Ramp C Diverge 1 312 25.4 C 143 25.9 C
U.S. 101 NB Prado Road On-Ramp C Merge 1 323 27.1 C 552 30.4 D
U.S. 101 NB, south of Madonna Road C Freeway 2 3,062 26.5 D 3,427 30.7 D
U.S. 101 NB, Madonna Road Off-Ramp C Diverge 1 293 31.2 D 341 34.9 E
U.S. 101 SB
U.S. 101 SB, north of Madonna Road C Freeway 2 2,131 18.1 C 3,168 27.6 D
U.S. 101 SB Madonna Road On-Ramp C Merge 1 259 22.9 C 386 35.9 D
U.S. 101 SB, north of Prado Road C Freeway 2 2,048 17.4 B 3,331 29.5 D
U.S. 101 SB, south of LOVR C Freeway 2 1,314 11.2 B 2,394 20.3 C
U.S. 101 SB LOVR Off-Ramp C Diverge 1 672 13.6 B 619 24.7 C
U.S. 101 SB LOVR On-Ramp C Merge 1 404 16.2 B 755 30.8 D
U.S. 101 SB, north of South Higuera Street C Freeway 2 2,369 20.1 C 3,858 37.0 E
Source: TIS; see Appendix J.
pc/mi/h - passenger cars per mile per hour
3.13-50 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
• U.S. 101 NB, LOVR Off-Ramp operates at LOS D during AM peak hour
• U.S. 101 NB, Prado Road On-Ramp operates at LOS D during PM peak hour
• U.S. 101 NB, south of Madonna Road operates at LOS D during AM peak hour
and PM peak hour
• U.S. 101 NB, Madonna Road Off-Ramp operates at LOS D during AM peak hour
and operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour
• U.S. 101 SB, north of Madonna Road operates at LOS D during PM peak hour
• U.S. 101 SB, Madonna Road On-Ramp operates at LOS D during PM peak hour
• U.S. 101 SB, north of Prado Road operates at LOS D during PM peak hour
• U.S. 101 SB, LOVR On-Ramp operates at LOS D during AM peak hour
• U.S. 101 SB, north of South Higuera Street operates at LOS E during PM peak hour
3.13.2 Regulatory Setting
Transportation is governed primarily by federal, state, and local laws that would apply to
future development under the Project. Federal, state, and local regulations that are directly
relevant to the Project are summarized below.
3.13.2.1 Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (codified in Title 42 of the USC),
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodation (i.e.,
businesses and non-profit agencies that serve the public) and commercial facilities (i.e.,
other businesses). This regulation includes Appendix A to Part 36, Standards for
Accessible Design, which establishes minimum standards for ensuring accessibility when
designing and constructing a new facility or altering an existing facility. Examples of key
guidelines include detectable warning for pedestrians entering traffic where there is no
curb, a clear zone of 48 inches for the pedestrian travel way, and a vibration-free zone for
pedestrians.
3.13.2.2 State
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans manages the operation of state highways, including the U.S. 101 and State Route
277 (Golden State Highway), which pass through the San Luis Obispo area and the Project
vicinity.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-51
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Senate Bill 743
To further the State’s commitment to the goals of SB 375, AB 32, and AB 1358, SB 743
adds Chapter 2.7, Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill
Projects, to Division 13 (Section 21099) of the PRC. Key provisions of SB 743 include
reforming aesthetics and parking impact analysis under CEQA for urban infill projects. SB
743 would also replace the measurement of automobile delay (LOS analysis) with VMT
as a metric for measuring environmental impacts. Under SB 743, the focus of the
environmental impacts of transportation shift from driver delay to VMT analysis, reduction
of GHG emissions, creation of multi-modal networks, and promotion of a compact
balanced mix of land uses to reduce vehicular travel and increase walking, biking, and use
of transit. Local agencies would retain the option to employ LOS standards as local policy
standards, but not for use as a CEQA threshold.
VMT analysis is not mandatory for CEQA until July 1st, 2020. Currently, official measures
and local significance thresholds for VMT analysis are still being developed, but have not
been adopted. Therefore, automobile LOS is still used as a significance threshold for
CEQA review, consistent with the City TIA Guidelines and General Plan CE. The TIS
prepared for the Project analyzes Project VMT for reference purposes; however, in the
absence of official significance thresholds, no findings in regarding to VMT are made at
this time. (see Appendix J, Table 3.1-102)
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 2019 Draft Regional Transportation Plan
To prepare for future growth, SLOCOG has developed a draft Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP), which outlines key principles guiding regional growth, including integrated
land use, active transportation, and green regions. In general, SLOCOG has established
policies that focus on promoting growth in existing and emerging centers and along major
transportation corridors; creating significant areas of mixed-use development and walkable
communities; targeting growth around existing and planned transit stations; and preserving
existing open space and stable residential areas.
The RTP strives to provide a regional investment framework to address the region’s
transportation and related challenges, while preserving and enhancing the existing
transportation system and integrating land use into transportation planning. The RTP
employs a regional approach to accommodate future growth within existing high-quality
transit areas to reduce VMT, congestion, and related GHG emissions. This approach to
sustainably manage growth and transportation demand reduces the distance and barriers
3.13-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
between new housing, jobs, and services – helping to reduce the demand for single
occupancy vehicle travel and to reduce GHG emissions through integrated transportation,
land use, housing, and environmental planning.
The RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) outlines SCAG’s plan for integrating
the transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that
responds to projected growth to attain and exceed the GHG emission-reduction targets set
forth by CARB. For instance, Policy 14 of the SLOCOG RTP’s policies for highways,
streets, and roads is to, “Facilitate transportation projects that improve jobs/housing
balance, support sustainable communities, achieve intermodal transportation
improvements, and/or reduce regional VMT growth.”
3.13.2.3 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The City General Plan sets objectives and policies for all City resources. Those associated
with the standards of streets and highways incorporated within the City are managed
through the CE of the General Plan.
Circulation Element
The City adopted a General Plan CE in 1994, and it was updated and amended in 2014.
The following policies are relevant to the Project.
Policy 2.1.1 Multi-level Programs. The City shall support County-wide and community-
based efforts aimed at substantially reducing the number of vehicle trips and parking
demand.
Policy 2.1.2 Flexible Work Schedules. The City shall support flex time programs and
alternative work schedules to reduce peak hour traffic demand.
Policy 2.1.3 Work-based Trip Reduction. The City shall encourage employers within the
City limits and work with the County to work with employers outside of the City limits to
participate in trip reduction programs.
Policy 2.1.5 Long-term Measure. The City shall support programs that reduce traffic
congestion and maintain air quality. If air quality degrades below legal standards or LOS
standards are exceeded, the City will pursue more stringent measures to achieve its
transportation goals.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-53
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Policy 4.1.4 New Development. The City shall require that new development provide
bikeways, secure bicycle storage, parking facilities and showers consistent with City plans
and development standards. When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) analysis.
Policy 6.1.1 Complete Streets. The City shall design and operate City streets to enable safe,
comfortable, and convenient access and travel for users of all abilities including
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists.
Policy 6.1.2 Multi-modal LOS Objectives, Service Standards, and Significance Criteria.
The City shall strive to achieve LOS objectives and shall maintain LOS minimums for all
four modes of travel; pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and vehicles.
Policy 6.1.3 Multi-modal Priorities. In addition to maintaining minimum LOS, MMLOS
should be prioritized in accordance with the established modal priorities, such that
construction, expansion, or alteration for one mode should not degrade the service level of
a higher priority mode.
Policy 6.1.4 Defining Significant Circulation Impact. Any degradation of the LOS shall
be minimized to the extent feasible in accordance with the modal priorities established. If
the LOS degrades below thresholds established in Policy 6.1.2, it shall be determined a
significant impact for purposes of environmental review under the CEQA. For roadways
already operating below the established MMLOS standards, any further degradation to the
MMLOS score will be considered a significant impact under CEQA.
• Where a potential impact is identified, the City in accordance with the modal
priorities established, can determine if the modal impact in question is adequately
served through other means e.g., another parallel facility or like service. Based on
this determination, a finding of no significant impact may be determined by the
City.
Policy 6.1.5 Mitigation. For significant impacts, developments shall be responsible for
their fair share of any improvements required. Potential improvements for alternative mode
may include, but are not limited to:
• Pedestrian: Provision of sidewalk, providing or increasing a buffer from vehicular
travel lanes, increased sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic, improved crossings, reduced signal delay, traffic
calming, no right-turn on red, reducing intersection crossing distance.
3.13-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
• Bicycle: Addition of a bicycle lane, traffic calming, provision of a buffer between
bicycle and vehicle traffic, pavement resurfacing, reduced number of access points,
or provision of an exclusive bicycle path, reducing intersection crossing distance.
• Transit: For transit-related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair
share of any infrastructural improvements required. This may involve provision of
street furniture at transit stops, transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities,
pullouts for transit vehicles, transit signal prioritization, provision of additional
transit vehicles, or exclusive transit lanes.
Policy 6.1.6 City Review. When new projects impact the existing circulation system, the
City shall review the effectiveness and desirability of “direct fix” mitigation improvements
to address MMLOS impacts. Where a significant impact is found, alternative system-wide
project mitigations may be submitted for consideration to the City in accordance with the
modal priorities established in Policy 6.1.2. Exceptions shall be based on the physical
conditions of the right-of-way to support additional improvements. If the right-of-way in
question cannot address onsite mitigation, appropriate offsite improvements that have
direct nexus to and effectively address the specific impacts created by the project may be
considered.
Policy 7.1.1 Peak Hour and Daily Traffic. The City shall cooperate with County and State
government to institute programs that reduce the levels of peak-hour and daily vehicle
traffic.
Policy 7.1.2 Street Network. The City shall manage to the extent feasible the street network
so that the standards are not exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the
traffic impacts it causes or the City to limit development that affects streets where
congestion levels may be exceeded. The standards may be met by strengthening alternative
modes over the single occupant motor vehicle. Where feasible, roundabouts shall be the
City’s preferred intersection control alternative due to the vehicle speed reduction, safety,
and operational benefits of roundabouts.
Policy 7.1.3 Growth Management and Roadway Expansion. The City shall manage the
expansion of roadways to keep pace with only the level of increased vehicular traffic
associated with development planned for in the General Plan LUE and under the City’s
growth management policies and regional transportation plans.
Policy 7.1.4: Transportation Funding. In order to increase support for non-automobile
travel, the City shall strive to allocate transportation funding across various modes
approximately proportional to the modal split objectives for 2035.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-55
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Policy 7.1.5 Vehicle Speeds. To the extent permitted under the California Vehicle Code
(CVC), the City shall endeavor to maintain and reduce speeds where possible in residential
neighborhoods.
Policy 7.2.7 Traffic Access Management. The City shall adopt an access management
policy to control location, spacing, design and operation of driveways, median openings,
crosswalks, interchanges and street connections to a particular roadway including
navigation routes to direct traffic in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the
transportation system. Navigation routing and other smart access technologies should be
considered as part of the update to the Access and Parking Management Plan.
Policy 8.1.1 Through Traffic. The City shall design its circulation network to encourage
through traffic to use regional routes, highways, arterials, parkway arterials, and residential
arterial streets and to discourage through traffic use of collectors and local streets.
Policy 8.1.2 Residential Streets. The City should not approve commercial development
that encourages customers, employees or deliveries to use residential local or residential
collector streets.
Policy 8.1.3 Neighborhood Traffic Speeds. To the extent permitted under the CVC, the
City shall endeavor to reduce and maintain vehicular speeds in residential neighborhoods.
Policy 8.1.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines. The City shall update its
Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting, funding, and
implementation procedures and develop an outreach program on the availability of the
program.
Policy 8.1.6 Non-Infill Development. In new, non-infill developments, dwellings shall be
set back from regional routes and highways, parkway arterials, arterials, residential
arterials, and collector streets so that interior and exterior noise standards can be met
without the use of noise walls.
Program 9.2.2. Prado Road Improvements. The City shall ensure that changes to Prado
Road and other related system improvements are implemented in a sequence that satisfies
circulation demands caused by area development.
• The sponsors of development projects that contribute to the need for the Prado Road
interchange or overpass will be required to prepare or fund the preparation of a
Project Study Report for the interchange project. The Project Study Report shall
meet the requirements of the California Department of Transportation.
3.13-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Program 9.2.5. San Luis Ranch/Dalidio Development. As part of any proposal to further
develop the Dalidio-Madonna Area, the alignment and design of extensions of Froom
Ranch Way connecting with Prado Road (west of U.S. 101) shall be evaluated and
established if consistent with the Agricultural Master Plan for Calle Joaquin Reserve.
Policy 11.1.1 Interstate Air Service. The City shall support and encourage expansion of
air transportation services, as forecasted in the Airport Master Plan and approved by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Policy 11.1.2 County Aircraft Operations. The City shall work with the County to continue
to address aircraft operations so that noise and safety problems are not created in developed
areas or areas targeted for future development by the City’s Land Use Element.
Policy 11.1.3 Public Transit Service. The City shall encourage improved public transit
service to the County airport soon as practical.
City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (2013)
The City Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP; 2013) was originally prepared and adopted by
the City in 1985, and most recently updated in 2013, to improve and encourage bicycle and
pedestrian transportation within the City. This plan works to establish a comprehensive
design and development of bikeway facilities in compliance with State, County, and City
regulations and policies. The City currently in the process of preparing an update to this
plan, which will include pedestrian considerations and create the City’s first Active
Transportation Plan.
3.13.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.13.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria for this analysis are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
and the City’s adopted thresholds, as further described below. A transportation impact is
considered significant if the project would:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b);
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-57
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment); or
d) Result in inadequate emergency access.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Impact significance thresholds for VMT have not yet been established by the City or
County. VMT is disclosed and assessed in comparison to citywide and countywide
averages, but not used as a formal CEQA threshold. This analysis discloses VMT and its
relationship to citywide and countywide average VMT, but does not utilize VMT as a
formal CEQA threshold of significance for this EIR pending final adoption of appropriate
local criteria and thresholds for VMT. This analysis relies on City multi-modal
transportation LOS standards, as described below.
City of San Luis Obispo LOS Policies by Mode
The City’s General Plan CE includes LOS policies for all transportation modes. The City’s
stated goal is to maintain the LOS objective. However, if trips generated by a project causes
the LOS to exceed the minimum LOS standard, a project is considered to cause an impact.
Table 3.13-26 presents the City’s LOS objectives and standards, by mode.
Table 3.13-26. LOS Objective and Minimum Standard for Each Transportation
Mode
Travel Mode LOS Objective Minimum LOS Standard TIS Impact Threshold
Automobile C E (Downtown), D (Citywide) D
Bicycle B D D
Pedestrian B C C
Transit C Baseline LOS or D Baseline LOS or D
City of San Luis Obispo Multi-modal Impact Significance Thresholds
Consistent with the City’s Multi-modal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, the
project impacts will be considered significant if, when comparing “Plus Project” conditions
with the base Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative conditions analyses, the project causes
the following to occur:
Automobiles: Intersections
At intersections within City or County jurisdiction, project impacts are potentially
significant if:
3.13-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
• Signalized Intersections: Project traffic causes minimum LOS standards to be
exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards and the V/C ratio is
increased by 0.01 or more.
• Unsignalized Intersections: Project traffic causes minimum LOS standards to be
exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards, the V/C ratio is
increased by 0.01 or more, and a traffic signal warrant analysis is satisfied.
• Project traffic causes or exacerbates 95th-percentile turning movement queues
exceeding available turn pocket capacity.
• The project proposes roadway geometry changes that cause minimum LOS
standards to be exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards for
the overall intersection or individual lane groups.
Automobiles: Segments
Project impacts are potentially significant if:
• Project traffic causes minimum LOS standards for either direction to be exceeded
or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards and the average segment speed
decreases by 1 mph or more.
• The project proposes roadway geometry changes that cause minimum LOS
standards to be exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards.
Pedestrian, Bike, and Transit: Intersections and Segments
Project impacts are potentially significant if:
• Project traffic causes minimum LOS standards to be exceeded or further degrades
already exceeded LOS standards and there is contextual significance to the impact.
• The project proposes roadway geometry changes that cause minimum LOS
standards to be exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards.
City of San Luis Obispo Modal Priority Impact Criteria
The City's General Plan CE has established priorities for various modes by context areas
such that construction, expansion, or alteration of one mode should not degrade the LOS
of a higher priority mode. If a project improves a lower priority mode’s operation at the
expense of a higher priority mode’s operations, an impact is created. If a mitigation
measure results in the degradation of higher priority mode, it would be considered a
residual impact as well. The City’s established Modal LOS Priorities by context area are
presented in Table 3.13-27. The Project vicinity includes Regional Arterials, Highway
Corridors, and Commercial Corridors, as described in Section 3.13.1.1, Existing Roadway
Network.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-59
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-27. City LOS Modal Priority Ranking by Area
Complete Street Area Minimum LOS Standard
Downtown and Upper Monterey Street 1. Pedestrians 3. Transit
2. Bicycles 4. Vehicles
Residential Corridors and Neighborhoods 1. Pedestrians 3. Vehicles
2. Bicycles 4. Transit
Commercial Corridors and Areas 1. Vehicles 3. Transit
2. Bicycles 4. Pedestrians
Regional Arterial and Highway Corridors 1. Vehicles 3. Bicycles
2. Transit 4. Pedestrians
County LOS Standards
The County has established LOS standards to determine project impacts. The County’s
policy calls for LOS D or better service on roadways in urban areas and LOS C on rural
roads. Consistent with County policies, LOS D will be considered the standard acceptable
threshold for County facilities. The County does not have adopted standards for bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit LOS; as such these modes will not be assessed for LOS at County
facilities.
Caltrans Facilities
Caltrans established LOS standards to determine project impacts. Caltrans’s policy
endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on state
highway facilities. Consistent with Caltrans policies, LOS C is considered the minimum
automobile threshold for Caltrans facilities. Caltrans has not adopted standards for bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit LOS; as such, these modes will not be assessed for LOS at Caltrans
facilities. Based on standard industry practice, the Project is considered to trigger a
significant impact to Caltrans facilities if the Project would:
• Result in a facility that will operate at an acceptable LOS in the base (pre-project
or no project) condition to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS in the “Plus Project”
condition; or,
• Freeway, Merge and Diverge Segments: Project traffic increases the density by 5
percent or more at a facility that will operate at an unacceptable LOS in a pre-
project or no project condition.
• Intersections: Project traffic further degrades already exceeded LOS standards and
the V/C ratio is increased by 0.01 or more.
3.13-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
City of San Luis Obispo Safety Impact Analysis Criteria
The Project TIS safety impact analysis includes both a quantitative and qualitative
assessment. The safety analysis considers the Project’s potential operational and geometric
effects on existing infrastructure, including turn pocket queue spillback and a functional
area analysis of proposed Project driveways. The safety analysis includes the following
significant components, for which the Project impact will be evaluated in the “Plus Project”
conditions analyses:
• Queuing evaluation at study intersections and Project driveways;
• Qualitative assessment of safety issues/concerns at the Project site access and
within the internal Project circulation system. Review preliminary layout for site
access and circulation and provide qualitative assessment of safety issues (i.e.,
driveway spacing, access control, etc.); and
• Quantitative review of collision history at selected locations:
o County intersection at LOVR/Foothill Boulevard and County segment on
South Higuera south of City limits; and
o City intersection at LOVR/Auto Park Way and City segment on LOVR
from Froom Ranch Way to Calle Joaquin will be included in the collision
history analysis.
The collision history analysis compares collision rates for these facilities to rates for
comparable facilities. The Project impact will be evaluated based on whether the
anticipated Project-generated traffic would affect any identified safety concerns. The
Project site access and functional area evaluation will be prepared consistent with the City’s
Access Management Policy, which is included in the recently adopted 2018 City
Engineering Standards.
City of San Luis Obispo Neighborhood Traffic Analysis Criteria
The Project includes new local residential streets and commercial collector streets. The
Project TIS includes an evaluation of neighborhood traffic conditions. Project impacts are
considered significant if the maximum neighborhood Average Daily Trips (ADT) or speed
thresholds established from the City’s General Plan CE are exceeded.
The applicable ADT and speed thresholds established in the City’s General Plan CE are as
follows:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-61
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
• Local Residential – maximum ADT is 1,500 vehicles per day (vpd) and maximum
speed is 25 mph;
• Commercial Collector – maximum ADT is 10,000 vpd and maximum speed is 25
mph.
3.13.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
This analysis is based on the TIS prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants for the
Project (see Appendix J; TJKM Transportation Consulting 2019). The scope of the TIS
was developed to be in conformance with the standards set forth in the City General Plan
CE (2014) and the City’s TIA Guidelines. Consideration was given to which intersections,
roadway segments, bike paths and other transportation facilities could be substantially
impacted by the Project and the likely outer boundary of such impacts.
The Project would develop a new network of on-site roads, bicycle paths, sidewalks, trails,
and paths, and integration of this site into the transit network. Off-site road, bicycle, and
pedestrian improvements are also included as part of the Project to serve Project
transportation demands. In addition, the transportation network in the Project vicinity is
planned to undergo major improvements and modifications associated with development
of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project to the east across LOVR and Prefumo Creek,
and the Avila Ranch Specific Plan project south across U.S. 101. For the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan, this would include the extension of Froom Ranch Way northeast to Dalidio
Drive, the extension of Dalidio Drive south to U.S. 101 and its eventual connection to a
new Prado Road overpass/interchange. The Avila Ranch Specific Plan project would
complete or contribute to improvements along South Higuera Street, Suburban Road, and
to LOVR south of U.S. 101 (refer to Figure 3.13-2). Multiple bike path and pedestrian
facility improvements would also be installed. The timing of completion of these
improvements, their coordination with Project phasing, and ability to accommodate
increased traffic flows and demand for pedestrian and bike facilities and transit service are
key to both successful Project completion and accurate impact analysis.
Based on the City’s adopted thresholds and those of other agencies where appropriate, the
TIS addressed and analyzed the following scenarios to describe the impacts associated with
implementation of the Project (see Appendix J):
• Existing Conditions quantifies multi-modal transportation conditions based on
current land use and transportation conditions, utilizing current traffic, pedestrian,
and bicyle count and transit ridership data, as provided by the City, County, and
Caltrans. The TIS includes the quantification of current automobile, bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit service levels;
3.13-62 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
• Near-Term Conditions (2025) quantifies conditions in a roughly five-year
forecast horizon, representing approximate conditions at the time the Project is
anticipated to be fully built and occupied—for the purposes of the TIS, this is
approximated as Year 2025. For vehicular traffic, two scenarios were examined as
part of the TIS to address this condition, including “Scenario 1” which considers
the Near-Term with partial completion of the U.S. 101/Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project (Overcrossing and NB Ramps only) and “Scenario
2” which considers the Near-Term without completion of the U.S. 101/Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project. For the purposes of conducting a conservative
vehicular traffic impact analysis under the assumption that the U.S. 101/Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project is not yet completed by the time the Project is
occupied, “Scenario 2” is used for the purposes of describing Near-Term
Conditions and associated impact analysis. For the purposes of assessing
pedestrian, bicycle and transit-related impact, the completion of currently funded
improvements (as summarized in Table 3.1-19 of the TIS; Appendix J) is assumed.
These include those described in Section 3.13.1.6, Multi-modal Transportation
System Operations, above; and
• Cumulative Conditions (2035) quantifies conditions representing buildout of the
City’s adopted General Plan land uses and transportation infrastructure
improvements. The forecast horizon is approximately Year 2035 and includes
regional growth representing buildout of surrounding incorporated jurisdictions and
unincorporated communities in the County.
The impacts of the Project related to transportation facilities were estimated in the TIS
using vehicular trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment as well as demands
for all modes of transportation. Trip generation estimates the amount of added traffic to the
roadway network. Trip distribution estimates the direction of travel to and from the Project
site. Trip assignment allocates trips to specific street segments and intersection turning
movements. Similarly, as discussed further below, increased demand for pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit facilities was calculated based upon standard factors and distributed to
the transportation network.
• Existing plus Project adds Project-generated traffic to the Near-Term Conditions
volumes;
• Near-Term plus Project adds Project-generated traffic to the Near-Term
Conditions volumes;
• Cumulative plus Project represents future traffic conditions reflective of the
buildout of land uses in the area, including the Project.
Project Vehicle Trip Generation
The amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the Project was
estimated by preparing a detailed trip generation estimate for the development proposal.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-63
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Project trip generation estimates were calculated by TJKM in the TIS based predominantly
on data and methods published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (10th Edition) and Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition). In addition
to the ITE manual, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Brief Guide to
Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates manual was also referenced to provide an initial
forecast of trip generation for the trailhead park, since the ITE manual lacks data for small
parks (See Appendix J).
The trip generation forecasts consider many factors, including internal proximity between
complimentary land uses, transportation mode splits, type of land uses proposed, and
average vehicle occupancy of automobiles. Because this transportation analysis quantifies
impacts for multiple travel modes, the person trip generation by mode was estimated in
addition to vehicular trip generation. Based on ITE guidance, the following process was
followed to ultimately determine estimated Project trips by mode:
1. Generate baseline vehicle trip estimates;
2. Convert new vehicle trips to person trips;
3. Apply adjustments for internal capture;
4. Generate new external person trip estimates;
5. Apply mode split distribution to estimate new external bike/pedestrian/transit and
vehicular person trips;
6. Convert auto person trips to vehicle trips using average vehicle occupancy data;
and
7. Apply pass-by/diverted trip adjustments to estimate net new external vehicle trips
Person trips anticipated to be generated by the Project (Step 5 above) are detailed in Table
3.13-28.
3.13-64 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-28. Project Person Trips by Mode of Travel
Mode Share (%) AM Peak PM Peak
Person Trips Person Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
Passenger Auto 88.20 137 167 304 225 195 420
Bicycle 4.60 7 9 16 12 10 22
Pedestrian 5.00 8 9 17 13 11 24
Transit 2.20 3 4 7 6 5 11
Total (All Modes) 100 155 189 343 256 221 477
The Project trip generation estimates include adjustments for internal capture, which
represents trips between different uses within a larger mixed-use site that are never
distributed to the street network external to the site. For example, trips between a hotel and
adjacent retail store within the same site would be considered “internal” to the site, and
should be excluded from project traffic generation estimates when analyzing potential
impacts to offsite intersections and roadways. For this Project, all residential and
commercial uses were considered in the internalization estimate, with the exception of uses
within Villaggio such as the assisted living, memory care and skilled nursing components,
which are anticipated to have little trip-making interaction with other Project components.
Ultimately, the Project is forecasted to generate 220 AM and 277 PM net new external
peak hour vehicle trips on the surrounding road network (see Table 3.13-29). It should be
noted that these final external automobile volumes are the basis for the Project’s
automobile LOS analyses.
Project trip generation was also determined for each of the four construction phases for
conducting a sensitivity analysis to identify phasing impacts of the Project at the study
intersections and the roadway segments (see also, Section 2.0, Project Description):
• Phase 1 - Installation of Project Infrastructure and Stormwater Management
System;
• Phase 2 - Development of Villaggio Lower Area;
• Phase 3 - Development of Villaggio Upper Terrace; and
• Phase 4 - Development of Madonna Froom Ranch.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-65
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 3.13-29. Net External Vehicle Trip Generation Forecast
Land Use Category AM Peak PM Peak
Person Trips Person Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
External Residential Passenger Auto Person Trips 64 118 181 119 97 217
External Retail Passenger Auto Person Trips 20 12 32 61 51 112
External Hotel Passenger Auto Person Trips 43 27 70 36 37 73
External Park Passenger Auto Person Trips 10 10 20 9 9 18
Total External Passenger Auto Person Trips 137 167 303 225 194 419
Average Vehicle Occupancy (Persons per Car): 1.38
Mode Share AM Peak PM Peak
Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips
Residential Vehicle Trips Generated 45 85 131 86 71 157
Retail Vehicle Trips Generated 15 9 24 44 37 81
Retail Pass-By Trips
-15 -13 -28
Hotel Vehicle Trips Generated 31 20 51 26 27 53
Park Vehicle Trips Generated 7 7 14 7 7 14
Total Vehicle Trips Generated 99 121 220 148 129 277
As Phase 1 includes only site preparation, grading and infrastructure improvements, the
Project would generate only temporary construction-related AM or PM peak hour trips.
With development and occupancy of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Project is estimated to
generate 66 AM and 87 PM peak hour external vehicle trips. With completion of
Villaggio’s Upper Terrace, the Project is estimated to generate 74 AM and 99 PM peak
hour external vehicle trips. With completion of the Madonna Froom Ranch area, the final
phase, the Project is estimated to generate 220 AM and 277 PM total peak hour vehicle
trips. Table 3.13-30 summarizes Project trip generation for the four construction phases.
Table 3.13-30. Project Operational Vehicle Trip Generation by Phase
Phase Trips Applicable to
Phase
Cumulative Total
for Completed
Phases
AM PM AM PM
1. Installation of Project Infrastructure and
Stormwater Management System (0%)
0 0 0 0
2. Development of Villaggio Lower Area (27%) 66 87 66 87
3. Development of Villaggio Upper Terrace (5%) 8 12 74 99
4. Development of Madonna Froom Ranch (69%) 146 178 220 277
3.13-66 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
A more detailed discussion of trip generation assumptions and methodology is provided in
the Project TIS (see Appendix J).
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The Project trip distribution for automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips was
estimated based on conducting a select zone analysis of the traffic analysis zone (TAZ)
representing the Project area in the City’s travel demand model. The City’s travel demand
model land uses for the TAZ were modified to include the specific Project land uses. The
Project trip distribution was developed for Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative analysis
scenarios based on transportation infrastructure anticipated to be in place in those scenarios
(i.e., Prado Road Interchange, Prado Road Extension to Broad).
New transit trips were assigned to the adjacent transit stops at the LOVR/Auto Mall Drive
intersection and at the Irish Hills Plaza shopping center. New bicycle trips were assigned
to new and existing bike trails, and adjacent roadway facilities with bicycle lanes. New
pedestrian trips were assigned to adjacent sidewalks, crosswalks, and shared-use paths.
New vehicular trips were assigned to the street network using the single proposed access
point on LOVR and were assigned to routes to reach their destinations based on the shortest
logical path (Appendix J).
Intersection and Roadway Segment Automobile Operations
Using vehicle trip generation and distribution data, the TIS analyzed the Project’s
transportation effects on roadway segments and intersections by evaluating the automobile
LOS of each roadway segment and intersection in the study area. Existing conditions were
compared with Existing plus Project conditions to determine the degree of change
projected for each of the intersections and roadway segments. The Existing plus Project
LOS was also compared with City, County, and Caltrans thresholds to determine where
and how significant impacts may occur as a result of Project implementation. The same
analysis was conducted for Near-Term and Cumulative conditions. Refer to Table 3.13-2
and Table 3.13-3 for a summary of the HCM 6th Edition automobile segment and freeway
LOS methodologies utilized for this analysis. The results of Existing plus Project and Near-
Term plus Project analysis of intersection and roadway segment automobile operations are
summarized in the TIS (Appendix J).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-67
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Operations
For bicycle and pedestrian facilities, trip generation and distribution calculations were
modeled to evaluate the operational conditions. LOS for these facilities was primarily
evaluated based on operational conditions, gaps in circulation, safety, and City design
criteria. Transit service was analyzed based on the service standards listed in the City’s
current Short Range Transit Plan, which states that in residential areas, 90 percent of the
population should be within 0.25 mile of a bus stop. In accordance with the City’s Multi-
modal Transportation Guidelines, transit LOS was primarily predicated on the presence of
shelters and benches at bus stops, as well as the frequency and on-time performance of
each route.
Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS is a measure of comfort based on many different factors. The
model used to calculate the LOS score, under certain conditions, can be very sensitive to
minor changes that would otherwise not be noticed by pedestrians or cyclists. Professional
engineering judgement is used to determine the significance threshold of a bicycle and
pedestrian LOS impact based on the context and perceptibility of that impact. Therefore,
while a LOS deficiency may be calculated for bicycle or pedestrian LOS, the Project’s
direct contribution to that deficiency may require qualitative discussions and conclusions.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
A key provision of SB 743, passed in September 2013, is the elimination of vehicle delay
and LOS as CEQA significance criterion in urban areas. VMT analysis is not mandatory
per CEQA until 7/1/2020. Currently, official measures and local significance thresholds
for VMT analysis are being developed but have not been adopted. While the TIS analyzes
both multi-modal LOS and VMT, in the absence of official significance thresholds, no
CEQA findings of significance in regards to VMT are made at this time. Hence, VMT
analysis conducted for the Project is provided for informational and full disclosure
purposes only.
The City’s Travel Demand Model was used for forecasting County-wide, City-wide and
Project-generated VMT. As reported by the City’s model, the forecasted 2035 Daily VMT
is approximately 12 million miles for the County and 1.5 million for the City sphere of
influence. The average VMT per household is 80 miles for the County and 54 miles for
areas within the City’s sphere of influence.
Project-generated VMT was forecast by adding the proposed land uses to the City’s Travel
Demand Model. The City’s model forecast for the Project is 46,894 daily VMT, an increase
3.13-68 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
of approximately 3 percent within the City sphere of influence and 0.4 percent within the
County. The VMT generated per household for the Project is forecasted at 69 daily VMT
per household. Although the Project would have a VMT below the regional average, the
VMT per household for the Project is forecasted to be approximately 28 percent higher
than the average for the City’s sphere of influence (Table 3.13-31).
Table 3.13-31. Average Estimated Year 2035 VMT for the City, County and
Project
Descriptions Daily VMT VMT per HH1
San Luis Obispo County 12,000,000 80
City of San Luis Obispo 1,500,000 54
Project 46,894 69
1Reported VMT per household
Source: Project TIS, Appendix J.
School-based Trip Distribution
It is expected that a portion of trips from the Madonna Froom Ranch component would be
associated with persons traveling to and from local schools. Due to the Project’s proximity
to public schools within the area and the availability of bus services to the Project site, for
CEQA analysis it is anticipated that the preferred mode of travel for school-based trips
would be made by pedestrian and bicycle travel, as well as personal vehicles (see also,
Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation). This represents a conservative approach and
the Project TIS captured and incorporated these trips in the analysis of Project impacts to
local road segments and intersections.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative conditions represent future buildout of the land uses and planned transportation
infrastructure in the region. Based on the list of approved and reasonably foreseeable
projects, future traffic demands were estimated. Cumulative analysis quantifies conditions
representing buildout of the City’s adopted General Plan land uses and transportation
infrastructure improvements. The forecast horizon is Year 2035 and includes regional
growth representing buildout of surrounding incorporated jurisdictions and unincorporated
communities in the County. Vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trip forecasts were
prepared utilizing the City’s Travel Demand Model and were also developed to be largely
consistent with growth increments of the past San Luis Ranch Multi-modal TIS Cumulative
plus Project scenario. As such, mitigation required by the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
project, Avila Ranch Specific Plan project, and similar projects may partially or wholly
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-69
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
overlap with mitigation required of this Project, and may be constructed in conjunction
with these other projects in the area.
Besides the approved/pending projects identified for inclusion in the Near-Term scenario,
the Cumulative scenario also considers a reasonable projection on the remaining vacant
and undeveloped land in the City, consistent with the City’s General Plan LUE. Regional
growth was based on the model growth projections, and Caltrans historical and current
counts on mainline facilities would be reviewed to ensure the model forecasts are
adequately consistent with past historical growth rates.
Several transportation infrastructure improvement projects were identified by the City for
inclusion in the Cumulative analysis scenario. These projects are all consistent with the
City’s General Plan CE, and are included in the City’s impact fee program and capital
improvement program. However, it is not anticipated that every project identified in the
City’s General Plan CE would be funded or constructed by the Year 2035 forecast horizon.
Therefore, the Cumulative transportation projects list includes only those that are
anticipated to be funded and constructed within that time frame. Cumulative transportation
projects included in the analysis are listed below. Notable improvements include:
• Prado Overpass/Interchange (Overcrossing, NB and SB Ramps, NB Auxiliary
Lane, and SB Collector-Distributor System)
• Dalidio Drive/Prado Road Widening
• Prado Road Extension to Broad Street
• Intersection improvements at Prado Road and South Higuera Street
• Intersection improvements at South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road
• Sidewalk, bike lanes, and Class I multi-use path at Froom Ranch Extension east to
Dalidio Drive (Near-Term Project)
• Bicycle protected intersection installations at Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive and
LOVR/Dalidio Drive (Near-Term Project)
• Extension of Bob Jones Trail south of LOVR to South Higuera Street/Octagon Way
(Cumulative Project)Extension of Bob Jones Trail West Spur from Calle Joaquin
to Froom Ranch Way (Cumulative Project)
3.13.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As noted above, this impact analysis is based upon the TIS prepared by TJKM (with the
exception of Impacts TRANS-1, and TRANS-4, and TRANS-5). This section briefly
summarizes the findings of the TIS; Appendix J contains the Project TIS, which provides
3.13-70 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-71
Draft EIR
a complete analysis and discussion. The TIS compared Existing, Near-Term, and
Cumulative (buildout) traffic conditions to those with the added effects of Project-
generated traffic to determine Project-specific and contributing impacts on multi-modal
infrastructure within the Project vicinity (Table 3.13-32). 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, which are included in the
discussion as MM TRANS-2 and MM TRANS-14.
Table 3.13-32. Summary of Project Impacts
Transportation Impacts Mitigation
Measures
Residual
Significance
TIS Impact
(see Appendix J)
TRANS-1. Project 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
--
TRANS-2. Under Existing plus Project
conditions, the addition of Project 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 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
MM AQ-6
Significant and
Unavoidable
Existing plus
Project Impacts
TRANS-3. Under Near-Term plus Project
(Scenario 2) conditions, the addition of
Project traffic would exacerbate existing
queuing and peak hour traffic for
automobiles and poor levels of service for
pedestrians and bike modes of
transportation, causing transportation
deficiencies in the Project vicinity.
MM TRANS-2
MM TRANS-5
MM TRANS-6
MM TRANS-8
MM TRANS-9
MM TRANS-12
MM TRANS-13
MM TRANS-14
MM TRANS-15
MM TRANS-16
MM TRANS-17
MM TRANS-18
Significant and
Unavoidable
Near-Term plus
Project Impacts
TRANS-4. The Project 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-19
MM TRANS-20
MM TRANS-21
MM TRANS-22
MM TRANS-23
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Emergency
Vehicle Access
Impacts
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.13-72 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
Table 3.13-32. Summary of Project Impacts (Continued)
Transportation Impacts Mitigation
Measures
Residual
Significance
TIS Impact
(see Appendix J)
TRANS-5. Onsite circulation would result in
safety impacts to pedestrian and bicycle
access.
MM TRANS-24 Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Access
Management
Assessment
TRANS-6. Under long-term Cumulative
plus Project conditions, Project-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-23
MM TRANS-25
MM TRANS-26
MM TRANS-27
MM TRANS-28
MM TRANS-29
MM TRANS-30
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Cumulative plus
Project Impacts
Impact TRANS-1 Project 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
(Less than Significant with Mitigation).
The location and intensity of construction-related increases in traffic would vary by
construction phase (refer to Section 2.6, Project Construction for a detailed description of
construction activities occurring within each phase); however, each phase would
incrementally contribute to road or intersection congestion over the planning horizon.
Construction is divided into four phases that range between one to two years each, for a
total construction period of approximately five years.
While construction-related traffic would be ongoing for approximately five years,
construction traffic could create potentially significant impacts. Increased construction
traffic, particularly large haul trucks and other heavy equipment, may disrupt local traffic
flows, congest limited turn lane capacities, and generally slow traffic movement.
Construction activity during site preparation would include use of heavy haul trucks for
import of soil and rock, cement trucks, material and equipment delivery trucks, and worker
vehicles.
All excavated soils would be leveled onsite and there would be approximately 222,300 cy
of soil, rock, and aggregate import, resulting in roughly 11,100 to 22,200 haul truck trips
to the Project site over five years. However, import activities would peak during Phase 1
when the Project site would be graded, and most imported soil and rock would occur to
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-73
Draft EIR
shape the site and install the stormwater management system. Heavy trucks would add
incrementally to congestion and queuing along LOVR and at the LOVR interchanges with
U.S. 101. These vehicles would likely use U.S. 101 and LOVR to travel to and from the
site. Trucking for the import of materials, from offsite, would be routed from LOVR
entering the site at the Auto Park Way intersection. Materials would be distributed based
on the proposed phasing of the construction and would utilize the main corridors,
Commercial Collectors “A” and “B”, to route and distribute to the areas requiring fill
material.
The proposed internal road system (installed in Phase 1) would be used to distribute cut
material within the Project site boundaries until occupation of Villaggio’s Lower Area
occurs. The Project proposes to complete Villaggio’s Upper Terrace earthwork import
prior to occupancy of Villaggio’s Lower Area development. Cut material from the portion
of Villaggio’s Upper Terrace that is above the 150-foot elevation (approximately 30,000
cy) may be exported to Villaggio’s Lower Area if Villaggio is not occupied by residents at
the time of export. Once occupancy has begun, any remaining material exported from
Villaggio’s Upper Terrace would be trucked offsite through the Mountainbrook Church
driveway to Calle Joaquin and LOVR for use in the Madonna Froom Ranch component of
the Project. This transfer of 30,000 cy of fill within the Project site would require
approximately 2,143 heavy haul truck trips on local roadways then routed through Auto
Park Way and Commercial Collector “A” to Madonna Froom Ranch.
Other potential construction-related impacts include idling, parked, or queued heavy trucks
that could potentially obstruct visibility, traffic flows, and interfere with pedestrian and
bicycle flows. Construction may also require the temporary or extended closure of traffic
lanes on LOVR or Calle Joaquin to accommodate parked vehicles, operation of
construction equipment, installation of Project improvements, including trenching for
utilities along LOVR and installation of intersection improvements at Auto Park Way.
Depending on final construction plan details, such lane and sidewalk closures could extend
from a single day to several weeks. The intensity of construction-related traffic issues
would vary by phase and would possibly result in periodic road closures for construction
of onsite and offsite development, such as during proposed road improvements on LOVR.
This would cause vehicle delays and disrupt cyclist and pedestrian flows, requiring
travelers to potentially utilize alternative routes. While temporary during construction,
these types of delays and disruptions would be substantial and would occur regularly over
the five-year implementation of the Project, which would be potentially significant.
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.13-74 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure
MM TRANS-1 The Applicant shall prepare a Construction Transportation
Management Plan for all phases of the Project for review and approval
by the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits to address
and manage traffic during construction. The Plan shall be designed to:
• Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network;
• Restrict construction staging to within the Project site;
• Minimize parking impacts both to public parking and access to
private parking to the greatest extent practicable;
• Ensure safety for both those construction vehicles and works and
the surrounding community; and
• Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoods.
The Construction Transportation Management Plan shall be subject to
review and approval by the Public Works Director to ensure that the
Plan has been designed in accordance with this mitigation measure.
This review shall occur prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
It shall, at a minimum, include the following:
Ongoing Requirements throughout the Duration of Construction:
• A detailed Construction Transportation Management Plan for work
zones shall be maintained. At a minimum, this shall include parking
and travel lane configurations; warning, regulatory, guide, and
directional signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and parking
lanes. The Plan shall include specific information regarding the
Project’s construction activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian
and traffic flow and the measures to address these disruptions. Such
Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department and implemented in accordance with this
approval.
• Heavy haul construction vehicles and cement trucks shall not pass
through Villaggio’s Lower Area access roads once any of the Lower
Area residences become occupied, and must utilize access from
Calle Joaquin to access the Upper Terrace after that time.
• Work within the public right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved
by the City on a case-by-case basis based on the magnitude and type
of construction activity. Work shall generally be performed between
8:30 AM and 4:00 PM. This work includes dirt hauling and
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-75
Draft EIR
construction material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way
outside of these hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an
after-hours construction permit administered by the Building and
Safety Division. Additional restrictions may be put in place by
Public Works Department depending on particular construction
activities and conditions.
• Streets and equipment shall be cleaned in accordance with
established Public Works requirements.
• Trucks shall only travel on a City-approved construction route.
Limited queuing may occur on the construction site itself.
• Materials and equipment shall be minimally visible to the public;
the preferred location for materials is to be onsite, with a minimum
amount of materials within a work area in the public right-of-way,
subject to a current Use of Public Property Permit.
• Provision of off-street parking for construction workers, which may
include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site,
if determined necessary by the City.
Project Coordination Elements That Shall Be Implemented Prior to
Commencement of Construction:
• The traveling public shall be advised of impending construction
activities that may substantially affect key roadways or other
facilities (e.g., information signs, portable message signs, media
listing/notification, and implementation of an approved
Construction Impact Mitigation Plan).
• A Use of Public Property Permit, Excavation Permit, Sewer Permit,
or Oversize Load Permit, as well as any Caltrans permits required
for any construction work requiring encroachment into public
rights-of-way, detours, or any other work within the public right-of-
way shall be obtained.
• Timely notification of construction schedules shall be provided to
all affected agencies (e.g., Police Department, Fire Department,
Public Works Department, and Community Development
Department) and to all owners and residential and commercial
tenants of property within a radius of 0.25 mile.
• Construction work shall be coordinated with affected agencies in
advance of start of work. Approvals may take up to two weeks per
each submittal.
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.13-76 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
• Public Works Department approval of any haul routes for
construction materials and equipment deliveries shall be obtained.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit the
Construction Transportation Management Plan to the City for review
and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The
Construction Transportation Management Plan shall be updated as
needed to reflect changing conditions over the Project’s five-year
construction schedule. The Applicant shall conduct necessary
construction employee training prior to the commencement of
construction. The City Public Works Department, Community
Development Department, Police Department, and Fire Department,
and nearby residences and businesses shall be notified of the
construction schedule prior to initiation of construction. The Applicant
shall submit individual traffic control plans and part of encroachment
permits for work within the public right-of-way.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with the Construction
Transportation Management Plan with periodic inspections of the
Project site during construction. Complaints related to construction
traffic at the site shall be directed to the City Public Works Department.
Residual Impact
Preparation of a Construction Transportation Management Plan as part of MM TRANS-1
would reduce construction-related traffic impacts to the maximum extent feasible by
establishing truck routes and parking locations for construction workers. Residual impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact TRANS-2 Under Existing plus Project conditions, the addition of Project
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 (Significant and
Unavoidable).
Using vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle trip generation and distribution data, the Project’s TIS
analyzed the potential transportation impacts of the Project on multi-modal facilities and
operations, including intersections, roadway segments, bike paths, sidewalks, and transit
routes under Existing plus Project conditions. Existing conditions and Existing plus Project
conditions were compared to determine the degree of change projected for each of the
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-77
Draft EIR
transportation facilities potentially impacted by Project trips. The TIS identifies multi-
modal AM and PM peak hour LOS for intersection LOS and queuing, roadway segments,
bike paths, sidewalks, and transit routes. The Existing plus Project LOS was compared
with City thresholds of significance to determine where significant impacts may occur to
intersections, roadway segments, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit operations as
a result of Project implementation. Figures 3.1-12 through 3.1-15 found on pages 153 to
156 of the TIS illustrate the Existing plus Project lane geometries, traffic controls at the
study intersections, and the Existing plus Project peak hour traffic volumes at the study
intersections.
Potentially significant operational impacts to multi-modal transportation would occur at
occupation of Villaggio’s Lower Area and subsequently at occupation of Madonna Froom
Ranch, including 10 separate intersections and roadway segments due to increased
automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic under Existing plus Project conditions. These
include automobile impacts at five locations, bicycle and pedestrian related impacts at eight
locations, and one impact due to neighborhood traffic management impact. These impacts
under Existing plus Project conditions and associated mitigation are summarized below.
For a complete description of all intersections, roadway segments, bike paths, sidewalks
and transit facilities, see Tables 3.1-48 through 3.1-57 on pages 130 through 149 of the TIS
(Appendix J).
11
44
66
77
88
55
99
101010
111111 141414
151515
161616
171717
181818
191919
202020
212121
121212
131313
22
33 101
101
101
101 HIGUERA STREETHIGUERA STREETVACHELL LAVACHELL LANEVENTUREVENTURE
DR.DR.HORIZONHORIZONLANELANEELKS LANEELKS LANESOUTH STREETSOUTH STREET
PRADO ROADPRADO ROAD
SUBURBAN ROADSUBURBAN ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADLOS OSOS VALLEY ROADMADO
N
N
A
R
O
A
D
MADO
N
N
A
R
O
A
D
JESPERSON ROADJESPERSON ROADTANK FARM ROADTANK FARM ROAD
BUCKLEY ROADBUCKLEY ROADBUCKLEY ROADHIGUERA STREETSUBURBAN ROAD
PREFUMO CANYON ROAD
LOS OSOS VALLEY ROADMADO
N
N
A
R
O
A
D
W E S TFOOTHILL RO A D
VACHELL LANEHORIZONLANEVENTURE
DR.JESPERSON ROADTANK FARM ROAD
SOUTH STREET
PRADO ROADELKS LANEDavenport C ree kSan Lu isObispo CreekTank F arm Creek
E ast Fork San Luis Obis p o Cre e kLaguna
Lake
CHEVRON
SAN LUIS OBISPO
TANK FARM
U.S. 101
Operates at
LOS D
3
3
3
32
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
11% (11%)
2% (2%)
(12%)
(22%)
2% (2%)
2% (2%)
12% (12%)
8% 8%)
2% (2%)
10% (10%)
(12%)
11% (11%)18% (18%)
3% (3%)
5% (5%)
1% (1%)
2% (2%)
2% (2%)
4% (4%)
5% (5%)
#
#% (#%)
LEGEND
Project Site
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area
Study Intersection and Number
Intersection Exceeds Queuing Capacity
Project Trip Distribution – Existing% (Cumulative %)
Prado Road Widening
Future Road
Bus Route and Number
Bus Stop
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County
Study Intersection A.M./P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service
Acceptable Auto Level of Service (A-C)
Unacceptable Auto Level of Service: (D) Caltrans
Roadways; (E-F) City Roadways
AM PM
Analyzed Road Segments*
Unacceptable Auto Level of Service
*Based on PM and/or AM conditions; all other roadway
segments in the Project vicinity operate at acceptable levels.
#
0 2,500
SCALE IN FEET
N
Existing Plus Project Traffic Impacts (2035)3.13-2
FIGURE
3.13-78
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Existing Plus Project Impact Summary
Intersection #10: LOVR and U.S. 101 SB Ramps
Project-added automobile traffic would exacerbate the existing SB right-turn lane vehicular
queue and WB right-turn lane queue in the PM peak hour, as it would exacerbate the 95th-
percentile turning movement queues and exceed the available turn pocket capacity. This
automobile queuing impact would be potentially significant and occur at occupation of
Madonna Froom Ranch, though it would be reduced to less than significant by the
implementation of MM TRANS-2 below.
Intersection #13: South Higuera Street / Vachell Lane
The Vachell Lane side-street stop sign-controlled intersection currently operates at an
unacceptable Automobile LOS F during AM peak hours and E during PM peak hours (V/C
ratios of 0.84 and 0.81, respectively). Project traffic would increase the V/C ratio by more
than 0.01 to a V/C ratio of 0.96 for both peak hour periods, and side-street approach
volumes would exceed signal warrant thresholds. This automobile LOS impact would be
potentially significant and occur at occupancy of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would
be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-3.
Intersection #14: South Higuera Street / Suburban Road
Project-added automobile traffic would impact the existing WB left-turn queue at the
Suburban Road side-street stop sign-controlled intersection in the PM peak hour, as it
would exacerbate the 95th-percentile turning movement queues and exceed the available
turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing impact would be potentially significant and
occur at occupation of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be reduced to less than
significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-4.
Intersection #15: South Higuera Street / Tank Farm Road
Project-added bicycle traffic would exacerbate existing unacceptable intersection LOS
from LOS D to LOS E, with a LOS score of 4.59, for bicycles approaching the intersection
WB due to the lack of bike lane on Tank Farm Road. This bicycle impact would be
potentially significant and occur at occupancy of Villaggio’s Lower Area, though would
be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-5.
Project-added automobile traffic would impact the SB left queue that would exceed
capacity in the PM peak hour, as it would exacerbate the 95th-percentile turning movement
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-79
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
queues and exceed the available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing impact
would be potentially significant and occur at occupation of Madonna Froom Ranch, and
would remain significant and unavoidable with the implementation of MM TRANS-6.
Intersection #16: South Higuera Street / Prado Road
Project-added automobile traffic would impact the NB left queue and SB left queue in the
AM and PM peak hours, as it would exacerbate the 95th-percentile turning movement
queues and exceed the available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing impact
would be potentially significant and occur at occupation of Madonna Froom Ranch, though
would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-7.
Roadway Segments #1 and #2: LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive and
from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road
Roadway segments #1 and #2 on LOVR (the stretch between Prefumo Canyon Road and
Madonna Road) currently operate at an unacceptable segment pedestrian LOS of D and F
due to lack of adequate buffer between pedestrians and high-speed vehicular traffic. The
Project would exacerbate these conditions with additional vehicle and person trips and
would further degrade already exceeded LOS standards. This pedestrian impact would be
potentially significant and occur at occupation of Villaggio’s Lower Area, though would
be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-8.
Roadway Segments #3, #4, #5 and #6: LOVR from Madonna Road to South Higuera Street
Roadway segments #3, #4, #5, and #6 on LOVR (the stretch between Madonna Road and
South Higuera Street) currently operate at an unacceptable segment pedestrian LOS of D
and F due to lack of sidewalks or adequate buffer between pedestrians and high-speed
vehicular traffic. The Project would exacerbate these conditions with additional vehicle
and person trips and would further degrade already exceeded LOS standards. This
pedestrian impact would be potentially significant and occur at occupation of Villaggio’s
Lower Area, though would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of
MM TRANS-9.
Roadway Segment #11: Madonna Road from LOVR to Dalidio Drive
Roadway segment #11 on Madonna Road (from LOVR to Dalidio Drive) currently
operates at an unacceptable segment pedestrian LOS of D and F due to lack of limited
pedestrian access and insufficient buffer between pedestrians and high-speed vehicular
traffic. The Project would exacerbate these conditions with additional vehicle and person
3.13-80 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
trips and would further degrade already exceeded LOS standards. This pedestrian impact
would be potentially significant and occur at occupation of Villaggio’s Lower Area, though
could be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-10.
Local Road “A” – Neighborhood Traffic Analysis
Based on the trip generation and trip distribution analysis conducted for the internal Project
trips, proposed Local Road ”A” is estimated to have a daily traffic volume of 250 vpd, well
within the City General Plan CE maximum ADT threshold of 1,500 vpd for local streets.
While street designs are preliminary at this point, the geometric design (i.e., width and
straight alignment) of Local Road ”A” includes 12-foot wide travel lanes and lacks features
such as street parking, bulb-outs/medians, horizontal curves or other features that are
typically required to maintain automobile speeds within the City’s established maximum
target of 25 mph. This Neighborhood Traffic Management impact would be potentially
significant and occur at occupation of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be reduced
to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-11.
Public Transit Access
Regarding public transit, one new bus stop is proposed along SB LOVR, just south of the
Project’s primary access at the proposed intersection of Commercial Collector “A” with
LOVR at Auto Park Way. The Applicant would coordinate with SLO Transit to integrate
the new stop with existing SLO Transit routes 2A and 2B. Although transit service to
Project vicinity is infrequent (i.e., 1-hour headways), the TIS projected that the Madonna
Froom Ranch component of the Project would add very few trips to the existing transit
services, which could be accommodated by the existing transit capacity. However,
residents of Villaggio would also generate additional demand for transit services.
Elderly populations and senior living communities can generate a greater amount of
demand for transit services compared to typical residential land uses due to lower
percentages of licensed or capable drivers and hindered mobility. Villaggio’s Life
Community Plan is proposed as a senior living facility intended to accommodate both
active and less-abled seniors over the age of 65, including seniors with health conditions
and disabilities. Many of these residents may be unable to drive and/or are less likely to
utilize more active modes of transportation (e.g., walking, bicycling). As such, the
Villaggio component of the Project is anticipated to result in a high demand for transit
services. Though the Project proposes a transit stop along an existing bus route at the
proposed LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection, this transit stop is located nearly 0.5 mile
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-81
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
from some residential areas within Villaggio. Such a distance can prove inaccessible for
many populations, particularly elderly populations with health conditions or disabilities.
Due to the high demand for transit and the inaccessibility to the nearest transit facility by
Villaggio residents, impacts are considered to be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-6 shall apply.
MM TRANS-2 The Project Applicant shall design and construct the extension of the
westbound left-turn pocket at the LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
intersection to provide a storage length of 320 feet, and design and
construct the extension of the southbound right-turn pocket at the
LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps intersection to provide a storage
length of 140 feet. In coordination with the Applicant, the City and
Caltrans shall also optimize traffic signal timings and coordination
between LOVR/Calle Joaquin and LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps. If
improvements are constructed sooner by others, the Applicant may be
responsible for a fair share contribution towards improvement costs. This
mitigation measure requires Caltrans approval and coordination.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for roadway improvements
and a Traffic Engineering Study for signal timing recommendations for
review and approval by the City. Implementation of improvements shall
be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or building
permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development. If improvements are
completed sooner by others, the Applicant shall make a fair share
contribution prior to issuance of building permits for the Madonna Froom
Ranch development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-3 The Project Applicant shall design and install measures to restrict left
turns at the South Higuera Street/Vachell Lane intersection, extend
Buckley Road from Vachell Lane to South Higuera Street, and install a
3.13-82 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
traffic signal at Buckley Road/South Higuera Street intersection. If
improvements are constructed sooner by others, the Applicant may be
responsible for a fair share contribution towards improvement costs. This
mitigation measure requires County approval and coordination.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by
the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or building permits for the Madonna Froom
Ranch development. If improvements are completed sooner by others, the
Applicant shall make a fair share contribution prior to issuance of building
permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-4 The Project Applicant shall design and install the restriping of the
westbound approach of the South Higuera Street/Suburban Road
intersection to extend the left- and right-turn pocket storage to 250 feet.
If improvements are constructed sooner by others, the Applicant may be
responsible for a fair share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by
the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or building permits for Madonna Froom Ranch
development. If improvements are completed sooner by others, the
Applicant may be responsible for making a fair share contribution prior
to issuance of building permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch
development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-83
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
MM TRANS-5 The Project Applicant shall extend the westbound bike lane on Tank Farm
Road approaching the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road intersection
to the intersection and install a bike box to facilitate bicycle left-turn
movements. If improvements are constructed sooner by others, the
Applicant may be responsible for a fair share contribution towards
improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by
the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area
development. If improvements are completed sooner by others, the
Applicant may be responsible for a fair share contribution prior to
issuance of building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-6 The Project Applicant shall design and install a second southbound left-
turn lane at the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road intersection. The
Project Applicant shall also pay fair share costs for construction of the
Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project. If intersection improvements
are constructed sooner by others, the Applicant will be responsible for a
fair share contribution towards improvement costs through participation
in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by
the City for the South Higuera/Tank Farm intersection improvements.
Implementation of intersection improvements shall be completed prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or building permits for the
Madonna Froom Ranch development. Intersection improvement costs
exceeding the Project’s proportional share may be eligible for fee credits
or reimbursements. Participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact
Fee program will fulfill the Project’s fair share financial obligation
3.13-84 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
towards the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project and the South
Higuera/Tank Farm Road intersection improvements, if constructed
sooner by others. Payment of City Transportation Impact Fees shall be
required prior to issuance of building permits for each development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant pays fair share costs
in accordance to the approved phase and design plans.
MM TRANS-7 The Project Applicant shall design and install a second northbound left-
turn lane at the South Higuera Street/Prado Road intersection, which
requires the replacement of the Prado Road Bridge just west of South
Higuera. Project is responsible for implementation prior to development
of Madonna Froom Ranch, or fair share contribution through
participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program if
improvements are constructed sooner by others.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by
the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or building permits for the Madonna Froom
Ranch development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s
proportional share may be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements. If
improvements are completed sooner by others, the Applicant shall make
a fair share contribution through participation in the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee program prior to issuance of building permits
for the Madonna Froom Ranch development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-8 The Project Applicant shall design and install Class IV bikeways
(protected bike lanes) along LOVR to provide a physical buffer between
the sidewalk and vehicular traffic lanes. Improvement extents shall occur
in the northbound direction between Laguna Lane and Diablo Drive, and
in the southbound direction between Diablo Drive and Madonna Road.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-85
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Project is responsible for fair share contribution towards improvement
costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by
the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area
development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional
share may be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-9 The Project Applicant shall design and install ADA-compliant curb,
gutter and sidewalk along the west side of LOVR to complete the sidewalk
connection between the Irish Hills Plaza and Calle Joaquin. The Project
Applicant shall also design and install Class IV bikeways (protected bike
lanes) along LOVR to provide a physical buffer between the sidewalk and
vehicular traffic lanes in the northbound and southbound directions
between Madonna Road and South Higuera Street. The Project is
responsible for all costs related to construction of sidewalks, curb and
gutter, and a fair share contribution towards Class IV bikeway
improvements. This mitigation measure requires Caltrans approval and
coordination for improvements near LOVR/U.S. 101 interchange.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by
the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area
development. Bikeway improvement costs exceeding the Project’s
proportional share may be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
3.13-86 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
MM TRANS-10 The Project Applicant shall design and install a Class I Multi-Use Path
parallel to Madonna Road between Oceanaire Drive and the U.S. 101
southbound ramps intersection. The Project is responsible for a fair share
contribution towards improvements through payment of City Traffic
Impact Fees.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by
the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or building permits for Villaggio’s Lower Area
development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s proportional
share may be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements. If improvements
are completed sooner by others, the Applicant shall make a fair share
contribution through participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact
Fee program prior to issuance of building permits for Villaggio’s Lower
Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-11 The Project is responsible for incorporating traffic calming measures
(e.g., speed humps, bulb-outs, chicanes, etc.) into the design of Local
Road “A” prior to development of Villaggio’s Lower Area.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by
the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or building permits for development of
Villaggio’s Lower Area.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-87
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Residual Impacts
Ten of the identified Existing plus Project impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation while one impact would be unavoidable and significant (see Table 3.13-33).
With implementation of MM TRANS-2 through -5 and MM TRANS-7 through -11,
impacts under Existing plus Project conditions would be reduced to a less than significant
level with mitigation (Figure 3.13-3). Similarly, implementation of MM AQ-6, requiring
the Applicant for the Villaggio Life Community Plan provide shuttle services for residents
of Villaggio, would address the demands of the proposed senior resident population on
transit facilities and reduce impacts to a less than significant level with mitigation.
However, implementation of MM TRANS-6 requires the completion of the Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project, which cannot be ensured by this Project. Therefore, if Prado
Road Overpass/Interchange project is not in place by Project occupancy, impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.
3.13-88 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
PARKING HERE MAYPARKING HERE MAY
BE REMOVEDBE REMOVED
IN PLACE BY OPERATION OFIN PLACE BY OPERATION OF
MADONNA FROOM RANCH ROADMADONNA FROOM RANCH ROAD
WIDENING TO ACCOMMODATE DUALWIDENING TO ACCOMMODATE DUAL
LEFT-TURN, DUAL THROUGH, AND RIGHTLEFT-TURN, DUAL THROUGH, AND RIGHT
TURN LANES ON ALL APPROACHESTURN LANES ON ALL APPROACHESPR
A
D
O
R
O
A
D
PR
A
D
O
R
O
A
D
SOUTH HIGUERA STREETSOUTH HIGUERA STREETPR
A
D
O
R
O
A
D
SOUTH HIGUERA STREETINTERSECTIONINTERSECTION
1616
INTERSECTION
16
IN PLACE BY OPERATION OF
MADONNA FROOM RANCH ROAD
WIDENING TO ACCOMMODATE DUAL
LEFT-TURN, DUAL THROUGH, AND RIGHT
TURN LANES ON ALL APPROACHES
PARKING HERE MAY
BE REMOVEDEXTEND NORTHBOUNDEXTEND NORTHBOUND
RIGHT TURN LANERIGHT TURN LANE
TO 230 FEETTO 230 FEET
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
TANK FARM ROADTANK FARM ROAD
SOUTH HIGUERA STREETSOUTH HIGUERA STREETTANK FARM ROAD
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
SOUTH HIGUERA STREETINTERSECTIONINTERSECTION
1515
INTERSECTION
15
EXTEND THE WESTBOUNDEXTEND THE WESTBOUND
BIKE LANE TOBIKE LANE TO
THE INTERSECTIONTHE INTERSECTION
EXTEND THE WESTBOUND
BIKE LANE TO
THE INTERSECTION
ADD SECONDADD SECOND
SOUTHBOUND LEFTSOUTHBOUND LEFT
TURN LANE ANDTURN LANE AND
EXTEND TO 300 FEETEXTEND TO 300 FEET
ADD SECOND
SOUTHBOUND LEFT
TURN LANE AND
EXTEND TO 300 FEET
EXTEND NORTHBOUND
RIGHT TURN LANE
TO 230 FEET
RESTRIPE LEFT ANDRESTRIPE LEFT AND
RIGHT TURN LANESRIGHT TURN LANES
AND EXTEND THE LEFTAND EXTEND THE LEFT
TURN LANE TO 250 FEETTURN LANE TO 250 FEET
SUBURBAN ROADSUBURBAN ROADSUBURBAN ROADINTERSECTIONINTERSECTION
1414
INTERSECTION
14
RESTRIPE LEFT AND
RIGHT TURN LANES
AND EXTEND THE LEFT
TURN LANE TO 250 FEET
Note: Extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera is part of the overall
mitigations strategy for South Higuera/Vachell Lane.
RESTRICTRESTRICT
LEFT TURNSLEFT TURNS
INTO AND OUT OFINTO AND OUT OF
INTERSECTIONINTERSECTION
SOUTH HIGUERA STREETSOUTH HIGUERA STREETVACHELL LANEVACHELL LANESOUTH HIGUERA STREETVACHELL LANEINTERSECTIONINTERSECTION
1313
INTERSECTION
13
RESTRICT
LEFT TURNS
INTO AND OUT OF
INTERSECTION
Aerial Source: Google 2017.
050
FEET
N
Aerial Source: Google 2017.
0 62.5
FEET
N
Aerial Source: Google 2017.
050
FEET
N
Aerial Source: Google 2017.
050
FEET
N
Note: Project is contributing to these improvements through City trans-
portation impact fees. These diagrams depict the planned long-
term fee-funded improvement that is assumed to be in place with
or without the project by Cumulative Year 2035. Highlighted lanes
indicate project-related mitigations.
Partial List of Applicant Funded City Improvements to
Transportation Network – Intersections 13, 14, 15, and 16
[depicted improvements are not representative of final design plans,
and may be constructed in conjunction with other projects in the area]3.13-3
FIGURE
3.13-89
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.13-90 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
Table 3.13-33. Existing Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary
Location Trigger Transportation
Mode
Mitigation
Measure Impact
Intersection #10: LOVR /
U.S. 101 SB Ramps
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-2
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Intersection #13: South
Higuera Street / Vachell
Lane
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto TRANS-3
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Intersection #14: South
Higuera Street / Suburban
Road
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-4
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Intersection #15: South
Higuera Street / Tank
Farm Road
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Development of
Madonna
Froom Ranch
Bicycle
Auto (Queue)
TRANS-5
TRANS-6
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Significant and
Unavoidable
Intersection #16: South
Higuera Street / Prado Road
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-7
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Roadway Segments #1 and
#2: LOVR from Prefumo
Canyon Road to Oceanaire
Drive and from Oceanaire
Drive to Madonna Road
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Pedestrian TRANS-8
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Roadway Segments #3, #4,
#5 and #6: LOVR from
Madonna Road to South
Higuera Street
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Pedestrian TRANS-9
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Roadway Segment #11:
Madonna Road from LOVR
to Dalidio Drive
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Pedestrian TRANS-10
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Local Road “A”
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Neighborhood
Traffic
Management
TRANS-11
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Source: TIS; see Appendix J. For a complete description of all intersections, roadway segments, bike paths, sidewalks,
and transit facilities, see Tables 3.1-48 through 3.1-57 on pages 130 through 149 of the TIS.
Bolded items indicate significant an unavoidable impacts.
Note: MM AQ-6 applies to reduce VMT through trip reduction.
Impact TRANS-3 Under Near-Term plus Project (Scenario 2) conditions, the
addition of Project traffic would exacerbate existing queuing
and peak hour traffic for automobiles and poor levels of service
for pedestrians and bike modes of transportation, causing
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
transportation deficiencies in the Project vicinity (Significant
and Unavoidable).
Using vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle trip generation and distribution data, and increased
transit demand, the TIS analyzed the potential transportation impacts of the Project on
multi-modal facilities and operations, including intersections, roadway segments, bike
paths, sidewalks, and transit routes under Near-Term plus Project conditions. As mentioned
previously, analysis results for Near-Term Scenario 2, which does not assume completion
of the Prado Interchange Project prior to occupancy of the Project, are presented herein as
a conservative, worst-case basis for analysis of potential project impacts. Near-Term
conditions and Near-Term plus Project conditions were compared to determine the degree
of change projected for each of the transportation facilities potentially impacted by Project
trips. The TIS identifies multi-modal AM and PM peak hour LOS for intersection LOS and
queuing, roadway segments, bike paths, sidewalks, and transit routes. The Near-Term plus
Project LOS was compared with City thresholds of significance to determine where
significant impacts would occur to intersections, roadway segments, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and transit operations as a result of Project implementation. Figures 3.1-20
through 3.1-23 found on pages 210 to 213 of the TIS illustrate the Near-Term plus Project
lane geometries, traffic controls at the study intersections, and the Near-Term plus Project
peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections (Appendix J).
Potentially significant operational impacts to multi-modal transportation would occur at
occupation of Villaggio’s Lower Area and subsequently at occupation of Madonna Froom
Ranch, including 15 separate intersections and roadway segments due to increased
automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic under Near-Term plus Project conditions. These
include automobile impacts at eight locations, bicycle and pedestrian related impacts at
eight locations, and one impact due to neighborhood traffic management impact. These
impacts under Near-Term plus Project conditions and associated mitigation are
summarized below.
Near-Term Plus Project Impact Summary
Intersection #1: LOVR and Foothill Boulevard
Project-added automobile traffic would exacerbate the SB left-turn lane queue in the AM
peak hour, as it would exceed the available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing
impact would be potentially significant and occur at occupancy of Villaggio’s Lower Area,
though could feasibly be reduced by the implementation of MM TRANS-12. However,
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-91
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
given the LOVR/Foothill Boulevard intersection is County jurisdiction, improvement of
this intersection to address Near-Term plus Project traffic would be outside of the City’s
control. Necessary improvements proposed by the City would need to be accepted by the
County, but there is always a possibility that the improvements are not approved by the
County, and therefore cannot be implemented. Therefore, impacts are conservatively
considered significant and unavoidable due to this possibility.
Intersection #6: LOVR and Madonna Road
Project-added vehicular and pedestrian traffic would exacerbate unacceptable pedestrian
intersection LOS for pedestrians crossing LOVR during the PM peak hour from LOS C to
LOS D, with a LOS score of 3.53. Project-added vehicular and bicycle traffic would
exacerbate Near-term unacceptable intersection LOS for bicycles approaching the
intersection WB on Madonna Road from LOS D to LOS E, with a LOS score of 4.63.
Project-added traffic would exacerbate existing SB right queue and WB right queue in the
PM peak hour. These vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle impacts would be potentially
significant and occur at occupancy of Villaggio’s Lower Area, and would remain
significant and unavoidable with the implementation of MM TRANS-13, MM TRANS-
16, and MM TRANS-19.
Intersection #10: LOVR and U.S. 101 SB Ramps
Project-added automobile traffic would impact the SB right-turn lane queue in the PM peak
hour, as it would exacerbate the 95th-percentile turning movement queues and exceed the
available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing impact would be potentially
significant and occur at occupancy of Madonna Froom Ranch, and would remain
significant and unavoidable with the implementation of MM TRANS-2 and MM TRANS-
6.
Intersection #15: South Higuera Street / Tank Farm Road
Project-added vehicular and pedestrian traffic would exacerbate unacceptable pedestrian
intersection LOS that reflects crossing timing constraint across South Higuera Street during
the PM peak hour from LOS C to LOS D, with a LOS score of 3.67. Project-added
vehicular and bicycle traffic would exacerbate Near-term unacceptable intersection LOS
for bicycles approaching the intersection WB from LOS D to LOS E due to the lack of bike
lane on Tank Farm Road, with a LOS score of 5.19. These pedestrian and bicycle impacts
would be potentially significant and occur at occupancy of Villaggio’s Lower Area, though
3.13-92 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-15 and
MM TRANS-5.
Project-added automobile traffic would impact the NB right queue during the AM and PM
peak hours and the SB left-turn queue in the AM peak hour, as it would exacerbate the
95th-percentile turning movement queues and exceed the available turn pocket capacity.
This automobile queuing impact would be potentially significant and occur at occupancy
of Madonna Froom Ranch, and would remain significant and unavoidable with the
implementation of MM TRANS-16 and TRANS-6.
Intersection #16: South Higuera Street / Prado Road
Project-added automobile traffic would impact the SB left-turn queue in the AM peak hour,
as it would exacerbate the 95th-percentile turning movement queues and exceed the
available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing impact would be potentially
significant and occur at occupancy of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be reduced
to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-17.
Intersection #18: Madonna Road / Oceanaire Drive
Project-added automobile traffic would impact the WB right-turn queue in the AM peak
hour, as it would exacerbate the 95th-percentile turning movement queues and exceed the
available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing impact would be potentially
significant and occur at occupancy of Madonna Froom Ranch, and would remain
significant and unavoidable with the implementation of MM TRANS-6.
Intersection #19: Madonna Road and Dalidio Drive
Project-added automobile traffic would exacerbate the EB right-turn queue during both the
AM and PM peak hour, as it would exacerbate the 95th-percentile turning movement queues
and exceed the available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing impact would be
potentially significant and occur at occupancy of Madonna Froom Ranch, and would
remain significant and unavoidable with the implementation of MM TRANS-20.
Intersections #20 and #21: Madonna Road / U.S. 101 SB Ramps and Madonna Road / U.S.
101 NB Ramps
Project-added automobile traffic would exceed Caltrans standards for the U.S. 101 SB and
NB Ramps in the PM peak hour from LOS D to LOS D and LOS D to LOS E respectively,
with LOS scores of D (V/C ratio 1.21) and E (V/C ratio 1.17), respectively. This
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-93
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
automobile LOS impact would be potentially significant and occur at occupancy of
Villaggio’s Lower Area, and would remain significant and unavoidable with the
implementation of MM TRANS-14.
Roadway Segments #1 and #2: LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive and
from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road
Roadway segments #1 and #2 on LOVR (the stretch between Prefumo Canyon Road and
Madonna Road) currently operate at an unacceptable segment pedestrian LOS of D and F
due to lack of sufficient buffer area between pedestrians and high-speed vehicular traffic.
The Project would exacerbate these conditions with additional vehicle and person trips and
would further degrade already exceeded LOS standards. This pedestrian impact would be
potentially significant and occur at occupancy of Villaggio’s Lower Area, though would
be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-8.
Roadway Segments #3, #4, #5 and #6: LOVR from Madonna Road to South Higuera Street
Roadway segments #3, #4, #5, and #6 on LOVR (the stretch between Madonna Road and
South Higuera Street) currently operate at an unacceptable segment pedestrian LOS of D
and F due to lack of sidewalks or sufficient buffer area between pedestrians and vehicular
traffic. The Project would exacerbate these conditions with additional vehicle and person
trips and would further degrade already exceeded LOS standards. This pedestrian impact
would be potentially significant and occur at occupancy of Villaggio’s Lower Area, though
would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-9.
Roadway Segment #5: LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps to U.S. 101 NB Ramps
Project-added automobile traffic would exceed the City’s standard in the SB direction
during the PM peak hour from LOS D to LOS E. This automobile LOS impact would be
potentially significant and occur at occupation of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would
be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-18.
Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-2 shall apply.
MM TRANS-5 shall apply.
MM TRANS-6 shall apply.
MM TRANS-8 shall apply.
3.13-94 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
MM TRANS-9 shall apply.
MM TRANS-12 In coordination with the County, the Project Applicant shall coordinate
and fund any costs required to optimize the traffic signal timing at the
County intersection of LOVR/Foothill Boulevard to reduce queues for
the southbound left-turn movement. This mitigation measure requires
County approval and coordination.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of
the final VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the
Applicant shall submit a Traffic Engineering Study identifying
recommended signal timing modifications for review and approval by
the County. Signal optimization shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the County prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy or
building permits for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant implements the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share to the satisfaction of the County.
MM TRANS-13 In coordination with the City, the Project Applicant shall fund any costs
required to implement Lead Pedestrian Intervals for each pedestrian
crossing phase at the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of
the final VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the
Applicant shall submit a Traffic Engineering Study identifying
recommended signal timing modifications for review and approval by
the City. The proposed Lead Pedestrian Intervals shall be installed prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or building permits for
Villaggio’s Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-14 The Project Applicant shall pay fair share costs for construction of the
Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project and northbound U.S. 101
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-95
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
ramps through participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee
program.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Participation in the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill the Project’s fair share
financial obligation towards the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange
project. Payment of City Transportation Impact Fees shall be required
prior to issuance of building permits for each development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an
appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-15 In coordination with the City, the Project Applicant shall fund any costs
required to implement Lead Pedestrian Intervals for each pedestrian
crossing phase at the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of
the final VTM for development of Villaggio’s Lower Area, the
Applicant shall submit a Traffic Engineering Study identifying
recommended signal timing modifications for review and approval by
the City. The proposed Lead Pedestrian Intervals shall be installed prior
to the issuance of an occupancy or building permit for Villaggio’s
Lower Area development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-16 The Project Applicant shall design and install improvements to extend
the northbound right-turn pocket storage at the South Higuera
Street/Tank Farm Road intersection to 230 feet. If improvements are
constructed sooner by others, the Applicant may be responsible for a
fair share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of
the final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the
Applicant shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and
approval by the City. The proposed improvements shall be completed
3.13-96 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
prior to the issuance of an occupancy or building permit for Madonna
Froom Ranch development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s
proportional share may be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements. If
constructed sooner by others, participation in the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill the Project’s fair share
financial obligation. Payment of City Transportation Impact Fees shall
be required prior to issuance of building permits for each development
phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-17 The Project Applicant shall design and install restriping modifications
at the South Higuera Street/Prado Road intersection to accommodate a
second southbound left-turn lane and second eastbound through lane.
This requires striping modifications, potential street parking removal
on the eastern leg of the intersection, and potential traffic signal
modifications to accommodate the modified intersection configuration.
If intersection improvements are constructed sooner by others, the
Applicant will be responsible for a fair share contribution towards
improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of
the final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the
Applicant shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and
approval by the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the
issuance of an occupancy or building permit for the Madonna Froom
Ranch development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s
proportional share may be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements. If
constructed sooner by others, participation in the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill the Project’s fair share
financial obligation. Payment of City Transportation Impact Fees shall
be required prior to issuance of building permits for each development
phase.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-97
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-18 In coordination with the City and Caltrans, the Project Applicant shall
fund any costs required to optimize traffic signal timings at three
intersections along LOVR between Calle Joaquin and the U.S. 101
northbound ramps to improve traffic coordination and operations along
this roadway segment. These intersections include LOVR/Calle
Joaquin, LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps, and LOVR/U.S. 101
northbound ramps. This requires coordination with Caltrans.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of
the final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the
Applicant shall submit a Traffic Engineering Study identifying
recommended signal timing modifications for review and approval by
the City and Caltrans. Signal optimization shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City and Caltrans prior to City issuance of a certificate
of occupancy or building permits for Madonna Froom Ranch
development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-19 The Project Applicant shall design and install restriping modifications
at the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection to increase turn pocket
storage to 365 feet and optimize signal timings to improve operations
and reduce queuing at the SB left-turn lane. If intersection
improvements are constructed sooner by others, the Applicant will be
responsible for a fair share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of
the final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the
Applicant shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and
approval by the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the
issuance of an occupancy or building permit for the Madonna Froom
Ranch development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s
3.13-98 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
proportional share may be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements. If
constructed sooner by others, participation in the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill the Project’s fair share
financial obligation. Payment of City Transportation Impact Fees shall
be required prior to issuance of building permits for each development
phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
MM TRANS-20 The Project Applicant shall modify the traffic signal at the Madonna
Road/Dalidio Drive intersection to provide EB right-turn overlap phase
concurrent with NB left-turn phase. If intersection improvements are
constructed sooner by others, the Applicant will be responsible for a
fair share contribution towards improvement costs.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of
the final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the
Applicant shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and
approval by the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the
issuance of an occupancy or building permit for the Madonna Froom
Ranch development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project’s
proportional share may be eligible for fee credits or reimbursements. If
constructed sooner by others, participation in the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee program will fulfill the Project’s fair share
financial obligation. Payment of City Transportation Impact Fees shall
be required prior to issuance of building permits for each development
phase.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
Residual Impacts
Six of the identified impacts would be less than significant with mitigation while six
impacts would be unavoidable and significant (see Table 3.13-34). With implementation
of MM TRANS-2, -5, -8, -9, -13, and -15 through -20, impacts under Near-Term plus
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-99
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.13-100 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
Project conditions would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation.
However, MM TRANS-12 involves improvement of an intersection that is within County
jurisdiction and MM TRANS-18 requires approval by Caltrans for improvements to U.S.
101 facilities. Implementation of these improvements would be outside of the City’s
control and cannot be ensured. If these improvements could not be agreed to with the
County or Caltrans or could not be implemented, impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
Similarly, implementation of MM TRANS-6, -14, -19, and -20 require the completion of
the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project, which cannot be ensured by this Project.
While MM TRANS-6 and -20 require completion of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange
project by development of Madonna Froom Ranch (Phase 4), MM TRANS-14 and -19
requires completion of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project by development of
Villaggio’s Lower Area (Phase 2) due to additional contributions towards operational
deficiencies at several intersections and roadway segments by traffic generated by other
development projects already planned and approved, but not yet occupied. Therefore, if the
Prado Road Overpass/Interchange is not in place by Project occupancy under Near-Term
plus Project conditions, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Table 3.13-34. Near-Term Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary
Location Trigger Transportation
Mode
Mitigation
Measure Impact
Intersection #1:
LOVR / Foothill
Boulevard
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Auto (Queue) TRANS-12 Significant and
Unavoidable.
Intersection #6:
LOVR / Madonna
Road
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Vehicle
TRANS-14
TRANS-15
TRANS-19
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
Intersection #10:
LOVR / U.S. 101 SB
Ramps
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-2
TRANS-6
Significant and
Unavoidable
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-101
Draft EIR
Table 3.13-34. Near-Term Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary
(Continued)
Location Trigger Transportation
Mode
Mitigation
Measure Impact
Intersection #15:
South Higuera Street /
Tank Farm Road
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Auto (Queue)
TRANS-15
TRANS-5
TRANS-16
TRANS-6
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Significant and
Unavoidable
Intersection #16: South
Higuera Street / Prado
Road
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-17
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Intersection #18:
South Higuera Street /
Prado Road
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-6 Significant and
Unavoidable
Intersection #19:
Madonna Road /
Dalidio Drive
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-20 Significant and
Unavoidable
Intersection #20 and
#21: South Higuera
Street / Prado Road
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-14 Significant and
Unavoidable
Roadway Segments #1
and #2: LOVR from
Prefumo Canyon Road
to Oceanaire Drive and
from Oceanaire Drive
to Madonna Road
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Pedestrian TRANS-8
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Roadway Segments #3,
#4, #5 and #6: LOVR
from Madonna Road to
South Higuera Street
Development of
Villaggio Lower
Area
Pedestrian TRANS-9
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Roadway Segment #5:
LOVR from U.S. 101
SB Ramps to U.S. 101
NB Ramps
Development of
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto TRANS-18
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Source: TIS; see Appendix J. For a complete description of all intersections, roadway segments, bike paths, sidewalks
and transit facilities, see Tables 3.1-48 through 3.1-57 on pages 130 through 149 of the TIS.
Bolded items indicate significant an unavoidable impacts.
Note: MM AQ-6 also applies to reduce VMT and trips.
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Impact TRANS-4. The Project 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 (Less than
Significant with Mitigation).
Traffic Safety
The segment of LOVR between Froom Ranch Way and Calle Joaquin has been identified
as being a high-collision rate location and the design of this segment is not consistent with
City access management or design standards for a Parkway Arterial Street. Implementation
of the Project would add traffic to this segment, exacerbating these existing deficiencies.
Impacts of the Project on this segment are therefore considered potentially significant,
though could be reduced to less than significant by implementation of MM TRANS-21.
The County segment of South Higuera Street between LOVR and Clover Ridge Lane was
also identified as having a higher Fatal-plus-Injury rate compared to statewide averages for
similar facilities. However, as detailed in the TIS, implementation of the Project would add
a nominal amount of traffic to this roadway segment, and is not considered to exacerbate
these existing trends. Impacts of the Project on traffic safety at this roadway segment is
considered less than significant.
Emergency Evacuation
The Project would substantially increase the total number of people in the area that may be
subject to evacuation during a wildland fire or other natural hazard event. During periods
of maximum occupancy, 1,231 residents and employees could be onsite within the
proposed residential and commercial areas. In addition, residents of the health care unit,
which includes skilled nursing and memory care, may require special evacuation, as well
as family members visiting residents of Villaggio who may also be onsite. The Project
includes a new road at the intersection of LOVR and Auto Park Way as the primary ingress
and egress route to the site for private vehicles and first responders. The Project also
includes a gated emergency access from the Upper Terrace of Villaggio to the parking lot
of Mountainbrook Church uphill from the Project site, which would connect to Calle
Joaquin. Emergency access would also be possible from the Irish Hills Plaza parking lot.
During major wildfire events, residents, employees, hotel guests, and visitors may attempt
or be required to evacuate the site, which would potentially lead to hundreds of vehicles
attempting to leave the Project site in a short period under emergency conditions. As
3.13-102 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
currently proposed, evacuation routes would either funnel evacuees from Villaggio’s
Lower Area and Madonna Froom Ranch through a proposed roundabout to the proposed
intersection with LOVR, or lead evacuees uphill toward the western boundary of the
Project site near the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Such congested emergency evacuation
conditions could be exacerbated by vans or ambulances carrying assisted living and/or
memory care patients requiring additional care, as well as the need for emergency vehicles
and firefighting personnel and equipment to access the site concurrently with the evacuees.
While the Project includes an emergency access route via the Mountainbrook Church, this
access extends uphill toward the Irish Hills and the potential path of any wildfire, thereby
decreasing its utility as a safe emergency evacuation route. Residents, workers, and guests
of the Project may also evacuate through the Home Depot parking lot. Because the
emergency access route via Mountainbrook Church could potentially take evacuees closer
to a potential hazard or wildfire, it is assumed that the majority of Project site occupants
will evacuate through the site’s main entrance. Therefore, evacuating vehicles would be
funneled towards and contribute to congestion on the Project site’s main access route
(Commercial Collector “A”) to LOVR. This could result in a potentially significant impact
given probable evacuation-related congestion, potential road closures, and exposure of
evacuees to smoke, flames, ash and embers, downed power lines and trees or traffic-related
hazards during evacuation.
Further, Villaggio contains only one road that connects the Upper Terrace and Lower Area
of Villaggio, so the Upper Terrace would lose access to lower portions of the site and only
have access through Mountainbrook Church in the event Local Road “C” becomes blocked.
During emergency conditions when a wildland fire is imminent, it may prove difficult for
the healthcare center to marshal panicked individuals, particularly patients in assisted
living such as those on hospice or with dementia, to fire meeting points and shelter-in-place
locations, especially if site conditions quickly change. Some residents and visitors may
resist or flee, creating chaotic, unmanageable conditions.
This hazardous impact would be potentially significant.
Emergency Access to the Vicinity
The Project includes four emergency access points that would be available for emergency
vehicles and fire suppression crews to access the site. These include the primary access
roadway at LOVR/Auto Park Way; the emergency access gate at Mountainbrook Church,
which would provide access through the Upper Terrace; the Irish Hills Plaza parking lot
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-103
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
emergency access, which would provide access to Madonna Froom Ranch; and an internal
emergency access road through the proposed public park, which travels through the
proposed public park in the Madonna Froom Ranch portion of the Project site adjacent to
the Irish Hills (see Figure 2-9).
The Project proposes internal fire access roads around the developed areas that would
include spurs to facilitate access to interior structures, as well as turn-around points to
accommodate the needs of fire engines or other emergency vehicles. The SLOFD is
required to review the Draft FRSP for compliance with SLOFD requirements which
include access, roads, and turn-around locations within the Project site.
With regard to emergency vehicle access associated with wildfire emergencies, access to
the adjacent slopes of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve under the Project would be limited.
Villaggio’s Lower Area includes 13 detached units along the boundary directly adjacent to
the Reserve that wildland fires coming from the hillsides could affect, and there is no
through vehicular access proposed behind these residences to the Irish Hills to allow
protection of these structures. Firefighters would have to secure access between buildings
and would be inhibited by retaining walls and perimeter fencing. In addition, Madonna
Froom Ranch provides the only access road to the Irish Hills, so firefighting vehicles
attempting to access the site perimeter through this proposed medium-density multi-family
neighborhood may conflict with evacuating private vehicles. Access to the wildland
perimeter in this neighborhood would also be impeded by retaining walls and perimeter
fencing (see Figure 2-8).
Proposed fencing and retaining walls along the western edge of the Project site would
reduce access to wildfire areas and the existing unpaved utility access roads (e.g., Neil
Havlik Way) for the purposes of fire suppression and protection of proposed development
within the site. Impacts to emergency access would therefore be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-4 shall apply.
MM TRANS-21 The Project shall include a landscaped median along LOVR from the
terminus of the existing median at northern Project frontage to Calle
Joaquin. Project is responsible for construction of median
improvements prior to occupancy of the Lower Area of Villaggio, or
fair-share contribution if constructed by others sooner.
3.13-104 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above median improvement prior to adoption and
submitted to the City for review and approval. The median shall be
integrated to the final VTM prior to approval of development plans.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated
into the final FRSP prior to Project approval.
MM TRANS-22 The Project shall include an emergency access point from Villaggio’s
Lower Area to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to provide access to the
existing dirt road network to fight fires in Irish Hills, specifically to Neil
Havlik Way which connects to the four utility power line structures at
the top of the ridgeline. This access point may be gated to ensure site
security in consultation with SLOFD.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above emergency access connection prior to adoption
and submitted to the City and SLOFD for review and approval. The
above access road shall be integrated to the final VTM prior to approval
of development plans.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated
into the final FRSP prior to Project approval.
MM TRANS-23 The Project shall integrate access to the Project site perimeters for
defending the Project site development. Specifically, these measures
should address access to the wildland area immediately abutting the
western boundary of Villaggio’s Lower Area. This measure shall
include access from the proposed Local Road “C” to the Irish Hills,
which may include use of space between proposed buildings for
firefighting vehicle access, ramps up proposed retaining walls, and
similar vehicle infrastructure to maintain access to the base of the Irish
Hills.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above emergency access connection along the Irish Hills
prior to adoption, and submitted to the City and SLOFD for review and
approval. The above access road shall be integrated to the final VTM
prior to approval of development plans.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-105
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated
into the final FRSP prior to Project approval.
Residual Impact
Implementation of MM TRANS-21, requiring installation of a landscaped median along
LOVR, would reduce traffic safety impacts of the Project by reducing potential for vehicle
collision along this existing identified high-collision segment. Installation of emergency
access improvements as part of MM TRANS-22 and MM TRANS-23 would reduce
emergency access and evacuation-related transportation impacts by establishing access
routes for firefighting capabilities along the urban-rural interface at the western boundary
of the Project site and for evacuation in the case of an emergency. The potential installation
of access to the Irish Hills and associated annual route maintenance for the implementation
of MM TRANS-22 and MM TRANS-23 could cause additional secondary biological
resource impacts within the Irish Hills, including native serpentine bunchgrass grassland
habitat which corresponds to the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance sensitive natural
community, as well as state protected rare plant species such as Eastwood’s larkspur and
San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover (see Section 4.4, Biological Resources). Implementation of
MM HAZ-4 would further reduce impacts via the creation and implementation of a site-
specific Evacuation Plan. With implementation of MM TRANS-21 through -23 and MM
HAZ-4, residual impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact TRANS-5 Onsite circulation would result in safety impacts to pedestrian
and bicycle access (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
While the specific locations and design of onsite access driveways have not been developed
at a level necessary to conduct detailed review as part of the TIS, future connections to
proposed private and public roadways would be designed per City Engineering Standards
and Access Management Policies. Overall, the Project is anticipated to generate
approximately 2,700 vpd. The volume of traffic on internal commercial collector streets
would be less than the City’s adopted 10,000 vpd threshold, while traffic dispersed on to
internal local streets would be less than 1,000 vpd. Therefore, based on review of
preliminary plans, the proposed onsite vehicle circulation was determined to be adequate
by the Project TIS and the Project would not result in any significant automobile impacts
on Project site streets.
Regarding onsite pedestrian access, the proposed pathways would need to meet the unique
needs of elderly people, some children that would occupy the Project site, and other persons
3.13-106 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
with mobility challenges. Sidewalks are proposed along LOVR from the new transit stop
location north to Irish Hills Plaza, and along Commercial Collectors “A” and “B” and Local
Roads “A” and “B”. These proposed sidewalks would include lighting, paving, bulb-outs
at intersections, and landscaping. While Local Road “C” within Villaggio would not
include sidewalks, a network of private walking trails separated from vehicle roadways
would be provided for Villaggio residents to provide internal access. However, the
following items comprise potentially significant safety issues associated with onsite
pedestrian circulation:
• At the Project’s LOVR/Auto Park Way entry intersection, children and the elderly
may not be able to safely cross the intersection due to the crosswalk’s length and
timing between light cycles;
• Within the site, signage and limited lines of sight from driveways may cause
pedestrian safety impacts to the Project’s potential population; and
• The Project currently does not adhere with the existing City standards for sidewalks
or ADA requirements for a comfortable walking environment.
Regarding onsite bicycle access, the Project includes a proposed bicycle network that
would connect with existing bicycle lanes along LOVR, designed with Class II bike lanes
along Commercial Collector A, and Class III bike routes with shared lane markings
(“sharrows”) along Local Road A and Commercial Collector B. Bicycle parking would be
provided for commercial, recreational, and residential uses within Madonna Froom Ranch
consistent with City Zoning Regulations. However, with regard to bicycle circulation
deficiencies, the following items comprise potentially significant safety issues associated
with onsite bicycle circulation:
• Within the Project site, signage and limited lines of sight from driveways may cause
bicycle safety impacts to the Project’s potential population; and
• The Project does not provide consistency with City-adopted best practices for high-
quality bicycle facility design.
Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-24 To address pedestrian and bicycle circulation safety issues, the
following modifications to the preliminary Project concept designs
throughout the Project site are recommended based on design guidance
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-107
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
published by National Association of City Transportation Officials and
the Federal Highway Administration:
• Install pedestrian refuges within center medians at north and south legs
of the LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection;
• Install a single northbound left-turn lane at the LOVR/Auto Park Way
intersection in lieu of dual left-turn lanes, as currently proposed, to
shorten pedestrian crossing distance at the south leg of the intersection.
• Install a bulb-out at the southwest corner of the intersection to shorten
pedestrian crossing distance at the south leg of the LOVR/Auto Park
Way intersection;
• Install Lead Pedestrian Intervals at all pedestrian crossings at the
LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection;
• Install protected bicycle intersection features as part of signalization
and intersection improvements at the LOVR/Auto Park Way
intersection, consistent with planned improvements at the nearby
LOVR/Froom Ranch Way and Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive
intersections;
• Provide physically protected bicycle lanes (Class IV bikeway) along
LOVR approaching/departing the Auto Park Way intersection and
along Commercial Collector “A”. The Class IV bikeways shall be
installed on-street with a physical barrier between cyclists and
vehicular traffic or by constructing raised bicycle facilities at the
sidewalk level adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks;
• Sidewalks shall be provided within the Madonna Froom Ranch
development area of the Project site as per City standards; and
• Sidewalk design shall meet ADA requirements for a comfortable
walking environment.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The final FRSP shall be amended to
incorporate the above improvements prior to adoption and submitted to the
City and SLOFD for review and approval. The above improvements shall
be integrated to the final VTM prior to approval of development plans.
3.13-108 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into
the final FRSP prior to Project approval.
Residual Impact
With the implementation of MM TRANS-24, Project site circulation and access would
safely accommodate all users of the street system and provide a complete and connected
pedestrian facility between the Project site circulation system and nearby land uses.
Widening or adjustments to pedestrian or bicycle circulation infrastructure may result in
secondary impacts on biological resources (see Section 3.4, Biological Resources).
Ultimately, residual impacts to onsite circulation for automobiles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists would be less than significant with mitigation.
Cumulative Impacts
Impact TRANS-6 Under long-term Cumulative plus Project conditions, Project-
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 (Less than
Significant with Mitigation).
Using vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle trip generation and distribution data, and increased
transit demand, the TIS analyzed the potential transportation impacts of the Project on
multi-modal facilities and operations, including intersections, roadway segments, bike
paths, sidewalks, and transit routes under Cumulative plus Project conditions. Cumulative
conditions and Cumulative plus Project conditions were compared to determine the degree
of change projected for each of the transportation facilities potentially impacted by Project
trips. The TIS identifies multi-modal AM and PM peak hour LOS for intersection LOS and
queuing, roadway segments, bike paths, sidewalks, and transit routes. The Cumulative plus
Project LOS was compared with City thresholds of significance to determine where
significant impacts would occur to intersections, roadway segments, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and transit operations as a result of Project implementation. Figures 3.1-24
through 3.1-29 found on pages 259 to 264 of the TIS illustrate the Cumulative plus Project
lane geometries, traffic controls at the study intersections, and the Cumulative plus Project
peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections (Appendix J).
Potentially significant operational impacts to multi-modal transportation would occur at
occupation of Madonna Froom Ranch, including 14 separate intersections and roadway
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-109
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
segments due to increased automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic under Cumulative
plus Project conditions. These include automobile impacts at six locations, bicycle and
pedestrian related impacts at nine locations. No cumulative impacts to transit facilities or
services were identified. These impacts under Cumulative plus Project conditions and
associated mitigation are summarized below.
Cumulative Plus Project Impact Summary
Intersection #1: LOVR and Foothill Boulevard
Project-added automobile traffic would exacerbate the unacceptable intersection LOS for
automobiles by increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 during the PM peak hour. This automobile
LOS impact would be potentially significant and occur after development of Madonna
Froom Ranch, though would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of
MM TRANS-25.
Intersection #5: LOVR / Royal Way
Project-added automobile traffic would exacerbate the NB left-turn queue in the PM peak
hour, as it would exceed the available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing
impact would be potentially significant and occur after development of Madonna Froom
Ranch, though would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM
TRANS-26.
Intersection #6: LOVR and Madonna Road
Project-added vehicular and pedestrian traffic would exacerbate unacceptable pedestrian
intersection LOS for pedestrians crossing LOVR during the PM peak hour with LOS D,
with a LOS score increasing from 3.53 to 3.54. This pedestrian impact would be potentially
significant and occur after development of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be
reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-13.
Intersection #9: LOVR and Calle Joaquin
Project-added pedestrian traffic would exacerbate unacceptable pedestrian intersection
LOS for pedestrians crossing LOVR during the PM peak hour with LOS D, with a LOS
score increasing from 3.50 to 3.54, which reflects the lengthy crossing distance across
LOVR and the 45 mph travel speeds by vehicles traveling on LOVR. This pedestrian
impact would be potentially significant and occur after development of Madonna Froom
3.13-110 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Ranch, though would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM
TRANS-27.
Intersection #10: LOVR and U.S. 101 SB Ramps
Project-added automobile traffic would impact the SB right-turn lane queue in the PM peak
hour, as it would exacerbate the 95th-percentile turning movement queues and exceed the
available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing impact would be potentially
significant and occur after development of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be
reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-26.
Intersection #15: South Higuera Street / Tank Farm Road
Project-added vehicular and pedestrian traffic would exacerbate unacceptable pedestrian
intersection LOS crossing South Higuera Street during the PM peak hour with LOS D, with
a LOS score increasing from 3.52 to 3.53. This pedestrian impact would be potentially
significant and occur after development of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be
reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-13.
Project-added automobile traffic would exacerbate the SB left-turn queue in the AM peak
hour, as it would exceed the available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing
impact would be potentially significant and occur after development of Madonna Froom
Ranch, though would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM
TRANS-28.
Intersection #18: Madonna Road / Oceanaire Drive
Project-added automobile traffic would impact the WB left-turn queue in the AM peak
hour and the WB right-turn queue in the PM peak hour, as it would exacerbate the 95th-
percentile turning movement queues and exceed the available turn pocket capacity. This
automobile queuing impact would be potentially significant and occur after development
of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be reduced to less than significant by the
implementation of MM TRANS-29.
Intersection #19: Madonna Road / Dalidio Drive
Project-added automobile traffic would impact the EB right-turn queue during the AM and
PM peak hours, as it would exacerbate the 95th-percentile turning movement queues and
exceed the available turn pocket capacity. This automobile queuing impact would be
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-111
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
potentially significant and occur after development of Madonna Froom Ranch, though
would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-30.
Roadway Segments #1 and #2: LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive and
from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road
Roadway segments #1 and #2 on LOVR (the stretch between Prefumo Canyon Road and
Madonna Road) currently operate at an unacceptable segment pedestrian LOS of D and F
due to lack of an adequate buffer area between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The
Project would exacerbate these conditions with additional vehicle and person trips and
would further degrade already exceeded LOS standards. This pedestrian impact would be
potentially significant and occur after development of Madonna Froom Ranch, though
could be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-8.
Roadway Segments #3, #4, #5 and #6: LOVR from Madonna Road to South Higuera Street
Roadway segments #3, #4, #5, and #6 on LOVR (the stretch between Madonna Road and
South Higuera Street) currently operate at an unacceptable segment pedestrian LOS of D
and F due to lack of sidewalks or adequate buffer area between pedestrians and vehicular
traffic. The Project would exacerbate these conditions with additional vehicular and person
trips and would further degrade already exceeded LOS standards. This pedestrian impact
would be potentially significant and occur after development of Madonna Froom Ranch,
though could be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-9.
U.S. 101 Mainline
Several segments of the NB and SB U.S. 101 mainline currently operate at an unacceptable
LOS of D. Under cumulative conditions, the Project-related traffic would exacerbate
unacceptable LOS conditions for SB U.S. 101 mainline segments with additional vehicular
traffic and person trips. Implementation of the Project would contribute towards further
degradation of already exceeded LOS standards, and would contribute towards exceedance
of LOS standards for additional mainline segments. This impact would be reduced to less
than significant through payment of Project fair share contributions towards planned U.S.
101 mainline operational improvements, which include:
• Installation of ramp metering at U.S. 101 SB on-ramp at LOVR;
• Installation of ramp metering at U.S. 101 SB at on-ramp at South Higuera Street;
• Installation of U.S. 101 NB auxiliary lane planned as part of the Prado Interchange
Phase 1; and
3.13-112 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
• Installation of U.S. 101 SB improvements planned with Prado Interchange SB
ramps, which include proposed SB collector-distributor system.
The Project’s fair share contribution towards LOVR SB ramp metering improvements and
NB/SB mainline improvements are satisfied through payment of City Traffic Impact Fees.
The Project’s cumulative contribution to impacts on U.S. 101 mainline facilities would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-8 shall apply.
MM TRANS-9 shall apply.
MM TRANS-13 shall apply.
MM TRANS-25 In coordination with the County, the Project Applicant shall pay its fair
share fees to fund modifications to the northbound approach at the
LOVR/Foothill Boulevard intersection to provide one left-turn, two
through, and one right-turn lane, or similar operational improvements
to the satisfaction of the County Public Works Director. Additional
minor traffic signal, striping, and signage modifications may be
required for implementation of these improvements. This mitigation
measure requires County approval and coordination.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of
the final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the
Applicant shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan and
Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost for review and approval by the
County. The Applicant shall pay its fair share fees to the County prior
to the issuance of an occupancy or building permit for Madonna Froom
Ranch development to fund implementation of the future intersection
improvements.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant provides the
required design plans and contributes an appropriate fair share as
approved by the County in accordance to the approved development
phase.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-113
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
MM TRANS-26 The Project Applicant shall pay its fair share fees to fund striping
modifications to extend the northbound left-turn pocket at the
LOVR/Royal Way intersection to 150 feet, and to optimize the traffic
signal timings along the LOVR corridor between Descanso Street and
South Higuera Street. This mitigation measure requires Caltrans
approval and coordination.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its
fair share fees to the City.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an
appropriate fair share as approved by the City and that adequate funding
is collected to implement these improvements.
MM TRANS-27 In coordination with the City, the Project Applicant shall pay its fair
share fees to fund the implementation of Lead Pedestrian Intervals for
each pedestrian crossing phase at the LOVR/Calle Joaquin intersection.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its
fair share fees to the City.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an
appropriate fair share as approved by the City and that adequate funding
is collected to implement these improvements.
MM TRANS-28 The Project Applicant shall pay its fair share fees to fund the extension
of the southbound left-turn pocket storage at the South Higuera
Street/Tank Farm Road intersection to 300 feet.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its
fair share fees to the City.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an
appropriate fair share as approved by the City and that adequate funding
is collected to implement these improvements.
3.13-114 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
MM TRANS-29 The Project Applicant shall pay its fair share fee to the City to fund the
extension of the westbound right-turn pocket storage at the Madonna
Road/Oceanaire Drive intersection to 200 feet. This may require
replacement of the existing culvert on Madonna Road east of Oceanaire
Drive.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of an occupancy or
building permit for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its
fair share fees to the City.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an
appropriate fair share as approved by the City and that adequate funding
is collected to implement these improvements.
MM TRANS-30 The Project Applicant shall coordinate and fund the City to modify the
traffic signal phasing and timing plans at the Madonna Road/Dalidio
Drive intersection to provide an eastbound right-turn overlap phase
concurrent with the northbound left-turn phase. The Applicant shall be
responsible for implementation prior to development of Madonna Froom
Ranch or fair share contribution if constructed sooner by others.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to grading and recordation of the
final VTM for development of Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant
shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for review and approval by
the City. The proposed improvements shall be completed prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit for Madonna Froom Ranch
development.
Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the
improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or
contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City.
Residual Impacts
All of the identified impacts under cumulative conditions would be less than significant
with mitigation (see Table 3.13-35). Implementation of mitigation measures that require
payment of fair share contributions to fund offsite improvements would generally not result
in significant residual impacts, as these improvements would occur within existing
roadway rights-of-way, or within urbanized paved/landscaped areas immediately adjacent
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-115
Draft EIR
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.13-116 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
to existing roadway rights-of-way. The Project’s fair share contribution has been identified
for all intersections and improvements in the TIS (Appendix J). The Project’s equitable
share is calculated using the method for calculating equitable mitigation measures outlined
in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans 2002).
Table 3.13-35. Cumulative Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary
Location Trigger Transportation
Mode
Mitigation
Measure Impact
Intersection #1: LOVR
/ Foothill Boulevard
Post Development
of Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto TRANS-25
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Intersection #5: LOVR
/ Royal Way
Post Development
of Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-26
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Intersection #6: LOVR
/ Madonna Road
Post Development
of Madonna Froom
Ranch
Pedestrian TRANS-13
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Intersection #9: LOVR
/ Calle Joaquin
Post Development
of Madonna Froom
Ranch
Pedestrian TRANS-27
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Intersection #10: LOVR
/ U.S. 101 SB Ramps
Post Development
of Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-26
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Intersection #15: South
Higuera Street / Tank
Farm Road
Post Development
of Madonna Froom
Ranch
Pedestrian
Auto (Queue)
TRANS-13
TRANS-28
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Intersection #18:
Madonna Road /
Oceanaire
Post Development
of Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-29
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Intersection #18:
Madonna Road /
Dalidio Drive
Post Development
of Madonna Froom
Ranch
Auto (Queue) TRANS-30
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Roadway Segments #1
and #2: LOVR from
Prefumo Canyon Road
to Oceanaire Drive and
from Oceanaire Drive
to Madonna Road
Post Development
of Madonna Froom
Ranch
Pedestrian TRANS-8
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
3.13 TRANSPORTATION
Table 3.13-35. Cumulative Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary
(Continued)
Location Trigger Transportation
Mode
Mitigation
Measure Impact
Roadway Segments #3,
#4, #5 and #6: LOVR
from Madonna Road to
South Higuera Street
Post Development
of Madonna Froom
Ranch
Pedestrian TRANS-9
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
U.S. 101 Mainline
Post Development
of Villaggio Lower
Area
Auto -- Less than
Significant
Source: TIS; see Appendix J. For a complete description of all intersections, roadway segments, bike paths, sidewalks
and transit facilities, see Tables 3.1-91 through 3.1-100 on pages 235 through 255 of the TIS.
-- Not applicable
Bolded items indicate significant an unavoidable impacts.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-117
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
This section describes existing and planned utilities and evaluates the operation and
capacity of these utilities to serve the Project. Utilities addressed in this section include
potable and recycled water, wastewater facilities, solid waste disposal, and energy services.
This section identifies the existing capacity of these utilities and services provided by the
City and utility companies and evaluates whether capacity exists to accommodate the
Project demands. Stormwater management system facilities, capacity, and impacts are
addressed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project’s anticipated energy
demand and energy conserving features are also evaluated to determine whether the Project
would result in unnecessary or wasteful energy consumption. The discussion of the
Project’s anticipated energy demands include natural gas, electricity, and fuel consumption
during construction and operation of the Project.
3.14.1 Environmental Setting
Utility services in the City and Project vicinity are provided by the City and three private
companies. Water, wastewater, and stormwater management services are provided by the
City’s Utilities Department. Solid waste management is provided by the City through a
contract with San Luis Garbage Company. Electricity is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric
Company (PG&E), and beginning in 2020 will also be provided by Monterey Bay
Community Power (MBCP). Natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company
(SoCal Gas) (Table 3.14-1).
Table 3.14-1. Utilities Serving the Project Site
Category Utility Provider
Wastewater
Collection and
Treatment
City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, Wastewater Division
Water Supply,
Treatment, and
Distribution
City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, Water Division
Solid Waste San Luis Garbage Company
Electricity PG&E and MBCP
Natural Gas (SoCal Gas
Note: Water and sewer service are not currently provided at the Project site.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-1
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
3.14.1.1 Wastewater Treatment
The City provides municipal wastewater treatment within City limits and, through
agreement, also provides service to Cal Poly and the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport (Airport). The City owns and operates the Water Resource Recovery Facility
(WRRF) located on Prado Road approximately 0.6-mile northeast of the Project site. The
WRRF manages and treats wastewater in accordance with standards established by the
SWRCB to remove solids, reduce the amount of nutrients, and eliminate bacteria in treated
wastewater. A portion of the treated water is recycled for irrigation use within the City and
the remaining flow is discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek.
San Luis Obispo Creek has been identified as having many beneficial uses that require
protection by the Central Coast RWQCB. Treated wastewater from the City’s WRRF meets
the criteria for all of these uses except Municipal and Domestic Water Supply (MUN). The
MUN designation is the main driver for treatment upgrades at the WRRF further described
below. These new requirements have been placed in the WRRF’s recently revised National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to meet nutrient and disinfection
by-products limits. Compliance with the new limits is detailed through a Time Schedule
Order (TSO) which requires the City to submit a schedule outlining the planned actions for
achieving compliance. A TSO was adopted with the WRRF’s permit and requires
compliance by November 30, 2019 (City of San Luis Obispo 2019a).
WRRF Treatment Capacity
The WRRF has a treatment capacity for dry-
weather flow (e.g., typical non-storm urban
runoff and wastewater flows) of 5.1 million
gallons per day (MGD) (City of San Luis
Obispo 2014c). As of 2018, the WRRF
receives an average of 3.3 MGD of dry-
weather flows (City of San Luis Obispo
2015a). Therefore, the estimated remaining
capacity of the WRRF is 1.8 MGD or 32
percent of the total dry-weather wastewater
treatment capacity.
As estimated by the General Plan LUE, future dry-weather flows to the WRRF are
anticipated to reach 5.4 MGD, of which 0.47 MGD would be generated from Cal Poly and
The WRRF removes solids, reduces the amount
of nutrients, and eliminates bacteria in the
treated wastewater before it is discharged to
San Luis Obispo Creek.
3.14-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
4.93 MGD would be generated from the City (City of San Luis Obispo 2015c). Due to
current inability for the facility to meet MUN criteria, the City is undertaking upgrades to
the WRRF. The WRRF Project includes increasing treatment capacity and meeting the
terms of the City’s new NPDES permit to treat future flows and loading. Additional
upgrades include replacing aging equipment, maximizing the production of recycled water,
incorporating interpretive features and public amenities, and including a new joint
operations interpretive center and facility. Upon completion, the WRRF modifications
would increase treatment capacity at the facility to 5.4 MGD, which would accommodate
the dry-weather wastewater flows in the City under full buildout of the General Plan (City
of San Luis Obispo 2015b; 2019d).
The City’s sewer system has long experienced problems associated with wet‐weather
infiltration and inflow where saturated soils result in rainwater overloading the wastewater
collection systems.1 Under heavy rain conditions, instantaneous peak flows to the WRRF
can reach up to 25 MGD (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). These events can result in the
release of partially treated wastewater into San Luis Obispo Creek, which can flow
downstream to the creek’s estuary and the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. Planned
improvements described above to the WRRF to increase treatment capacity to 5.4 MGD
would help address existing WRRF constraints during wet-weather conditions (e.g.,
rainfall events that result in stormwater runoff in addition to typical urban runoff and
wastewater generation) (City of San Luis Obispo 2014c).
Wastewater Infrastructure (Public)
The City’s wastewater collection system serves a variety of uses in the City, including
residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Sewer service is provided only to
properties within the City limits, with the exception of a few limited areas located just
outside of the City limits, including the campus of Cal Poly and the Airport (City of San
Luis Obispo 2015c). As of 2019, there are approximately 14,400 sewer service connections
to the City’s system. The collection system is divided into 18 flow basins supported by
nine sewage lift stations, 138 miles of gravity sewer lines, and 2.4 miles of force mains.
The gravity sewer lines range in size from 6 to 48 inches in diameter, and the force main
lines range in size from 4 to 16 inches in diameter (City of San Luis Obispo 2019b). The
2015 Draft Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy prepared for
1 Inflow and infiltration occur when groundwater or rainwater flow into the sewer system, either through a
direct connection or seepage through cracked laterals, leaky joints, and/or deteriorated manholes (City of
San Luis Obispo 2019c).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-3
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
the City identifies sewer line segments with substandard infrastructure and prioritizes
replacement and maintenance projects within the wastewater collection system to meet
future demand. Parts of the collection system are over 100 years old and are anticipated to
exceed their design life. Portions of the collection system require frequent preventive
maintenance because of root intrusion, poor grade, and/or degraded pipe conditions. The
City has also identified portions of the system that have reached their design capacity and
will require modifications to accommodate future development (City of San Luis Obispo
2014c). The Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy determined
that in order to maintain the collection system in its current state, a minimum of two miles
of wastewater collection pipelines should be rehabilitated per year (Water Systems
Consulting, Inc. 2015).
Currently, the Project site does not contain wastewater infrastructure that connects to the
City’s wastewater system. The closest sewer main tie-ins are located at two points along
LOVR approximately 0.1-mile northeast of the site. The LOVR sewer main wastewater
flows currently do not exceed capacity. Further, the Calle Joaquin lift station, which helps
convey LOVR sewer main flows to the Laguna lift station and then to the WRRF, has a
capacity of 570 gallons per minute (GPM), while the Laguna lift station has a capacity of
1,500 GPM. The Calle Joaquin lift station currently does not experience capacity issues;
however, the Calle Joaquin lift station is scheduled for replacement in the near future due
to the age of the facility (City of San Luis Obispo 2019b).
Wastewater Infrastructure (Private)
A small parking kiosk structure was repurposed and relocated as an outhouse for the John
Madonna Construction Company staff. The small outhouse disposes wastewater via an
existing septic tank near the old barn building within the Froom Ranch Dairy complex and
is addressed within Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
3.14.1.2 Water Supply
The City is the sole purveyor of water within City limits, allowing the City to maintain
uniformity in its water service, distribution standards, and infrastructure, and to ensure
consistency in developing and implementing water policy.
Water Sources
The City obtains its potable water from five sources: the Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita
Lake), Whale Rock Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and a limited amount of
3.14-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
groundwater. City water supplies from these sources are conveyed to the City Water
Treatment Plant located on Stenner Road approximately four miles north of the Project
before distribution throughout the City.
Reservoirs
The City obtains nearly all of its potable water supply from its share of the yield of three
regional reservoirs.
Salinas Reservoir - The Salinas Reservoir is located on the upper Salinas River,
approximately 12 miles northeast of the Project site near the community of Santa
Margarita. The reservoir captures water from a 112-square-mile watershed and is owned
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and operated by the County of San Luis
Obispo. The City has an agreement with USACE to receive up to 45,000 acre-feet per year
(AFY) of the water from the reservoir; however, the reservoir has a maximum storage
capacity of 23,842.9 acre-feet (AF), which limits the availability of water to the City
annually. Water from the reservoir is pumped through the Cuesta Tunnel (a 1.0-mile-long
tunnel through the mountains of the Cuesta Ridge) and then flows by gravity to the City
Water Treatment Plant. As of October 2019, the total amount of water stored in the
reservoir was 21,208.6 AF, which is 88.95 percent of total reservoir capacity. The City
receives a varying amount of water from the Salinas Reservoir each year, historically
ranging from as low as 200 AF to as high as 5,000 AF. In 2018, the City received 723 AF
(City of San Luis Obispo 2018d; 2018a; 2016a).
Whale Rock Reservoir - Whale Rock Reservoir is located on Old Creek approximately
18 miles northwest of the Project site in Cayucos and captures water from a 20.3-square-
mile watershed. The storage capacity of the reservoir is shared by the City, Cal Poly, and
California Men’s Colony, which collectively comprise the Whale Rock Commission.
Whale Rock Reservoir is formed by an earthen dam and was historically able to store an
estimated 40,662 AF of water at the time of construction in 1961; since that time the total
capacity has declined to38,967 AF. Water is delivered to the City via 17.6 miles of 30-inch
pipeline and two pumping stations. In October 2019, the total amount of water stored in
the reservoir was 33,877 AF, which is 86.94 percent of total reservoir capacity. The City
has rights to 55.05 percent of the reservoir’s total storage capacity (approximately 21,451
AF); however, the City receives a varying amount of water from the Whale Rock Reservoir
each year, historically ranging from as low as 500 AF to as high as nearly 5,000 AF. The
City received 410 AFY from this reservoir in 2018 (not including water delivered to Cal
Poly) (City of San Luis Obispo 2018d; 2016a; 2018a).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-5
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Based on the 2018 update to the General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element
(WWME), the City has identified the safe annual yield from coordinated operation of the
Salinas and Whale Rock reservoirs at 4,910 AF (City of San Luis Obispo 2018c).
Nacimiento Reservoir - Nacimiento Reservoir is owned by the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency and is located approximately 35 miles north of the Project site near San
Miguel in the County. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 377,900 AF. Since 1959, the
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has had
entitlements to 17,500 AFY from the reservoir for use in the County. Of that, the City has
a contractual entitlement to 5,482 AFY, which also reflects the City’s dependable yield
from this reservoir. The total amount of water stored in the reservoir was 180,288 AF in
October 2019, which is 47.71 percent of capacity. The City began receiving water from the
Nacimiento Reservoir in 2011 and in 2018, the City received its full contractual entitlement
of 5,482 AF from Nacimiento Reservoir (City of San Luis Obispo 2010; 2017a; 2018d).
Recycled Water
Recycled water is highly-treated wastewater approved for reuse by the California
Department of Public Health for a variety of applications, including landscape irrigation
and dust control. In 1994, the City completed a major capital improvement project at the
WRRF that included addition of tertiary treatment and other unit processes required to meet
stringent effluent quality limits intended to protect and enhance the receiving waters of San
Luis Obispo Creek. The City received regulatory approvals for diversion of treated effluent
for offsite landscape irrigation and other approved uses in 2002. In 2006, the City’s Water
Reuse Project created the first new source of water for the City since the construction of
Whale Rock Dam in 1961. The project included improvements at the City’s WRRF and an
initial eight miles of distribution pipeline.
The City is required to release 1,807 AFY of flow to San Luis Obispo Creek for improving
the health of the San Luis Creek ecosystem downstream. In 2018, the City provided 238
AF of recycled water (City of San Luis Obispo 2018a). Based on the City’s 2017 Recycled
Water Master Plan, the City estimates a surplus of 1,500 to 1,900 AF of recycled water
supplies are available for additional beneficial use beyond that required to meet current
demand, including for release to San Luis Creek and use by existing customers. Currently,
there is no recycled water infrastructure on the Project site; however, tie-in mains are
located on LOVR immediately adjacent to the Project site boundary that would
accommodate utility extensions into the Project site (City of San Luis Obispo 2017c).
3.14-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Groundwater
The City overlies the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, which covers
approximately 12,700 acres in the San Luis Obispo and Edna Valleys. Storage capacities
are estimated at between 46,700 to 55,800 AF, with a sustainable yield of approximately
6,000 to 7,000 AFY. The groundwater basin is relatively small and recharges quickly
following normal rainfall periods, but also lowers relatively quickly following the end of
the rainy season. Extensive use of groundwater sustained the City through the drought of
1986-1991, a period during which groundwater supplied 50 percent of the City’s water
demand. However, the City’s two historically largest producing wells, the Auto Parkway
and Denny’s wells, were shut down when elevated nitrate levels were detected. This loss
of groundwater resources and infrastructure means the City could not rely on groundwater
for future drought protection. According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the
City will continue to use groundwater for domestic purposes when available (City of San
Luis Obispo 2016c). The City stopped supplying groundwater to its drinking water system
in 2015 due to new regulatory requirements, but the City’s groundwater wells remain
operable and are on standby should the use of groundwater be required and determined
feasibly sustainable in the future (City of San Luis Obispo 2016b). In 2018, the City did
not utilize groundwater for potable water use, though the City continued work with a
hydrogeologist to identify a site that could potentially support expansion of its groundwater
program through future development of a new well (City of San Luis Obispo 2018a).
City Water Demand and Annual Availability
The General Plan WWME (amended in 2018) addresses the availability and distribution of
water to new and existing development. Surface water reservoirs serve nearly all of the
City’s water demand with Nacimiento Reservoir providing the City’s largest water source
(45 percent of the annual water supply) followed by the Whale Rock and Salinas
Reservoirs. Recycled water currently serves as a minor water source (Table 3.14-2). As
noted above, although groundwater provides limited water to the City, it has acted as a
major supply source during past severe droughts and the City continues to consider
potential future use of groundwater.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-7
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 3.14-2. City of San Luis Obispo’s Water Resource Annual Availability
(2018)
Water Resources Annual Availability
Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and
Whale Rock Reservoir
4,910 AF Safe Annual Yield1
Nacimiento Reservoir 5,482 AF Dependable Yield2
Recycled Water 238 AF 2017 Annual Usage3
Siltation (from 2010 to 2060) (500) AF WWME Policy A 4.2.24
Total 10,130 AF
1 Safe Annual Yield determined from computer model, which accounts for siltation loss through 2010 (per WWME
Policy A 4.2.1).
2 Dependable Yield is the contractual amount of water the City has rights to from Nacimiento Reservoir.
3 The quantity of recycled water included is the actual prior year’s recycled water usage (calendar year 2017) per
WWME Policy A 7.2.2.
4 Reservoir siltation is a natural occurrence that reduces storage capacity over long periods, resulting in the reduction of
safe annual yield.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2018a.
The total water available for the City in 2018 was 10,130 AFY, which included 238 AFY
of recycled water (Table 3.14-2; City of San Luis Obispo 2018a). As this availability was
adjusted following years of drought and updates to the City’s safe annual yield model, the
availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of this
EIR analysis.
During 2018, 62 percent of total water consumption in the City was for single- and multi-
family residential uses, 24 percent was to support commercial and other non-residential
development, and 14 percent was to support separately metered landscape irrigation. The
2018 per capita potable water use was 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for
approximately 46,548 people, and the City’s water demand for 2018 was 5,225 AF (City
of San Luis Obispo 2018a). Compared against the City’s 2018 annual availability, the City
has approximately 4,905 AF of water surplus available to allocate to new beneficial uses
within the City (see Table 3.14-3).
Per General Plan WWME Policy A 5.2.2, the City’s primary water supply needed to serve
buildout under the General Plan is calculated based on a per capita water demand of 117
gpcd. Based on the buildout population identified in the General Plan LUE, the City has an
estimated population capacity of 57,200 people within the City’s urban reserve, and
estimates the City’s annual primary water supply to be 7,496 AF, which is 2,634 AFY less
than the 2018 annual availability of 10,130 AF (City of San Luis Obispo 2018a).
3.14-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 3.14-3. Water Demand and Water Availability in the City of San Luis
Obispo Based on WWME Policies
Water Availability and Estimated Future Demand AFY
Current Annual Availability (2018) 10,130
Primary Water Supply (Estimated Future Demand) 7,496
1 Calculated using the City’s per capita water demand factor of 117 gpcd and the City General Plan LUCE urban
reserve capacity.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2018a.
Multi-Year Water Reliability
As required by Section 5 of the General Plan WWME, the City accounts for water supplies
necessary to meet three specific community needs: primary water supply, reliability
reserve, and secondary water supply (Table 3.14-4). The primary water supply is defined
as the amount of water needed to serve the buildout population of the City as identified in
the General Plan LUE. The proposed General Plan LUE buildout population within the
urban reserve boundary is estimated to be 57,200; the primary water supply is estimated to
be 7,496 AF in the 2018 Water Resources Status Report (City of San Luis Obispo 2018a).
The reliability reserve provides a buffer for future unforeseen or unpredicted long-term
impacts to the City's available water supply. The quantity of water for the reliability reserve
is established using 20 percent of the current water use and the City's population (46,548
in 2018). The reliability reserve provides a reserve above and beyond the existing needs of
the community and may not be used for future development. In 2018, the reliability reserve
was 1,220 AF.
The secondary water supply is the amount of water remaining from the City's available
water resources above those needed to meet the primary water supply and reliability
reserve. The secondary supply is intended to meet peak water demand periods or short-
term loss of City water supply sources. The update to the City’s safe annual yield model
led the to the reduction in the City’s available secondary water supply.
Table 3.14-4. 2018 City Potable Water Supply Accounting
2018 Annual
Availability
2017 Actual
Usage (AF)
Primary Water
Supply (AF)
Reliability
Reserve (AF)
Secondary Water
Supply (AF)
10,130 5,225 7,496 1,220 1,414
1 Calculated using the City’s per capita water demand factor of 117 gpcd and the City 2017 population.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2018a.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-9
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Drought and Climate Change
Like most communities in the Central Coast of California, periodic drought conditions are
inevitable. Historic droughts have affected the Central Coast and required several actions
by the City to reduce water demand and manage water supplies. For example, from 1986
to 1992, a six-year drought required water rationing and limited supplemental groundwater
sources to meet demands. More recently, the unprecedented drought that ended in 2016
brought the driest conditions in recorded history to the state. During this drought, the City
reduced water consumption in response to state regulations established to address ongoing
drought conditions.
Looking ahead, climate change is expected to affect weather patterns and may result in
increased frequency or duration of drought conditions, which could have a substantial
effect on future water availability. In 2018, the City updated the safe annual yield model
and the General Plan WWME to include data from the most recent drought period that
ended in 2016, consistent with WWME Program A 3.3.3, and analyzed three climate
change scenarios (City of San Luis Obispo 2018c). The annual water supply availability
reflected in Table 3.14-2 above (4,910 AFY) reflects the most current safe annual yield
values for the City when accounting for future climate change.
Water Distribution Infrastructure
In 2019, the City had approximately 15,500 metered water customers. The City’s water
distribution system delivers potable water from the Water Treatment Plant at Stenner Creek
Road to municipal customers and fire hydrants via two storage reservoirs, five
hydropneumatic tanks, eight pump stations, 10 water tanks, and approximately 185 miles
of water mains. The distribution system must provide an uninterrupted water supply at
adequate pressures to meet all fire and domestic flow requirements while minimizing water
loss due to leakage. Concurrent with the General Plan LUE Update, the City prepared a
hydraulic model and Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan to identify
and prioritize replacement of aged and undersized water distribution facilities (City of San
Luis Obispo 2016c).
Existing City water distribution system infrastructure near the Project site includes tie-ins
to the public water system located along an existing 18-inch main along LOVR, as well as
with potable and recycled water mains along LOVR. The Project site is located within the
Edna Saddle pressure zone and would be served by the existing 3.8-million-gallon Edna
Saddle Tank. The Edna Saddle Tank, which is located north of the Margarita and Airport,
3.14-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
provides operational, emergency, and fire flow storage for a nearly 2,300-acre area in the
southern portions of the City (City of San Luis Obispo 2015d).
3.14.1.3 Solid Waste Disposal
Municipal solid waste collection and disposal services within the City and Project vicinity
are provided by San Luis Garbage, a municipal waste hauling company owned by Waste
Connections, Inc. (City of San Luis Obispo 2018b). San Luis Garbage collects solid waste,
recyclables, and organic waste, which is subsequently transported primarily to Cold
Canyon Landfill. Organic waste is hauled to the Kompogas Organic Recycling Plant, a
state-of-the-art, high heat, dry anaerobic facility which converts organic waste into carbon-
neutral biogas and high-grade natural compost which is owned and operated by Hitachi
Zosen Inova. At Cold Canyon Landfill, municipal waste is processed at the Resource
Recovery Park (RRP) and Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). . Currently, solid waste
collection services are not provided at the Project site. Commercial operations that use roll‐
off services and/or construction and demolition waste removal services may choose any
permitted hauler.
The RRP includes a public drop-off facility, a construction and demolition (C&D)
recycling operation, a household hazardous waste drop-off facility, a universal and
electronic waste recycling center, and an equipment maintenance facility. Materials
collected, sorted, and recovered in the facility include cardboard, metal and appliances,
concrete/asphalt/brick, trash, tires, drywall, and paper and plastic materials.
The MRF accepts recyclable waste from curbside pickup services and industrial and
commercial consumers. In addition, it receives recyclable material sorted at the RRP. The
MRF currently processes up to 18 tons per hour of glass, plastic, paper, cardboard,
aluminum, tin, and other metals. The MRF has a maximum permitted throughput of 400
tons per day (CalRecycle 2018).
The maximum permitted throughput to the landfill is 1,650 tons per day (CalRecycle 2018).
The Cold Canyon Landfill received approvals from the County and the state in 2013 to
allow continued waste disposal operations through 2040, with anticipated expansion of
allowable disposal tonnage of up to 2,050 tons per day. The landfill has a design capacity
of 23,900,000 cubic yards (cy) and a remaining capacity of 14,500,000 cy, or 60.7 percent,
as of 2015, with a cease operation date of December 2040 (CalRecycle 2018). Utilizing the
MRF and RRP, Cold Canyon Landfill diverts approximately 65 percent of waste from the
landfill. Additional potential solid waste disposal sites that could serve the City include the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-11
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Chicago Grade and/or Paso Robles Landfills, or out-of-county waste disposal facilities.
The Chicago Grade and Paso Robles Landfills have remaining infill capacities of
approximately 832,699 cy (93 percent) and 5,327,500 cy (82 percent), respectively
(CalRecycle 2019b).
The state’s target disposal rate for the San Luis Obispo region is 7.4 pounds per person per
day for residents and 18.7 pounds per person per day for employees (CalRecycle 2019a).
The target rates were set in 2016 at 50 percent of 2006 waste disposal levels. Between 2007
and 2010, the population‐related solid waste disposal rate ranged between 4.4 and 5.4
pounds per person, and the employment solid waste disposal rate ranged between 11.7 and
13.8 pounds per person (City of San Luis Obispo 2017b). In addition to existing solid waste
diversion, the City’s Climate Action Plan includes the goal to reduce the community waste
stream to as close to zero waste as possible, with a 75 percent diversion rate by the year
2020 (City of San Luis Obispo 2012).
3.14.1.4 Energy Services
Electricity
The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources
including natural gas, coal, water, nuclear, and renewable resources such as wind, solar,
and geothermal. Energy, natural gas, and renewable energy production, consumption,
research, and conservation within the state of California are managed by the California
Energy Commission (CEC) and are regulated by the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC). In 2018, Californians consumed 281,120.2 gigawatt hours (GWh)
of electricity; future annual electricity consumption is projected to increase to
approximately 320,000 GWh by 2027.
Of the electricity generated in-state in 2018, 46.5 percent was generated by natural gas-
fired power plants, 0.1 percent was generated by coal-fired power plants, 11.3 percent came
from large hydroelectric dams, 0.2 percent was generated by oil and other petroleum or
waste heat, and 9.4 percent came from nuclear power plants. The remaining 32.35 percent
of electricity production in California was supplied by renewable sources including
biomass, geothermal, small hydro, solar, and wind power. California’s total power mix,
including in-state generation and imports, included 3.3 percent from coal, 10.6 percent
from large hydroelectric dams, 34.9 percent from natural gas, 9.05 percent from nuclear
power plants, 0.15 percent from oil and other petroleum or waste heat, 31.36 percent from
renewable sources, and 10.5 percent from “unspecified sources of power” (CEC 2019c).
3.14-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Natural Gas
Natural gas is a fossil fuel formed when layers of buried organic matter are exposed to
intense heat and pressure over thousands of years. The energy is stored in the form of
hydrocarbons and can be extracted in the form of natural gas, which can be combusted to
generate electricity, enabling this stored energy to be transformed into usable power or to
be used directly for heating, cooking, and other use. Natural gas consumed in California is
largely extracted from onshore and offshore sites elsewhere in the Southwestern U.S. (42
percent), Rocky Mountain States (23 percent), Canada (22 percent), and within California
(12 percent) (CEC 2015). Californians consumed 12,739.1 million therms of natural gas in
2016 (see Table 3.14-5; CEC 2018b).
Natural gas in the City is provided by SoCal Gas, which provides natural gas to 21.4 million
consumers through 5.9 million meters in more than 500 communities. The company’s
service territory includes communities throughout central and southern California, from
Visalia to the Mexican border (SoCal Gas 2018). Existing gas infrastructure near the
Project site includes a high-pressure gas main that extends northwest to southeast along
LOVR.
California Energy Demand (CED) 2018 – 2030 Revised Forecast
Source: CEC 2018b.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-13
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Local Energy Services
Electrical and natural gas services for the City and Project site are provided by PG&E and
SoCal Gas, respectively. In 2017, PG&E provided 82,224.3 GWh of electricity to nearly
16 million customers across a service area of 70,000 square miles (CEC 2019b; PG&E
2018b). In the same year, SoCalGas provided a total of 5,141.8 million therms of natural
gas to nearly 21.6 million customers across its 20,000 square mile service area (CEC
2019b; SoCalGas 2019). Within the County in 2017, total demand for electricity was
1,778.5 GWh, and total demand for natural gas was 83,787,570 therms. The Project site
receives electricity from existing PG&E infrastructure. Existing gas infrastructure near the
Project site includes a high-pressure gas main that extends northwest to southeast along
LOVR.
Total state and countywide energy demands in 2017, including per capita calculations of
energy demands based on 2018 populations, are provided in Table 3.14-5.
Table 3.14-5. 2018 County and State Energy Demands
Population Total 2017 Energy Demand 2017 Energy Demand Per Capita
Natural Gas
Demand
(therms)
Electricity
Demand (GWh)
Natural Gas
Demand
(therms)
Electricity
Demand (MWh)
County 284,010 81,678,060 1,766.0 287.6 6.2
State 39,557,045 12,638,157,740 281,120.2 319.5 7.1
Source: CEC 2019b; U.S. Census Bureau 2019b..
Transportation Energy
The transportation sector accounts for nearly 40 percent of statewide total energy demand
(CEC 2018). Caltrans reports that approximately 25.1 million automobiles, 5.7 million
trucks, and 889,024 motorcycles were registered in the state in 2016, resulting in a total
estimated 339.8 billion vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (Caltrans 2017) and 15.1 billion
gallons of gasoline consumed (CEC 2019a). Within the County, an estimated 3.2 million
vehicle miles were traveled in 2017 (Caltrans 2016).
Renewable Energy
The State of California strongly supports production and use of renewable energy sources,
including solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, hydrologic, and biomass. For example, in-state
operating capacity of renewable resources was 63,028 GWh in 2018. The state’s renewable
3.14-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
energy portfolio includes solar PV (27,267 GWh), wind (14,078 GWh), geothermal
(11,526 GWh), small hydroelectric (4,248 GWh), and biomass (5,909 GWh) (CEC 2019c).
PG&E, which currently serves the City, and the MBCP, which will start providing services
to City in 2020, also strongly support the production and use of renewable energy. In 2017,
PG&E’s energy portfolio consisted of 33 percent renewable, 27 percent nuclear, 18 percent
large hydroelectric, 20 percent natural gas and other fuels, and 2 percent market purchased
energy sources (PG&E 2018a). MBCP offers two programs with varying power contents
for customers within its service area. MBCP offers customers a power mix made up from
approximately 34 percent renewable and 66 percent large hydroelectric sources. MBCP’s
prime program offers customers entirely 100 percent renewably sourced energy generated
from solar and wind (MBCP 2019).
3.14.2 Regulatory Setting
Utilities and energy conservation are governed primarily by state and local laws that would
apply to future development under the Project. State and local regulations that are directly
relevant to the Project are summarized below. There are no federal regulations pertaining
to utility and energy conservation that directly relate to local planning projects.
3.14.2.1 State
Assembly Bill 341
Assembly Bill (AB) 341 established a state policy goal that no less than 75 percent of solid
waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020, and requires
CalRecycle to provide a report to the legislature that recommends strategies to achieve the
policy goal by January 1, 2014. AB 341 builds on the AB 939 requirement that every
jurisdiction divert at least 50 percent of its waste. The bill also mandates local jurisdictions
to implement commercial recycling by July 1, 2012. AB 341 requires any business
(including schools and government facilities) that generates 4 cy or more of waste per
week, and multi-family buildings with five or more units to arrange for recycling services.
Assembly Bill 939
AB 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act, mandates management of non-
hazardous solid waste throughout the State of California. The purpose of AB 939 is to
reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent
feasible; improve regulation of existing solid waste landfills; ensure that new solid waste
landfills are environmentally sound; streamline permitting procedures for solid waste
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-15
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
management facilities; and specify the responsibilities of local governments to develop and
implement integrated waste management programs. AB 939 sets forth policies and
requirements for the state and local governments. Among them is a hierarchy of preferred
waste management practices. The highest priority is to reduce the amount of waste
generated at its source (source reduction). Second in the hierarchy is to reuse, by extending
the life of existing products and recycling those wastes that can be reused as components
or feed stock for the manufacture of new products, and by composting organic materials.
Source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting are jointly referred to as waste diversion
methods because they divert waste from disposal. Third and lowest in the hierarchy is
disposal by environmentally safe transformation in a landfill. AB 939 and Public Resources
Code section 41780 enforce this prioritization by requiring that all local jurisdictions,
cities, and counties divert 50 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal by the
year 2000 and each year thereafter (using 1990 as the base year). Each local jurisdiction
must demonstrate compliance by instituting source reduction programs.
Senate Bill 1383
Signed into law by Governor Brown in September 2016, SB 1383establishes targets for
reducing methane emissions in various sectors of California’s economy in a statewide
effort to reduce emissions from short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 codifies CARB’s
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy established pursuant to SB 605. One of
the targets established under SB 1383 is achievement of a 50 percent reduction in the level
of statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent
reduction by 2025.
The State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
The SWRCB has adopted a statewide construction general permit that applies to storm
water and non-storm water discharges from construction activities. This general permit,
which is implemented and enforced in the Five Cities region by the Central Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), requires all owners of land where construction
activity occurs to:
• Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm water systems and other
waters of the U.S.;
• Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
emphasizing storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs); and
• Perform inspections of storm water pollution prevention measures to assess their
effectiveness.
3.14-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations - California’s Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings
This law is the primary legislation governing energy use in new buildings in the state.
Relevant prescriptive and mandatory requirements of this law include, but are not limited
to:
• Incorporation of cool-roofs on non-residential buildings;
• Skylights for daylighting buildings; and
• Installation of certified insulation materials.
3.14.2.2 Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The City is the provider of water and wastewater services to residents of the City.
Applicable regulations that would affect the provision of City utilities are based on local
policies that place requirements on the level of service that must be maintained.
Additionally, the City’s General Plan contains policies which encourage energy efficiency
and sustainable practices to reduce the consumption of energy resources. Established
policies and regulations that would apply to the Project are provided below.
Land Use Element (LUE)
Policy LU 1.1.1 Growth Management. The City shall manage its growth so that:
A. The natural environment and air quality will be protected.
B. The relatively high level of services enjoyed by City residents is maintained or
enhanced.
C. The demand for municipal services does not outpace their availability.
D. New residents can be assimilated without disrupting the community’s social
fabric, safety, or established neighborhoods.
E. Residents’ opportunities for direct participation in City government and their
sense of community can continue.
Policy LU 1.1.2 Development Capacity & Services. The City shall not designate more land
for urban uses than its resources can be expected to support.
Policy LU 1.5 Jobs/Housing Relationship. The gap between housing demand (due to more
jobs and college enrollment) and supply should not increase.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-17
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Policy LU 1.13.1 Water and Sewer Service. Although the City will serve those parties
having valid previous connections or contracts, the City shall neither provide nor permit
new delivery of City potable water or sewer services to the following areas:
A. Outside the City limits;
B. Outside the urban reserve line;
C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the City water system;
D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the City sewer
system.
Policy LU 1.13.10 Solid Waste Capacity. In addition to other requirements for adequate
resources and services prior to development, the City shall require that adequate solid waste
disposal capacity exists before granting any discretionary land use approval which would
increase solid waste generation.
Policy LU 1.14.7 Development Fee Programs. The City shall maintain a development fee
program that covers costs associated with serving projects with City services and facilities.
This maintenance will include periodic review of fees collected to ensure they are adequate
to cover City costs.
Policy LU 2.3.1 Mixed Uses and Convenience. The City shall promote a mix of compatible
uses in neighborhoods to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools,
parks, churches, and retail stores. Neighborhood shopping and services should be available
within about 1 mile of all dwellings. When nonresidential, neighborhood-serving uses are
developed, existing housing shall be preserved, and new housing added where possible. If
existing dwellings are removed for such uses, the development shall include replacement
dwellings (no net loss of residential units).
Policy 3.3.1 New or Expanded Areas of Neighborhood Commercial Use. The City shall
provide for new or expanded areas of neighborhood commercial uses that: (A) Are created
within, or extended into, nonresidential areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods; (B)
Provide uses to serve nearby residents, not the whole City; (C) Have access from arterial
streets, and not increase traffic on residential streets; (D) Have safe and pleasant pedestrian
access from the surrounding service area, as well as good internal circulation; (E) Are
designed to be pedestrian-oriented, and architecturally compatible with the adjacent
neighborhoods being served. Pedestrian-oriented features of project design should include:
(i) Off-street parking areas located to the side or rear of buildings rather than between
3.14-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
buildings and the street; (ii) Landscaped areas with public seating; and (iii) Indoor or
outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some neighborhood activities.
Policy LU 9.7 Sustainable Design. The City shall promote, and where appropriate, require
sustainable building practices that consume less energy, water and other resources,
facilitate natural ventilation, use daylight effectively, and are healthy, safe, comfortable,
and durable. Projects shall include, unless deemed infeasible by the City, the following
sustainable design features.
A. Energy Efficient Structure. Utilize building standards and materials that achieve
or surpass best practices for energy efficiency.
B. Energy-Efficient Appliances. Utilize appliances, including air conditioning and
heating systems that achieve high energy efficiency. Incorporation of alternative
energy systems (e.g. passive and/or active solar, heat pumps) is encouraged.
C. Naturalized Ventilation. Optimized potential for cooling through natural
ventilation.
D. Plumbing. Utilize plumbing fixtures that conserve or reuse water such as low flow
faucets or grey water systems and implement a builder incentive program that will
encourage new homes to be built with onsite water/heat recycling systems to help
achieve the goal of net zero water and energy use.
E. Efficient Landscaping. Include landscaping that reduces water use through use of
drought-tolerant/native plant species, high-efficiency irrigation (drip irrigation),
and reduction or elimination of the use of turf. Collection and use of site runoff
and rainwater harvesting in landscape irrigation is encouraged.
F. Solar Orientation. Optimize solar orientation of structures to the extent possible.
G. Privacy and Solar Access. New buildings outside of the downtown will respect
the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas,
particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of
adjacent dwellings.
H. Solar Ready. The City shall encourage new development to be build “solar ready”
so that owners may easily install solar infrastructure, as appropriate.
I. Solar Canopies. The City shall encourage the inclusion of solar canopies that
include solar panels (such as structures over parking lots) on new construction, as
appropriate.
Policy LU 9.13 Incentive Program. The City shall consider the feasibility of providing
incentives for new and renovate projects that incorporate sustainable design features such
as constructing new buildings that are solar ready, or off-setting significant operational
energy use through use of solar water heating, photovoltaic systems, geothermal or wind
energy systems.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-19
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Water & Wastewater Management Element (WWME)
Policy WWME A 2.2.1 Multiple Water Sources. The City shall utilize multiple water
resources to meet its water supply needs.
Policy WWME B 2.2.2 Service Capacity. The City’s wastewater collection system and
Water Resource Recovery Facility shall support population and related service demands
consistent with the General Plan.
Policy WWME B 2.2.3 Wastewater Service for New Development. New development
shall pay its proportionate or “fair share” of expanded treatment and collection system
capacity and upgrades. New development will only be permitted if adequate capacity is
available within the wastewater collection system and/or Water Resource Recovery
Facility.
Policy WWME A 7.2.1 Recycled Water Supply. The City will make available recycled
water to substitute for existing potable water uses as allowed by law and to supply new
non-potable uses.
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
Policy COS 4.3.1 Use of best available practices. The City will employ the best available
practices in energy conservation, procurement, use and production, and will encourage
individuals, organizations and other agencies to do likewise. “Best available practices”
means behavior and technologies that reflect recommendations of specialists and that use
the least energy for a desired outcome, considering available equipment, life-cycle costs,
social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies. Best available
practices include use of sustainable sources. Sustainable sources are naturally renewed in
a relatively short time and avoid substantial undesirable side effects.
Policy COS 4.3.3 Energy-efficient improvements. The City will continue to identify
energy efficiency improvement measures to the greatest extent possible, undertake all
necessary steps to seek funding for their implementation and, upon securing availability of
funds, implement the measures in a timely manner.
Policy COS 4.3.4 Use of Energy Efficient, Renewable Energy Resources. The City will
promote the use of cost effective, renewable, non-depleting energy sources wherever
possible, both in new construction projects and in existing buildings and facilities.
3.14-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Policy COS 4.3.6 Energy Efficiency and Green Building in New Development. The City
shall encourage energy-efficient “green buildings” as certified by the U.S. Green Building
Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program or equivalent
certification.
Policy COS 4.4.1 Pedestrian- and Bicycle-friendly Design. Residences, work places and
facilities for all other activities will be located and designed to promote travel by
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy COS 4.4.2 Alternative Transportation. The City’s transportation and circulation
systems shall foster travel by modes other than motor vehicles, including walking, bicycles
and public transit.
Policy COS 4.5.1 Solar Access Standards. To encourage use of solar energy, reasonable
solar access shall be provided and protected. The City will protect reasonable solar
exposure for existing collectors and likely locations of future collectors, both active and
passive. Standards for the subdivision and development of property should assure desirable
solar access.
Policy COS 4.5.2 Subdivision Design for Solar Access. In subdivisions, the layout of
streets and lots shall provide and protect solar exposure. To assure the maximum control
over potential shading features, the longest dimension of each lot should be oriented within
30 degrees of south, unless the subdivider demonstrates that for certain lots any of the
following applies:
A. The lots are large enough to allow desirable solar access, regardless of lot
orientation.
B. Buildings will be constructed as part of the tract development, and the buildings
will be properly oriented, with adequate solar access.
C. Topography makes variations from the prescribed orientation desirable to reduce
grading or tree removal, or to take advantage of a setting that would favor greater
reliance on early morning or late afternoon solar exposure.
D. Topographical conditions, such as steep, north-facing slopes or shading by the
mass of a hill, make solar energy infeasible.
E. The size of the subdivision, combined with the existing orientation of surrounding
streets and lots, precludes desirable lot orientation.
Policy COS 4.5.3 Solar Access Easements. Solar access easements will be required in all
new subdivisions, as provided in the State of California Solar Rights Act, unless any of the
following applies:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-21
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
A. The subdivision incorporates a building development plan that will assure
desirable solar access.
B. Desirable solar exposure will be protected by the City’s Zoning Regulations.
C. The subdivision establishes yard or height standards designed to assure desirable
solar access, supplementary to the Zoning Regulations, which would make a
system of easements for each lot unnecessary.
Policy COS 4.5.7 Unwanted Solar Heat Gain. Sites and buildings should be designed to
avoid unwanted heat gain from solar exposure. Features that provide shading at suitable
times of the day and year and generally should be “passive” or automatic, avoiding the
need for occupants to regularly monitor or adjust them.
Policy COS 4.6.5 Encourage Sustainable Employee Commuting Practices. Encourage
alternatives to employees commuting as occupants of individual vehicles powered by non-
sustainable fuels.
Policy COS 4.6.8 Energy Efficient Project Design. Encourage energy-efficient project
design by emphasizing use of daylight and solar exposure, shading and natural ventilation,
as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain
functionality and comfort. Educate City staff, citizen advisers, developers and designers on
ways to exceed minimum state energy standards.
Policy COS 4.6.9 Solar Access for New Development. Address solar access in all plans
needing City discretionary approval, considering both structures and vegetation. Shading
by vegetation is also subject to the California Solar Shade Control Act. This act prohibits
the placement of vegetation that would shade a solar collector on another’s property, if the
collector meets certain height and setback criteria. The City will advise those seeking
permits for solar collectors to document vegetation existing when the collector is installed
or built.
Policy COS 4.6.11 Financial Assistance for Energy Efficiency Improvements. The City
will actively seek all available sources of funding for implementing energy efficiency
improvement and utilities infrastructure renewable projects, including federal and state
budget appropriations, federal, state, and private sector grant opportunities, utilities and
other unique public/private sector financing.
Policy COS 4.6.17 Require Solar Power for New Dwellings. Within new single-family
residential projects of 20 or more dwelling units, 5 percent of the total number of dwellings
shall be built with photovoltaic solar collectors beginning in 2008; this percentage shall
3.14-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
increase 4 percent each year until 2020. Multi-family residential developments shall be
exempt from this requirement, except for common-use facilities such as recreation rooms,
spas, or swimming pools. In these cases, the common facilities shall be built with
photovoltaic solar collectors.
Policy COS 5.4.3 Material Recycling in Private Development, Businesses, and
Operation. The City will promote waste diversion and material recycling in private
development, business and operations, and will encourage businesses or nonprofit entities
to provide building materials recycling and source reduction services.
Policy COS 5.5.8 Recycling Facilities in New Development. During development review,
the City shall require facilities in new developments to accommodate and encourage
recycling.
Policy COS 10.2.2 Ahwahnee Water Principles. In planning for its water operations,
programs and services, the City will be guided by the Ahwahnee Water Principles and will
encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to follow these policies:
A. Community design should be compact, mixed use, walkable and transit-oriented
so that automobile generated urban runoff pollutants are minimized and the open
lands that absorb water are preserved to the maximum extent possible.
B. Natural resources such as wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas,
open space, and native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as
valued assets for flood protection, water quality improvement, groundwater
recharge, habitat, and overall long-term water resource sustainability.
C. Water holding areas such as creekbeds, recessed athletic fields, ponds, cisterns,
and other features that serve to recharge groundwater, reduce runoff, improve
water quality and decrease flooding should be incorporated into the urban
landscape.
D. All aspects of landscaping from the selection of plants to soil preparation and the
installation of irrigation systems should be designed to reduce water demand,
retain runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater.
E. Permeable surfaces should be used for hardscape. Impervious surfaces such as
driveways, streets, and parking lots should be minimized so that land is available
to absorb storm water, reduce polluted urban runoff, recharge groundwater and
reduce flooding.
F. Dual plumbing that allows grey water from showers, sinks and washers to be
reused for landscape irrigation should be included in the infrastructure of new
development, consistent with state guidelines.
G. Community design should maximize the use of recycled water for appropriate
applications including outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and commercial and
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-23
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
industrial processes. Purple pipe should be installed in all new construction and
remodeled buildings in anticipation of the future availability of recycled water.
H. Urban water conservation technologies such as low-flow toilets, efficient clothes
washers, and more efficient water-using industrial equipment should be
incorporated in all new construction and retrofitted in remodeled buildings.
I. Ground water treatment and brackish water desalination should be pursued when
necessary to maximize locally available, drought-proof water supplies.
Policy COS 10.3.1 Efficient Water Use. The City will do the following in support of
efficient water use, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do
likewise:
A. Landscaping:
1. Choose plants that are suitable for the climate and their intended function,
with emphasis on use of native and drought-tolerant plants.
2. Prepare soils for water penetration and retention.
3. Design and operate suitable and efficient irrigation systems.
4. The City will encourage drought-tolerant landscaping, vegetable gardens and
fruit trees in lieu of large expanses of lawn or other more water-demanding
plantings.
5. Landscape maintenance: Landscaped areas will be properly designed for
upkeep and replacement of low-flow irrigation fixtures and equipment.
6. Facilitate use of tertiary-treated water and seek to legalize use of grey water
for non-potable household purposes.
Circulation Element (CE)
Policy 1.7.1. Encourage Better Transportation Habits. San Luis Obispo should: 1.
Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation and depend less on the single-
occupant use of vehicles; and 2. Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency
to establish an objective similar to #1 and support programs that reduce the interregional
use of single-occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternative forms of transportation.
Policy 1.7.2. Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation. San Luis Obispo should: 1.
Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within
existing developed parts of the city by 2035, and extend the system to serve new growth
areas; 2. Complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed
areas by 2035, and provide service to new growth areas; 3. Support the efforts of the County
Air Pollution Control District to implement traffic reduction programs; and 4. Support and
develop education programs directed at promoting types of transportation other than the
single-occupant vehicle.
3.14-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Title 13 - Public Services. Title 13 of the City Municipal Code provides regulations and
standards for development within the City relating to public services, including water
service, water conservation, sewers, underground utilities, and recycled water.
Chapter 8.05, Mandatory Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program
(Ordinance 1381). Chapter 8.05 of Title 8 of the City Municipal Code establishes the
City’s program for the mandatory recycling of construction and demolition debris. This
program requires any applicant for a building or demolition permit complete and submit to
the City for review and approval a recycling plan estimating the volume or weight of
project construction and demolition debris and a plan for recycling of at least 50 percent of
the weight of all debris.
San Luis Obispo Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
The City adopted its 2015 UWMP on June 14, 2016, which provides the State of
California’s Department of Water Resources an assessment of the City’s present and future
water resources needs. Specifically, this document provides water supply planning for a
25-year planning period in 5-year increments. Part of the recent amendment was the
addition and enhancement of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The plan identifies
water supplies for existing and future demands; quantifies water demands during the
normal year, single-dry year and multiple-dry years; and identifies supply reliability under
the three hydrological conditions. The UWMP document has been prepared in compliance
with the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act as amended in 2009.
City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan
The City’s Climate Action Plan, adopted by Resolution No. 10388 in 2012, is a strategic
document, based on the idea that effective global solutions to climate change will largely
be the result of collective action of local communities and governments. The Climate
Action Plan enables the City to maintain local control of implementing state direction (AB
32 – the California Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce GHG emissions to 1990
levels by 2020. GHG reduction strategies align with existing General Plan policies, and
adoption of a Climate Action Plan is an “Other Important Objective” in the City’s 2011-13
Financial Plan.
The Climate Action Plan proposes strategies to reduce GHG emissions from community-
wide activities and government operations. Community-wide activities are broken down
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-25
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
into six focus areas: buildings, renewable energy, transportation and land use, water, solid
waste, and parks and open space. Corresponding goals include: energy-efficient buildings,
clean and renewable energy sources, improved transportation options, reduced water
consumption, reduced waste, and maintenance and growth of the urban forest.
The City is currently engaged in the process of updating its Climate Action Plan to identify
new measures and targets to achieve or exceed the State’s GHG reduction targets identified
for the year 2030 under SB 32. In addition, the City, in a City Council hearing held on
September 18, 2018, declared its intent to adopt a target for achieving citywide carbon
neutrality by the year 2035. The update to the Climate Action Plan will identified new
measures and policies applicable to development within the City for reducing carbon
emission from various sources, include energy consumption, to achieve this target.
Clean Energy Choice Program
The City is currently developing local amendments to the 2019 California Building Code
to encourage all-electric new buildings. When paired with MBCP's carbon free electricity
supply, all electric new buildings are carbon free and avoid health and safety issues
associated with fossil fuels. At its meeting on Tuesday, September 3, 2019, the City
Council approved the Clean Energy Choice Program, which involves ordinance
amendments that take effect January 1, 2020. The City joins more than 50 other California
communities currently considering ways to encourage cleaner buildings. Unlike some
cities that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program
will provide options to people who want to develop new buildings with natural gas. New
projects wishing to use natural gas will be required to build more efficient and higher
performing buildings and offset gas use by performing retrofits on existing buildings or by
paying an in-lieu fee that will be used for the same purpose.
3.14.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.14.3.1 Thresholds for Determining Significance
Thresholds are based upon Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of
the Project would have significant adverse impacts on utilities if the Project would:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects;
3.14-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
b) Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years;
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals; or
e) Not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
Implementation of the Project would have significant adverse impacts on energy if the
Project would:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation; or
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency.
3.14.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
Existing and forecasted capacities of public and private utility service providers were
obtained from the General Plan WWME (2018), 2015 UWMP (2016), Wastewater Master
Plan (2015), Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (2015),
Recycled Water Master Plan (2017), the City’s Water Resources Status Report (2018), the
Sewer System Management Plan Update (2019), and reports including a Project-specific
Water Supply Assessment (WSA) performed by RRM Design Group (2019) for the Project
(see Appendix K) and reviewed/approved by the City’s Utilities Department. The General
Plan WWME and coordination with the City’s Utilities Department provided additional
information used to establish levels of significance for water supply and distribution, and
sewer system impacts.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-27
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Energy resource information is based on energy use data reported by the CEC, Caltrans,
estimated energy demands for the Project based upon California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod) v. 2016.3.2 modeling results (see Appendix D), and energy
conservation goals and policies established in the City’s Climate Action Plan (2012).2
This analysis evaluates the adequacy of existing and planned utility infrastructure to serve
the proposed Project. Projected increased demands for public and private utility service
resulting from the proposed Project were calculated using local demand factors from
adopted City plans and policies or energy demand and conservation standards. Project
demand for water, wastewater, and solid waste are based on demand factors found within
the General Plan, as well as information provided within the Project-specific WSA. Water
demand for the proposed Project site was compared to water available for allocation within
the City and wastewater generation was compared to available capacity at the City’s WRRF
and supporting infrastructure such was sewer mains and lift stations. Energy providers for
the Project (PG&E, MBCP, and SoCal Gas) also serve much larger service areas. Demand
estimations for natural gas and electricity are based on CalEEMod results (Appendix D)
and associated use factors. Impacts related to stormwater management infrastructure, site
hydrology, and drainage/storage capacity are addressed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and
Water Quality and are therefore, not addressed further in this section.
3.14.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses utility and energy impacts associated with the construction and
operation of the Project. Utility and energy impacts associated with the Project are
summarized in Table 3.14-6.
2 The City is currently updating the Climate Action Plan; see also, Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions.
3.14-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 3.14-6. Summary of Project Impacts
Utility Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
UT-1. The Project 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
UT-2. Project-related increases in water use
would increase demand for the City’s potable
water supply.
None required Less than Significant
UT-3. Project-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
UT-4. The Project would generate additional
solid waste for disposal at the Cold Canyon
Landfill.
None required Less than Significant
UT-5. The Project would result in an increase of
energy consumption and requirement for
additional energy resources.
None required Less than Significant
Impact UT-1 The Project 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
The Project would install new underground infrastructure and connections to provide
associated utility services to the Project site (refer to Figure 2-13 and Figure 2-14).
Potential onsite construction would include trenching for utility installation, transport of
pipes and other material to the site, and associated increases in construction-related traffic.
Onsite trenching could impact sensitive biological or subsurface cultural resources, lead to
increased erosion and possible sedimentation, and generate noise. Offsite trenching would
occur along LOVR and may adversely affect traffic, cause delays or congestion, and
generate air emissions. These impacts are further described below; construction impacts
are also evaluated throughout this EIR for affected resource areas.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-29
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
The proposed water and wastewater lines would tie into the City’s water supply, including
potable and recycled water, and wastewater collection systems, both located along LOVR
adjacent to the Project site’s northeastern boundary (refer to Section 2.4.4, Utilities and
Services). The proposed water and wastewater lines would follow the Project’s proposed
street alignments with lateral connections to proposed buildings and would be installed
concurrent with roadway construction during Phase 1 of the Project. Individual lateral
connections to proposed building would be installed during vertical construction activities
of Phases 2 through 4.
The proposed gravity wastewater lines within the Project site would transport flows to the
existing 18-inch gravity wastewater main located along the southern shoulder of LOVR.
Flows would then be conveyed south to the Calle Joaquin lift station, and then through the
existing force main to a gravity sewer main that crosses U.S. 101 to the Laguna lift station
and ultimately to the WRRF. The proposed water lines would convey potable water to
Project buildings from the City’s water distribution system located approximately 75 feet
east of the Specific Plan area boundary.
Construction of this system of water and wastewater lines would potentially require
trenching and disturbance of agricultural grazing land and potential wetland and riparian
habitats, along with potential for erosion, sedimentation, air quality, and GHG emissions
associated with construction. One of these proposed water mains would cross the Froom
Creek corridor near the eastern edge of the Project site. For the Madonna Froom Ranch
portion of the Project site, the gravity lines would follow the proposed Local Road “A”
connection with LOVR at the Auto Park Way intersection, which would result in grading
and construction across wetlands within the LOVR ditch (see Section 3.4, Biological
Resources). The gravity lines within the Villaggio portion of the Project site would cross
portions of Drainage 2 and 3 and serpentine grassland habitats and then cross Froom Creek
with potential construction impacts to sensitive habitats (refer to Section 3.4, Biological
Resources and Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality). Utility line construction could
also impact unknown subsurface archaeological resources (see Section 3.5, Cultural and
Tribal Cultural Resources). Construction of these lines would generate noise and traffic
along LOVR, as discussed within Section 3.9, Noise, and Section 3.13, Transportation and
Traffic. This construction would also have the potential to release hazardous materials
contamination into proximate sensitive areas or surface waters, as discussed in Section 3.7,
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire.
3.14-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Construction of underground utilities including gas and electrical utilities would also
include excavation and trenching within the Project site to install subterranean pipelines,
gas lines, and electrical conduits. Construction of gas and electrical utilities would occur
in conformance with the Uniform Plumbing Code and City standards and would be subject
to review and approval of proposed utility plans by the City Utilities Department as a
standard regulatory requirement.
Construction of proposed new utilities to serve the Project would have the potential to
disturb biological and cultural resources, adversely affect hydrology and water quality, and
generate hazardous materials, noise, traffic, and air emissions, which would be potentially
significant. Construction mitigation measures to reduce these impacts are discussed in
relevant resource sections (i.e., Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Section 3.4, Biological Resources, Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources,
Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire, Section 3.8, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Section 3.10, Noise, and Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic).
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 shall apply.
MM BIO-1 shall apply.
MM CR-2 shall apply.
MM CR-3 shall apply.
MM CR-4 shall apply.
MM HAZ-1 shall apply.
MM HYD-1 shall apply.
MM HYD-2 shall apply.
MM NO-1 shall apply.
MM NO-2 shall apply.
MM NO-3 shall apply.
MM NO-4 shall apply.
MM TRANS-1 shall apply.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-31
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
MM UT-1 The Applicant shall amend the FRSP to require that the size, location, and
alignment of all on- and offsite water supply, recycled water, wastewater,
and energy infrastructure shall be subject to review and approval by the
City’s Public Works and Utilities Departments. The Applicant shall be
responsible for constructing all required onsite and offsite utility
improvements, as well as for repaving of damaged roadways.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant is required to implement
the above standard mitigation measures prior to approval of grading and the
final VTM. City staff shall ensure the above measures are incorporated into
the Final FRSP and building plans prior grading and recordation of the final
VTM.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are on all Project plans. City
staff shall work with the Applicant to ensure that these requirements are
implemented.
Residual Impacts
Mitigation required above would ensure utility installation would avoid significant impacts
to onsite natural resources (e.g., horizontal directional drilling below wetland areas to avoid
disturbance, onsite monitoring for cultural resources), minimize risk of hazardous materials
release, and control construction traffic, noise, and air emissions. MM UT-1 would ensure
Project utilities are engineered consistent with City standards. With implementation of
mitigation measure MM UT-1, as well as construction-related mitigation measures for air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation and traffic, residual impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact UT-2 Project-related increases in water use would increase demand for the
City’s potable water supply (Less than Significant).
Though construction of the Project would result in demand for water supplies for fugitive
dust control, establishment of vegetation for habitat replacement and creation, and other
purposes, this water is likely to be trucked from offsite or pumped from the existing
groundwater well onsite. This water is not anticipated to come from the City’s existing
water supply and is not considered as part of the Project’s impact on the City’s potable
water supply. The proposed Project during operation would increase water demand within
the City.
3.14-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
The Project’s WSA estimated a Project-created water demand using the 1999 City of San
Luis Obispo Water Use Factors based on a breakdown of land uses (Table 3.14-7). The
WSA estimated an indoor potable water demand of 134.6 AFY. The WSA estimated
outdoor water demand at 39.59 AFY based on mapping of the proposed irrigated water use
zones to determine outdoor irrigation recycled water demands; the Project proposes to
irrigate all landscaping with recycled water (see Appendix K). Using the WSA-estimated
total indoor water demand for the proposed land uses and the WSA-estimated outdoor
irrigation water demand values, the total water demand of the Project is estimated at
approximately 174.18 AFY.
This analysis additionally assumes the Project would require approximately 62.25 AFY of
recycled water, as indicated by the WSA and associated City Water Use Factors. The
Project’s indoor water demand, outdoor water demand, and recycled water demand result
in a total cumulative demand of 236.48 AFY of demand.
The estimated long-term Project-generated demand for potable water of 236.48 AFY
would be 10 percent of the City’s 2,271 AFY of available water. Therefore, the City would
have potable water supply capacity to serve the Project (Table 3.14-8), including
consideration for dry years and multiple dry years (drought), as depicted by Table 3.14-5.
According to Tables 5 and 6 of the City’s 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan, the City has
a short-term and long-term surplus of recycled water Considering the Project’s estimated
recycled demand for 62.25 AFY of recycled water 3, available surplus recycled water,
sufficient supplies exist to service the proposed Project. The City continues to monitor
recycled water storage constraints and treatment plant limitations to ensure an adequate
recycled water supply would be available to all City recycled water customers.
Consistent with Ahwahnee Water Principles and the City’s General Plan, COSE Policy
10.2.2, the Project would use recycled water for irrigation of the Project site’s landscaping
and habitat restoration areas. Based on these water demand projections, there would be a
sufficient supply of water to meet the Project's needs, and impacts would be less than
significant.
3 The City’s 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan included an estimate of the recycled water demand from the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan area as approximately 60 acre -feet per year.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-33
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 3.14-7. Estimated Water Demand from Project WSA based on City Water
Use Factors
Areas Quantity
and Units
Water Use
Factor
(AFY)1
Outdoor
Water
Demand
(AFY)
Indoor
Water
Demand
(AFY)
Total Water
Demand
Estimation
(AFY)
MADONNA FROOM RANCH
Housing (R-3 attached
townhomes) 130 dwellings 0.3 0 39.0 39.0
Apartments (R-4 multi-
family/ affordable) 44 apartments 0.18 3.1 4.8 7.9
Commercial – Retail 30,000 sf 0.06 0.5 1.3 1.8
Hotel (with restaurant) 120 rooms 0.43 15.5 36.1 51.6
Basin Planting 2.8 acres ** ** ** **
Parks, Trails, Parkways,
and Open Space
(including creek planting)
11.3 acres ** ** ** **
Subtotal 19.1 81.2 100.3
VILLAGGIO
Independent Living
(standalone residential
units)
61 dwellings 0.3 0 18.3 18.3
Garden, Village Suite and
Standard Apartment Units
(senior)
305
apartments 0.1 12.2 18.3 30.5
Assisted Living Units
(senior apartments) 38 apartments 0.1 1.5 2.3 3.8
Memory Care and Skilled
Nursing (beds) 51 occupants 0.08 1.63 2.45 4.08
Commercial – Mixed Use
Occupancy 51,500 sf 0.06 0.93 2.16 3.09
Maintenance Office 5,300 sf 0.032 0.05 0.12 0.17
Restaurants 8,000 sf 1.32 3.17 7.39 10.56
Fitness Facility with Pool 13,000 sf 0.26 1.01 2.37 3.38
Common Area
Landscaping 15.6 acres ** ** ** **
Subtotal 20.49 53.39 73.88
Total (AFY)
39.59 134.59 174.182
Source: Water Supply Assessment 2019; see Appendix K.
1Water Use Factors from the 1999 City of San Luis Obispo Water Use Factors.
2Does not reflect total potable water demand, nor total demand for the Project. The indoor domestic demands were
calculated using the City's water use factors percentage of indoor water use to determine the domestic water use since
landscape water is proposed to be irrigated with recycled water for all uses.
** values indicate a recycled water use separate from potable water use.
AFY = acre-feet/year sf = square feet
Table 3.14-8. City Water Supply Availability and Froom Ranch Water Usage
City Primary
Water Supply City Water Usage City Primary Water
Supply Available
Froom Ranch Specific
Plan use (calculated by
use factors)
7,496 AFY 5,225 AF in 2018 2,271 AFY 236.48 AFY
AFY = acre-feet/year
3.14-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Impact UT-3 Project-generated wastewater would contribute to demand for
wastewater collection facilities and remaining available and planned
capacity of the City’s WRRF (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
Using wastewater generation factors provided by the General Plan LUE and indoor water
demand estimates from 3.14-7, the Project is estimated to generate from 85,689 gpd and
120,154 gpd of new wastewater flows to the City’s sewer system and the WRRF, resulting
in an incremental increase to wastewater flows Citywide (see Table 3.14-9).
Table 3.14-9. Wastewater Projections Resulting from the Project.
Specific Plan
Proposed
Development1
Quantity Land Use Type2
Wastewater
Generation
Factor2
Wastewater Flow
VILLAGGIO
Independent
Living Units
366 units Multi-Family 105
gallons/unit/day 38,430 gpd
Assisted Living
Units
38 units Single-Family 150
gallons/unit/day 5,700 gpd
Health Care Units 51 beds Single-Family 150
gallons/unit/day 7,650 gpd
Health Care
Administration
Building
85,078 sf
Office 54 gallons/1,000
sf/day 4,594 gpd
Ancillary Uses 84,078 sf Commercial 60 gallons/1,000
sf/day 5,045 gpd
Villaggio Subtotal 61,419 gpd
MADONNA FROOM RANCH
Medium-High
Density
Residential
130 units
Multi-Family 105
gallons/unit/day 13,650 gpd
High Density
Residential
44 units Multi-Family 105
gallons/unit/day 4,620 gpd
Hotel with
Restaurant
70,000 sf Commercial 60 gallons/1,000
sf/day 4,200 gpd
Other
Commercial
30,000 sf Commercial 60 gallons/1,000
sf/day 1,800 gpd
Madonna Froom Ranch Subtotal 24,270 gpd
Grand Total 85,689 gpd
gpd = gallons per day
1Refer to Table 2-2 for summary list of proposed development
2City of San Luis Obispo LUCE EIR 2014a Table 4.16-7.
Wastewater generated at the Project site would be conveyed to the Calle Joaquin lift station,
through a force main north to the Laguna lift station, and then conveyed to the City’s
WRRF for treatment. As discussed above, the Calle Joaquin lift station does not experience
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-35
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
capacity issues and is capable of accommodating Project flows. However, the City notes
the gravity main that extends under U.S. 101 to the Laguna lift station currently experiences
capacity issues and needs replacement in order to accommodate new development within
the service area of this lift station, particularly the recently approved San Luis Ranch
development (Personal communication with Jennifer Metz, City of San Luis Obispo
Utilities Department, May 2019). Operation of the Project and associated new wastewater
flows to this lift station would contribute towards existing capacity constraints, resulting in
need for upsizing the gravity main under U.S. 101.
According to the City’s Utilities Department, in 2018 the City’s WRRF treated an average
of 3.3 MGD wastewater of its 5.1 MGD design capacity, during dry-weather conditions.
The Project would contribute additional wastewater to the WRRF, beginning in 2022 with
operation of the Lower Area of Villaggio. Since the WRRF has ample service capacity, the
Project’s contribution would not exceed dry-weather wastewater treatment capacity.
Further, as discussed below, improvements to capacity treatment facilities at the WRRF
are underway.
The 2015 WRRF Facilities Plan addresses upgrades of the WRRF in response to stricter
discharge limits required by the Central Coast RWQCB to increase dry-weather wastewater
treatment capacity to serve the City’s population at General Plan buildout, and to replace
existing aging facilities at the end of their service life. Construction of the WRRF upgrade
will be initiated in late 2019, and the WRRF’s capacity will increase to 5.4 MGD upon
completion (City of San Luis Obispo 2019). These pending WRRF upgrades would
increase capacity to handle dry-weather flow anticipated under full buildout of the City
General Plan and improve the facilities capabilities in treating wet-weather flow.
During wet-weather conditions, the Project would incrementally exacerbate the existing
deficiency of the WRRF to process and treat peak flows that can exceed 20 MGD under
existing conditions. While peaks in wastewater flow may result in permit violations and
release of effluent to San Luis Obispo Creek, the Project’s contribution of 85,689 gpd to
120,154 gpd to this existing issue is nominal.
Any wastewater pipe installed as part of the Project would be consistent with City standards
for new pipeline material and sizing to adequately convey Project’s wastewater effluent to
the WRRF; the City has not experienced inflow and infiltration issues in newer
construction; therefore, the Project is not likely to exacerbate the cause of current wet-
weather peak flows as a result of inflow and infiltration. Further, to help offset the effects
of wastewater generation, new development is required to pay development impact fees to
3.14-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
the City for the connection to a public sewer. As the Project would require the connection
to the City collection system, the Applicant would be subject to development impact fees
implemented by the City for utility services to offset any impacts to capacity at the City’s
WRRF. Payment of these fees as a condition for Project approval would ensure that the
Applicant pays a fair share of costs associated with the wastewater infrastructure needed
to serve the Project and ensure adequate WRRF capacity to serve the development.
While the City’s WRRF has capacity to serve the Project and mandatory compliance with
existing regulations and fee programs would address the Project’s contribution to increases
in wastewater treatment, impacts associated with the generation of new wastewater flows
and the inadequate capacity of the system to serve the Project are considered potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM UT-2 The Applicant shall pay fair share costs for replacement of the Laguna lift
station or construction of capacity improvements through negotiation of a
private reimbursement agreement with the City.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Negotiation of a private reimbursement
agreement with the City will fulfil the Project’s fair share financial
obligation towards construction of necessary capacity improvements or
replacement of the Laguna lift station. Appropriate fees shall be negotiated
with the City. Payment of fees shall be required prior to issuance of building
permits for each development phase.
Monitoring. The City shall approve the private reimbursement agreement
and verify that the Applicant contributes appropriate fair share fees as
approved by the City.
Residual Impact
Implementation of MM UT-2 requiring payment of fees to fund the cost of improvements
to the Laguna lift station would compensate for the Project’s contribution to capacity issues
at the Laguna lift station. Residual impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact UT-4 The Project would generate additional solid waste for disposal at the
Cold Canyon Landfill (Less than Significant).
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-37
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Non-organic solid waste generated by the Project from future residents, employees, and
visitors would be collected and hauled by San Luis Garbage Company to the Cold Canyon
Landfill for management and disposal, including recycling. Organic waste generated by
the Project would be hauled to the Kompogas Organic Recycling Plant. Expansion of the
Cold Canyon Landfill was approved in 2013, increasing capacity from 1,620 to 2,050 tons
per day. As of 2015, the Cold Canyon Landfill had 14,500,000 cy of capacity remaining
out of its total maximum permitted capacity of 23,900,000 cy, which means that the landfill
had approximately 60.7 percent available capacity remaining (CalRecycle 2018). The
landfill has an anticipated closure date of 2040; therefore, it is expected that Cold Canyon
Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal demands.
The Project would contribute an estimated 6.7 tons per day of solid waste (Table 3.14-10).
Based on these daily solid waste projections, the Project would contribute approximately
0.3 percent of the potential daily waste capacity of Cold Canyon Landfill. Anticipated
increases in waste generated at the Project site would therefore comprise a nominal portion
of excess capacity of existing solid waste facilities.
Long‐term waste disposal impacts are also minimized by including facilities for the
collection and storage of recyclables in the new development. Under the FRSP, Villaggio
would include a centralized trash compactor and perform its own trash pick-up and
recycling from independent living housing units, assisted units, and other ancillary
facilities within the development. This waste would then be collected by San Luis Garbage
Company, which implements various strategies and measures for achieving reductions in
the solid waste diversion stream to achieve a 75 percent reduction in solid waste by 2020,
pursuant SB 341 and City Climate Action Plan strategy WST 1. Significant reductions in
the community waste stream generated by the Project would be accomplished through
mandatory compliance with Chapter 8.05 of Title 8 of the City Municipal Code, which
requires a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction material be
prepared to reduce waste generated from Project construction. Given waste produced by
the Project would not substantially affect the landfill’s capacity or ability to comply with
federal, state, or local regulations. Therefore, impacts regarding the generation of solid
waste by the Project would be less than significant.
3.14-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 3.14-10. Estimated Solid Waste Production
Waste Generation
Source Proposed Uses Quantity (#
of Units)
Waste
Generation
Factor
Waste
Generation
(lbs/day)
VILLAGGIO
Multi-family Independent Living
Units 366 units 8.6 lb/day/unit 3,147.6
Nursing/Retirement
Home Assisted Living Units 38 units 5 lb/person/day1 190
Hospital Health Care Units 51 beds 16 lb/bed/day1 816
Office
Administration
Building and
Ancillary Uses
85,078 sf 0.006 lb/sf/day 510.5
Commercial Sector
(Commercial Retail) Ancillary Uses 84,078 sf 0.046 lb/sf/day 3,867.6
Subtotal 8,531.7
MADONNA FROOM RANCH
Multi-family Medium-High
Density Residential 130 units 8.6 lb/day/unit3 1,118
Multi-family High Density
Residential 44 units 5.31 lb/day/unit4 233.6
Service Sector (Other
Services) Hotel with Restaurant 70,000 sf 3.12 lb/100
sf/day 2,184
Commercial Sector
(Commercial Retail) Other Commercial 30,000 sf 0.046 lb/sf/day 1,380
Subtotal 4,915.6
Estimated Total Waste Generation (lbs per day) 13,447.3
Estimated Total Waste Generation (lbs per year) 4,908,264.5
Estimated Total Waste Generation (tons per day) 6.7
Estimated Total Waste Generation (tons per year) 2,454.1
1CalRecycle estimates 5 lb/person/day for nursing/retirement home waste generation, and 16 lb/bed/day for hospitals.
As the assisted living component lies within this range, the conservative estimate is used for this analysis.
3Utilized highest “Multi-family” generation factor to ensure a conservative analysis.
4Utilized second-highest “Multi-family” generation factor to align the estimated generation in comparison to the
Medium-High Density Residential proposed use.
Source: CalRecycle 2013a; 2013b; 2013c.
Impact UT-5 The Project would result in an increase of energy consumption and
requirement for additional energy resources (Less than Significant).
Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the commitment of additional
energy resources, including consumption of natural gas and electricity through operation
of the Project. As provided in Appendix D, operation of the proposed Project is estimated
to generate a new demand for 128,574.7 therms per year (therms/yr) of natural gas and
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-39
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
5,289.7 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/yr) of electricity (Table 3.14-11) based on
CalEEMod modeling results.
Table 3.14-11. Estimated Project Electricity and Natural Gas Demands
Land Use Area/Quantity Estimated Electricity
Use (MWh/yr)1
Natural Gas Demand
(therms/yr)2
VILLAGGIO
Independent Living Units 366 units 1,661.5 MWh/yr 37,327.8 therms/yr
Congregate Care (Assisted
Living and Health Care Units)
89 units 367.4 MWh/yr 7,689.1 therms/yr
Administration Building and
Ancillary Uses (wellness
center, restaurants, theater, etc.)
169,748 sf 581.7 MWh/yr 34,083.8 therms/yr
Subtotal 2,610.6 MWh/yr 79,100.7 therms/yr
MADONNA FROOM RANCH
Medium-High Density
Residential
130 units 565.3 MWh/yr 13,258.5 therms/yr
High Density Residential 44 units 191.3 MWh/yr 4,487.5 therms/yr
Hotel with Restaurant 70,000 sf 533.4 MWh/yr 31,017.0 therms/yr
Other Commercial 30,000 sf 320.7 MWh/yr 711.0 therms/yr
Other Parking Areas 274,000 sf 1,068.4 MWh/yr 0
Subtotal 2,679.1 MWh/yr 49,474.0 therms/yr
Total 5,289.7 MWh/yr 128,574.7 therms/yr
1 1,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) = 1 gigawatt-hours (GWh)
2 1 therm = 100 thousand British Thermal Units (BTU)
Source: See Appendix D, CalEEMod Worksheets, Section 5.0 Energy Details.
The City’s Clean Energy Choice Program will be effective in 2020 and will apply to Project
implementation. Under the City’s recently adopted Clean Energy Choice Program, the
Project would be encouraged to provide all-electric buildings and paired with MBCP's
carbon free electricity supply. It is possible the natural gas demands estimated for the
Project could convert to electricity demands; however, it is unknown at this time if this
conversion would be feasible for the Project or if the mix of energy sources would
potentially change through design and approval of the development projects for Villaggio
and Madonna Froom Ranch. Therefore, the energy demand estimates provided in Table
3.14-11 are representative of overall Project energy demands, including natural gas. It is
expected that the natural gas buildings will be required to be more efficient and higher
performing buildings and offset gas use by performing retrofits on existing buildings or by
paying an in-lieu fee that will be used for the same purpose.
3.14-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Fuel Consumption
Construction Diesel Fuel
During the five-year Project construction period, diesel fuel would be required to power
heavy construction equipment and trucks. The total construction fuel consumption is
calculated as the sum of total estimated fuel consumption for each piece of equipment used
in each phase of construction. To calculate total fuel consumption for specific equipment,
Section 3.0, Construction Detail in the CalEEMod Worksheets located in Appendix D
provides detailed construction phasing, construction equipment used in each phase, total
number of days worked, equipment horsepower, equipment load factor, and equipment
quantities based on typical construction equipment and default model assumptions. Total
fuel consumption is then based on a fuel consumption factor of 0.05 gallons per horsepower
per hour (gal/hp/hr) for diesel engines as derived from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District CEQA Handbook Table A9-3E.4
The total fuel to be required during construction of the Project is estimated to be 502,347.2
gallons (Table 3.14-12). Refer to detailed calculations of Project Construction Fuel
Consumption in Appendix D.
Table 3.14-12. Estimated Project Construction Fuel Consumption
Phase Fuel Consumption from
Construction Equipment (Gallons)
Fuel Consumption from
Construction Vehicle Trips
(Gallons)
Totals
(Gallons)
Phase I 111,495.1 14,509.6 126,004.7
Phase II 116,778.8 65,195.3 181,974.1
Phase III 99,297.6 38,489.5 137,787.1
Phase IV 40,721.0 15,860.3 56,581.3
Grand Total 368,292.5 134,054.7 502,347.2
Source: Appendix D.
Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption
Operation of the Project would result in the daily consumption of vehicle fuel for Project
trips. As provided in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic, operation of the Project is
anticipated to result in the generation of an additional 46,894 daily VMT, or approximately
5.5 percent of the City’s estimated 851,939 daily VMT in 2014 and 0.5 percent of the City’s
estimated 8,016,501 daily VMT for the year 2035 (City of San Luis Obispo 2014a;
4 The South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Handbook details on diesel engine fuel consumption
rates represent the best available information on and remain relevant for typical diesel engines.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-41
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
SLOCOG 2010). Compared to average per capita VMT, the Project would result in higher
daily VMT per capita than the City, County, and state (Table 3.14-13). Using vehicle fleet
mix data provided in Appendix D and average fuel economy information provided by the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Project-generated annual VMT would result in the
consumption of approximately 2,548.8 gallons of fuel per day, or an estimated 927,763.2
gallons per year (Table 3.14-14). Refer to Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic for
additional discussion regarding Project VMT.
Table 3.14-13. Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled
Population (2018) Total Daily VMT Daily VMT per capita
City 46,548 851,939 18.3
County 281,101 8,016,501 28.5
State 39,557,045 930,958,904 23.5
Proposed Project 1,231 46,894 38.1
Source: Appendix J; SLOCOG 2010; City of San Luis Obispo 2014; U.S. Census Bureau 2018, 2019.
Table 3.14-14. Estimated Operational Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type Percent of
Vehicle Trips1 Daily VMT
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)2
Total Daily Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passenger Cars 58.9 27,620.6 23.3 1,185.4
Light/Medium
Duty Vehicles 34.1 15,990.9 17.1 935.1
Heavy Duty
Vehicles/Other 6.6 3,095.0 7.3 424.0
Motorcycles 0.4 187.5 43.4 4.3
Total 100% 46,894 -- 2,548.8
1 Percentage of Vehicle Trips and Fleet Mix information provided in Table 4.4, Fleet Mix of Appendix D.
-Passenger Cars is the sum of the light-duty-auto fleet mix trip percentage column.
-Light/Medium Duty Vehicles is the sum of the LDT1, LDT2, and MDV fleet mix trip percentage columns.
LDT = light-duty truck; MDV = medium-duty vehicle
-Heavy Duty Vehicles/Other is the sum of the LHD1, LHD2, MHD, HHD, and bus fleet mix trip percentage columns.
LHD = light-heavy-duty; MHD = medium-heavy-duty; HHD – heavy-heavy-duty
Motorcycles is the sum of the MCY fleet mix trip percentage column. MCY = motorcycle
2 Average fuel economy based on average 2014 U.S. vehicle fuel efficiency (mpg) from Table 4-12: Average Light
Duty Vehicle, Long Wheel Base Fuel Consumption and Travel, and Table 4-13: Single-Unit 2-Axle 6-Tire
or More Truck Fuel Consumption and Travel of the National Transportation Statistics.
Source: Appendix D, CalEEMod Worksheets, Section 4.2. Trip Summary Information; Bureau of Transportation
Statistics 2016.
Energy Assessment
Operation of the proposed Project would result in the demand for approximately 128,574.7
therms/yr of natural gas, 5,289.7 MWh/yr of electrical supplies, and 927,763.2 gallons/yr
of vehicle fuel. Further, construction of the Project is anticipated to result in the total
3.14-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
consumption of an additional 502,347.2 gallons of fuel over a five-year construction
period. Based on existing energy demands and capacity of service providers, estimated
operational demand for electricity and natural gas as part of the Project would represent
less than 0.001 percent of PG&E’s and SoCal Gas’ total 2018 energy demands for the
County. Further, additional vehicle fuel demand under operation of the Project would result
in an increase in statewide fuel demand by less than 0.001 percent.
The Project’s estimated per capita electricity and natural gas demands would be below
City, regional and statewide demands (Table 3.14-15). Based on this comparisons of the
Project’s electricity and natural gas demands with statewide, regional, and City demand,
the proposed Project is not expected to result in the use of a large amount of electricity or
natural gas in an unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient manner, nor would it affect regional
supplies or peak/base periods of demand as the estimated energy demand is typical for a
Project of this size, and would result in a negligible increase in Citywide and regional
demands. The Project would be served by existing utility providers and infrastructure and
would not necessitate the expansion of existing facilities or construction of new energy
generation or transmission facilities beyond the onsite facilities proposed as part of the
Project to serve the new development.
Table 3.14-15. Comparison of Total and Per Capita Electricity and Natural Gas
Demands
Total Per Capita
Population
Natural Gas
Demand
(therms/yr)
Electricity
Demand
(MWh/yr)
Natural Gas
Demand
(therms/yr)
Electricity
Demand
(MWh/yr)
City1 46,548 9,586,861 239,580.9 205.9 5.1
County 281,101 83,787,570 1,778,503.6 298.1 6.3
State 39,557,045 12,571,045,750 288,613,480.2 317.8 7.3
Proposed
Project 1,231 128,574.7 5,289.7 104.4 4.3
1Electricity and natural gas demands for the City represent demands as of 2016.
Source: CEC 2018; U.S. Census Bureau 2019b; City of San Luis Obispo 2019b.
As shown in Table 3.14-15 above, the Project’s per capita electricity demand for natural
gas is 49.3 percent less than the 2016 City average, 65.0 percent less than the regional
average, and 67.1 percent less than the state average. Electrical demand per capita for the
proposed Project is 15.7 percent less than the 2016 City average, 31.7 percent less than the
County average, and 41.1 percent less than the state average.
As described in Section 2.0, Project Description and Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning,
the Project would be required to implement and be consistent with existing energy design
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-43
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
standards at the local and state level. The Project would be subject to energy conservation
requirements in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24), California Energy Code
(Part 6) and CALGreen. Adherence to state code requirements would ensure new energy
efficient requirements of Title 24 would be incorporated into the Project, including, but not
limited to, installation of efficient appliances and space-conditioning equipment, lighting
controls, and development of solar ready buildings. In addition to standard required energy
conservation requirements, the Project includes a range of policies and programs that
would proactively reduce the construction and operational energy demand of future
development of the site, further reducing the Project’s potential to result in the wasteful or
inefficient use of energy resources, and promote the conservation of energy and fuel (refer
to Section 2.4.2.2, Sustainability Initiatives). However, it should be noted that energy
efficiency improvements provided by these goals, policies, and regulations cannot be
quantified for the Project due to the nature of the FRSP as a program document and lack
of detail regarding proposed infrastructure and energy efficiency designs.
Based on the above, the demand for energy under the Project is anticipated to be lower than
City, County and state average energy demands, and the Project would generally be more
efficient than proximate existing uses. When considering the potential for the Project to
result in greater conservation of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel supplies
through the implementation of proposed Project design features not quantified above, the
proposed Project’s potential to result in adverse impacts on energy resources and
conservation is very low. The Project design features and measures listed in Section 4.7 of
the Draft FRSP which would improve energy conservation include: requiring orientation
of buildings to maximize solar exposure to improve daylighting and overall energy
efficiency; adherence to energy efficient design in conformance with the California
Building Code with the goal to be Net Zero GHGs in 2020; use of energy efficient
appliances and lighting; use of sustainable building materials; and installation of
photovoltaic collectors. The Project would also be required to comply with federal, state,
and local regulations, pertaining to improved energy efficiency and conservation in both
Project construction and operation, further reducing the Project’s potential to result in
wasteful or inefficient use of energy resources.
In addition, various mitigation measures identified in other sections of this EIR would have
the secondary effect of reducing Project energy demands. For instance, MM AQ-3 through
-6 require the Project to implement measures which would reduce Project VMT and energy
demands. Applicable measures for reducing VMT and associated transportation fuel
demands from MM AQ-3 and -6 include, but are not limited to, development of park-and-
3.14-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
ride lots, subsidizing vanpool programs, funding bicycle facility improvements, rideshare
programs, provision of senior shuttle services, and car share programs. Applicable
measures for reducing electricity and natural gas demands from MM AQ-5 include
achievement of 100 percent carbon neutrality consistent with the City’s 2035 carbon
neutrality target and mandatory requirements for and exceedance of Title 24 Part 11
(CalGreen) minimum standards for all proposed commercial and health-care facilities.
These measures are intended to reduce Project energy demands to the maximum extent
feasible for the proposed Project and demonstrate commitment to reducing energy demands
and the use of energy supplies in as efficient a manner as possible. Therefore, the direct
impacts to energy resources and conservation are considered less than significant.
3.14.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the Project would result in an increased demand for water supply,
wastewater treatment, solid waste management, and energy supplies (e.g., electricity, gas,
transportation fuel). Other than wastewater treatment, all existing utilities systems have
sufficient capacity to provide service to the Project site, as well as to future development
under the City General Plan buildout. Implementation of this Project and other proposed
or current projects listed in Table 3.0-1 would increase the cumulative demand on utilities;
however, these projects would be required to comply with standards for adequate utilities
set forth in the City’s General Plan, would be subject to City planning and review
processes, and would be required to pay development impact fees to offset any contribution
to cumulative impacts from utility infrastructure needs and service capacities. As such, and
as indicated by the LUCE Update EIR, with implementation of Project-specific mitigation,
the Project would not result in any significant or adverse cumulative effects on the supply
of water and solid waste. The Project, along with other cumulative development within the
City and region, would be required to comply with state and City requirements for
implementing energy efficiency measures and help the City achieve carbon neutrality by
2035, which would help to reduce inefficient or wasteful use of energy supplies within
existing and future development within the City.
For cumulative impacts to wastewater collection and treatment, the WRRF’s capacity to
process and treat up to 5.4 MGD of wastewater would be sufficient for flows generated by
the Project and the City at General Plan buildout, including the cumulative projects
identified in Table 3.0-1, under dry-weather conditions. Under wet-weather conditions,
cumulative development could exacerbate the deficiency of the WRRF to process and treat
peak flows that can exceed 20 MGD. Since peaks in wastewater flow may result in permit
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-45
Draft EIR
3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
violations and release of effluent to San Luis Obispo Creek, the contribution of the
Project’s wastewater plus effluent generated from future pending projects could be
cumulatively considerable. However, as described above, any new pipes installed by
cumulative projects would be consistent with City standards, including the requirement for
seamed sewer lines, and therefore would not result in a considerable contribution to the
wet-weather issues that cause peak wet-weather flows due to inflow and infiltration. The
WRRF Upgrade Project which would increase capacity to handle both wet-weather and
dry-weather flows would help to alleviate the impact of cumulative development on the
WRRF’s capacity to sufficiently treat the City’s wastewater to meet RWQCB standard and
avoid periodic spills into San Luis Obispo Creek.
Further, a gravity sewer main to the Laguna lift station serving the southwestern portions
of the City (including the Project site) currently experiences capacity issues. Cumulative
development within this portion of the City, including the San Luis Ranch development,
would contribute towards exceedance of capacity of the wastewater collection system.
However, the Project, along with other cumulative development approved within the City
and which would be served by this infrastructure, would be required to pay its fair share
towards the upsizing of the gravity sewer main.
With implementation of Project-specific mitigation, mandatory compliance with existing
regulations and policies, and expansion of the WRRF facility, cumulative impacts to
utilities and energy resources, or as a result of installation or expansion of utility
infrastructure, are considered less than significant with mitigation.
3.14-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
This section describes existing mineral resources and analyzes the potential for the Project
to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is valuable regionally
or statewide, or of a locally important delineated mineral resource recovery site. A mineral
is a naturally occurring chemical element or compound formed from inorganic processes
(not biological in origin), with a definite chemical composition and orderly crystal
structure. Examples of minerals include metals, rock, sand, petroleum products, and
geothermal resources. Mineral deposits are important to many industries, including
construction, transportation, and chemical processing. Due to their importance for
construction purposes, the value of mineral deposits is enhanced by their close proximity
to urban areas; however, mineral deposits are endangered by the same urbanization that
enhances their value. The non-renewable characteristic of mineral deposits necessitates the
careful and efficient development of mineral resources to prevent the unnecessary waste of
these deposits due to exploitation and/or conflicts caused by land use decisions and
urbanization.
3.15.1 Environmental Setting
3.15.1.1 Regional Setting
There are a wide variety of mineral resources found in the County, although relatively few
minerals are currently extracted commercially. Quarries and mines in the San Luis Obispo
area produce basaltic stone for masonry, “red rock” for road base and surfacing, and
cinnabar, an ore of mercury. Petroleum, natural gas, mercury, gypsum, sand and gravel,
construction stone, and clay are also produced in the County. The primary factor in the
production of sand, gravel, and stone is local demand, and this activity is directly related
to growth trends and construction needs (County of San Luis Obispo 2010; City of San
Luis Obispo 2006).
The San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara Production-Consumption Region is defined by the
California Department of Conservation as the 2,062 square miles in western San Luis
Obispo and Santa Barbara counties in which significant aggregate resources and active
operations exist (California Department of Conservation 2017b). Within the San Luis
Obispo-Santa Barbara Production-Consumption Region, mining sites are currently
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.15-1
Draft EIR
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
permitted for approximately 75 million tons of extraction, and there are an estimated total
of 10.7 billion tons of these resources present within the County. These resources cover an
estimated 40,895 acres. These estimates take into account existing land uses that preclude
mineral extraction (California Geological Survey 2011). The majority of extraction sites
are in the northern portion of the County.
3.15.1.2 Local Setting
The City has no active aggregate operations within its jurisdiction, and no quarry or mine
operations are pending reactivation or initiation (California Geological Survey 2011; City
of San Luis Obispo 2006). A petroleum company’s request in the 1980s to explore City-
owned land in the Lopez Lake area was denied based on the environmental qualities of the
area. Since that time, no other such requests have been received (City of San Luis Obispo
2006).
There are very few active mining sites in the San Luis Obispo area surrounding the Project
site. The Alberti Ranch Red Rock Quarry, located approximately 3.5 miles north of the
Project, is permitted for 5 acres of disturbance and mining for shale production. The
Mainini Home Pit, located approximately 6.5 miles northwest of the Project, is permitted
for mineral production but is considered idle as of 2017. The Beecham Red Rock Pit is
located approximately seven miles west near Los Osos (California Department of
Conservation 2017).
3.15.1.3 Project Site
A 5.5-acre permitted red rock quarry is located in the northwestern portion of the Project
site (see Figure 2-2). The quarry is known to have been mined for red rock as early as 1936.
The quarry is permitted under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA; Mine
ID; 91-40-0024) and has an associated reclamation plan and performance bond in place
with the County (California Department of Conservation 2017a). Under the SMARA
permit, the red rock quarry has no set limit to its approved production amount either
annually or gross; rather, the production limits are set by the permitted area boundaries,
which means the SMARA permit would expire once the boundaries of the permitted mine
area are reached. As of December 2017, approximately 0.5 acres of the quarry have been
reclaimed in accordance with the quarry’s approved reclamation plan; no areas are
currently undergoing reclamation. Mining continued within the remaining portions of the
3.15-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
quarry, and in 2017, two acres of the quarry were disturbed for mining purposes. The quarry
is also currently used for concrete and asphalt recycling, temporary stockpiling, and a
construction office. Historically, the property was also mined for chromium during World
War II, though precise locations are unknown and these operations ceased following the
end of the war (FirstCarbon Solutions and Chattel, Inc. 2017). To date, up to five acres of
the permitted quarry area continue to be
disturbed for mining and construction
equipment and materials staging
purposes, while approximately 0.5 acre
has been reclaimed in accordance with
the approved reclamation plan with the
County (California Department of
Conservation 2017a).
The onsite quarry, including the current
ancillary construction activities, are
permitted and monitored annually by
the County, most recently in December
2017. The County recognizes the quarry as the Froom Ranch Pit, but the quarry is not
currently acknowledged in the County General Plan or specifically in the California
Department of Conservation’s designated San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara Production-
Consumption Region; however, the Froom Ranch Pit is included in the proposed Mining
Designation Amendments for the Conservation and Open Space Element of the County’s
General Plan. These proposed amendments include the Project site as an Energy and
Extractive Area combining designation (EX) and would include a Mining Disclosure
Rezone area of 0.25 mile around the quarry (see Section 3.15.2, Regulatory Setting, for
more information). These proposed amendments are currently in draft form.
3.15.2 Regulatory Setting
State and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the
Project are summarized below.
The 5.5-acre permitted red rock quarry located within
the Project site is also permitted to store soil and
aggregate along with construction equipment.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.15-3
Draft EIR
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
3.15.2.1 State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA)
SMARA is the primary regulator of onshore surface mining in the state. It delegates
specific regulatory authority to local jurisdictions. The Act requires the State Geologist
(California Geological Survey) to identify and classify all mineral deposits in the state
based on their local, regional, and state significance. Local jurisdictions are required to
enact specific procedures to guide mineral conservation and extraction at specific sites, and
to incorporate mineral resource management policies into their general plans. A key
concern of state legislators in enacting SMARA was addressing the loss of mineral
production sites as a result of development practices that might preclude future extraction.
Mineral Resource Zones
SMARA Sections 2761(a) and (b) and 2790 provide for a mineral lands inventory process
termed Classification-Designation. The California Geological Survey and the California
State Mining and Geology Board are the state agencies responsible for administering this
process. The primary objective of the process is to provide local agencies, such as cities
and counties, with information on the location, need, and importance of minerals within
their respective jurisdictions. It is also the intent of this process, through the adoption of
general plan mineral resource management policies, that this information be considered in
future local land use planning decisions.
Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors, without regard for existing land use
and land ownership for each Production-Consumption Region. The mineral resource areas
within the San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara Production-Consumption Region are
categorized into one of four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), described below (California
Department of Conservation 1989).
• MRZ-1: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that no
significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present.
• MRZ-2: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that
significant mineral deposits are present, or a likelihood of their presence and
development should be controlled.
• MRZ-3: A Mineral Resource Zone where the significance of mineral deposits
cannot be determined from the available data.
3.15-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
• MRZ-4: A Mineral Resource Zone where there is insufficient data to assign any
other MRZ designation.
3.15.2.2 Local
City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance
The City Municipal Code, Title 17 Zoning Regulations, establishes allowable uses by
zoning district within the City. As the Project would be subject to City Municipal Code
upon annexation, these Zoning Regulations would apply to the Project site, including
Section 17.10.020.F Prohibited Uses, which prohibits mineral extraction and commercial
mining in all zones.
County of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The County General Plan designates mineral resources within the EX Area combining
designation in the Framework for Planning (Inland) (i.e., the County’s Land Use Element
equivalent). Mineral resources are also addressed in the County’s Conservation and Open
Space Element. Combining designations identify areas with characteristics that are either
of public value or are hazardous to the public. The special location, terrain, man-made
features, plants or animals of these areas create a need for more careful project review to
protect those characteristics, or to protect public health, safety and welfare. EX combining
designations are established to recognize the importance of continuing availability of
mineral and energy resources by avoiding land use decisions that may inhibit the
continuing viability of energy and extractive operations and result in unnecessary or
premature termination of the use of such resources. The EX combining designation is
intended to:
1. Identify areas where mineral or petroleum extraction occurs, is proposed to occur,
or where petroleum or mineral reserves of statewide significance exist, as defined
by the State Geologist.
2. Protect existing extraction areas so that land uses incompatible with continuing
extraction activities will not be developed on adjacent properties.
3. Protect existing energy production areas and regional production facilities so that
incompatible uses will not be developed on adjacent properties such that the energy
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.15-5
Draft EIR
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
production facilities may become dangerous or detrimental to public health and
safety.
4. Protect energy production areas from encroaching urban development or other
incompatible land uses that may hinder their continued operation.
The existing onsite quarry, or Froom Ranch Pit, is not currently identified by the County’s
General Plan as a specific mapped mineral resource and is not within an EX combining
designation.
Draft EX Combining Designations Amendments
The County is currently updating the EX combining designations and has included the
Froom Ranch Pit as a part of this proposed amendment. The proposed update would
incorporate recent updates by the California Mining and Geology Board. These proposed
amendments adjust boundary maps of regionally significant Mineral Resource Areas, EX
designated areas, and Mining Disclosure Zones (MDZ) throughout the County. For EX
designated areas, the proposed amendments also include a MDZ combining designation,
which would apply to a 0.25 mile buffer around legally established mining activities that
is intended to serve as a means of notification and public disclosure for landowners and the
general public within the vicinity of the mine. The proposed amendments would designate
the Froom Ranch Pit within the EX combining designation and apply a 0.25 mile MDZ to
the site. While a portion of the Project site would be designated MDZ under the County’s
draft amendments, there are no proposed specific restrictions for this designation. The
proposed amendments are expected to be reviewed and adopted by the County Board of
Supervisors in spring 2020 (Cody Scheel, San Luis Obispo County Planner 2019).
Despite these EX combining designation amendments and designation of the Froom Ranch
Pit, the Draft FRSP is being evaluated under the City’s regulatory framework in
anticipation of annexation of the site. The City and County have coordinated on this issue
and have agreed that the proposed EX combining designation amendments would not apply
to the Project site in the event of an annexation.
3.15-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
3.15.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
3.15.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
With respect to mineral resources, applicable sections of Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines provide that a project would have a significant impact on the environment if it
would:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the state;
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
3.15.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
This section evaluates the impact of the Project on the availability of significant mineral
resources within the region and state. Regional importance of the onsite quarry was
determined by reviewing proposed amendments to the County EX combining designation,
as well as associated boundary maps. Production levels for concrete aggregate in the San
Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara Production-Consumption Region were determined by the
Mineral Land Classification Update published by California Geological Survey.
Production and capacity levels of the onsite quarry were determined using SMARA Permit
Annual Reports for 2018. Permitted land uses within the City were determined using the
City’s Zoning Ordinance.
3.15.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts to mineral resources associated with the Project are summarized in Table 3.15-1
below.
Table 3.15-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Mineral Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
MN-1. Project implementation would result in
the loss of the existing onsite red rock quarry
(Froom Ranch Pit)
None required Less than Significant
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.15-7
Draft EIR
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact MN-1 Project implementation would result in the loss of the existing
onsite red rock quarry (Froom Ranch Pit) (Less than
Significant).
Current operations at the onsite quarry are limited to asphalt and concrete recycling and
stockpiling, though the SMARA permit is active and approximately five acres of
unreclaimed area remains available for red rock mining. Although the quarry has
historically mined red rock for use in regional construction projects, it is not planned to be
utilized for further production. Despite general cessation of red rock production, the quarry
is included in the County mining designation amendments because the owner continues to
hold an active SMARA permit, reclamation plan, and performance bond, and currently
uses the 5.5-acre quarry area for aggregate recycling and construction storage activities.
The Project would reclaim the existing quarry site consistent with the SMARA permit
reclamation plan (including grooming and reseeding the area with pasture mix) and then
develop up to 130 units of medium-high density multi-family housing within the Madonna
Froom Ranch area of the site. Reclamation would occur during Phase 1 of Project
construction and, consistent with the quarry’s reclamation plan (County of San Luis Obispo
1980), would include removal of excess materials and waste, recontouring, topsoil
replacement, and hydroseeding with native grasses and fertilizers. Reclamation would be
financed by the independently held performance bond that guarantees funds would be
available.
Proposed annexation of the quarry site into the City would result in the prohibition of
continued mining activities, consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Although the
quarry is considered a mineral resource by the state and County, mining is not allowed
within the City and the quarry would no longer be usable for mineral production. When the
mine closes and the reclamation plan is completed, the quarry would no longer be subject
to ongoing permitting or regulation by the state and would not be subject to the mineral
resources policies of the County.
The impact of the Project on available resources within the region and state would be
minimal. There is no current or expected future red rock production from the 5.5-acre
quarry, and further mining would be prohibited under the Project following annexation to
the City. Available acreage for onsite mineral production is 0.01 percent of the 40,895 acres
3.15-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
available within the Production-Consumption Region for this resource, which is a nominal
loss of mineral production to local and state needs. There are also local sources of red rock,
including the Alberti Ranch Red Rock Quarry and the Beecham Red Rock Pit, that would
continue to produce this particular mineral to meet local and regional demand. This
nominal reduction in available acreage for red rock extraction that would result from the
Project would be less than significant.
3.15.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
The Project would not result in effects that, when considered in combination with the
impacts of nearby regional projects, would be considered significant. The City does not
allow mineral resource extraction and there are no other proximate active mines identified
for future annexation into the City. Therefore, there are no projects within the City that are
expected to further reduce currently available supplies. The County’s proposed mining
designation amendments would adjust EX combining designations to reflect state-
designated regionally significant mineral resources and would help prevent closure and
elimination of these sites. The County’s Infrastructure and Facilities Capital Improvement
Plan does not indicate expectation of any projects that would impact availability of mineral
resources or mineral resource recovery sites. Therefore, the Project is not expected to result
in significant cumulative impacts to mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites.
Potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.15-9
Draft EIR
4.0 OTHER CEQA ISSUES
4.0 OTHER CEQA ISSUES
This chapter presents the evaluation of additional environmental impacts analyses required
by CEQA that are not covered within the other chapters of this EIR, including significant
unavoidable environmental effects of the Project, irreversible environmental changes,
growth inducing impacts (including removal of obstacles to growth), and resource areas
that are found not to be significant. Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that
all aspects of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment,
including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. Accordingly, in addition to
the analysis provided in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation
Measures, this EIR must identify growth inducing impacts and significant irreversible
environmental changes that would potentially result from implementation of the Project.
4.1 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(d) requires evaluation of irretrievable commitments of
resources to assure that such consumption is justified. This includes use of nonrenewable
resources, the commitment of future generations to similar uses, and irreversible damage
that can result from environmental accidents associated with the Project.
The Project would facilitate the construction of new buildings and paved surfaces,
involving consumption of building materials and energy, some of which are nonrenewable
or locally limited natural resources (e.g., fossil fuels and wood). Non-renewable resources
utilized for the Project could no longer be utilized for other purposes. Consumption of
building materials and energy is associated with any development in the region, and these
commitments of resources are not unique or unusual to the Project. The Project would
represent an incremental commitment to long-term use of non-renewable resources,
particularly gasoline for increased automobile use and oil, coal, and natural gas for power
generation (see also, Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation). Although not
unique to the Project, the automobile-oriented nature of the Project would result in it being
a larger energy consuming development, particularly for gasoline, than most current
projects in the City (see also, Section 3.0.3, Cumulative Impacts Analysis for discussion of
cumulative projects). In addition, as discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, use of each of these forms of non-renewable energy would contribute to
the generation of GHGs with an incremental contribution to global climate change. To help
alleviate impacts to non-renewable resources, the Project would meet or exceed the
requirements of the California Building Code (CBC) and California Title 24 in effect at the
time of construction, and would comply with the City’s green building certification system
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 4-1
Draft EIR
4.0 OTHER CEQA ISSUES
and City Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 5.5.7, which outlines
energy efficiency and green building certifications in new development. Proposed
sustainable site design and development practices would include water conservation
measures, efficient appliances, and energy conscious heating and cooling systems to offset
new energy demand. Moreover, the Project is proposed to include native and non-invasive
drought tolerant plant materials to conserve water. These sustainable building features
could reduce new energy demand and the consumption of water and non-renewable fossil
fuels. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region
and are not unique to the Project.
As described in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, implementation of the Project would
irreversibly commit approximately 47.6 acres of prime (if irrigated) soils designated as
Farmland of Local Potential by the California Department of Conservation to residential
and other development. The Project would commit future generations to similar uses within
the Specific Plan area. The irretrievable commitment of this site for these uses is mitigated
through compliance with City LUE Policies 1.8.1, Open Space Protection, and 1.9.2, Prime
Agricultural Land, which require permanent protection of offsite agricultural lands of equal
area and quality to be put into an agricultural conservation easement via mitigation measure
MM AG-1.
The Project would not be expected to result in environmental accidents or upsets that have
the potential to cause irreversible damage to the natural or human environment; however,
the potential for wildfire is exacerbated by the Project (see also, Section 3.7, Hazards,
Hazardous Materials, and Wildfires). While recovery from wildfire damage involves
rebuilding and restoration of damaged areas, which would ultimately correct the effect on
the natural and human environment, there is a possibility that wildfire may result in the
permanent loss of structures or natural features (e.g., sensitive habitats and species, heritage
and other mature trees), which would be potentially irreversible. The commitment of these
resources for Project development has been planned for and would achieve implementation
of the City’s General Plan.
4.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of how the Project could
foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing (either
directly or indirectly) in the surrounding environment. Induced growth is distinguished
from the direct economic, population, or housing growth of a project. Induced growth is
any growth that results from new development that would not have taken place in the
4-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
4.0 OTHER CEQA ISSUES
absence of the project and that exceeds planned growth. CEQA Guidelines also state that
growth in any area should not be assumed to be necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of
little significance to the environment.
Growth-inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that tend to foster
or encourage population and/or economic growth. The Project could result in five types of
growth-inducing impacts: 1) the creation of short- and long-term employment
opportunities which draw newcomers to the region and increase economic growth; 2)
increase in residential population from development of new residential development; 3) the
generation of new commercial and tourist accommodations to entice people to the area; 4)
expansion of utilities and infrastructure; and 5) removal of an obstacle to future
development.
1) As discussed in Section 3.11, Population and Housing, the Project would construct
174 multi-family housing units and 404 independent and 51 assisted living units
and provide approximately 332 full-time equivalent jobs, in addition to short-term
construction employment. Most of the Project’s labor force is expected to come
from the local labor pool; however, some workers may come from outside areas.
Therefore, there would be a minor increase in economic growth which would be
further minimized by the fact that new jobs created by the Project would may be
absorbed by existing residents or future residents of the City and Project.
2) The construction of 578 new units would result in a residential population growth
of approximately 1,231 persons. However, construction of 174 housing units within
Madonna Froom Ranch would help alleviate the City’s increased housing demand,
and the construction of 404 units within Villaggio would fulfill a specialized
housing need and is thus not considered growth-inducing as it would not foster the
need for future construction of additional housing. Population growth within the
City is directly related to the increase in available housing supply, and the City’s
LUE Policy 1.11.2 limits the City-wide increase in housing units to one percent
annually, excluding affordable housing (refer to Impact PH-1 in Section 3.11,
Population and Housing). Therefore, population growth in the City is already
controlled through General Plan policies that limit residential growth rates; the
Project would be subject to these residential growth rate limits.
3) The Project would attract visitor populations to the area, including overnight
visitors associated with the proposed 70,000-sf hotel. A new hotel development
could attract tourists and travelers to the area and generate additional revenue for
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 4-3
Draft EIR
4.0 OTHER CEQA ISSUES
local businesses. Visitors may also come to Villaggio to stay with relatives.
Associated increases in visitors could potentially result in increased traffic and use
of public facilities and services and has the potential to incrementally induce growth
in the City.
4) As discussed in Section 2.4.4, Utilities and Services, the Project includes the
construction of water supply and wastewater collection systems for the Project site
that would tie into City systems. Further, the Project would allow for the extension
of roadways into the site, including two commercial collectors, as well as roadway
and intersection improvements on LOVR. The extension of roadways and
improvements would improve access and circulation within the immediate vicinity
of the site and would enable a future extension of Commercial Collector B to
connect to Irish Hills Plaza. Extension of utilities and roadways within the site
would not facilitate additional development along the hillside, particularly of the
undeveloped 7.39-acre parcel zoned retail commercial (C-R) and located north of
the Project site and adjacent to the Irish Hills Plaza. There is limited opportunity
for additional future development due to the expansion of utilities and services in
the Project area, as most undeveloped land surrounding the Project site is within
open space easements.
5) There is an undeveloped parcel in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, which
could experience development in the future due to the removal of an obstacle to
development brought about by the Project. A portion of the 7.39-acre parcel north
of the Project site is below the 150-foot elevation line and currently subject to City
LUE Policy 6.4.7, Hillside Planning Areas, which prohibits development above the
150-foot elevation within the Irish Hills Planning Area. The Project would amend
Policy 6.4.7 to allow for development over the 150-foot elevation. This could open
the door for other future development in the Irish Hills area, specifically for the
7.39-acre parcel. However, all other adjacent lands surrounding the Project site are
already developed (e.g. hotels along Calle Joaquin), constrained by steep slopes and
existing development (Mountainbrook Church), or protected as open space lands
within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve by a 2010 conservation easement owned by
the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo; thus, these lands would not be affected
by the amendment to Policy 6.4.7.
4-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
4.0 OTHER CEQA ISSUES
4.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
CEQA Guidelines state that the EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons
that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant
and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR (Section 15128). After standard
regulatory conditions and/or mitigation measures are applied, several resource areas were
found to be below the level of significance, as identified in the Initial Study Checklist
(Appendix A). Effects found not to be significant and a brief explanation as to why is
included below.
4.3.1 Forestry Resources
No known forestry resources are associated with the Project site; therefore, no impact to
forestry resources would result from the Project.
4.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(c) requires a description of any significant
unavoidable impacts resulting from implementation of a project, including impacts that
cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. The Project was evaluated with respect
to specific resource areas to determine whether implementation would result in significant
adverse impacts. A detailed discussion of each of the impacts can be found in Chapter 3,
Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures.
Specific significance thresholds were defined for each potential impact associated with
each resource area. Based on the environmental impact assessment presented in Chapter 3,
Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures, of this EIR, the resource areas
of aesthetics and visual resources, air quality and GHGs, cultural and tribal resources,
hazards/hazardous materials and wildfire, land use and planning, noise, and transportation
would result in significant impacts even after mitigation is applied to reduce the level of
impact.
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, when an EIR demonstrates that implementation
of a proposed project will cause significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency must issue
a Statement of Overriding Considerations before approving the project. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations is a report of the lead agency’s findings regarding the merits of
approving a proposed project despite its significant environmental impacts and reflects the
balancing of competing public objectives. Therefore, the City will be required to adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations to address the significant impacts identified above
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 4-5
Draft EIR
4.0 OTHER CEQA ISSUES
and discussed in detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation
Measures. In this instance, the City may weigh the long-term benefits of the Project, such
as fostering additional regional housing opportunities, including senior housing, against
potentially adverse impacts created by the Project. To facilitate consideration of these
issues, this EIR discloses potential impacts and provides a range of Project alternatives that
could more fully alleviate environmental concerns. In addition, Section 3.9, Land Use and
Planning, provides an overview of the City’s policy context, which provides information
on how the Project meets several important City policy objectives and where it may raise
concerns over consistency with other City policies. All this information should be reviewed
when considering this Project.
4-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines state that an
“Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to
the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (Section
15126.6).
The CEQA Guidelines state that “the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed
by a rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to
permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the
EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the Project (Section 15126.6).
In defining feasibility of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines state that “among the factors
that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site
suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency,
other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent
can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site” (Section
15126.6).
The alternatives must adequately represent the spectrum of environmental concerns in
order to permit a reasoned choice among alternatives. The document must also provide the
rationale for selecting or defining the alternatives evaluated throughout the document,
including the identification of alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but
rejected as infeasible during the scoping process.
The alternatives analysis for this EIR is presented in four sections. Section 5.2, Project
Objectives, describes the objectives of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan (FRSP) (Project).
Section 5.3, Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, summarizes the potentially
significant and unavoidable short- and long-term impacts of the Project from information
presented in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis and Mitigation Measures. Section 5.4,
Alternatives Analysis, discusses potential impacts under the Project alternatives, including
a discussion of the alternatives considered but discarded. Section 5.5, Identification of
Environmentally Superior Alternative, concludes with the selection of an environmentally
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-1
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
superior alternative, based on a Project configuration that results in the fewest significant
impacts and feasibly attains most of the Project objectives.
5.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a statement of a project’s
objectives that includes the underlying purpose of the project. The major objectives of the
Project are described in Section 2.3, Project Objectives, and restated below.
1. Development of a mix of uses while protecting sensitive environmental resources and
maintaining public views of the Irish Hills.
2. Provision of a range of housing options, including workforce housing, senior housing,
and inclusionary housing.
3. Development of an economically feasible, healthy, safe, and secure Life Plan
Community that will serve residents 60 years of age and over.
4. Development of multi-family housing, including housing consistent with the adopted
City of San Luis Obispo (City) Inclusionary Housing Requirements in effect at the time
of the Specific Plan adoption.
5. Provision of commercial retail uses that complement residential uses and facilitate
pedestrian and bicycle access.
6. Provide site hydrology design to improve stormwater conveyance and management,
provide a restored riparian creek corridor, and enhance fishery habitat and biological
resource value.
7. Development of a public park that includes access and connection to existing trails in
the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and proposed trails within the Specific Plan area.
8. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of architecturally significant historic
structures within a public park, in a setting and configuration that retains historic
integrity, while avoiding seismic impacts.
9. Establishment of a cohesive transportation and circulation network of collector and
residential roads, bicycle lanes, transit opportunities, and pedestrian sidewalks that is
integrated with and enhances the regional transportation system.
10. Incorporation of sustainability measures that exceed the requirements of the California
Building Standards Code (Title 24) and California Energy Code (Part 6) in effect at the
time of construction, as well as provide onsite renewable energy facilities and Electric
Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in all land use types.
11. Avoidance of impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species, such as the state and
federally-endangered Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense).
5-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the following resources
areas: aesthetics and visual resources; air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; biological
resources; cultural and tribal cultural resources; hazards, hazardous materials, and
wildfires; land use and planning, noise; and transportation and traffic, as summarized
below.
5.3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Project development would result in significant impacts to the existing visual character of
the site by changing an open space and rural setting to a commercial and residential setting,
particularly as viewed from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve public trail system. As
demonstrated in key viewing areas (KVAs) 4 and 5 in Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual
Resources, the Project would develop up to 581 single and multi-family residences, senior
assisted living facilities, commercial uses, a trailhead park, roads, bicycle paths, and other
urban infrastructure that would eliminate existing high-quality scenic views. These new
uses would be highly visible from numerous public trails along the southeastern edge of
the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Additionally, the Upper Terrace of Villaggio and portions
of the Madonna Froom Ranch area would be developed above the 150-foot elevation line,
an area that the City’s General Plan currently states should be secured as permanent open
space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation in conjunction with any
subdivision or development of the lower areas. These portions of the Project would be the
only development above this line in the vicinity besides Mountainbrook Church, located in
the unincorporated County of San Luis Obispo (County). Implementation of required
mitigation measure MM VIS-1 would interrupt the contiguous massing of proposed multi-
family and commercial structures by requiring onsite native tree screening plantings,
although this would not sufficiently reduce the substantial damage to scenic resources
resulting from loss of open space and natural visual setting. Therefore, impacts to aesthetics
and visual resources under the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable.
5.3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
During operation, air emission impacts from reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen
oxide (NOx) as a result of vehicle trips, energy emissions, and additional area source
emissions associated with the Project would be significant and unavoidable. In accordance
with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s (SLO County APCD’s)
CEQA Air Quality Handbook (as amended by the 2017 Clarification Memorandum), all
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-3
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
standard mitigation measures and feasible discretionary mitigation measures would be
incorporated into the Project (see MM AQ-4). Many of these measures would be
incorporated as policies of the FRSP for which future development would be required to
implement and would manifest as site design measures which would reduce area source
emissions. Many other measures identified in MM AQ-4 emphasize transportation
strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated mobile-source NOx
emissions. Incorporation of this mix of measures is considered feasible for the Project and
would substantially reduce operational ROG and NOx emissions. However, many measures
listed in MM AQ-4 do not contain quantifiable air quality emissions reductions for
programs under the FRSP. While implementation of these measures can feasibly reduce
ROG and NOx, the Project’s estimated emissions after implementation of these measures
cannot reasonably be quantified, and long-term operational residual impacts would remain
above the significance threshold identified in Section 3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions.
The Project was also found to have significant and unavoidable impacts related to
consistency with the SLO County APCD’s 2001 Clean Air Plan. The design of the Project
would require relatively substantial changes to reduce inconsistency with overall land use
planning principles contained in the Clean Air Plan to less than significant. The Project
could hinder the County’s ability to attain the state ozone standard because the emissions
reductions projected in the Clean Air Plan may not be met. The anticipated population
growth and increase in vehicle trips associated with the Project is inconsistent with the
projections contained within the 2001 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, inconsistencies with
assumptions in the Clean Air Plan would remain significant and unavoidable, even after
implementation of MM AQ-4 and MM TRANS-5 and -8 through -10.
5.3.3 Biological Resources
Implementation of the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to
biological resources. Construction and operation of the Project would impact sensitive
habitats and species, including sensitive riparian, wetland, and native grassland habitats,
migratory wildlife corridors, and sensitive and endangered species. The Project would
substantially impact 14 special status plant species, including the state and federally
endangered Chorro Creek bog thistle, and serpentine native bunchgrass and associated
habitat. Development within the Upper Terrace of Villaggio would have substantial
adverse effects on native grasslands and existing springs, seeps, and wetland habitats along
Drainages 1, 2, and 3, and associated wildlife corridors. The wetland adjacent to Calle
5-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Joaquin, a federal jurisdiction wetland, could be significantly impacted through
modifications to site hydrology with the realignment of Froom Creek. Additionally,
development located between the realigned Froom Creek and upland grassland habitats
and drainages would have significant impacts on habitat connectivity and animal
movement corridors along the urban-rural interface of the City’s boundary. While
mitigation measures proposed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, would minimize or
reduce adverse effects, impacts would continue to be substantial and are, therefore,
considered significant and unavoidable.
5.3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The Project would result in significant impacts to onsite historic resources, including a
City-, state-, and federally-eligible historic district associated with the historic Froom
Ranch Dairy complex. The Project would result in a loss of three out of seven buildings
that contribute to the eligibility of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex for listing on the
National Register, California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and City Master List
of Historic Resources as a historic district. Though MM CR-9 through MM CR-14 would
reduce the severity of this loss, impacts to the potential Froom Ranch Dairy historic district
are considered significant and unavoidable.
5.3.5 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfires
The Project would expose occupants to substantial wildfire hazards and would impair
emergency response to fires in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The Project site is located
in an area with moderate to very high fire hazard potential due to highly flammable
vegetation and fire-prone topography within the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve, as
well as winds that periodically blow southeast downslope toward the Project site.
Additionally, the Project would utilize security fencing, retaining walls, and closely spaced
residential units in the western portion of Villaggio’s Lower Area that would limit access
for firefighters and vehicles to the wildfire interface. Although the Project would be
required to implement mitigation measures to reduce wildfire risks, occupants would still
be exposed to wildfire hazards and emergency response to a wildfire in the Irish Hills
would continue to be impaired by the Project as currently designed. Therefore, impacts
related to wildfire hazards would remain significant and unavoidable.
5.3.6 Land Use and Planning
The Project would substantially conflict with City General Plan policies for the protection
of visual, biological, cultural resources, and wildfire hazards. The Project would develop
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-5
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
residential units above the 150-foot elevation line in Villaggio’s Upper Terrace, which
would be require a General Plan amendment and would be substantially inconsistent with
the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) and Conservation and Open Space (COSE)
policies. These policies protect sensitive biological, open space, and visual resources,
including LUE Policies 1.8.6, Wildlife Habitats, and 6.4.7, Hillside Planning Areas, and
COSE Policies 7.3.1, Protect Listed Species, 7.3.2, Protect Species of Local Concern, and
9.2.1, Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. Additionally, the
Project would relocate or demolish structures associated with the historic Froom Ranch
Dairy complex, a potential historic district under the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance and the CRHR. While mitigation measures would minimize these impacts,
potential adverse physical effects related to the potential inconsistencies with City policies
would remain significant and unavoidable.
5.3.7 Transportation and Traffic
Project traffic would exacerbate existing queuing and peak hour traffic congestion for
automobiles, and poor levels of service for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of
transportation, causing transportation deficiencies in the Project vicinity, including Los
Osos Valley Road (LOVR) and U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), resulting in significant
impacts. Although the Project would implement MM TRANS-2 and MM TRANS 12
through -18, which would require roadway improvements to improve multimodal facilities,
increase capacity, and alleviate queuing impacts, feasible mitigation is not available to fully
mitigate the Project impacts. Specifically, implementation of MM TRANS-6 requires the
completion of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project, which cannot be ensured by
this Project. Therefore, if Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project is not in place by
Project occupancy, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
5.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
This section discusses alternatives to the proposed Project, including alternatives which
were considered and discarded. Each of these considers the ability of a particular
alternative to comply with the City General Plan or substantially reduce or eliminate the
Project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting basic project objectives.
The EIR also includes a No Project Alternative and an analysis of possible alternative sites
that may not have the same environmental resource sensitivity as the selected project site.
Those alternatives carried forward for consideration and analysis include:
• CEQA “No Project” Alternative;
5-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
• Alternative 1 – Clustered Development Below the 150-Foot Elevation Alternative
(Actionable Alternative)
• Alternative 2 – Residential Development Project Alternative
• Alternative 3 – Minimum LUCE-Compliant Alternative
5.4.1 Alternatives Considered but Discarded
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires that an EIR disclose potential alternatives
that were considered and discarded and provide a brief explanation as to why such
alternatives were not fully considered in the EIR. As required by the State CEQA
Guidelines, the selection of alternatives includes a screening process to determine a
reasonable range of alternatives that could reduce significant effects but also feasibly meet
most of the Project objectives. If an alternative does not clearly provide any environmental
advantages compared to the proposed Project, meet key project objectives, or achieve
overall agency policy goals, it has been eliminated from further consideration.
Characteristics used to eliminate alternatives from further consideration include:
• Failure to meet basic Project objectives;
• Limited effectiveness in reducing Project environmental impacts;
• Inconsistency with City policies regarding jobs/housing balance and provision of a
mix of housing types;
• Potential for inconsistency with applicable plans and policies; and
• Reasonableness of the alternative when compared to other alternatives under
consideration.
The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis by the
Lead Agency based on the above considerations.
5.4.1.1 Alternative Land Use Mixes – Increased Commercial Retail/Elimination of
Housing
Under this potential alternative, the site would not be developed with residential uses or
the Life Plan Community and would instead be developed with commercial retail uses
within the proposed developed portion of the site. Froom Creek would not be realigned,
and additional flood control improvements may be required to accommodate increased
runoff from additional impermeable surfaces and development. To accommodate increases
in personal and commercial vehicle trips to serve the commercial uses, a secondary access
road would also be constructed onto LOVR. Under this alternative, 50 percent of the site
would remain dedicated open space.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-7
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
This alternative would be inconsistent with the General Plan LUE performance standards
for the Project site and would not achieve a majority of the Project objectives, which
include the provision of a variety of housing types and provision of commercial uses that
complement residential uses. Further, development of the site solely for commercial uses
would not meet identified housing needs and would be inconsistent with City goals to
provide a mix of housing types and increase the City’s housing stock for residents. Further,
this alternative would likely result in increased impacts to traffic, roadway congestion, and
associated air quality due to the increased number of trips to and from the site. Therefore,
this option was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(c).
5.4.1.2 Maximum Buildout Consistent with the General Plan, including LOVR Bypass
Under this alternative, substantially less housing and substantially more commercial uses
would be developed on the site, consistent with the General Plan LUE and the existing
performance standards for the SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan area. These
performance standards include a maximum of 350 residential units and 350,000 square feet
(sf) of commercial space with a minimum of 50 percent of the site designated for open
space. This alternative would not develop the site for a senior Life Plan Community as
envisioned under the Project. This change in land use could change the mix and type of
residential units, with a lower percentage of medium density units compared to commercial
uses than the proposed Project. Further, analysis of this alternative would include
consideration of planned transportation and traffic improvements (primarily the LOVR
Bypass) and the effects those improvements would have on allowable General Plan
buildout of the Project site and cumulative regional transportation. The LOVR Bypass
would present additional offsite environmental impacts in addition to site development
consistent with the General Plan.
However, this alternative would not meet several of the Project objectives, including
development of a Life Plan Community and development of a broader range of housing
options, including multi-family units, senior, and inclusionary housing. In addition, the
City has conducted a cost-benefit analysis for the LOVR Bypass and found that there were
little-to-no benefits to overall traffic circulation associated with the project to justify the
costs of the project and potential impacts to agricultural resources and riparian habitat.
Therefore, this potential alternative is not reasonable or feasible to mitigate environmental
impacts and this alternative has been considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(c). In addition, this alternative was already considered within
5-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR under the ‘Maximum
Circulation Improvement Alternative,’ which assessed both buildout of the Project site
under the General Plan scenario and development of the LOVR Bypass improvements.
Further detailed analysis of this alternative need not be reconsidered under this EIR.
5.4.1.3 Land Swap Alternative
Under this alternative,
development proposed within
Villaggio’s Upper Terrace would
be relocated below the 150-foot
elevation contour line. The Upper
Terrace area would be dedicated
open space and an emergency/trail
access easement would be
constructed from Mountainbrook
Church to the Villaggio Life Plan
Community development. To
accommodate relocation, building
density would be increased, along
with structure heights within the Lower Area of Villaggio. In addition, an approximately
10-acre area outside the Project site within the eastern edge of the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve and situated below the 150-foot elevation (referred to as the “land swap” area)
would be developed with R-3-SP zoned residential senior housing. On the Madonna Froom
Ranch portion of the site, this alternative would result in relocation of historic structures
and the proposed trailhead park to the upper northwestern corner of the Project site along
Froom Creek, while the four attached multi-family housing structures would be relocated
to the prior proposed trailhead park location. Further, this alternative would include
additional circulation improvements, such as an easement onsite for a Class I bike path that
parallels LOVR, a multi-modal roadway connection to Calle Joaquin, and a multi-modal
roadway connection to the Irish Hills Plaza from Mountainbrook Church. Consistent with
the General Plan development standards for the site, 50 percent of the site would remain
dedicated for open space.
While this alternative would relocate some development below the 150-foot elevation
contour in the Upper Terrace, structures would remain above this elevation and
development would intrude into 10 acres of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve in the Lower
Early consideration of alternatives to the FRSP included a
conceptual plan to “swap” land in the City-owned Irish
Hills Natural Reserve. In this considered but discarded
alternative, the Project would develop land at the base of
the Irish Hills Natural Reserve but would dedicate the
Upper Terrace to the City. This land swap was deemed
infeasible in consultation between the Applicant and the
City.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-9
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Area. Increased density and building heights in the Lower Area of Villaggio to
accommodate relocation of proposed Upper Terrace development would result in similar
or incrementally greater obstruction of views of the natural hillsides of the Irish Hills. As
such, this alternative would continue to result in conflicts with the development standards
and policies of the General Plan LUE. While benefits would include increased multi-modal
connectivity to the Project site, reduced impacts associated with construction on slopes,
and greater avoidance of sensitive serpentine bunchgrass grasslands and the federally-
endangered Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense), development
would not lessen or avoid significant impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, and transportation, and would conflict with conservation plans and
easements for the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Further, acquisition of the proposed land
swap area would require modifications of a conservation easement held by The Land
Conservancy for San Luis Obispo County, an Open Space Easement held by the County of
San Luis Obispo, and restriction included in a Grant Agreement with The Nature
Conservancy. Acquisition of this land for development would directly conflict with those
plans, making acquisition of the land swap area infeasible. As such, this alternative was
considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).
5.4.1.4 Low Density Upper Terrace Alternative
Under this alternative, development proposed within Villaggio’s Upper Terrace would be
substantially reduced to include four large-lot estates relocated below the 150-foot
elevation contour line. Each estate would include a 10-acre lot with a one-story single-
family home within a one-acre building envelope. Areas in the Upper Terrace outside the
estates would be dedicated open space. Access to the estates would be provided via a Calle
Joaquin and the driveway to Mountainbrook Church, where a new local road would
connect the estates then terminate at a cul-de-sac. The roadway would require three culvert
crossings of Drainages 1, 2, and 3. An emergency/trail access easement would be
constructed from the cul-de-sac to the Lower Area of Villaggio. Within the Lower Area
and Madonna Froom Ranch, no changes would be made compared to the Project.
While this alternative would reduce the density of development above the 150-foot
elevation contour in the Upper Terrace, structures and private yard space would remain
above this elevation. Estate lots would disturb approximately 40 acres in the Upper Terrace,
potentially impacting biological and cultural resources similar to the Project. Benefits
would include reduced impacts associated with construction on slopes, and greater
avoidance of sensitive serpentine bunchgrass grasslands and the federally-endangered
5-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense). However, the area of
disturbance, including indirect impacts from private use of land during operation, would
continue to impact these resources. Further, while the reduced density would substantially
increase development setbacks from drainages, the estate lots would disrupt wildlife
corridors and habitat continuity in the Irish Hills. The reduced building density and heights
would reduce visual change in the Upper Terrace, but the development would remain
visible from public trails in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. As such, this alternative would
continue to result in conflicts with the development standards and policies of the General
Plan LUE. Development would not substantially lessen or avoid significant impacts
associated with air quality, biological resources, GHG emissions, and transportation. As
such, this alternative was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(c).
5.4.1.5 Alternate Site in City of San Luis Obispo
Alternate sites within the City were considered for development of the proposed Project.
Such sites would need to be large enough to accommodate the proposed Life Plan
Community, multi-family housing, commercial square footage, public park, and
requirement for 50 percent preservation of the site as open space (minimum 101.4 acres or
greater) and be undeveloped or underdeveloped. Very few sites within the City are large
enough to accommodate the proposed Project and those that do are already programmed
for development under the General Plan LUE. In fact, many larger sites are currently
undergoing concurrent development proposals, including the Avila Ranch Development
Plan (SP-4 Avila Ranch) and the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (SP-2 San Luis Ranch).
Other large sites addressed within the General Plan LUE include properties in the County
that lie outside the City’s urban reserve line (URL) and may not align with City policies
and regulations.
Further, alternate locations in the City may also be constrained (e.g., presence of historic
resources, hazardous material site, etc.) in ways that would not permit the development of
the Project with fewer potential impacts, including aesthetics, hazards, traffic, noise, and
air quality. Alternate sites in the City are also not under ownership or management of the
Project Applicant, nor do they have an interest from Villaggio as candidates for the Life
Plan Community component. Because alternate locations are constrained in ways that
would not permit the development of the Project with fewer potential impacts, and the
alternate sites are not under the ownership or management of the Project Applicant and are
not currently available for development, alternate locations in the City were determined
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-11
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
not to be feasible for development of the Project. Therefore, this alternative was discarded
from further consideration, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).
5.4.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis
5.4.2.1 No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, no development or annexation of the site to the City
would occur, and the site would remain designated for agricultural and commercial uses
by the County. The site would continue to be designated as SP-3 of the City General Plan
and remain within the City’s Sphere of Influence, and all General Plan LUE requirements
for SP-3 for potential future development would remain applicable. No new development
or construction would occur under this alternative – for an analysis of development that
could be allowed under the current General Plan, see Alternative 3.
Under the No Project Alternative, the site would continue to be used as grazing land and
as a staging and operations site for the existing construction company. There would be no
disturbance to existing soils or vegetation, except for any ongoing grading permitted by the
County, and the site would remain as undeveloped open space. Froom Creek would not be
realigned or enhanced and no changes to existing stormwater conveyance and management
systems would occur. The existing wetlands and onsite stormwater detention basin would
remain. All structures associated with the Froom Ranch Dairy complex would remain in
place, would not be rebuilt or restored, and would continue to be utilized for construction
business operations (offices, equipment storage, etc.). Daily vehicle trips would remain
low/negligible associated with limited employee trips from the existing construction
business onsite.
Analysis – No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, a number of significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts would be avoided or reduced compared to the proposed Project, although
beneficial impacts to population and housing would also not occur. Impacts to aesthetics
and visual resources, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, noise, and
impacts to and/or from hazards would be substantially less when compared to the Project,
due to the absence of construction activities and operation of the Project. Mitigation
measures would not be necessary for these resource areas to avoid significant impacts
under this alternative. However, Froom Creek would not be enhanced or restored, and
existing historic structures would likely continue to deteriorate.
5-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
This alternative would result in no impact to aesthetics and visual resources, as there would
be no new development of the site which would result in obstruction or degradation of
views of the Irish Hills or from the public trails within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
Agricultural Resources
This alternative would result in no impact to agricultural resources, as there would be no
development that would affect agricultural soils or conflict with existing agricultural
zoning. The No Project Alternative would not require reconfiguration of the existing
agricultural conservation easement and would not reduce the viability of existing or
potential agricultural operations onsite, including within the existing open space.
Air Quality and GHG Emissions
Impacts to air quality and GHG emissions within the Project site and immediate vicinity
would be reduced, as there would be no construction emissions under this alternative.
Continued dust generation from construction company operations (e.g., staging of
construction equipment, storage of fill material, site grading) would contribute to air
quality emissions; however, such emissions would be the same as existing conditions and
would be substantially less than the construction and operational emissions produced by
the Project. Further, as no new development would occur, this alternative would remain
consistent with the City and state goals for achieving carbon neutrality, and would be
consistent with the land uses and VMT traveled identified in the 2001 Clean Air Plan.
Biological Resources
Impacts to biological resources would be negligible and substantially less than under the
proposed Project. Existing wetland and riparian habitat and associated sensitive species
within the Project site would be subject to ongoing management practices, including
grazing and occasional maintenance and removal of wetland vegetation with the existing
stormwater detention basin. Realignment of Froom Creek would not occur and adjacent
unpermitted grading would need to be addressed. Froom Creek would also not be enhanced
with habitat for steelhead and riparian habitat areas. LOVR widening improvements would
not occur and would not impact Calle Joaquin wetlands or the LOVR ditch. Sensitive plants
species and habitats within the Upper Terrace would continue to be subject to low to
moderate impacts from horse and cattle grazing and would remain unprotected through any
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-13
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
land protection mechanism. Compared to the Project, no mitigation measures would be
required to lessen the significance of impacts upon the site’s biological resources.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Identified historic structures would remain in place under the No Project Alternative; no
structures would be rebuilt or restored and the main residence and some of the structures
would continue to be utilized for construction business operations (offices, equipment
storage, etc.). Permanent direct loss of structures composing a potential historic district
would not occur as a result of this alternative, although some historic structures would
continue to deteriorate. Impacts to buried or undiscovered cultural and archaeological
resources within the Project site would be avoided, although ongoing onsite activities
(mining, construction staging, grading) may impact such features.
While the No Project Alternative would not involve the physical alteration of any onsite
historic structures affecting their significance or eligibility, these historic resources would
not receive the same benefits as under the Project. Eligible historic structures/resources
would not be rehabilitated and preserved, nor would they be relocated outside the potential
active fault zone to more geologically stable locations. Under the No Project Alternative,
these resources would continue to be utilized for storage and construction business
operations, with no specialized maintenance or upkeep. As such, these structures may
further deteriorate and continue to be at risk of failure or collapse. Over time, the
deterioration of the structures may result in a loss of integrity while remaining on site and
a loss of the resource value entirely when deterioration results in removal of the structures.
Retention of these structures in their current place and status would not result in any
changes to the eligibility of the resources or the potential historic district in the short-term,
which would less impacts compared to the Project, but in the long-term, the No Project
Alternative would inevitably result in negligence of the buildings and eventual loss of
eligible structures. Therefore, impacts would ultimately be greater than under the Project.
Geology and Soils
Impacts to and from geologic and soil resources under the No Project Alternative would
be much less than under the proposed Project. No soil disturbance beyond existing
agricultural operations and ongoing period grading would occur. Implementation of this
alternative would not expose structures or persons to or create or exacerbate known or
potential geologic and soils hazards.
5-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in any impacts to hazards
and hazardous materials. This alternative would not construct new development that
exacerbates existing hazards and would not expose persons to existing hazards or
hazardous materials. This alternative would also avoid exacerbation of wildfire hazards,
by both reducing the potential for ignition and keeping residential land uses out of high fire
hazard areas at the urban wildland interface.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in any impacts to hydrology
or water quality. This alternative would not increase impermeable surfaces on the Project
site and would not result in the potential to expose surface and groundwater sources to
pollutants from construction and equipment. Froom Creek would not be realigned and
restored, the habitats within the Calle Joaquin wetlands and LOVR ditch would remain
similar to existing conditions, and the existing Irish Hills stormwater detention basin and
associated wetlands would remain in operation along with impacts of periodic maintenance
activities. However, this alternative would not result in alleviation or improvement of flood
conditions at the U.S. 101 box culvert. Compared to the Project, flood conditions under
this alternative would be worsened and result in greater impacts.
Land Use and Planning
Impacts to land use under this alternative would be less than those anticipated under the
proposed Project. The No Project Alternative would result in continued discrepancies
between the existing agricultural uses and the General Plan LUE intent for the area to
provide a substantial number of residential units, Neighborhood Commercial or Retail
Commercial uses, and preserved open space; however, the existing use would continue to
be consistent with the County General Plan. This alternative would result in less than
significant impacts related to consistency with General Plan LUE policies as no
development would conflict with policies relating to Froom Creek, development above the
150-foot elevation contour, and development on agricultural and biologically sensitive
lands. However, the City’s housing supply, particularly for senior units, would not be
expanded, and conflicts with Housing Element (HE) goals for provision of such housing
could potentially occur.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-15
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Noise
The No Project Alternative would not result in any impacts related to noise. Under this
alternative, no construction or operational noise would be generated. Noise levels at the
site would remain similar to the existing setting at the Project site.
Population and Housing
Impacts to population and housing under this alternative would likely be greater than under
the proposed Project. Compared to the Project, this alternative would not result in
beneficial impacts to the housing supply nor assist in meeting the City’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation targets. The No Project Alternative would not meet existing and future
housing needs or provide increased affordable housing opportunities. The jobs/housing
imbalance within the City, as described in Section 3.11, Population and Housing, would
continue or be exacerbated. Increased demand for housing within the City to support
employment and economic growth would continue. As a result, increasing numbers of
households may opt to find housing opportunities outside of the City, and would travel to
job opportunities within the City, as further discussed in Section 3.11, Population and
Housing. Indirect impacts caused by the jobs/housing imbalance within the City and
associated commuter trips include increased energy consumption, GHG emissions, and air
pollutant emissions from additional commuters and increased commute distances and
times. As the No Project Alternative would not provide housing opportunities within the
Project site, this alternative would not partially alleviate some of these direct and indirect
impacts to population and housing.
Public Services and Recreation
The No Project Alternative would not result in any impacts to public services and
recreation. Under this alternative, no additional police officers or fire fighters would be
needed and there would not be an increase in population that would require construction of
additional educational or recreational facilities.
Transportation and Traffic
Traffic and transportation impacts would be much less than the proposed Project under this
alternative, as there would be no development that would generate additional trips to and
from the Project site or on adjacent roadways. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable
impacts caused by the Project would not occur under this alternative. This alternative
would also not contribute to transportation improvements in the vicinity, such as LOVR
5-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
screening shields views of development as much as possible, and impacts would continue
to be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact VIS-2, which addresses impacts to the
visual character of the Project site, would be
substantially reduced under Alternative 1 as
compared to the Project. While residential
buildings would be up to 10 feet taller under
the Project, the overall aerial extent and level
of development and associated changes in
aesthetic character of the Project site would be
less than under the Project. Under Alternative
1, the Upper Terrace of Villaggio would
remain undeveloped and scenic undeveloped
open grasslands, woodlands, and chaparral
habitats adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve would remain intact. Alternative 1
would improve the visual transition between the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and residential
development as compared to the Project by relocating the public park adjacent to the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve and relocating residential uses eastward. By avoiding development
above the 150-foot elevation line, Alternative 1 would preserve aesthetic resources and
provide a more natural transition from rural to urban settings, particularly for viewers
located above proposed development within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (see
Alternative KVAs 4 and 5). Including implementation of MM VIS-1, impacts under
Alternative 1 would be substantially less than under the Project and would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Impact VIS-3, associated with increased night lighting, would remain largely similar to the
Project as the levels of lighting would be similar under this alternative. However, avoiding
residential development within the Upper Terrace of Villaggio and northwestern portion
of the Project site would reduce the overall development footprint and adverse impacts
from nighttime lighting or glare, particularly adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
Accordingly, as under the Project, impacts would be considered less than significant under
Alternative 1.
Alternative 1 would eliminate development of
the Upper Terrace portion of Villaggio,
preserving open space within scenic vistas
designated by the General Plan COSE. Photo
source: hikespeak.com
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-43
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Cumulative impacts on visual resources would be less than under the Project. Cumulative
development is anticipated in the General Plan LUE and would be consistent with impacts
associated with implementation of City General Plan policies. Alternative 1, in
combination with approved, pending, and proposed development in San Luis Obispo,
would contribute toward creating a transition from the rural environment along the City’s
perimeter to the urban environment. Consistent with long-term buildout under the General
Plan, Alternative 1 and cumulative projects would be required to adhere to the design
standards of the General Plan LUE and would be subject to discretionary review by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council, as well as final design review by the
Architectural Review Commission (with a recommendation to the final action hearing
body). As identified in the LUCE Update EIR, all development that adheres to the General
Plan LUE policies would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetic and visual
resources. Unlike the Project, Alternative 1 would not include urban development above
the 150-foot elevation line and would not be inconsistent with City policies designed to
preserve scenic resources including Policy LUE 6.4, Hillside Policies. Additionally, this
alternative would not include growth-inducing effects on adjacent parcels to create pressure
for development above the 150-foot elevation. Therefore, the potential for cumulative
impacts to aesthetic and visual resources would be less when compared to the Project and
would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
5-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
KVA 1 – Project Compared to Alternative 1
KVA 1: Fleeting distant views of the Project site are available from U.S. 101. Under Alternative 1, the
Upper Terrace would not be developed and direct views to the Irish Hills, including ridgelines,
outcroppings, and natural vegetation, would be improved. Residential structures under this Alternative
would be up to 10 feet taller than under the Project, but since the view from U.S. 101 is distant and
channelized along Calle Joaquin, the increase in height is incremental and would not be noticed by viewers
compared to the Project. Commercial development and street trees up to approximately 20 to 30 feet high,
as well as telephone poles and wiring, would continue to impede views of the Project site.
Project
Alternative 1
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-45
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
KVA 2 – Project Compared to Alternative 1
KVA 2: Under Alternative 1, multi-story development would eliminate most onsite scenic resources
visible from this portion of LOVR, similar to the Project. Residential structures in Villaggio are not highly
visible from this KVA, so even though these structures would be approximately 10 feet taller than under
the Project, visual differences between building heights compared to the Project would be incremental
with residential structures are set back from LOVR. As under the Project, dense willow riparian
vegetation of 15 to 20 feet in height along most of the LOVR frontage that currently obscures views of
the Project site would be removed. However, within the context of surrounding commercial development,
this alternative would remain consistent in character, size, and scale of nearby development.
Project
Alternative 1
5-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
KVA 3 – Project Compared to Alternative 1
KVA 3: As under the Project, development of multi-story residential buildings would impede visibility of
aesthetic resources, including hillsides of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, from the LOVR Overpass.
Residential buildings in Villaggio allowed under this alternative would be up to 10 feet taller than under
the Project, although views from this KVA would only be incrementalally different given intervening
distances. However, as no development would be permitted above the 150-foot elevation, views of the Irish
Hills and associated scenic natural features would be maintained.
Project
Alternative 1
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-47
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
KVA 4 – Project Compared to Alternative 1
KVA 4: Under this alternative, the trailhead park would be developed in the northwestern portion of the
site bordering the Irish Hills Natural Reserve within the existing quarry area, allowing for smoother
visual transitions between proposed rural and urban land uses; although new development would be
visible from this KVA within Madonna Froom Ranch in the mid-range view and Villaggio structures in
the distant view, new structures would be clustered away from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve with other
buildings along the eastern portion of the Project site. The foreground view of this KVA would contain
park and open space with the relocated and rehabilitated Froom Ranch Dairy complex, which would also
maintain a more historically accurate visual context for this historic resource.
Project
Alternative 1
5-48 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
KVA 5 – Project Compared to Alternative 1
KVA 5: Impacts to visual and scenic resources from this KVA would be less than under the Project, as
development of residential units within the Upper Terrace would be avoided, preserving views of natural
habitats and other scenic resources in this area. While remaining multi-story buildings on the Project
site would be up to 10 feet taller than under the Project, these changes would appear incremental from
this KVA given intervening distances and adjacent urban land uses to the north and east.
Project
Alternative 1
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-49
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Agricultural Resources
Similar to the Project, development of Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch and
associated urban infrastructure under this alternative would continue to result in permanent
conversion of prime soils if irrigated to urban development, along with disruption of
existing grazing activities on the site. Similar to the Project, development occurring under
Alternative 1 would convert the majority of agricultural soils onsite, which are considered
prime farmland if irrigated. Since the Upper Terrace of the Villaggio would not be
developed, loss of grazing land and Farmland of Local Potential occurring above the 150-
foot elevation would not occur under this alternative.
Impact AG-1, which addresses the development of land designated as Farmland of Local
Potential to non-agricultural uses, would be similar under Alternative 1. As under the
Project, this alternative would not result development of soils that are considered prime as
no prime soils exist onsite. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant.
Impact AG-2, addressing potential agricultural zoning conflicts, would be reduced under
Alternative 1, although development of urban uses on agricultural land considered prime
if irrigated would continue to occur. Unlike the Project, residential land uses would not be
constructed in the Upper Terrace of Villaggio, thereby avoiding development on
agricultural lands within this area. As under the Project, Alternative 1 would be planned
for urban development with a Specific Plan (SP) land use designation under the General
Plan LUE and the Project would be consistent with Policy 1.7.3, Interim Uses, where
grazing uses would continue until urban development occurs under a Specific Plan.
Therefore, similar to the Project, Impact AG-2 would be adverse, but less than significant.
Impact AG-3, associated with reduced viability of the existing agricultural easement within
the Project site, would be similar to the Project, since the agricultural easement overlies
areas within the Lower Area. However, realignment of the easement would support
conservation of habitat and biological resources, particularly the protection of existing
wetlands within this 1.6-acre portion east of Calle Joaquin, which is consistent with the
easement’s preservation intent. Thus, adjustment of the 7.1-acre easement would continue
to meet the objectives and LAFCO requirements of the easement agreement and impacts,
like the Project, are considered less than significant.
As under the Project, this alternative would contribute incrementally to the loss of
agricultural land (Grazing Land and Farmland of Local Potential) to development within
the City. However, this alternative would not contribute to the loss of Important Farmland.
5-50 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Other cumulative development within the City that would result in the conversion of
agricultural resources would be subject to Policy 1.9.2 in the LUE, Prime Agricultural
Land, and Policy 8.6.3 in the COSE, Required Mitigation. Therefore, this alternative would
not contribute to a cumulatively considerable loss of significant agricultural resources, and
cumulative impacts would remain less than significant.
Air Quality and GHG Emissions
As under the Project, this alternative would use the same construction equipment, contain
similar land uses, the same number of residential units, and would result in similar trip
generation and air quality emissions. CalEEMod modeling for this alternative identifies
impacts that would be slightly less compared to the Project (see Tables 5-8 through 5-12,
below; also see Appendix D) largely due to the reduced area of disturbance required to
construct the development by eliminating development above the 150-foot elevation on the
site.
Impact AQ-1, which addresses construction emissions, would be similar to the Project.
Alternative 1 would involve slightly more construction activities on site at the same time
and increased import of fill, as excess material would no longer be available from onsite
grading within the Upper Terrace of Villaggio. This would create a slightly higher
maximum daily emissions level from air emissions; Alternative 1 is estimated to generate
a maximum of 3.55 lbs/day more reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)
compared to the Project, which is nominal, and daily maximum PM2.5 is estimated to
decrease by 0.57 lbs/day compared to the Project. This impact would be similar to the
Project and construction-related air quality impacts would still exceed the SLO County
APCD’s Tier 1 Quarterly thresholds for construction emissions of ROGs and NOx (Table
5-8 and 5-9). As under the Project, required implementation of a Construction Activity
Management Plan (CAMP) (MM AQ-1), use of low or no volatile organic compound-
emission paint (MM AQ-2), and use of an offsite mitigation strategy (MM AQ-3), would
bring DPM emissions below SLO County APCD Tier 2 and Tier 1 quarterly thresholds.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce construction-related air quality
impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with SLO County APCD methodology.
Therefore, residual impacts under this alternative would remain less than significant with
mitigation.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-51
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Table 5-8. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Unmitigated)
ROG NOx ROG +
NOx CO SO2 PM10
DPM
(Exhaust
PM2.5)
Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Peak Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
182.08 193.29 375.37 110.21 0.27 30.88 6.66
Peak Quarterly
Emissions (tons/qtr)1
1.16 5.52 8.242 3.17 <0.01 0.91 0.19
APCD Daily Thresholds
(lbs/day)
-- -- 137 -- -- -- 7
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 1
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 2.5 -- -- 2.5 0.13
Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- NO YES
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 2
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 6.3 -- -- -- 0.32
Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- NO NO
1 tons/qtr calculated based on maximum annual emissions divided by four (i.e., one quarter of a year).
2 tons/qtr for ROG + NOx emissions calculated in CalEEMod.
See Appendix D for CalEEMod worksheets.
Table 5-9. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Mitigated)
ROG NOx ROG +
NOx CO SO2 PM10
DPM
(Exhaust
PM2.5)
CO2e
Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
(lbs/day) 60.71 122.86 183.57 129.39 0.27 19.24 4.36 27,336
(tons/qtr) includes
Fugitive Dust1
0.42 3.49 5.092 3.73 <0.01 0.52 0.13 698
APCD Daily
Thresholds (lbs/day)
-- -- 137 -- -- -- 7 --
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 1
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 2.5 2.5 0.13 --
Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- NO NO --
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 2
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 6.3 -- -- -- 0.32 --
Above Threshold? -- -- NO -- -- NO NO --
1 tons/qtr calculated based on maximum annual emissions divided by four (i.e., one quarter of a year).
2 tons/qtr for ROG + NOx emissions calculated in CalEEMod.
See Appendix D for CalEEMod worksheets.
5-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Impact AQ-2, addressing long-term impacts of operational air emissions, would be similar
to the Project. This Alternative has the same number of residential units and commercial
square footage, which would have similar trip generation, energy demand, and water
demand as the Project. Therefore, operational-related air quality impacts from onsite
energy use, water demand, and mobile emissions would be the same as the Project. Like
the Project, while this alternative would not exceed annual emissions thresholds, projected
maximum daily emissions would be above the established APCD daily thresholds for
operational emissions of ROG + NOx (see Table 5-10). Like the Project, implementation
of MM AQ-4, which requires implementation of all feasible measures within Table 3-5 of
the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (see Table 3.3-9), would also apply to reduce
adverse operational effects. However, many of the measures listed in MM AQ-4 do not
include quantifiable air quality emissions reductions. As a result, the CalEEMod results for
Alternative 1 demonstrate that Alternative 1 operational emissions would exceed
SLOAPCD’s maximum daily thresholds for ROG and NOx. Therefore, like the Project,
long-term operational impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable.
Impact AQ-3, addressing toxic air contaminants (TAC) or naturally occurring asbestos
(NOA), would be less than under the Project. There are no existing sensitive receptors on
the Project site or vicinity that would be exposed to significant Project construction
emissions. Unlike the Project, no occupation of the site would occur concurrent with heavy-
haul truck traffic, grading, and excavating, so the potential for exposure of residents to
TAC from diesel emissions during construction would be substantially reduced or avoided.
Further, areas within the Upper Terrace that potentially contain NOA would not be
excavated under Alternative 1 and any soil-disturbing excavation would occur prior to
occupancy of Villaggio or Madonna Froom Ranch. Similar to the Project, this alternative
is outside of recommended buffer zones of sources of potential TAC, such as congested
highways or intersections, and planned residential and commercial uses would not generate
substantial amounts of TACs. Therefore, this alternative is not expected to expose sensitive
receptors to substantial levels of TACs or NOA. Therefore, as under the Project, impacts
would continue to be considered less than significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-53
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Table 5-10. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
ROG NOx ROG +
NOx CO SO2 PM10
DPM
(Exhaust
PM10)
CO2e
Overall Operational (Maximum Daily Emission)
Area (lbs/day) 24.27 0.60 24.87 51.96 <0.01 0.29 0.29 96
Energy
(lbs/day)
0.38 3.35 3.73 2.16 0.02 0.26 0.26 4,169
Mobile
(lbs/day)
6.70 23.10 29.80 65.53 0.21 20.47 0.17 21,212
Total (lbs/day) 31.35 27.05 58.4 119.65 0.24 21.00 0.72 25,477
Threshold
(lbs/day)
- - 25 550 - 25 1.25 -
Significance? - - YES NO - NO NO -
Overall Operational (Annual Emission)
Area
(tons/year)
4.40 0.10 4.50 8.57 <0.01 0.05 0.05 14
Energy
(tons/year)
0.07 0.61 0.68 0.39 <0.01 0.05 0.05 2,235
Mobile
(tons/year)
1.05 3.99 5.04 11.06 0.03 3.35 0.03 3,129
Waste
(tons/year)
- - - - - - - 253
Water
(tons/year)
- - - - - - - 142
Total
(tons/year)
5.52 4.7 10.22 20.02 0.05 3.45 0.13 5,773
Threshold
(tons/year)
- - 25 - - 25 - -
Significant? - - NO - - NO -
Note: Values in this table are rounded for reporting purposes.
See Appendix D for CalEEMod worksheets.
Impact AQ-4, addressing global climate change from GHG emissions, would be similar to
the Project. While Alternative 1 would substantially reduce the area of disturbance and
onsite excavation and earthmoving, this alternative would need increased offsite import of
fill, since excavation of the Upper Terrace would not occur and would not provide an onsite
source of needed fill for Madonna Froom Ranch. These increased diesel haul truck trips
would slightly increase construction-related GHG emissions based on CalEEMod
estimates, by approximately 6.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) more
than the Project’s total GHG emissions, which is within the margin of error for such
5-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
projections. Construction activities under this alternative would generate an estimated
7,859 MT CO2e (see Tables 5-11 and 5-12). Amortized over a 25-year period (consistent
with SLO County APCD methodology), construction of Alternative 1 would result in
approximately 314 MT CO2e per year (MT CO2e/yr). Unmitigated operational GHG
emissions generated by Alternative 1 would be approximately 5,773 MT CO2e. Combined
with construction emissions amortized over a 25-year period (314 MT CO2e), total
unmitigated GHG emissions would be approximately 6,087 MT CO2e. Similar to the
Project, Alternative 1 would need to consider the goals of SB 32 and statewide goals for
GHG reduction by 2030. With application of MM AQ-4 through -6 to include site-specific
and communitywide GHG reduction strategies in the FRSP to attain as close to 0 MT
CO2e/yr as feasible for stationary source emissions; however, mobile source emissions
have potential to result in continued inconsistency with GHG reduction targets. Impact
AQ-4 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Table 5-11. Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated)
Year Annual Emissions MT CO2e
2020 2,791
2021 1,560
2022 1,689
2023 1,020
2024 799
Total 7,859
Amortized over 25 years 314
Table 5-12. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Unmitigated)
Emission Source Annual Emissions MT CO2e
Area 14
Energy Use 2,235
Mobile 3,129
Water Use 253
Solid Waste 142
Total 5,773
Amortized Construction Emissions 314
Total Project GHG Emissions 6,087
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-55
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Under Alternative 1, Impact AQ-5 would be similar to the Project with regards to potential
inconsistencies with the Clean Air Plan. Population increases under Alternative 1 would
be similar to the Project, as would total added average daily trips (ADT). As a result, similar
to the Project, the rate of increase in population would continue to exceed the allowable
rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled, and would therefore remain inconsistent
with the Clean Air Plan. As under the Project, Alternative 1 would install one new bus stop
along southbound LOVR during Phase 1, ensuring transit services would be available in
the Project vicinity prior to occupancy of the first unit. Despite implementation of MM
AQ-2, MM TRANS-5, and MM TRANS-8 through -10 requiring reductions in Project
VMTs, this alternative would remain inconsistent with the City’s Clean Air Plan due to
continued exceedance of population growth, vehicle trip, and VMT projections for the
region. Similar to the Project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative air quality impacts would be similar to the Project. This alternative would also
result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational air quality impacts within an
Air Basin that is in non-attainment and would, therefore, contribute to cumulatively
considerable impacts to air quality emissions in the region. In addition, the LUCE Update
Final EIR also determined that full buildout under the General Plan would be potentially
inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan, and that cumulative impacts related to the increase in
air quality emissions resulting from implementation of this alternative would be significant
and unavoidable.
This alternative would contribute incrementally to GHG emissions regionally and
statewide, but MM AQ-4 through MM AQ-6 would reduce construction and operational
emissions to as close to 0 MT CO2e/yr as feasible, consistent with SB 32 and emerging
City regulation requiring net-zero GHG emissions by 2035. Therefore, this alternative
would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHGs, and cumulative
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the Project.
Biological Resources
Under this alternative, biological resource impacts related to loss of wetland, riparian, and
upland habitats and potential effects on sensitive, threatened, and endangered species
would be substantially reduced compared to the Project. Residences and related
infrastructure would not be constructed within the Upper Terrace of Villaggio, which
would substantially reduce impacts to serpentine native bunchgrass grassland habitats and
minimize impacts to springs, seeps, and wetland habitats along Drainages 1, 2, and 3, as
well as associated impacts to 12 special status plant species in the Upper Terrace. Impacts
5-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
to wildlife movement and wildlife corridors would also be substantially reduced and
consistency with the policies of the City General Plan would be substantially increased. In
particular, consistency with LUE Policies 1.8.6, Wildlife Habitats, and 6.4.7, Hillside
Planning Areas, and COSE Policies 7.3.1, Protect Listed Species, 7.3.2, Protect Species of
Local Concern, 7.3.3, Wildlife Habitat and Corridors, and 7.7.7, Preserve Ecotones, would
be improved.
However, development in the
southwest corner of the lower portion
of Villaggio, consisting of up to 12
Villas along Froom Creek and within
a cul-de-sac at the confluence of
Drainages 1, 2 and 3 and adjacent to
a large serpentine outcrop, would
continue to impact sensitive
biological resources and create
potential inconsistencies with City
General Plan policies. The residential
cul-de-sac with Villas would be
located immediately adjacent to wetlands along Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and potential special
status plants on an adjacent serpentine rock outcrop. The development would also be
located proximate to California bay woodland and may generate the need for fire buffer
clearance within this woodland. Although reduced when compared to the Project, the Villas
would continue to isolate the restored Froom Creek and sensitive natural communities such
as the Calle Joaquin wetlands and LOVR ditch riparian habitat from high quality grassland
and other habitats in the southern portion of the Project site above the 150-foot elevation
line and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. While these natural communities would continue
to have a connection to the Irish Hills along the portion of the restored Froom Creek located
between Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch, the broad existing ecotones with grasslands
would be eliminated. While this alternative would substantially reduce impacts and
improve consistency with City General Plan Polices, these units and associated
infrastructure would continue to interrupt habitat continuity, wildlife habitat and corridors,
and potentially impact special status plant species and thus would remain potentially
inconsistent with the intent of multiple City General Plan policies, particularly COSE
Policies 7.3.2, 7.3.3 and 7.7.7. Similar to the Project, this impact would require mitigation
for targeted site redesign to reduce and/or avoid, as further described below.
Potential impacts to approximately 3.9 acres of native
serpentine bunchgrass grassland habitat and associated
special status plant species would be avoided under
Alternative 1.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-57
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Impact BIO-1, addressing construction impacts on sensitive riparian, wetland, and native
grassland habitats, identified as sensitive natural communities under state and City policy,
would be less severe than under the Project, as residential development above the 150-foot
elevation would not occur, thereby preserving the highest-quality habitat within the site.
Avoiding development in the Upper Terrace of Villaggio would preserve approximately
3.9 acres of native serpentine bunchgrass grassland habitat that would be impacted under
the Project. This bunchgrass is a designated sensitive natural community considered
biologically important by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). By
avoiding development in the Upper Terrace of Villaggio, this alternative would reduce the
perimeter length of residential development abutting open space by approximately 3,904
feet, equating to a 49 percent reduction of the wildland-urban interface. This would reduce
habitat disturbance related to construction and maintenance of on- and offsite wildfire
buffers by approximately 9.0 acres, including impacts to serpentine rock outcroppings and
native serpentine bunchgrass grassland habitat.
Due to a reduced amount of development and required vegetation clearance for wildfire
protection, 3.23 acres of coast live oak/California bay woodland habitat and 6.85 acres of
coastal shrub/chaparral habitat would no longer be impacted. In addition, sensitive habitats
within the Upper Terrace would not be subject to gradual degradation over time through
trampling, landscape maintenance, introduction of non-native species, or other activities of
new residents. Additionally, this alternative would not result in grading, vegetation
clearance and management, or culvert-headwall installation along the majority of
Drainages 1, 2, or 3, reducing Project impacts to creek, stream, and wetland habitat, as well
as associated endangered species.
Impacts of Alternative 1 on riparian
habitat areas would be similar to the
Project. Permanent direct loss of 1.13
acres of riparian scrub would result from
construction of the proposed stormwater
detention basin, realignment of the Froom
Creek corridor, widening of LOVR, and
construction of a new Project entrance
road. Similar to the Project, major
changes to the hydrology of the Calle
Joaquin wetlands could result in adverse
effects to the long-term biological
Avoidance of impacts to Drainages 1, 2, and 3 under
Alternative 1 would also reduce impacts to the Calle
Joaquin wetlands, which provides high-quality
habitat for several plant and annual species
(Appendix E).
5-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
productivity or functions of these wetlands, as well as impacts to water quality and sensitive
habitat from potential introduction of sediment runoff, siltation, and accidental spillage of
fuel and lubricants.
Unlike the Project, this alternative would also include construction of two additional
emergency access roads that could impact native riparian habitats. The first emergency
access road would cross the proposed Froom Creek realignment and the LOVR ditch to
provide access to LOVR approximately 800 feet southeast from the primary Project access
road at Auto Park Way. Although Applicant-prepared conceptual plans do not provide
specific details, this road would require construction of a second free-span bridge of
approximately 24 feet in width across the 60-foot-wide realigned Froom Creek channel
and a new box culvert of 24 to 48 inches across the LOVR ditch. This new emergency
access road would lead to additional habitat loss and fragmentation and would further
decrease the hydrologic and habitat connectivity within Froom Creek and the LOVR ditch
as compared to the Project. Under this alternative, an additional emergency access road
would also be constructed along the southwest edge of the proposed stormwater detention
basin on the Mountainbrook Church property easement. This emergency access would
connect to Calle Joaquin and would cross the confluence of the three drainages near Froom
Creek, as well as cross Drainage 4 near Calle Joaquin, an intermittent, willow-lined
roadside conveyance. While conceptual plans are not currently available, this access road
would also likely be 24 feet in width and would require installation of a box culvert across
Drainage 4, impacting willow riparian vegetation.
Similar to the Project, the following mitigation measures would be required to minimize
potential impacts:
• MM BIO-1: implementation of a Biological Mitigation Plan
• MM BIO-2: ensures a qualified Environmental Monitor will oversee compliance of
construction activities with the Biological Mitigation Plan.
• MM BIO-3: requirement that the Biological Mitigation Plan include a Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
• MM BIO-4: requirement that the Biological Mitigation Plan include avoidance and
replacement of sensitive natural communities outside approved development
footprints.
• MM BIO-5: mitigates temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands, grasslands,
and riparian habitat.
• MM BIO-6: timing and implementation requirements for habitat restoration.MM
BIO-13: requires relocation of buildings along the confluence of Drainages 1, 2,
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-59
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
and 3 and Froom Creek outside of a buffer from the water courses to increase
ecologic and hydrologic connectivity.
• MM HAZ-1: a Community Fire Protection Plan that protects sensitive habitats and
species to the maximum extent possible.
The potential impacts to biological resources from Alternative 1 would be substantially
lessened with inclusion of the Project’s mitigation measures listed above. Policy
consistency with the General Plan would also be greatly improved. However, since the
emergency access roadways connecting Villaggio to Calle Joaquin and LOVR have not
been designed or engineered yet, it is possible that these features may have significant
impacts on riparian communities along the LOVR ditch and realigned Froom Creek and
on Drainage 4. For this reason, an additional mitigation measure MM BIO-Alt. 1 is
identified to ensure these alternative features are specifically mitigated.
MM BIO-Alt. 1 The additional emergency access roadway across Froom Creek and
the LOVR ditch and the southern emergency access route entering
the site from Calle Joaquin shall be reviewed by the City’s Public
Works Department, Community Development Department, Natural
Resources Manager, and Fire Department prior to adoption of the
Final FRSP and approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map to
ensure that design is adequate for City emergency ingress/egress
standards and minimizes impacts to riparian vegetation and wildlife
passage, and that adequate on- and offsite mitigation of impacted
riparian and wetland vegetation is provided. The City shall ensure
review and approval of these features as part of the Final FRSP
considers the siting, alignment, width, materials, and access
controls.
Alternative 1 Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant is
required to implement the above mitigation measures prior to FRSP
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) approval. The access
roads shall be integrated into the VTTM preliminary grading plan.
City staff shall ensure the above measures are incorporated into the
FRSP and VTTM prior to acceptance of the final FRSP.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is
incorporated into the Final FRSP and VTTM prior to Project
approval.
5-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Implementation of MM BIO-Alt. 1 under Alternative 1 would further reduce impacts to
riparian and wetland habitats as compared to the Project. Potential alignment of the
southern emergency access route under MM BIO-Alt. 1 would be designed to reduce
impacts of crossing the confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and Drainage 4.
Alternative 1 would substantially reduce impacts to sensitive habitats and species and
wildlife corridors as compared to the Project, particularly those associated with habitats in
the Upper Terrace. This alternative as modified by the above mitigation measures would
improve consistency with several policies within the City General Plan adopted to protect
important natural resources, including LUE Policies 1.8.6, Wildlife Habitats, and 6.4.7,
Hillside Planning Areas, and COSE Policies 7.3.1, Protect Listed Species, 7.3.2, Protect
Species of Local Concern, 7.3.3, Wildlife Habitat and Corridors, and 7.7.7, Preserve
Ecotones. Because Alternative 1 would not develop the Upper Terrace and would be
required to implement additional mitigation measures to avoid disturbance, alteration, or
removal of high value habitats, Impact BIO-1 would be substantially less than under the
Project and would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
Impact BIO-2, which addresses direct and indirect adverse impacts on candidate, sensitive,
or special status species that are known to or may occur on the Project site, would also be
substantially reduced under Alternative 1. Unlike the Project, Alternative 1 would
substantially reduce impacts to sensitive habitats in the Upper Terrace that support 12
known special status plant species, as well as the potential occurrence of several other
species. Woodland areas and other habitats in the Upper Terrace would not be impacted by
fire clearance, protecting foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for several Species of
Special Concern, including bats and birds. Additionally, avoidance of development within
the Upper Terrace would protect the majority of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 where these
drainages support a federally endangered species and provide water to sensitive plant and
animal species.
Although the development footprint for Alternative 1 would be considerably smaller than
the Project, direct and indirect impacts to species on- and offsite could continue similar to
the Project, including those resulting from construction noise, increased human presence,
and potential exposure to pollutants and hazardous materials. Riparian and wetland habitats
and associated species would also continue to be impacted.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-61
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Mitigation measures proposed under
the Project would also be
implemented to reduce potential
impacts. These would include
implementation of MM HAZ-2, MM
BIO-1, as well as MM BIO-9,
ensuring access to riparian habitat
for special status species would not
be interrupted during construction.
MM BIO-10, minimizing impacts to
Chorro Creek Bog Thistle, MM BIO-
11, ensuring the Biological
Mitigation Plan addresses special
status wildlife species management,
and MM BIO-12, ensuring the Biological Mitigation Plan includes bat colony and
migratory and nesting bird management, would also apply. MM BIO-13 would also further
reduce impacts to creek, stream, and wetland habitat and increase habitat connectivity
between the realigned Froom Creek corridor and the high quality habitats in the Upper
Terrace area of Villaggio and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve through relocation of
residential development and associated road infrastructure outside an adequate buffer
around the confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3, which flow to Froom Creek. Given that
development within the Upper Terrace would not occur and all applicable mitigation
measures would be implemented under Alternative 1 as under the Project, Alternative 1
would have substantially reduced impacts on candidate, sensitive, or endangered species
known to exist on the Project site and impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation.
Impact BIO-3, addressing Project impacts to federally-protected wetlands, would be
decreased as compared to the Project. Unlike the Project, this alternative would not include
installation of culvert-headwalls or otherwise disturb Drainages 1, 2, or 3 except near the
convergence of these drainages, and would avoid approximately 0.25 acres of rare seep
wetlands in the Upper Terrace, as well as water sources for adjacent and downstream
riparian and wetland habitat. However, CDFW and USACE jurisdictional wetlands,
including the LOVR ditch and Calle Joaquin wetlands, would continue to be impacted as
a result of LOVR frontage improvements, emergency access road construction, and Froom
Creek realignment. As under the Project, implementation of MM BIO-4 would preserve
Avoidance of residential development along the
Upper Terrace under Alternative 1 would reduce
impacts to Blochman’s dudleya, a highly endangered
perennial herb that is known to exist in rocky outcrops
of the Upper Terrace area of the Project site.
(Photo: CalPhotos; photograph by Keir Morse 2016)
Alternative 1 would preserve approximately 0.25 acres of
rare seep wetlands in the Upper Terrace and ensure
hydrologic connectivity between Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and
downstream wetlands, including the Calle Joaquin
wetlands.
5-62 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
open space at the confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and would greatly enhance hydrologic
connectivity between the Upper Terrace and downstream wetlands. Additionally,
geotechnical recommendations required in MM BIO-7 to reduce potential for horizontal
directional drilling operations to adversely affect Calle Joaquin wetlands would still be
required.
However, interruption or redirection of ground and surface water sources for these
wetlands from realignment of Froom Creek and adjacent development could still result in
changes in wetland habitats and characteristics. While implementation of MM BIO-1
through -3, MM BIO-5 through -7, and MM BIO-13 would partially reduce impacts to
USFWS and CDFW jurisdictional wetland areas through avoidance to the maximum extent
feasible of on- or offsite wetlands, full replacement of equivalent wetland values if
wetlands are affected would be challenging. Although impacts to wetlands in the Upper
Terrace area of Villaggio would be less than under the Project, direct and indirect impacts
to jurisdictional wetlands would continue, and impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Impact BIO-4 addressing impacts on the
movement of resident or migratory
wildlife species or resident and
migratory wildlife corridors would be
substantially reduced under Alternative
1. Unlike the Project, Alternative 1
would avoid all development in the
Upper Terrace and would allow wildlife
movement across the Upper Terrace and
along Drainages 1, 2, and 3, which link
Froom Creek through the Project site to
the Irish Hills. By avoiding extensive site
alteration and construction of new
homes, roadways, trails, fences, and utility and drainage infrastructure within the Upper
Terrace, Alternative 1 would reduce noise, lighting, and glare that would disrupt wildlife
movement across the Project site. Implementation MM BIO-13 through -14 and MM BIO
Alt. 1 would further reduce such impacts. As under the Project, Calle Joaquin wetlands and
the restored Froom Creek channel could be isolated from wildlife and habitats in the Upper
Terrace and Irish Hills Natural Reserve, replacing existing broad open grassland ecotones
that currently link these habitats with intensive development, particularly near the
Alternative 1 would ensure realigned Froom Creek
would connect to high quality habitats in the Upper
Terrace and Irish Hills Natural Reserve, allowing
for safe passage between these habitats by resident
and migratory wildlife.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-63
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3. While the realigned and restored Froom Creek corridor
is proposed to provide enhanced riparian habitat, it would be an urban creek corridor
bordered by relatively intensive development that would limit movement of terrestrial and
avian species. Long-term impacts to migrating species would be similar to the Project due
to the increase in human presence onsite, including lighting located on buildings and in
parking areas, increased noise from automobiles, and other human activities. These long-
term impacts could cause these species to be killed, to flee the area, or could disrupt
breeding and nesting efforts.
As under the Project, implementation of MM BIO-1 through -2, BIO-5 through -6, BIO-9,
BIO-11 through -12, and MM BIO-13 would reduce potential impacts to resident or
migratory wildlife and resident or migratory corridors. By ensuring the ability of resident
or migratory wildlife to access high quality habitats, Impact BIO-4 would be substantially
less severe when compared to the Project and would be considered less than significant
with mitigation.
Impact BIO-5, related to the potential
disturbance, trimming, or removal of up
to 75 mature trees, would be less severe
when compared to the Project. On the
northwestern side of the site, potentially
affected trees are located in the
developed/disturbed area adjacent to the
existing quarry and construction business.
Mature trees in the Upper Terrace in the
southwest portion of the Project site adjacent to Drainages 1, 2, and 3 would also be
potentially affected. The land use map for Alternative 1 would designate residential and
commercial areas to avoid direct and indirect disturbance to much of the woodland areas
that would be developed by the Project in the Upper Terrace, reducing indirect fire
clearance impacts to coast live oak and California bay woodlands in particular. Similar to
the Project, trimming or work within the rootzone of mature trees for construction or
wildfire buffering could indirectly impact these trees. As under the Project, MM BIO-15
would ensure avoidance of trees, and MM BIO-Alt. 1 would protect additional coast live
oak/California bay woodlands from development or associated fire management processes.
As under the Project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Alternative 1 would reduce impacts to mature trees,
including coast live oak/ California bay woodland,
and eucalyptus.
5-64 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be substantially less than those
resulting from the Project. However, as under the Project, following incorporation of all
mitigation measures described above, Alternative 1’s contribution to regional cumulative
impacts to biological resources would be cumulatively considerable and significant and
unavoidable. Additionally, as discussed in the 2014 LUCE Update EIR, implementation of
General Plan LUE policies and compliance with state and federal regulations would ensure
cumulative impacts resulting from development under the General Plan LUE would be less
than significant.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 1, impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources would be
less when compared to the Project. Soil disturbance would still occur within areas
considered to be sensitive for cultural resources but required grading and excavation would
avoid the Upper Terrace, which has a high potential for discovery of buried archeological
resources. Similar to the Project, proposed relocation of historic structures within the
Froom Ranch Dairy complex would adversely affect significant historic resources,
including a potential historic district. Mitigation measures would continue to be
implemented to minimize potential impacts of development and operation on
archaeological and prehistoric resources, as well as historic resources.
Impact CR-1 addressing potential to impact subsurface cultural resources would be less
severe when compared to the Project. Per the technical studies completed for the FRSP
(Appendix F) and the City’s Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines,
there are two known prehistoric sites and archaeologically sensitive areas within the Project
site that may contain undiscovered cultural resources that would be impacted by
construction under this alternative, including within the Upper Terrace and a 200-foot area
around the top of banks of the existing Froom Creek. Similar to the Project, mitigation
measures would be implemented that would reduce potential impacts. These would include
requiring a subsurface archaeological resource evaluation in areas within 200 feet of
identified sites (MM CR-1), identification of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (MM CR-
2), requiring preparation and implementation of an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (MM
CR-3 and MM CR-4), ensuring cessation of construction activities following discovery of
prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources and/or human remains (MM CR-5
and MM CR-7), and ensuring construction personnel receive cultural resources training
(MM CR-6). Unlike the Project, no development would occur within the Upper Terrace,
an area which supports several recorded archaeological sites and resources. Therefore,
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-65
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Impact CR-1 would be less than under the Project and considered less than significant with
mitigation.
Impact CR-2, which addresses potential indirect impacts to archaeological resources
resulting from recreational activities of future residents, would be substantially less than
under the Project. By avoiding development in the Upper Terrace, proposed residential
development would be located more than 100 feet from known archaeological resources
and, therefore, less subject to potential indirect disturbance by future residents. Similar to
the Project, the nearest residential structures in Villaggio would be enclosed by a security
fence under Alternative 1 that would substantially limit incidental access to these cultural
resources with the open space area. The archaeologically sensitive areas in the Upper
Terrace would be preserved as protected open space under Alternative 1, further protecting
them from risks associated with future development within the Specific Plan area. MM
CR-8 requiring that recreational facilities and roadways are not located within 50 feet of
known resources would also continue to apply. Impact CR-2 would, therefore, be less than
under the Project and would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
Impact CR-3, addressing impacts to historic resources onsite, would remain similar to the
Project, as Alternative 1 would relocate and/or adaptively reuse four Froom Ranch Dairy
complex buildings (i.e., main residence, creamery, dairy barn, and granary) within the
proposed trailhead park. These structures are eligible for listing on the National Register,
California Register, and City Master List of Historic Resources as a historic district.
Additionally, several structures onsite that contribute to the potential Froom Ranch Dairy
historic district (i.e., the shed, bunkhouse, and old barn) would be demolished similar to
the Project.
As under the Project, the following mitigation measures would apply to minimize potential
impacts to historic resources:
• MM CR-9: ensures retention of a qualified historic architect to review and comment
on construction drawings as well as conduct construction monitoring
• MM CR-10: ensures photo documentation of existing historic buildings
• MM CR-11: requires production of an educational pamphlet regarding cultural and
architectural heritage of the site
• MM CR-12: requires the Applicant to maximize reuse of original building material
• MM CR-13: requires preparation of design guidelines and review for construction
proximate to the Main Residence
• MM CR-14: requires a preservation plan to protect historic buildings during
construction
5-66 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Relocation and reconstruction of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex, including
implementation of the above mitigation measures, would retain sufficient integrity to
convey the buildings’ significant association with the dairy industry and the Froom family.
Retaining the four historic structures that contribute to the potential historic district within
the trailhead park and in a natural setting more reminiscent of their historic past than the
Project (i.e., set atop a rise against the natural hillside of the Irish Hills rather than set
amongst multi-family housing units and commercial buildings) would lessen the potential
impact to historic resources as well. However, as under the Project, the loss of three
contributors to the potential historic district would also occur under Alternative 1, and,
therefore, Impact CR-3 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Similar to the Project, Alternative 1 would contribute to the potential loss of significant
archaeological and tribal cultural resources, though its contribution would be less than
significant with mitigation identified above. As under the Project, significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with the removal, relocation, and reconstruction of features
associated with the historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex could occur and would be
cumulatively considerable when combined with overall loss of historic resources in the
City and surrounding areas for pending and future projects. As such, Alternative 1 would
contribute to the cumulative loss of historic resources in the City and result in significant
and unavoidable cumulative impacts.
Geology and Soils
Under this alternative, impacts related to geologic and soil resources would be similar when
compared to the Project due to similar construction activities, geologic hazards, and
minimal impacts. As under the Project, design and construction of proposed land uses
would be subject to several requirements and regulations to ensure structural integrity in
seismically active areas. By locating development outside of fault setbacks and
implementing the most current industry standards for structural design, impacts of
structural failure and risks to life and property due to seismic shaking and seismic-related
ground failure would be avoided or reduced.
Impact GEO-1, addressing exposure of people or structures to adverse effects from
earthquakes and seismically induced hazards, would be similar when compared to the
Project. Development would be required to be sited to avoid existing fault lines, and to
adhere to the California Building Code (CBC) and the City Municipal Code. Similar to the
Project, the Los Osos Fault would cross Madonna Froom Ranch and Alternative 1 would
include a development setback from the potentially active Los Osos Fault segments onsite.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-67
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
As under the Project, compliance with state and local building regulations for site
preparation and structural design would ensure that seismically induced hazards would
remain less than significant.
Impact GEO-2, addressing potential for soil hazards, would remain the same as the Project.
Potential for subsidence to occur onsite is low and development would not cause or
exacerbate subsidence. Grading under Alternative 1 would require approximately 94,000
cubic yards (cy) less fill as compared to the Project. Implementation of recommendations
outlined in the Project Soils Engineering Report and the geotechnical recommendations
included therein would continue be implemented under Alternative 1 and would reduce
impacts related to construction on loose, saturated, or expansive soils. Additionally,
compliance with federal, state, and local regulations (i.e., CBC, the City’s Safety Element
[SE], and the City Municipal Code) would reduce direct impacts associated with expansive
soils, differential settlement, and subsidence. As under the Project, impacts from
Alternative 1 would be less than significant.
Impact GEO-3, which addresses the potential for erosion and landslides, would be less
severe when compared to the Project since grading within areas above the 150-foot
elevation would not occur. In the lower portions of the site and Madonna Froom Ranch,
grading for site development has the potential to expose undocumented fill and existing
soft alluvium, which may erode or slide. While there is the potential for limited slope
instability to occur during excavation and construction activities, implementation of the
CBC and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would reduce the potential
for erosion and long-term impacts during construction, similar to the Project. While
potential for landslides to occur at the Project site is considered low, potential impacts
would be reduced by removing private access roadways and medium-high density
residential uses that are proposed under the Project in the Upper Terrace that would be
located within a potential rockfall hazard area. Removal of development from the Upper
Terrance under this alternative would also reduce hazards associated with development on
steeper slopes. Compliance with applicable regulations and recommendations outlined in
the Preliminary Soils Engineering Report and Preliminary Engineering Geology
Investigation would further reduce impacts related to erosion or landslides, and impacts
would be less than significant.
Impact GEO-4, addressing potential groundwater dewatering impacts, would result in
impacts similar to those under the Project. Subsurface parking structures constructed in
Villaggio adjacent to the realigned Froom Creek could require dewatering. Construction of
5-68 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
these structures could require excavation up to 12 feet below ground surface (bgs),
potentially intercepting shallow groundwater observed at a depth of 1.5 to 4.0 feet bgs. As
under the Project, compliance with the Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation
recommendations, as well as Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations,
would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Impact GEO-5, addressing the potential to uncover and impact paleontological resources
in geologic deposits, would be similar to the Project. If paleontological resources were
uncovered during construction and were then improperly handled, such unknown
paleontological resources could be damaged or destroyed. As under the Project,
incorporation of MM GEO-1 would ensure the protection of potential paleontological
resources, and impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
Cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would result if impacts under Alternative
1, when combined with other past, present, and future projects, would cumulatively
increase the potential for geologic hazards, such as ground-shaking, or increased soil
impacts, such as erosion. The City Municipal Code and the General Plan SE require all
discretionary development within the City to undergo analysis of each site’s geological and
soil conditions prior to construction. Because all projects would be required to undergo an
analysis of site-specific geological and soil conditions, and because restrictions on
development would be applied in the event that geological or soil conditions pose a risk to
safety, this alternative’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with seismic
activity, soil instability, subsidence, collapse, and/or expansive soil would be the same as
under the Project and would be considered less than significant.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Under Alternative 1, impacts related to wildfire hazards would be substantially reduced
due to reconfiguration of proposed habitable structures to more defensible locations within
the site and provision of additional emergency access options for emergency responders.
Impacts related to hazardous materials and contamination from spills would be similar to
the Project due to extended construction activities. Airport safety hazards would also be
similar to the Project.
Impact HAZ-1, addressing exposure of wildfire hazards and emergency response access,
would be substantially reduced. The Project site is located in an area with moderate to very
high fire hazards due to flammable vegetation onsite and within the adjacent Irish Hills
Natural Reserve, as well as due to winds that periodically blow southeast downslope
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-69
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
toward the Project site. As under the Project, adherence to applicable requirements to
minimize the risk from accidental construction- and operation-related wildfires, including
clearance or management of flammable vegetation within 100 feet of residential
development, including within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, would mitigate this impact.
Unlike the Project, all residential development within the Upper Terrace and in the
northwestern portion of the site within Madonna Froom Ranch would be retained as open
space, reducing wildland-urban interface by approximately 4,750 feet (50 percent of
wildland-urban interface under the Project). This increased clustering within lower hazard
areas in the lower portion of the site and Madonna Froom Ranch would increase the buffer
between new development and very high fire hazard areas.
Impacts resulting from impaired emergency evacuation and exposure of residents and
visitors to wildfire hazards would be reduced. Unlike the Project, this alternative would
include emergency ingress to the Project site from a new emergency access road and bridge
across LOVR ditch to LOVR approximately 800 feet southeast of the main Project entrance
and a new emergency access road to Calle Joaquin located along the western edge of the
proposed stormwater detention basin (see Figure 5-1). Emergency access through the Irish
Hills Plaza would also be included. Therefore, a total of four access routes, including the
primary entrance, would provide for evacuation and less congested access to the site for
emergency respondents in the case of an emergency.
Under Alternative 1, security fencing, retaining walls, and closely spaced residential units
in Villaggio would continue to limit access for firefighters to attack fires threatening
residential units adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. As under the Project,
implementation of several mitigation measures would avoid or reduce impacts. MM HAZ-
1, requiring construction measures to reduce the potential for brush or grass fires, MM
HAZ-2, requiring preparation of a Community Fire Protection Plan, and MM HAZ-3,
requiring designation of smoking areas away from onsite fire hazards would all reduce
these impacts. MM HAZ-4, requiring preparation and implementation of an Evacuation
Plan, and MM HAZ-5, requiring that design of the Lower Area provides direct access for
emergency response vehicles to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve bordering the Project site
to the west, would further reduce impacts. Despite these measures, Alternative 1 would
continue to be located in an area highly susceptible to potential fire hazards, and Impact
HAZ-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact HAZ-2, addressing accidental releases of hazardous materials, would remain the
same as under the Project. The routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
5-70 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
would be unchanged. As under the Project, hazardous materials encountered during
demolition or construction activities would be disposed of in compliance with all pertinent
regulations for the handling of such waste, including requirements of the SLO County
APCD and California Code of Regulations. Additionally, this alternative would not
substantially increase the risk from hazardous materials to the public within the Project site
or within the surrounding area. Minimal safety risks from the storage, handling, and use of
hazardous materials in the Project site would be reduced through compliance with any
applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, Impact HAZ-2 would continue to be less
than significant.
Impact HAZ-3 related to airport hazards would be similar to the Project. Although portions
of the Project site lie within Safety Sub-Areas S-1b and S-1c of the 2005 Airport Land Use
Plan, the Project site falls outside of the Aviation Safety Areas according to criteria in the
Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Johnson Aviation 2014). Accordingly, as
under the Project, no substantial physical airport-related safety hazard is expected to occur.
Therefore, aviation-related safety impacts to residents and commercial employees or
patrons would be less than significant.
Cumulative hazards from wildfire would be exacerbated by additional construction and
operation of urban uses within the City and region along the urban-wildland interface.
Projects along the City’s wildland-urban interface would introduce additional fire hazard-
related risks from typical residential operations and increased human activity (e.g.,
smoking, introduction of ignition sources, landscape equipment) and would place
additional people and structures at risk of injury or damage in the event of a wildfire.
Further, the heightened potential for future fire hazards from the influence of climate
change and warmer conditions, as discussed in Section 3.7.1.1, would contribute to the
potential for a higher frequency, intensity, and size of fires that may occur in such areas.
As under the Project, adherence to mitigation measures MM HAZ-1 through -5, as well as
the California Fire Code, City Municipal Code, policies within the SE, and review of
discretionary projects by the SLOFD would reduce impact severity. While these measures
would reduce potential wildfire hazards, given the high potential for wildfire along the
City’s wildland-urban interface, the potential for cumulative development to exacerbate
wildfire hazards would be similar to the Project and impacts would be considered
significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative projects within the City and the Project vicinity would have the potential to
expose future area residents, employees, and visitors to chemical hazards through
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-71
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
development of sites and structures that may be contaminated from either historic or
ongoing uses. The severity of potential hazards for individual projects would depend upon
the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated with
individual sites. Discretionary projects proposed in the City would be required to undergo
individual environmental review, including review of potential impacts related to hazards
and hazardous materials that are applicable to that particular development site and
proposed use. Additionally, projects would also be subject to the local, state, and federal
standards which require the safe removal of potentially hazardous building materials and
the cleanup of contaminated properties, thus reducing the level of risk on a particular site.
Because development standards or remediation requirements would be applied if hazards
or hazardous materials posed a risk to safety, contribution to cumulative impacts associated
with exposure to hazards or hazardous materials would be similar to those of the Project
and would be considered less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be substantially similar to the Project
due to similar types of development and similar realignment of Froom Creek paired with
the proposed stormwater detention basin. Increases in impervious surfaces under this
alternative would decrease as compared to the Project due to the reduction in developed
area on the site (approximately 18 percent decrease), and continued compliance with
applicable local, regional, state, and federal requirements would further reduce the
potential for significant impacts.
Impact HYD-1 addressing construction impacts to water quality would be reduced as
compared to the Project. Unlike the Project, no construction would occur in the Upper
Terrace of Villaggio, substantially reducing the potential for spill of oil, gasoline, hydraulic
fluids, and other contaminants into Drainages 1, 2, or 3. In addition, soil erosion impacts
to the drainages within the Upper Terrace would be reduced compared to the Project.
Grading under Alternative 1 would require approximately 94,000 cy less fill as compared
to the Project. As under the Project, construction in the lower portion of the site and
Madonna Froom Ranch would present a potential for polluted construction related surface
runoff to flow into onsite wetlands and Froom Creek.
Discharge of pollutants from construction equipment, including accidental spillage of fuels
and lubricants, could also occur. Implementation of MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM
HYD-3, requiring stormwater permitting and management actions, would be implemented.
As under the Project, these mitigation measures would reduce the potential for erosion and
5-72 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
construction runoff to flow downstream to San Luis Obispo Creek or to the Calle Joaquin
wetlands, and potential impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation.
Impact HYD-2, addressing potential onsite flooding and erosion hazards, would be similar
when compared to the Project since the proposed stormwater system for Alternative 1
would involve the same components. Froom Creek realignment would be similar to the
design under the Project. Preliminary calculations prepared by the Applicant and peer-
reviewed by the City’s EIR consultant, indicate the stormwater management system would
be capable of accommodating a 100-year storm event. Development under Alternative 1
would be clustered, so the acreage of impervious surfaces would be less severe when
compared to the Project. Replacement of approximately 8.2 acres of residential
development with open space in the Upper Terrace would decrease potential stormwater
surface flows. Implementation of MM HYD-4 requiring creek bank and channel bottom
stability and avoidance or reduction of further erosion would continue to apply, and
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact HYD-3, addressing water quality impacts to Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo
Creek due to polluted urban runoff and sedimentation, would be the same as under the
Project. While development of the site increases the possibility of runoff, similar to the
Project inclusion of a comprehensive stormwater management system with approximately
four stormwater retention and treatment areas onsite would reduce impacts. As under the
Project, this alternative would be subject to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board’s (RWQCB’s) Post Construction Requirements and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System discharge permits. Implementation of proposed BMP
strategies of the FRSP would also reduce impacts from urban runoff. Further, upon
compliance with the City’s Storm Water Management Plan, Engineering Standards,
General Plan, and City Municipal Code requirements, adverse effects to water quality from
operation of this alternative would be reduced. Impacts would be similar to the Project and
less than significant.
Impact HYD-4, involving impacts to groundwater, would be lessened compared to the
Project. Unlike the Project, the Upper Terrace would remain undeveloped, allowing
continued natural percolation and reduced opportunities for pollutants to be carried into
adjacent waterways as a result of stormwater flows. The City no longer relies on local
groundwater as of April 2015, and the San Luis Obispo Groundwater Basin is not in
overdraft and recharges quickly following normal rainfall years. Additionally, as under the
Project, implementation of BMPs would be required consistent with City and RWQCB
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-73
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
standards. Similar to the Project, groundwater resources would not be depleted or degraded,
and groundwater recharge would not be impeded. Groundwater impacts would be similar
to the Project and would be considered less than significant.
Cumulative impacts to water quality would be incrementally reduced compared to the
Project, including potential contribution to cumulative trends of increased urban pollutant
discharge to the San Luis Obispo Creek system. As under the Project, mitigation of these
impacts would be required through compliance with water quality requirements and State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulations, and potentially significant
cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant with mitigation.
Land Use and Planning
Under this alternative, the layout, acreage, and placement of residential and commercial
development, as well as parkland and roadways, within the Project site would substantially
differ from the Project. While the total number of residential units and square footage of
commercial land uses would remain the same as the Project, Alternative 1 would be
consistent with policies within the General Plan LUE that prohibit development above the
150-foot elevation line. This aspect of Alternative 1 would relocate residential
development in upper elevations of Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch to lower
elevations of the site and relocate the proposed trailhead park to the portion of Madonna
Froom Ranch above the 150-foot elevation. Residential and commercial development
would be tightly clustered within approximately 30 percent of the site (e.g., 36 acres), with
over 60 acres of contiguous open space provided on the Upper Terrace and upper reaches
of Madonna Froom Ranch within a public park. Overall, impacts identified within Section
3.8, Land Use and Planning, would be substantially less than under the Project.
Impact LU-1, regarding conflicts with City General Plan policies for visual, biological, and
cultural resources and wildfire hazards, would be substantially reduced compared to the
Project. Unlike the Project, urban development above the 150-foot elevation would not be
permitted, consistent with the City General Plan. This alternative would be substantially
more consistent with the General Plan LUE and COSE policies that protect sensitive
biological, cultural, open space, and visual resources. These policies include LUE Policies
1.8.6, Wildlife Habitats, and 6.4.7, Hillside Planning Areas, and COSE Policies 7.3.1,
Protect Listed Species, 7.3.2, Protect Species of Local Concern, and 9.2.1, Views to and
from public places, including scenic roadways. However, development of 12 Villas in the
southwest corner of Villaggio’s Lower Area would continue to substantially impact onsite
biological habitat connectivity between the Froom Creek corridor and grassland within the
5-74 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Upper Terrace, and would be potentially inconsistent with COSE Policies, including 7.3.3,
Wildlife Habitat and Corridors, and 7.7.7, Preserve Ecotones.
Full compliance with the General Plan LUE and COSE would protect sensitive biological,
open space, and visual resources, and reduce potential fire hazards. Avoidance of
development within the Upper Terrace would protect biological resources, including
federal jurisdiction wetlands and 12 special status plant species. Required implementation
of MM BIO-4 would result in relocation of residential uses in the southwest portion of
Villaggio to maintain a buffer on the centerline of the confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3,
and would reduce potential inconsistencies with General Plan policies designed to protect
wildlife corridors and ecotones, as discussed above. Further, relocation of the proposed
trailhead park to the existing quarry location in the northwest portion of the Project site and
moving residential uses eastward would ensure consistency with General Plan LUE
policies to protect the Froom Creek watershed and trailhead. By relocating residential
structures in the northwestern portion of the Project site and Upper Terrace of Villaggio,
the visual transition between the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and the Project site would be
improved, substantially reducing visual impacts (refer to KVA-4 and -5, above). Removing
urban development above the 150-foot elevation line would also greatly increase open
space buffers between development in Madonna Froom Ranch and Villaggio, improving
safety from potential wildfire hazards onsite. Additionally, implementation of MM BIO-1
through -7 and -10 through -12 and MM HAZ-1 through -5 would further reduce potential
impacts to biological resources and wildfire hazards. In contrast with the Project,
Alternative 1 would avoid the significant land use and planning impacts related to General
Plan policy consistency by eliminating urban development above the 150-foot elevation
line onsite.
However, the Project site also supports the historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex, including
seven existing structures associated with the historic dairy and Froom family. These
structures could constitute a potential historic district under the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance and the CRHR. As under the Project, retention and relocation of four structures
(i.e., main residence, creamery, dairy barn, and granary) and demolition of three
contributors to the potential Froom Ranch Dairy historic district (i.e., the shed, bunkhouse,
and old barn) would impact historic resources. While implementation of MM CR-7 through
-14 would reduce potential impacts, the permanent loss of the historic integrity and
contributing structures of the potential historic district would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts and potentially conflict with City policies for historic resource
protection.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-75
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Impact LU-2, addressing potential inconsistencies with City setback requirements and the
existing onsite agricultural easement, would be less than under the Project. Realignment of
the open space and agricultural easement would support conservation of habitat and
biological resources, particularly the protection of existing wetlands within this 1.6-acre
portion east of Calle Joaquin, which is consistent with the easement’s preservation intent.
Further, because development would not be permitted within the Upper Terrace, Drainages
1, 2, and 3 would remain protected from the impacts of development. Therefore, impacts
under this alternative would be less than under the Project and would be remain less than
significant.
Significant cumulative land use and planning impacts could occur as the result of many
planned and/or proposed residential developments in undeveloped open or agricultural
lands along edges of the City. As under the Project, this alternative’s incremental
contributions to conversion of agricultural and rural land along the perimeter of the City to
developed urban uses would result in loss of open space and habitat, increases in
impervious surfaces, night lighting, noise, and traffic that accompany such development.
However, as with the Project, development under this alternative would be generally
consistent with adjacent development uses along LOVR and all pending/future projects
would be required to comply with development standards and General Plan policies of the
City, and potential impacts would be assessed and mitigated in accordance with CEQA and
applicable City policies prior to approval. Design and implementation of mitigation
measures under this alternative would ensure consistency with General Plan policies,
design standards and Zoning Ordinance regulations, and cumulative impacts related to land
use and planning would continue to be less than significant.
Noise
Construction and operational noise impacts would be similar to the Project as overall
residential and commercial development would be comparable in size and scale.
Development of residential and commercial land uses would result in construction noise
impacts. The location of those noise sources under Alternative 1 would be confined to the
lower portion of the site and Madonna Froom Ranch, as well as the proposed stormwater
management system. Operationally, this alternative would have a similar amount of traffic
generation as the Project, resulting in minimal increases in mobile noise from increased
vehicular traffic on area roads. As with the Project, noise sensitive residential uses would
be developed adjacent to existing commercial uses that could exceed acceptable noise
levels under City standards.
5-76 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Impact NO-1, addressing construction noise, would be less severe when compared to the
Project. Similar to the Project, short-term increases in noise from the use of heavy-duty
construction equipment would exceed applicable standards in the City Noise Ordinance.
Also, similar to the Project, noise impacts from grading and construction would exceed
City and County standards for nearby sensitive receptors, including hotels along Calle
Joaquin and recreational users within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, but would be limited
to a smaller footprint on the site away from natural areas in the Irish Hills and
Mountainbrook Church. Unlike the Project, development would not include the Upper
Terrace of the Villaggio, thereby reducing construction noise impacts to sensitive receptors
within occupied units within the Lower Area, as well as recreational users along trails
within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. As under the Project, noise impacts to sensitive
receptors would be minimized to the maximum extent feasible through compliance with
the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of MM NO-1, limiting construction
activities during evenings, Sundays, or holidays, MM NO-2, requiring noise attenuation
measures, and MM NO-3 ensuring neighbors are informed regarding allowed construction
timelines and noise complaint procedures. Noise generated from construction of this
alternative would be less severe when compared to the Project, and implementation of
mitigation would ensure noise levels under this alternative would not exceed City noise
thresholds periodically over the construction period. Residual impacts would continue to
be considered less than significant with mitigation.
Impact NO-2, related to ground-borne vibration, would be similar to the Project, as short-
term construction activities could expose people to excessive ground-borne vibration.
Construction would follow a similar progression of development within the Project site
and vibrations would be temporary and intermittent during the hours of construction.
Because residential units would not be developed within the Upper Terrace of Villaggio,
heavy construction equipment would not pass through occupied units in the lower area and
potential impacts from construction-related vibration on this population would be less than
under the Project. While Villaggio would be occupied during construction of Madonna
Froom Ranch, vibration would be attenuated with the intervening distance and would be at
an imperceptible level at the location of proximate sensitive receptors. Therefore, vibration
impacts from construction under this alternative would be less severe when compared to
the Project and would be less than significant.
Impact NO-3, considering exposure of future residents to noise from nearby roadways,
would be similar to the Project, as residential units in Madonna Froom Ranch and the lower
portions of the site would remain located in an area that exceeds City noise limits for
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-77
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
roadway noise. Maximum allowable noise exposure resulting from transportation sources
for residences, hotels, and office buildings within the City is 60 decibel average (dBA)
outdoor and 45 dBA within interior spaces (see Table 3.10-5 within Section 3.10, Noise).
As under the Project, areas could be exposed to outdoor noise levels above 60 dBA.
However, the Acoustics Assessment prepared for the Project site modeled the 60 dBA
noise contour to be outside of these residential areas and estimates that noise levels for
residential land uses would be approximately 45 to 57 dBA (Appendix I). Traffic generated
under this alternative would increase ADT on LOVR by roughly the same amount as the
Project, although these increases would be negligible compared to existing levels and
would not result in a perceptible increase in noise levels. As under the Project, compliance
with the California Building Standards Code requirements would reduce noise levels for
outdoor activity areas and exterior living spaces do not exceed acceptable levels. Similar
to the Project, this impact would be less than significant.
Impact NO-4, addressing noise impacts from commercial uses to the north, would be
similar to the Project. Approximately the same number of residential units would be
developed adjacent to these commercial uses as the Project, resulting in potential impacts
from commercial deliveries and other associated activities that would exceed allowed noise
levels for residential areas. Similar to the Project, required implementation of MM NO-4
would reduce anticipated noise levels through the use of noise reduction measures such as
a planted earthen berm or sound wall along the site boundary. As under the Project, residual
impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
As under the Project, this alternative would contribute a marginal increase in stationary
and mobile noise sources, and the cumulative impact of noise levels resulting from
construction and operation of this alternative would remain less than significant with
mitigation.
Population and Housing
Population and housing impacts would be the same as under the Project, as Alternative 1
would facilitate similar levels of new residential development (578 units), and associated
population increase (1,231 persons) as the Project. In addition, the composition of
inclusionary affordable housing units offered by this alternative would be similar to the
Project as required for consistency with City Inclusionary Housing Requirements and
Specific Plan Area Expansion Area Inclusionary Housing Requirements.
5-78 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Impact PH-1, addressing population growth, would be the same as under the Project. The
increase in population would be well below projected population under the LUE by 2035.
As under the Project, this alternative would not exceed the adopted annual City growth rate
of one percent under General Plan Policy LU 1.11.2. and would be compliant with the
intent of the City’s growth management strategies relating to the annual average and overall
increases in housing units and population. Impacts would therefore remain less than
significant.
Impact PH-2, which addresses the City’s jobs-housing balance, would be similar to the
Project and would have beneficial impacts related to the City’s jobs-to-housing balance
and assist in achieving the target jobs-to-housing ratios of 1.5 to 1. The proposed
construction of 174 new housing units would provide additional housing for the existing
and growing labor force within a community that currently has a 1.6 to 1 jobs-to-housing
ratio. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Impact PH-3, which addresses construction of affordable housing within the City, would
be similar to the Project. This alternative would adhere to the same requirements of the
Specific Plan area and HE Policies as the Project, including the requirement to build a
minimum of five percent low- and ten percent moderate-income affordable dwelling units.
Because the same number of units, including low- and moderate-income affordable units,
would be constructed as under the Project, impacts would remain less than significant.
Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Project. Cumulative development and
associated growth in population and housing is anticipated in the General Plan LUE and
would be consistent with City General Plan policies. This alternative, in combination with
pending/future developments, would align with the City’s plans for buildout as projected
by the General Plan. This alternative would be consistent with the residential unit growth
requirements specified by General Plan LUE Policy 1.11.2 and Table 3.11-17 within
Section 3.11, Population and Housing, though there may be pressure to exceed the annual
one percent rate allowed under General Plan LUE Policy 1.11.2. However, the contribution
under this alternative would remain consistent with LUE and HE policies and would not
result in significant cumulative contribution. Further, existing LUE policies requiring that
the City manage its housing supply so that it does not exceed a growth rate of one percent
per year, on average, would help to ensure population growth does not exceed planned
growth or result in significant cumulative impacts associated with increases in population
and housing within the City. Therefore, cumulative impacts would remain less than
significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-79
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Public Services and Recreation
Under Alternative 1, the quantity of residential units introduced to the Project site would
be the same as the Project, potentially resulting in an estimated 1,231 new residents. The
new residents would increase demand for police protection, fire protection, parks, and
schools, with impacts similar to the Project. The amount of parkland supplied under
Alternative 1 would be incrementally greater than the Project (an additional 0.4 acre),
which would directly benefit new residents and generally comply with the City’s parkland
requirements, although mitigation for provision of additional parkland would be required
to fully comply with applicable requirements.
Impact PS-1, relating to police services, would be similar to the Project, as development
would not require or result in the provision of new or physically altered facilities.
Development under Alternative 1 would result in the same number of residential units and
square footage of commercial area as under the Project, and therefore place a similar
demand on police services. As under the Project, the anticipated population increase may
require the hiring of an additional police officer to maintain the current ratio of 1.17 police
officers per 1,000 residents. However, this increase would be funded through property,
sales, and transient occupancy taxes throughout the City, including those resulting from
Alternative 1, and would not necessitate police station expansion or construction beyond
that already approved by the City. As under the Project, this alternative would be required
to implement measures to decrease demand for police protection, including consistency
with SLOPD’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Principles. Accordingly,
impacts to police protection services would remain less than significant.
Impact PS-2, relating to fire protection services, would be similar to the Project. Population
increases would be the same as under the Project, including estimated increases in seniors.
Development would continue to be subject to SLOFD standards and the California Fire
Code and would be located within the four-minute safe response (travel) time required by
the SE of the City General Plan. While the number of firefighters required under
Alternative 1 would increase, Alternative 1 would not require construction of new
firefighting facilities that would adversely impact the physical environment and Impact PS-
2 would continue to be less than significant.
Impact PS-3, relating to public schools, would be similar to the Project, as 404 of the 578
proposed residential units would be for seniors who are not expected to generate school-
aged populations. As under the Project, the remaining 174 multi-family units would be
anticipated to generate approximately 37 school-age children. Schools that are closest to
5-80 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
the Project site have the capacity to accommodate the estimated increase in the student
population. As under the Project, required payment of development fees would offset
potential impacts of increased enrollment on school facilities. Given school district-wide
capacity and the payment of impact fees for school facilities, anticipated impacts to school
facilities would be similar to the Project and would be less than significant.
Impact PS-4, relating to parkland availability, would be slightly less significant than the
Project. Approximately 12.31 acres of parkland would be required to meet the City’s
standard of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, as described in Parks and Recreation
Element (PRE) Policy 3.13.1. Alternative 1 would include 3.3 acres of public parkland
within the Project site, which is 0.4 acre greater than under the proposed Project and 9.01
acres less than required under the City General Plan. As under the Project, implementation
of MM PS-1 and MM PS-2, would require additional parkland dedication or payment of
in-lieu fees to satisfy City requirements for 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents,
including five acres of neighborhood parks. As under the Project, implementation of these
measures would result in impacts to park and recreation resources that would be considered
less than significant with mitigation.
Alternative 1, in conjunction with approved, pending, or proposed development projects in
the City, proposed land use changes under the General Plan LUE, along with associated
population growth, would incrementally increase overall demand for public services,
including fire protection, police protection, schools, and parks. However, as under the
Project, projects would be required to address potential contribution to cumulative impacts
through fair share payments, as well as other standard mitigation measures. Similar to the
Project, Alternative 1 would not result in cumulatively considerable deterioration of
existing public facilities or service levels and cumulative impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Transportation and Traffic
Impacts related to transportation and traffic would not substantially vary in comparison to
the Project due to identical levels of residential and commercial development and is
anticipated to also generate 2,700 daily vehicle trips. Additionally, emergency access
points will be altered as compared to the Project, lessening potential evacuation impacts.
Alternative 1 would include similar road and transportation improvements to the Project:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-81
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1) A signalized intersection with LOVR that would provide four-way pedestrian
crosswalks and access to a new two-lane road (Collector “A”) that would 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.
Emergency access roads from Mountainbrook Church would not be included in this
Alternative. Emergency access roads would instead be provided via three different
connections: 1) from the Irish Hills Plaza into Madonna Froom Ranch; 2) from LOVR to
Villaggio; and 3) from Calle Joaquin to Villaggio through the proposed stormwater
detention basin area. Following incorporation of these roadway and transportation
improvements and mitigation measures discussed below, residual impacts for Alternative
1 would be similar to those identified in the City-prepared Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
findings for Existing plus Project Conditions (see Tables 3.13-13 through 3.13-16 within
Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic; see also Appendix J).
Impact TRANS-1, associated with construction traffic impacts, would be less severe when
compared to those associated with the Project because removal of development in the
Upper Terrace would eliminate the need for construction vehicles to travel along Calle
Joaquin and within proposed local roads within the Project site. Construction timing under
Alternative 1 would change to avoid overlap between occupancy of Villaggio and
construction activities in the Upper Terrace, as proposed by the Project. Alternative 1
would result in construction traffic being separated from occupied portions of the site in
Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch and would shorten the time in which construction
vehicles would interfere with regular roadway traffic. As under the Project, this Alternative
would implement MM TRANS-1 requiring preparation of a Construction Transportation
Management Plan for all phases of development, to be reviewed and approved by the City.
Given substantial reductions in development footprint and implementation of required
mitigation measures, this impact would be incrementally less severe when compared to the
Project and would be less than significant with mitigation.
5-82 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Impact TRANS-2, regarding exacerbation of queuing and peak hour traffic for automobiles
and poor levels of service for pedestrians and bicycle modes of transportation under
Existing plus Alternative 1 conditions, would be similar to the Project. The anticipated
residential population of Alternative 1 is the same as the Project and roadway intersections
impacted by the Project would continue to be impacted by Alternative 1. Although internal
roadways would be lessened as a result of removal of residential uses in the Upper Terrace,
internal traffic would continue to be potentially significant at occupation of Madonna
Froom Ranch, although MM TRANS-11 requiring use of traffic calming measures on
Local Street “A” would reduce this impact to less than significant. Although required
implementation of MM TRANS-2 through -5 and MM TRANS-7 through -11 would
reduce other impacts under Existing plus Alternative 1 conditions to less than significant,
MM TRANS-6 requiring payment of fair share costs for the completion of the Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project would not mitigate potential impacts until this infrastructure
project is complete. Therefore, similar to the Project, if the Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project is not in place by occupancy of Alternative 1, this impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact TRANS-3, which addresses exacerbation of existing queuing and peak hour traffic
for automobiles and poor levels of service for pedestrians and bicyclists under Near-Term
plus Alternative 1 conditions, would be similar to the Project. As discussed above,
Alternative 1 would generate similar population increases and associated traffic as the
Project. Although required implementation of MM TRANS-2, -5, -8, -9, -12, -13, and -15
through -18 would reduce impacts under Near-Term plus Alternative 1, completion of MM
TRANS-6 and MM TRANS-14 require completion of the Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project, which cannot be ensured by this alternative. Therefore, if
the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project is not in place by occupancy of Alternative
1, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact TRANS-4, addressing inadequate emergency access and evacuations in areas of
high and very high fire hazard, would be less severe when compared to the Project, as
additional emergency evacuation options would be provided under Alternative 1 and
development would be reduced to lower risk areas of the site. Similar to the Project, this
alternative would continue to provide an emergency access route between Madonna Froom
Ranch and Irish Hills Plaza. Unlike the Project, Alternative 1 would not provide an
emergency access route through the Mountainbrook Church private road and would instead
provide one emergency access route along the proposed stormwater basin and another
across the realigned Froom Creek channel to connect to LOVR, thereby improving options
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-83
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
for emergency access and evacuation. The access route adjacent to the stormwater basin
would allow evacuees located within the southwestern portion of Villaggio to evacuate
without further exacerbating potential congestion along LOVR, as well as provide
additional ingress and egress points for emergency responders. Additionally, Alternative 1
would require MM TRANS-19, inclusion of an emergency access point from the Lower
Area to the existing dirt access road that connects to the utility power line structures at the
top of the ridgelines, and MM TRANS-22, requiring provision of emergency respondent
access to Project site perimeters, which would increase emergency access to the site and
reduce potential impacts to less than significant with mitigation.
Impact TRANS-5, regarding pedestrian and bicycle circulation safety issues, would be
similar to the Project, as anticipated generation of internal roadway trips would be the
same. MM TRANS-24 would continue to be required, ensuring Alternative 1 would
include Project concept designs and design guidance published by the National Association
of City Transportation Officials and the Federal Highway Administration, including
installation of American Disabilities Act-compliant sidewalks, Lead Pedestrian Intervals
and pedestrian refuges at the LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection, and Class IV bikeways
along LOVR approaching/departing this intersection. Implementation of this mitigation
measure would ensure residual impacts to onsite circulation for pedestrians, and bicyclists
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact TRANS-6 regarding Cumulative plus Project conditions, would be similar when
compared to the Project. As under the Project, potentially significant impacts could occur
to 14 separate intersections and roadway segments due to increased automobile, pedestrian,
and bicycle traffic under Cumulative plus Project conditions (see Table 3.13-16 in Section
3.13, Transportation and Traffic). However, required implementation of MM TRANS-25
through -30, as well as MM TRANS-8, -9, and -13, would reduce cumulative impacts to
less than significant with mitigation.
Utilities and Energy Conservation
Under Alternative 1, similar activities involving installation of public utilities and
associated trenching would occur within a smaller area of development to support
residential and commercial development within the lower portions of the site. New
residential development (578 units) and associated population increase (1,231 persons)
would be similar to the Project. However, 130 units of medium-high density R-3 units
would be replaced with 130 high density R-4 units. This alternate range of unit types would
not change the demand for utilities and service systems except for solid waste. Based on
5-84 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
the below analysis, transitioning to multi-family units with incrementally higher density
units would generally result in a decrease of solid waste production compared to the
Project.
Impact UT-1, regarding potential environmental impacts resulting from expansion of
utility infrastructure, would be incrementally less adverse when compared to the Project.
Impacts would be less adverse when compared to the Project due to reductions in building
footprints and elimination of development in areas above the 150-foot elevation.
Anticipated levels of service to be provided would be similar as under the Project, as would
associated infrastructure requirements. Implementation of Alternative 1 would include
MM UT-1, ensuring Project utilities are engineered consistent with City standards. Similar
to the Project, residual impacts would continue to be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact UT-2, regarding demand increases to the City’s potable water supply, would remain
the same as under the Project. Residential and commercial development under Alternative
1 would be similar to the Project, and all landscaping would continue to be irrigated using
recycled water and augmented with a groundwater well. Although the number of residential
units in areas designated as R-3 and R-4 would change incrementally compared to the
Project, units within these land use designations are similar and are anticipated to require
the same level of potable and recycled water. As under the Project, demand projections
indicate sufficient available supply of City potable and recycled water and impacts would
continue to be less than significant.
Impact UT-3, regarding demand for wastewater collection facilities, would be the same as
under the Project. Alternative 1 would result in construction of the same number of
residential units and the same amount of commercial development and therefore would not
result in greater demand for the City’s available wastewater services as compared to the
Project. As under the Project, the Applicant would comply with City standards, including
fused sewer lines and would not significantly contribute to existing exceedance in wet-
weather capacity of City facilities to process and treat wastewater; however, the City notes
that the Laguna lift station currently experiences capacity issues (Personal communication
with Jennifer Metz, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, May 2019).
Implementation of Alternative 1 would therefore contribute to, or exacerbate existing
issues associated with capacity of the City’s wastewater collection and conveyance system.
Similar to the Project, implementation of MM UT-2 and payment of development impact
fees would also be required to offset any impacts to the City’s wastewater management
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-85
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
capacity. Impacts related to wastewater services would therefore continue to be less than
significant with mitigation.
Impact UT-4, regarding generation of solid waste, would be less severe when compared to
the Project. Alternative 1 would include development of 7.4 acres within the Madonna
Froom Ranch with high density residential uses, as opposed to 6.3 acres of medium density
residential and 1.8 acres of high density residential as proposed under the Project (see Table
5-1). Denser residential land uses typically generate lower levels of solid waste per unit;
therefore, the Madonna Froom Ranch development under Alternative 1 would generate
approximately 923.9 lbs/day from residential uses as compared to 1,351.6 lbs/day under
the Project (see Table 5-13). This difference in solid waste generation equates to a decrease
in 427.7 lbs/day or 76 tons/year, or an approximate 31.6 percent reduction. Based on the
daily solid waste projections and similar to the Project, Alternative 1 would contribute
approximately 0.3 percent of the potential daily waste capacity of Cold Canyon Landfill.
The waste produced would not substantially affect the landfill’s capacity or ability to
comply with federal, state, or local regulations. Therefore, impacts regarding the generation
of solid waste would remain less than significant.
5-86 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Table 5-13. Estimated Solid Waste Production Under Alternative 1
Waste Generation
Source Proposed Uses Quantity (#
of Units)
Waste
Generation
Factor
Waste
Generation
(lbs/day)
VILLAGGIO
Multi-family Independent Living
Units 366 units 8.6 lbs/day/unit 3,147.6
Nursing/Retirement
Home Assisted Living Units 38 units 5 lbs/person/day1 190
Hospital Health Care Units 51 beds 16 lbs/bed/day1 816
Office
Administration
Building and
Ancillary Uses
85,078 sf 0.006 lbs/sf/day 510.5
Commercial Sector
(Commercial Retail) Ancillary Uses 84,078 sf 0.046 lbs/sf/day 3,867.6
MADONNA FROOM RANCH
Multi-family High Density
Residential 174 units 5.31 lbs/day/unit4 923.9
Service Sector (Other
Services) Hotel with Restaurant 70,000 sf 3.12 lbs/100
sf/day 2,184
Commercial Sector
(Commercial Retail) Other Commercial 30,000 sf 0.046 lbs/sf/day 1,380
Estimated Total Waste Generation (lbs per day) 13,019.6
Estimated Total Waste Generation (lbs per year) 4,755,423.5
Estimated Total Waste Generation (tons per day) 6.5
Estimated Total Waste Generation (tons per year) 2377.7
Impact UT-5, regarding available energy resources and consumption rates, would remain
the same as under the Project. Estimated fuel consumption for construction would be
similar to estimated fuel consumption for construction under the Project. Consumption of
electricity, natural gas, and gasoline during operation under Alternative 1 would also be
the same as under the Project. As under the Project, compliance with federal, state, and
local regulations pertaining to renewable energy, improved energy efficiency, and
conservation in both construction and operation would be required. Further, though not
required to reduce impacts of this alternative, a number of mitigation measures identified
to reduce Project impacts to various resources would have the secondary effect of reducing
Project energy demands. The demand for energy under Alternative 1 is generally lower
than County and state averages, and potential direct impacts to energy resources and
conservation are considered less than significant.
Implementation of Alternative 1 and other proposed or current projects listed in Table 3.0-
1 within Section 3.0.3, Cumulative Impact Analysis, would increase the cumulative demand
on utilities; however, these projects would be required to comply with standards for
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-87
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
adequate utilities set forth in the City General Plan, would be subject to City planning and
review requirements, and would be required to pay development impact fees to offset any
impacts from utility infrastructure needs and service capacities. As such, and as indicated
by the LUCE Update EIR, no significant or adverse cumulative effects are anticipated
related to the supply of water, waste water, solid waste, or energy utilities. Therefore,
cumulative impacts to utilities would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mineral Resources
Impacts related to mineral resources would not vary from the Project. As under the Project,
closure of the quarry under this alternative would nominally lower available acreage for
red rock extraction, and Impact MN-1 would remain less than significant. Additionally,
cumulative impacts to mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites would continue
to be considered less than significant as the City does not allow mineral resource extraction
and there are no other proximate active mines identified for future annexation into the City.
Therefore, there are no projects within the City that are expected to further reduce currently
available supplies.
5.4.2.3 Alternative 2 – Residential Development Project Alternative
Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would include a major reconfiguration of the
proposed land use plan and redesign of key Project elements, including substantially
increased clustering of development within Madonna Froom Ranch and the Lower Area of
Villaggio to reduce environmental impacts identified in the EIR. Alternative 2 would
continue to provide a Life Plan Community and new multi-family neighborhood; however,
unlike the Project and Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would eliminate commercial uses on
site. Instead, Alternative 2 would support 178 multi-family residential units (four more
than proposed under the Project or Alternative 1), 404 senior independent living units, 51
beds in residential health care facilities, and 3.3 acres of public parkland. Four primary
features of this alternative are intended to substantially reduce identified Project impacts:
1) No commercial development (e.g., hotel, retail) would be included in the Madonna-
Froom Ranch portion of this alternative; commercial uses proposed under the
Project in Madonna Froom Ranch would be replaced with R-4-SP High Density
Residential Uses. Resident-serving commercial uses would continue to be
developed within Villaggio to serve Villaggio residents and would be similar to
those proposed under the Project (e.g., restaurants, theater);
5-88 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
2) Consistent with the General Plan LUE, all development would be confined to areas
below the 150-foot elevation, removing all development from the Upper Terrace
and restricting new development to roughly 30 percent of the site within Villaggio’s
Lower Area and Madonna Froom Ranch;
3) Development of buildings within the Lower Area would be reconfigured, and some
building heights and sizes increased to accommodate the same capacity for
development as the Project of 404 units, 51 beds in health care units, and more than
160,000 sf of administrative and support facilities;
4) As with Alternative 1, emergency access would be provided via three different
connections: 1) from Irish Hills Plaza into Madonna Froom Ranch; 2) from LOVR
to Villaggio; and 3) from Calle Joaquin to Villaggio through the proposed
stormwater detention basin area on the Mountain Brook Church easement.
Required discretionary actions would be similar to the proposed Project, while the
construction phasing plan would be similar to Alternative 1 (see also Table 5-6).
As under the Project, this alternative would realign Froom Creek to improve site drainage
and make space for residential development, along with additional drainage improvements
as proposed under the Project (refer to Chapter 2, Project Description).
Land Use Plan and Site Design
Alternative 2 would increase clustering of development compared to the Project, including
limiting residential and commercial land uses to areas of the site below the 150-foot
elevation (see Figure 5-4). As compared to the Project, overall developed area would
decrease by 8.2 acres and more than 6.1 additional acres of the Upper Terrace would remain
as contiguous open space, substantially reducing direct and indirect habitat disturbance.
The quarry on Madonna Froom Ranch adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve would
also become open space as a new trailhead park under this alternative. Alternative 2 would
allow for the development of a total of up to 582 residential units within medium-high and
high density residential zones, including 178 multi-family units, 404 independent and
assisted senior villas and apartments, and 51 beds in residential health care facilities, which
is four more multi-family units than the Project. However, no commercial space would be
provided in Madonna Froom Ranch (Table 5-14), which would reduce development
compared to the Project by 100,000 sf. More than 160,000 sf of administrative and ancillary
buildings would continue to be provided within Villaggio.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-89
Draft EIR
CROSS SECTIONCROSS SECTION
LOCATIONLOCATION
(FIGURE 5-3)(FIGURE 5-3)
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 5-3)
LEGEND
Proposed Specific Plan
Land Use
Project Site
Villaggio (Private)
Madonna Froom
Ranch
Public Site Access
Roadways: 3.7 acres
Easement for Relocated
Stormwater Basin: 7.1 acres
Reconfigured Open Space
and Agricultural Conservation
Easement
C/OS-SP – Conservation/
Open Space: 70.7 acres
PF-SP – Public Facilities:
3.0 acres
R-3-SP – Medium-High Density
Residential: 23.4 acres
R-4-SP – High Density Residential:
7.3 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 2 Land Use Plan 5-4
FIGURE
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
5-90
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Table 5-14. Summary of Alternative 2 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 7.4 178 multi-family units
PF-SP Public Facilities 3.2 --
ADDITIONAL USES
C/OS-SP Conservation/ Open Space 70.1 --
Designated Open Space 62.9 --
Reconfigured Agricultural Easement 7.1 --
Roadways 5.6 --
TOTAL 109.7 582 units/51 beds1
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.
Alternative 2 would continue to provide a Life Plan Community within 23.4 acres
designated as R-3-SP in Lower Villaggio, with additional apartment units provided by
expanded and taller buildings in the central area of Lower Villaggio, similar to Alternative
1. Madonna Froom Ranch would continue to provide multi-family housing within 7.4 acres
of R-4-SP, with a density of 24 units per acre. A majority of these multi-family homes
would be relocated eastward away from sensitive habitats and high fire hazards from the
Irish Hills Natural Reserve and would replace commercial uses proposed under the Project.
A trailhead park would be provided within 3.3 acres of Public Facilities (PF-SP) designated
area in the same location as under the Project. Areas proposed for Medium-High Density
Residential uses under the Project within the existing quarry above the 150-foot elevation
contour line adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve would be set aside as open space.
These changes would ensure the land use plan better aligns with the policies of the City
General Plan regarding development above the 150-foot elevation contour. The land use
plan for Alternative 2 would reserve over 63 percent of the site (70.1 acres) in C/OS-SP,
including preservation of almost 50 acres of contiguous open space on the Upper Terrace
above the 150-foot elevation.
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). Since Alternative 2 would not
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-91
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
involve development above 150-foot elevation, this alternative would not require a General
Plan amendment to address this policy inconsistency associated with the Project. Grading,
retention walls, and fencing plans would be similar to Alternative 1.
Circulation and Site Access
Similar to the Project, circulation under Alternative 2 would entail provision of public
roadways within Madonna Froom Ranch (Collectors A and B) and private local roadways
in Villaggio. However, because all development would be restricted to below the 150-foot
elevation contour, the road system would be substantially reduced in length compared to
the Project, particularly local private roads. Emergency access via Mountainbrook Church
would not be part of this alternative. Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would have a
primary entrance from LOVR at Auto Park Way. This public roadway would lead to the
trailhead park, Madonna Froom Ranch neighborhoods, and the private gated entrance to
Villaggio. Major components of the circulation system proposed under Alternative 2 are
similar to the Project and are summarized below (see also Section 2.0, Project Description,
for more details):
1. A signalized intersection with LOVR that would provide four-way pedestrian
crosswalks and access to a new two-lane road (Collector “A”) that would serve as
the primary access to the Specific Plan area;
2. Widening of LOVR along a portion of the Project site’s frontage;
3. Internal roadway network consisting of public and private roads;
4. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the Specific Plan area;
5. Parking facilities to accommodate residents, employees, and visitors within the
Specific Plan area;
6. A new bus stop that would be integrated into the regional public transportation
system; and
7. Three separate emergency access points would be provided, similar to Alternative
1 (see Figure 5-4).
Proposed Housing and Population
Population and housing under Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project; allocation of
units between different allowable densities and product types (e.g., Life Plan Community,
multi-family units) would remain similar. Alternative 2 would alter the land use plan and
incrementally adjust dwelling unit allocation, replacing 130 R-3-SP units in Madonna
Froom Ranch with 134 R-4-SP units to allow for building clustering and greater densities
(see Table 5-15).
5-92 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Similar to the Project, proposed housing components of Alternative 2 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 4-story
buildings supporting Piazza Apartments and Community Village Apartment suites. Exact
unit layout and design is not currently known
Table 5-15. Summary and Comparison of Housing and Population
Residential Alternative 2 Project
Housing Type Alternative 2
Proposed Units
Estimated
Population1
Project Proposed
Units
Estimated
Population1
R-3-SP - Villaggio 404 units/51 beds 976 404 units/51 beds 976
R-3-SP – Madonna
Froom Ranch2
- - 130 units 298
R-4-SP -Madonna
Froom Ranch2
178 units 408 44 units 101
TOTAL 578 units/51 beds 1,3843 578 units/51 beds 1,3753
1 Population estimates are based on the number of units multiplied by the average number of persons per household. In
the City of San Luis Obispo, the average number of persons per household is 2.29 (City of San Luis Obispo 2015).
2Per the City’s zoning ordinance, 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.
3Differences in estimated populations are a result of rounding inaccuracies and estimated populations are assumed to be
the same.
Analysis –Alternative 2 (Residential Development Project Alternative)
Impacts under this alternative would be considerably less than that of the Project. Primary
changes would consist of substantially increased clustering, improved protection of open
space, and removal of all commercial uses. However, four additional residential units
would be constructed in Madonna Froom Ranch under this alternative. Froom Creek would
continue to be realigned under this Project, resulting in continued potential adverse and
beneficial impacts. Avoidance of development above the 150-foot elevation line would
substantially reduce potential impacts relating to aesthetics, biological resources, and
wildfire hazards as compared to the Project.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Since development would not occur above the 150-foot elevation, within the Villaggio
Upper Terrace or Madonna Froom Ranch quarry, impacts to scenic resources would be
substantially decreased under this alternative. Avoiding development above the 150-foot
elevation line would protect existing onsite visual resources including natural habitats and
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-93
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
serpentine rock outcroppings and would ensure a more gradual transition from rural land
uses within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to the urban land uses proposed under
Alternative 2. While inclusion of taller structures within Villaggio could incrementally
increase visibility of these buildings, substantially increased open space protection would
reduce overall impacts to key views. Impacts to key views would be similar to the Project
and Alternative 1. Implementation of mitigation measures as under the Project would
require vegetative screens for buildings and associated infrastructure and would ensure
potential impacts to aesthetic character would be mitigated to less than significant. Impacts
related to nighttime lighting and glare would also be reduced as a result of reduced building
construction. Therefore, impacts from Alternative 2 would be less than significant with
mitigation.
Agricultural Resources
Because the area impacted by development under this alternative is substantially less
severe when compared to the Project, including avoidance of development within the
Villaggio Upper Terrace and the existing quarry area, impacts to agricultural resources
would be reduced. Further, this alternative would not result in the loss of Important
Farmland. Impacts would therefore remain less than significant.
Air Quality and GHG Emissions
Under Alternative 2, vehicle trip generation would be slightly reduced due to removal of
commercial development from Madonna Froom Ranch, decreasing potential air quality
and GHG emission impacts compared to the Project. Elimination of development above
150-foot elevation would substantially reduce grading needs for this alternative and would
limit use of heavy construction equipment and associated emissions. Although residential
units would be approximately the same as under the Project, this alternative would greatly
decrease onsite commercial development, substantially reducing vehicle trips and GHGs
and other air pollutant emissions associated with operations of commercial development.
Additionally, the Project would continue to be required to implement mitigation measures
to further reduce potential impacts to air quality. Despite substantial reductions as
compared to the Project, impacts to air quality from implementation of this alternative
remain significant due to inability to feasibly predict reductions in long-term operational
(particularly mobile-source) emissions from required mitigation. Additionally, as a result
of exceedance of population growth projections from the 2001 Clean Air Plan, the
alternative would continue to be inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan, resulting in
significant and unavoidable impacts.
5-94 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Biological Resources
Impacts to biological resources under Alternative 2 would be substantially reduced as
compared to the Project and would be similar to Alternative 1. This alternative would not
include residential development (Villaggio or Madonna Froom Ranch) above the 150-foot
elevation line and would substantially reduce the building footprint and required onsite
construction and grading within areas supporting sensitive natural habitats, thereby greatly
reducing potential impacts to sensitive habitats and species onsite. This alternative would
completely remove development within the Upper Terrace and impacts to sensitive species,
drainages, and onsite wetlands within this area would be substantially avoided and/or
reduced. Alternative 2 would reserve the existing quarry area as open space, which may
support enhanced biological productivity over time in this currently degraded area adjacent
to Froom Creek. Secondary impacts of fire clearance on native habitats would also be
greatly reduced as the urban-wildland interface would be decreased by approximately 50
percent due to building clustering and removal of development above the 150-foot
elevation line. However, Froom Creek would continue to be realigned and restored under
this alternative and major clearing of riparian vegetation along LOVR ditch would
continue, which could result in potential impacts to sensitive riparian habitats and species.
Additionally, residential units in the southwestern area of Lower Villaggio developed
under this alternative would continue to impact habitat connectivity between Froom Creek
and grassland within the Upper Terrace, as well as impacts to sensitive riparian and wetland
species at the confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3. Implementation of mitigation measures
described under Section 3.4, Biological Resources, as well as MM BIO-Alt. 1 would
substantially reduce potential impacts to sensitive and protected species, onsite natural
habitats, and ecotone connectivity. However, potentially impacts to the Calle Joaquin
wetlands would continue to occur as a result of creek realignment and LOVR drainage
frontage improvements. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources under this alternative would be reduced, as
avoidance of development within the Upper Terrace area of the Villaggio would decrease
potential for impacts to known or potential archaeological sites. Site preparation and
grading would still occur within areas containing sensitive cultural resources with potential
for associated impacts, though required implementation of mitigation measures would
reduce potential impacts during operation and construction of this alternative. Although
appropriate mitigation measures would be required, relocation of dairy structures within
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-95
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Froom Ranch would continue to have significant and unavoidable impacts on potentially
significant historic resources. Overall impacts would be similar but slightly reduced as
compared to the Project.
Geology and Soils
Under this alternative, impacts related to geology and soils would be similar to the Project
due to similar construction activities and geologic hazards onsite. As under the Project,
design and construction of proposed land uses under this alternative would be subject to
the requirements and regulations of the CBC and the City Municipal Code to ensure
structural integrity in seismically active areas. By locating development outside of fault
setbacks and implementing the most current regulatory standards for structural design,
impacts of structural failure and risks to life and property due to seismic shaking, seismic-
related ground failure, and soil constraints or hazards under this alternative would be the
same as compared to the Project, and potential impacts would remain less than significant.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Under this alternative, impacts related to fire hazards, hazardous materials, and airport
operations would be less than under the Project because of reduced construction activities
due to substantial development clustering and smaller building footprints. Avoidance of
development above the 150-foot elevation line within the Villaggio Upper Terrace and the
northwestern portion of Madonna Froom Ranch would reduce urban-wildland interface by
approximately 50 percent, reducing defensible space requirements and increasing the
distance between proposed residential units and wildfires originating from western upland
areas with very high fire hazard potential. Additionally, similar to the Project, this
alternative would also be required to implement required mitigation measures that would
decrease likelihood of wildfires, improve fire response evacuation, and ensure firefighters
can attack fires encroaching on the Project site from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
Potential impacts from hazardous materials and aircraft would not substantially vary from
the Project due to similar construction activities and the amount and layout of development
in relation to aircraft hazard areas. Impacts from hazardous materials and contamination
during construction would be similar to the Project, and no new hazards due to use of
hazardous materials or exposure to airport safety hazards would result from this alternative.
However, as under the Project, Alternative 2 would be located in an area highly susceptible
to potential fire hazards and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
5-96 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under this alternative, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would not
substantially vary from the Project due to similar drainage improvements, including
realignment and restoration of Froom Creek and installation of a new stormwater detention
basin, as well as onsite retention features for water treatment. Development would be
substantially more clustered than the Project and areas of impervious surfaces would
decrease under this alternative (approximate 62.1 percent reduction compared to the
Project). Further, this alternative would better retain natural watershed processes,
particularly in the higher elevation areas of the watershed onsite due to lack of development
within these areas compared to the Project. This alternative would continue to be required
to comply with applicable local, regional, state, and federal water quality protection and
stormwater management requirements, further reducing the potential for significant
impacts. Similar to the Project, required mitigation measures would minimize potential
impacts to hydrologic resources during construction and reduce potential erosion of the
realigned Froom Creek that could result from storm events. Additionally, avoidance of
development within the Upper Terrace would prevent impacts to Drainages 1, 2, and 3, as
well as hydrologically connected habitats downstream including grasslands and federal
jurisdiction wetlands. Similar to the Project, impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation.
Land Use and Planning
Impacts under this alternative would be less than under the Project because, consistent with
the requirements of the General Plan LUE, development would not occur above the 150-
foot elevation line. By avoiding development in these upper elevations on site, this
alternative would greatly improve consistency with adopted City policies. Required
implementation measures would further increase habitat connectivity and compliance with
Conservation and Open Space Policies 7.3.3, Wildlife Habitat and Corridors, and 7.7.7,
Preserve Ecotones. Avoiding residential development above the 150-foot elevation line,
including in the Upper Terrace of Villaggio and the northwestern portion of Madonna
Froom Ranch, would minimize aesthetic impacts, as well as fire hazards, and would be
consistent with the requirements of Hillside Planning Area policies in the City General
Plan. As under the Project, this alternative would be required to implement mitigation
measures to avoid significant impacts to the viability of the onsite agricultural easement.
However, this alternative would continue to relocate structures within the historic Froom
Ranch Dairy complex, resulting in the relocation and/or permanent loss of structures
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-97
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
composing a potential historic district despite implementation of mitigation measures and
causing potential inconsistencies with COSE Policies 3.3.1, Historic Preservation, 3.3.3,
Historical Documentation, and 3.3.4, Changes to Historic Buildings. Impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Noise
Under this alternative, construction and operational noise impacts would be incrementally
less adverse when compared to the Project. Despite elimination of commercial land uses
in Madonna Froom Ranch and implementation of applicable mitigation measures,
development of residential units and realignment of Froom Creek would continue to cause
construction noise levels that exceed City noise thresholds for sensitive receptors adjacent
to the Project site. Required implementation of mitigation measures similar to those under
the Project would reduce exposure of proposed residential units to noise levels above City
thresholds, as would substantial reductions in commercial development. Impacts resulting
from operations of the Alternative would therefore be incrementally less than under the
Project and would remain less than significant with mitigation.
Population and Housing
Impacts to population and housing would be less than to the Project, as this alternative
would develop a similar number of units but would not develop onsite commercial land
uses. Assuming Citywide household size of 2.29 persons per household, this alternative
would be expected to increase the City’s population by approximately 1,384 persons,
which is incrementally more than the Project. Assuming 550 square feet per job in planned
commercial uses, this alternative would result in 182 fewer jobs than the Project,
incrementally improving the City’s existing jobs/housing imbalance by providing more
housing compared to jobs onsite. Although this alternative would replace medium- high
density units in Madonna Froom Ranch with high density units, potentially improving
provision of workforce housing, this alternative would not result in additional affordable
housing units as compared to the Project. As under the Project, impacts would be
considered less than significant.
Public Services and Recreation
This alternative would result in decreased impacts to public services due to elimination of
commercial land uses that would be developed under the Project. Population increases
resulting from the alternative are expected to be similar, and corresponding increases in
demand and associated potential for impacts on police, fire protection, and education
5-98 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
services and facilities would also be similar to the Project. Elimination of commercial land
uses on site would also incrementally decrease demand on these services due to elimination
of uses which generate greater demands for service. While dedicated parkland within the
Project site would continue to be deficient to serve the anticipated increase in population,
this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures to ensure appropriate
recreational facilities would be maintained within the City’s Sphere of Influence, and
impacts would continue to be less than significant with mitigation.
Transportation and Traffic
Alternative 2 would have slightly fewer traffic and transportation impacts compared to the
Project. Although additional residential units would be anticipated to increase traffic,
Alternative 2 would not develop commercial units within Madonna Froom Ranch (e.g.
hotel, retail) that would also contribute to increased daily trips. This alternative would be
required to comply with applicable local, regional, state, and federal transportation
requirements, and would require implementation of applicable mitigation measures to
further reduce potential impacts. However, as trip generation and demand for multi-modal
transportation facilities is expected to be approximately similar to the Project, impacts to
area roadways would continue to be considered significant and unavoidable under
Alternative 2 in the near-term while the Prado Road Overpass is constructed. As under the
Project, cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation once
the Prado Road Overpass is complete.
Utilities and Energy Conservation
Impacts to utilities would be less severe when compared to the Project, due to the
elimination of onsite commercial land uses and reduction in the development footprint.
Elimination of commercial land uses would also reduce impacts to utility services such as
solid waste disposal and electricity. In addition, similar to the Project, this alternative
would continue to comply with applicable design, engineering, and installation
requirements and guidelines to increase energy efficiency and minimize environmental
impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Applicable mitigation measures would also be
required under this alternative, and impacts would continue to be considered less than
significant with mitigation.
Mineral Resources
Impacts to mineral resources would be incrementally reduced under this alternative as
under the Project. This alternative would designate the existing red rock quarry for Open
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-99
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Space/Conservation, theoretically retaining available acreage for extraction of this resource
within the County. However, mineral resource extraction is prohibited in the City’s General
Plan and would not be allowed following adoption of the FRSP. Therefore, impacts to
mineral resources within the City would continue to be less than significant.
5.4.2.4 Alternative 3 – Minimum LUE-Compliant Project Alternative
Alternative 3 would be a low-build alternative with the most restricted area for
development and a major redesign of key Project elements. Alternative 3 would
substantially reduce the development capacity of the Project site to the minimum
development allowed by the General Plan LUE. This alternative would be most closely
aligned with the existing General Plan LUE performance standards and minimum
development policy framework for the Project site with regard to the land use mix and
allowable development levels. Alternative 3 would support 200 multiple family residential
units, 50,000 sf of commercial uses and 3.0 acres of public facilities, but would not support
development of a Life Plan Community. This development would be clustered in already-
disturbed areas of the Project site on the northern side and below the 150-foot elevation
line, which would avoid or minimize a range of environmental impacts identified in this
EIR. Alternative 3 would reduce or change Project impacts through:
1. Residential development would be reduced to 200 units consistent with the
minimum development performance standards of the LUE SP-3, Madonna on
LOVR Specific Plan Area, from 582 units and 51 beds under the Project (an
approximately 65.6 percent reduction). Residential uses would be confined to 10
acres that would be developed under R-3-SP Medium-High Density zoning at a
maximum density of 20 units/acre;
2. Commercial development would be reduced to 50,000 sf consistent with the
minimum development performance standards of the LUE SP-3, a reduction of 50
percent from the Project, with commercial uses limited to 2.5 acres compared to
3.1 acres under the Project;
3. The Villaggio Life Plan Community would no longer be developed, thereby
avoiding a range of impacts associated with biological and cultural resources
(particularly in the Upper Terrace), hydrology and water quality, and fire hazards
but also not maximizing housing production to address jobs housing balance issues,
particularly for senior housing, consistent with City Housing goals;
5-100 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
4. Froom Creek would not be realigned, thereby avoiding the potential impacts and
benefits associated with this major element of the Project. The existing Irish Hills
stormwater detention basin system would be retained and expanded or modified to
accommodate any increases in runoff under this alternative. Internal drainage and
stormwater improvements to slow and infiltrate runoff into the soil within
developed areas would remain similar to the Project;
5. Road improvements, including Commercial Collectors A and B would remain
similar to the Project, along with required widening of LOVR, with associated
impacts to riparian and wetland habitats along LOVR ditch, but no local or private
roads would be needed to serve Alternative 3;
6. Consistent with the City’s General Plan, all development would be confined to
areas below 150-foot elevation;
7. Emergency access would be provided at only two different connections: 1) from
the Irish Hills Plaza into Madonna Froom Ranch; and 2) from LOVR to the
southern area of Madonna Froom Ranch.
8. Required discretionary actions would be similar to the proposed Project, while the
construction phasing plan would be accelerated.
Land Use Plan and Site Design
Alternative 3 would maximize clustering of development compared to the Project and
Alternatives 1 and 2, limiting residential and commercial land uses and associated roads
and infrastructure to less than a 20-acre area of the Project site below 150-foot elevation
(see Figure 5-5). Overall developed area would decrease by roughly 30 acres, compared to
the Project, with 89 acres of the Project Site (81 percent) retained as Conservation/Open
Space. Both the Upper Terrace and the majority of the lower area of Villaggio would
remain as contiguous open space, substantially reducing direct and indirect habitat
disturbance. The quarry on Madonna Froom Ranch adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve would also become open space under this alternative.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-101
Draft EIR
Drainage 4Drainage 4
150-FOOT E L EVATION CONTO
UR LIN
EF 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
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
LOWER
AREA
UPPER
TERRACE
LEGEND
Proposed Specific Plan Land Use
Project Site
Existing 3.2-Acre Stormwater Basin
Public Site Access Roadways: 3.8 acres
Reconfigured Open Space and
Agricultural Conservation Easement
C-R-SP – Retail Commercial/ General Commercial:
2.5 acres
C/OS-SP – Conservation/Open Space: 89.0 acres
PF-SP – Public Facilities: 3.0 acres
R-3-SP – Medium-High Density Residential:
10.0 acres
Alternative 3 Land Use Plan 5-5
FIGURE
Aerial Source: Google 2018.
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
N
5-102
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Table 5-16. Summary of Alternative 3 Zoning and Land Uses
Proposed Zones Acreage Housing Units/ sf
R-3-SP Medium-High Density Residential 10 200 multi-family
units
C-R-SP Retail-Commercial 2.5 50,000 sf
PF-SP Public Facilities 3.0 --
ADDITIONAL USES
C/OS-SP Conservation/ Open Space 88.9 --
Designated Open Space 81.8 --
Reconfigured Agricultural Easement 7.1 --
Roadways 5.6 --
TOTAL 109.7
200 units1
50,000 sf
commercial
1 Total matches minimum performance standards as allowed in Section 8.1.5 of the General Plan LUE. This total
assumes all units planned within residential land uses.
Madonna Froom Ranch would continue to provide multi-family housing, but development
would be contained within 10 acres of Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-SP) zoning
designation, with a density of 20 units per acre under Alternative 3. A majority of these
multi-family homes would be located away from the habitats and high fire hazards of the
Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Approximately four acres would be located in an area along
the northern bank of Froom Creek, which would provide somewhat of a fire buffer between
this area and high fire hazards within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
Areas proposed for Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-SP) uses under Alternative 3
would be limited to existing disturbed areas on the northeastern portion of the site and
outside of the existing onsite stormwater detention basin. Similar to the Project, the
northwestern corner of the site would be designated for Retail-Commercial (C-R-SP) uses,
but would only accommodate up to 50,000 sf. This alternative includes a trailhead park
within 3.0 acres of Public Facilities (PF-SP) designated area in the same location as under
the Project, but under the 150-foot elevation line. Areas within the quarry above the 150-
foot elevation contour line adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve would be set aside as
open space. These changes 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.
Since Alternative 3 would not involve development above the 150-foot elevation, this
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-103
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
alternative would not require a General Plan amendment to address this policy
inconsistency associated with the Project.
Froom Creek would not be realigned and restored under Alternative 3 and stormwater
management would be supported partially by existing onsite infrastructure, which may
require upgrades or modifications to accommodate site development. The need for grading,
retaining walls, and fencing would be substantially less severe when compared to the
Project. Site disturbance would be limited to approximately 21.1 acres of relatively level
terrain that would not require substantial excavations, barring potential low-lying retaining
walls along Froom Creek, which is currently perched behind a manmade berm along the
central portions of the site.
Circulation and Site Access
Similar to the Project, circulation under Alternative 3 would entail provision of public
roadways within Madonna Froom Ranch (Collectors A and B). All development would be
restricted to below the 150-foot elevation contour and would not extend substantially into
the lower area of Villaggio; therefore, the road system would be reduced in length
compared to the Project. Similar to the Project, Alternative 3 would have a primary
entrance from LOVR at Auto Park Way. Public roadways would lead to the trailhead park
and Madonna Froom Ranch neighborhoods. Major components of the Alternative 3
circulation system are similar to the Project and are summarized below:
1. A proposed signalized intersection with LOVR and proposed roadway 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 roads;
4. Proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities on public roads;
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.
7. Two separate emergency access points would be provided (see Figure 5-5) while
the Mountainbrook Church emergency access road would be deleted.
5-104 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Proposed Housing and Population
Alternative 3 would provide substantially fewer units than the Project. Under this
alternative, 200 multi-family units would accommodate approximately 458 new residents,
assuming 2.29 persons per household.
Analysis – Alternative 3 (Minimum LUE-Compliant Alternative)
Impacts under this alternative would be considerably less than that of the Project. Primary
tradeoffs would consist of lower intensity buildout of both residential and commercial land
uses under this alternative, as well as elimination of development above the 150-foot
elevation line. Residential units would decrease by 378 units (65 percent) and commercial
development area would decrease by 50,000 square feet (50 percent). Additionally, senior
housing units would not be provided within a Life Plan Community. Froom Creek would
not be realigned under this project, reducing potential impacts to noise and other affected
resources; however, lack of realignment of the creek would not support restoration or
improvement of the creek corridor to provide improved steelhead habitat or alleviate flood
capacity constraints downstream at U.S. 101. Retaining the majority of the site as open
space, including avoiding development above the 150-foot elevation line, would greatly
decrease potential environmental impacts, including impacts to biology, aesthetics, and
wildfire hazards.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Impacts to scenic resources onsite would be greatly decreased under this alternative as a
result of reduced development, particularly in areas of higher elevation. Avoiding
development above the 150-foot elevation would protect onsite scenic resources, including
natural habitats, open grazing land, and serpentine rock outcroppings. Designation of the
majority of the site as Conservation/Open Space would smooth visual transitions from rural
landscapes to commercial and residential development, substantially reducing impacts to
visual character of the Project site and surrounding area for viewers within the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve as compared to the Project. Implementation of MM VIS-1, requiring
vegetative screens for buildings and associated infrastructure, would ensure potential
impacts to aesthetic character would be less than significant. Impacts to nighttime lighting
and glare would also be reduced as compared to the project due to substantial reduction in
development area and associated exterior lighting.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-105
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Agricultural Resources
The area impacted by development under this alternative would be substantially less severe
when compared to the Project; this alternative would avoid development within the Upper
Terrace and the majority of the lower portion of Villaggio. This alternative would result in
greater protection of agricultural land currently used for grazing as open space, therefore,
impacts to agricultural resources would be reduced compared to the Project. Impacts would
remain less than significant.
Air Quality and GHG Emissions
Impacts to air quality and GHG emissions would be substantially reduced under this
alternative, as overall commercial development would be reduced by half and residential
development would be reduced by 378 units as compared to the Project. Grading required
for building construction would be substantially lessened under this alternative, which
would greatly decrease emissions from heavy construction equipment. This alternative
would also reduce anticipated population increases by more than half, and corresponding
reductions in vehicle trips associated with reductions in residential, commercial, and senior
residential land uses. These reductions in development would also result in a decrease in
emissions generated onsite. Additionally, this alternative would be required to implement
applicable mitigation measures to further reduce potential impacts to air quality. As a
result, impacts to air quality from construction and operation of this alternative are
estimated to be lower than APCD thresholds and would no longer be considered
significant. Similar to the determination in the LUCE Update EIR, implementation of the
City’s General Plan would not be consistent with the assumptions contained in the Clean
Air Plan. Therefore, specific to consistency with the Clean Air Plan and potential impacts
related to GHG emissions from mobile sources, it is expected Alternative 3 would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts. All other air quality and GHG impacts are anticipated
to be less than significant with mitigation.
Biological Resources
Impacts under this alternative would substantially reduce potential impacts to biological
resources as compared to the Project. This alternative would not include development
above the 150-foot elevation line or realignment of Froom Creek, and would substantially
reduce the development area and required onsite construction grading as compared to the
Project. Reduced development onsite would minimize impacts to sensitive species,
drainages, and onsite wetlands that would occur under the Project, although there is
5-106 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
potential for sensitive-species to occur within the development footprint of Alternative 3.
Development of areas below the 150-foot elevation line would be greatly limited west of
Froom Creek, and habitat connectivity and ecotone protection would be substantially
increased as compared to the Project. Additionally, this alternative would develop 14.7
acres of residential units within the lower area of Villaggio, as compared to 23.4 acres
under the Project, preserving an additional 8.7 acres of sensitive grasslands onsite,
including serpentine bunchgrass. Continued required implementation of mitigation
measures as described under Section 3.4, Biological Resources, would further reduce
potential impacts to sensitive and protected species and natural habitats onsite. However,
although Froom Creek would not be realigned under this alternative, roadway
improvements along LOVR would continue to result in significant impacts to a federal
jurisdiction wetlands mapped within the LOVR ditch. Lack of realignment of Froom Creek
would also not support improved steelhead habitat, as is proposed under the Project. With
restoration requirements, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources under this alternative would be reduced, as
the reduction in developed area within the Project site and a 278-unit reduction of
residential units would decrease potential for incidental discovery and impacts. Site
preparation and grading would still occur within areas containing sensitive cultural
resources, though mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce potential impacts
to less than significant during operation and construction of this alternative. Although
mitigation measures would be implemented, relocation of dairy structures on the Froom
Ranch to avoid fault lines would continue to have significant and unavoidable impacts on
potentially significant historic resources.
Geology and Soils
Under this alternative, impacts related to geologic and soil resources would be less severe
when compared to the Project due to reduced commercial and residential development and
minimal geologic hazards onsite. As under the Project, design and construction of proposed
land uses under this alternative would be subject to several requirements and regulations
to ensure structural integrity in seismically active areas. Additionally, residential
development would be reduced by 278 units and commercial land uses would be reduced
by 50,000 square feet, lessening potential impacts to residents, employees, and consumers
located onsite. By locating development outside of fault setbacks and implementing the
most current industry standards for structural design, impacts of structural failure and risks
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-107
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
to life and property due to seismic shaking and seismic-related ground failure under this
alternative would be reduced as compared to the Project, and potential impacts would
remain less than significant.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Under this alternative, impacts related to fire hazards, hazardous materials, and airport
operations would be less than under the Project due to reduced construction activities
associated with substantial development reductions and smaller building footprints.
Reduction of development areas to already disturbed portions of the site in the northeast
corner would reduce urban-wildland interface by approximately 75 percent, reducing
defensible space requirements and increasing the distance between proposed residential
units and wildfires originating from western upland areas with very high fire hazard
potential. Additionally, similar to the Project, this alternative would also be required to
implement required mitigation measures that would decrease likelihood of wildfires,
improve fire response evacuation, and ensure firefighters can attack fires encroaching on
the Project site from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Potential impacts from hazardous
materials and aircraft would not substantially vary from the Project due to similar
construction activities and the amount and layout of development in relation to aircraft
hazard areas. Impacts from hazardous materials and contamination during construction
would remain similar to the Project, and no new hazards due to use of hazardous materials
or exposure to airport safety hazards would result from this alternative. However, as under
the Project, Alternative 3 would be located in an area highly susceptible to potential fire
hazards, particularly at the base of the Froom Creek watershed where steep slopes and
prevailing winds increase potential for a fire in the Irish Hills to move towards the site, and
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under this alternative, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than
those of the Project due to substantial reductions in development and retention of Froom
Creek in its existing alignment onsite. This alternative would result in 21.1 acres of
development, including 12.5 acres of residential and commercial uses, considerably
decreasing impervious surfaces as compared to the Project. Decreased construction of
pervious surfaces would increase groundwater recharge onsite and reduce the potential for
erosion, stormwater runoff, and onsite flooding as compared to the Project. The existing
onsite stormwater detention basin would continue to attenuate runoff from Irish Hills Plaza
and would be upgraded or modified under Alternative 3 to support limited additional
5-108 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
development on the Project site. However, impacts to flooding are likely to be increased
compared to the Project due to lack of proposed flood control improvements which would
alleviate capacity constraints at the U.S. 101 box culvert. Therefore, capacity constraints
would persist under this alternative, though this alternative would not contribute towards
those existing impacts. Mitigation measures implemented under this alternative would
continue to minimize potential impacts to hydrologic resources during construction.
Additionally, avoidance of development within the Upper Terrace would reduce the
potential for pollutants to enter Drainages 1, 2, or 3 and other hydrologically connected
sensitive habitats onsite. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Land Use and Planning
Impacts under this alternative would be considerably less than under the Project, as
development would not occur above the 150-foot elevation line. By avoiding development
within the Upper Terrace and west of Froom Creek, this alternative would eliminate
impacts to serpentine native bunchgrass grassland habitats and minimize impacts to
springs, seeps, and wetlands along Drainages 1, 2 and 3, as well as associated impacts to
12 special status plant species. As a result, this alternative would comply with the General
Plan, including COSE Policies 7.3.1, Protect Listed Species, and 7.3.2, Protect Species of
Local Concern. Retaining the majority of the site as open space would minimize aesthetic
impacts and would be consistent with Hillside Planning Area policies in the City’s General
Plan. However, this alternative would continue to relocate the historic Froom Ranch Dairy
complex to preserve onsite historic structures and remove them from identified fault hazard
areas, resulting in permanent loss of structures composing a potential historic district
despite implementation of mitigation measures and causing potential inconsistencies with
COSE Policies 3.3.1, Historic Preservation, 3.3.3, Historical Documentation, and 3.3.4,
Changes to Historic Buildings. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due to
inconsistency with City policies and regulations.
Noise
Under this alternative, construction and operational noise impacts would be substantially
less severe when compared to the Project. Construction duration would be much shorter
than the Project and there would be no overlap in phases. All construction equipment would
be isolated on the northern side of the site, well away from sensitive receptors in the
adjacent hotel properties and Mountainbrook Church to the south. This alternative would
substantially reduce overall commercial and residential land uses as compared to the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-109
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Project and would continue to implement all applicable mitigation measures. Noise impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Population and Housing
Impacts to population and housing would be less severe when compared to the Project, as
the alternative would develop 378 less residential units and 50,000 square feet less
commercial land uses. Assuming Citywide household size of 2.29 persons per household,
this alternative would result in housing for approximately 458 people, or 866 less people
than under the Project. This alternative would locate all residences within medium-high
density residential land uses, and senior living units would not be produced. Additionally,
this alternative would be expected to result in 91 less jobs than under the Project. Given
this alternative does not proposed a Life Community Plan, the development of 200
residential units would result in an increase in housing that would count towards the City’s
housing supply. In compliance with City requirements, the additional 26 multi-family
residential units counting towards City housing supply would result in provision of
additional affordable housing units that would be constructed under inclusionary housing
requirements. Impacts would continue to be considered less than significant.
Public Services and Recreation
This alternative would result in decreased impacts to public services due to substantial
reduction of commercial and residential land uses as compared to the Project. Residential
population resulting from the alternative would be substantially reduced for this alternative,
and corresponding increases in demand on police, fire protection, and education services
and facilities would also be reduced. Reduction of commercial land uses on site by 50
percent would further reduce onsite population and decreased demand on these services.
Given elimination of senior living units and associated recreational amenities, it would be
reasonable to anticipate increased per capita demand for parkland, although overall
population on the Project site would be substantially reduced compared to the Project.
While dedicated parkland within the Project site would continue to be deficient to serve
the expected increase in population and would require payment of in-lieu fees, this
alternative would continue to implement mitigation measures ensuring appropriate
recreational facilities would be maintained within the City’s Sphere of Influence, and
impacts would continue to be considered less than significant with mitigation.
5-110 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Transportation and Traffic
Alternative 3 would have substantially reduced impacts to transportation as compared to
the Project, as the development footprint would be considerably minimized, and trips
would be reduced. This alternative would reduce residential units by 65 percent and
commercial square footage by 50 percent compared to the Project. This large reduction in
development footprint would be significantly lower anticipated addition of trips to internal
and area roadways. Additionally, this alternative is consistent with the General Plan LUE
and the environmental impact analysis conducted in the LUCE Update EIR (City of San
Luis Obispo 2014). Finally, this alternative would comply with all applicable local,
regional, state, and federal requirements, as well as applicable mitigation measures.
Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be considered less than significant.
Utilities and Energy Conservation
Impacts to utilities would be less severe when compared to the Project, due to the overall
substantial reductions of onsite commercial and residential land uses and reduction in the
development footprint. By reducing urban development onsite, this alternative would
considerably reduce potential demands for water, wastewater treatment, solid waste
disposal, and energy. Reduction of commercial land uses by 50 percent and residential
units by 378 units would considerably reduce impacts to utility services. In addition to
utilization of appropriate mitigation measures, this alternative would continue to comply
with applicable design, engineering, and installation requirements and guidelines to
increase energy efficiency and minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent
feasible. As a result, impacts would continue to be less than significant with mitigation
under this alternative.
Mineral Resources
Impacts to mineral resources would be incrementally reduced under this alternative as
under the Project. The Alternative would designate the existing red rock quarry for Open
Space/Conservation, theoretically retaining available acreage for extraction of this resource
within the County. However, mineral resource extraction is prohibited under the City and
would not be allowed following adoption of the FRSP. Therefore, impacts to mineral
resources within the City would continue to be considered less than significant.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-111
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.5 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of
alternatives shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives
evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior alternative as defined by
CEQA should minimize adverse impacts to the Project site and its surrounding
environment. Table 5-17 summarizes the environmental advantages and disadvantages
associated with the proposed Project and the four analyzed alternatives. Although the No
Project Alternative would result in the least amount of impacts, CEQA Guidelines section
15126.6 states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative,
the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other
alternatives.
Although the No Project Alternative would result in the least amount of impacts, this
alternative would not meet most Project objectives. Given this, Alternative 1 is considered
to be the environmentally superior alternative since impacts would be reduced for many
issue areas and all Project objectives would be met, as described below. Alternative 1
would substantially reduce impacts as compared to the Project in the following resource
areas: aesthetics and visual resources; biological resources; cultural and tribal cultural
resources; hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfires; and land use and planning. For
instance, avoidance of development within the Upper Terrace area of Villaggio would
greatly eliminate impacts to biological resources, including serpentine native bunchgrass
grassland habitats, and would minimize impacts to springs, seeps, and wetland habitats
along Drainages 1, 2, and 3, as well as associated impacts to 12 special status plant species.
Despite substantial reductions to many impacts under Alternative 1 as compared to the
Project, Alternative 1 would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts to
air quality and greenhouse gases; biological resources; historic resources; hazards,
hazardous materials, and wildfires; land use and planning; noise; and transportation and
traffic.
Alternative 1 would also achieve all of the Project objectives. This alternative is largely
consistent with the General Plan LUE, and would develop a mix of commercial, residential,
and open space/recreation uses on the Project site. A variety of housing opportunities
would be available, including affordable housing as well as potentially more affordable,
higher density multi-family housing opportunities and 404 residential units for seniors in a
Life Plan Community. The Project site would provide additional opportunities to access
the Irish Hills Natural Reserve system, as well as new public parkland within the Project
5-112 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
site that would be located adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Avoidance of
development within the Upper Terrace area preserves sensitive plant and wildlife species,
including the state- and federally-endangered Chorro Creek bog thistle, as well as
important drainages and wetlands within this area. Additionally, realignment of Froom
Creek under Alternative 1 would improve stormwater conveyance and create riparian
habitat, enhancing fish habitat, and biological resource value. Alternative 1 would be
similar to the Project in its contribution to the regional transportation system and its
adherence to sustainable development practices and design features. Therefore, this
alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative over other
alternatives, as shown in Table 5-17.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 5-113
Draft EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Table 5-17. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Issue Area No Project
Alternative 1 –
Clustered
Development
Below the 150-
Foot Elevation
Alternative
(Actionable
Alternative)
Alternative 2 –
Residential
Development
Project
Alternative
Alternative 3 –
Minimum LUE-
Compliant
Project
Alternative
Aesthetics and
Visual Resources Less Less Less Less
Agricultural
Resources Less Similar Similar Less
Air Quality and
GHG Emissions Less Similar Similar Less
Biological
Resources Less Less Less Less
Cultural and
Tribal Resources Greater Less Less Less
Geology and
Soils Less Similar Similar Similar
Hazards,
Hazardous
Materials, and
Wildfires
Less Less Less Less
Hydrology and
Water Quality Less Similar Similar Less
Land Use and
Planning Less Less Less Less
Noise Less Less Less Less
Population and
Housing Greater Similar Similar Less
Public Services Less Similar Similar Less
Transportation
and Traffic Less Similar Similar Less
Utilities and
Energy
Conservation
Less Similar Similar Less
Mineral
Resources Less Similar Similar Similar
Project
Objectives Met? No Yes Partially Partially
5-114 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of San Luis Obispo
Michael Codron Director of Community Development
Doug Davidson Deputy Director
Tyler Corey Principal Planner
Robert Hill Natural Resources Manager
Shawna Scott Senior Planner
Luke Schwartz Transportation Planning/Engineering
Christopher Read Sustainability Manager
Emily Creel SWCA Environments Consultants, Contract
City Planner
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Dan Gira Project Principal
Erika Leachman Project Manager
Taylor Lane Deputy Project Manager
Julia Pujo Deputy Project Manager
Linn Zukor QA/QC
Doug McFarling QA/QC
Aaron Johnson GIS Specialist
Angie Harbin-Ireland Senior Biologist
David King Biologist
John Chestnut Botanist
Brian Cook Senior Noise Specialist
David Stone Cultural Resources Specialist
Keri Gannon Water Resources Specialist
Matthew Sauter Paleontologist
Taylor Lane CEQA Air Quality Specialist
Matt Buggert Lead Environmental Analyst
Aidan Patterson Environmental Analyst
Kaylan Lamb Environmental Analyst
Rosann Malloch Project Administrator
Rita Samaniego Administrative Assistant
Janice Depew Word Processor
Applied Earthworks
Barry Price Principal
Graphics Consultant
Deirdre Stites Graphics Specialist
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 6-1
Draft EIR
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
TJKM Traffic Consultants
Ruta Jariwala Principal
VIZf/x
Robert Staehle Principal / Architect
6-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of San Luis Obispo. 2014. Land Use and Circulation Elements Update EIR.
SECTION 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2017. Scenic Highways. Caltrans.
Accessed: 12 June 2018. Retrieved from:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/
City of San Luis Obispo. 2006. General Plan - Conservation and Open Space Element.
——. 2010. Community Design Guidelines. Retrieved from:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104. Accessed: February 2016
——. 2014. General Plan - Circulation Element. City of San Luis Obispo - General Plan.
Accessed: 12 June 2018. Retrieved from:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6637
——. 2015. Zoning Regulations. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5861. Accessed: April 2016.
SECTION 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
California Department of Conservation. 1997. “California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment (LESA) Model.”
———. 2016. “FMMP- Important Farmland Map Categories.” 2016.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/mccu/Pages/map_categories.aspx.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2012.
“Table A-31 San Luis Obispo County 2010-2012 Land Use Conversion.”
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SanLuisObispo.aspx.
———. 2014. “Table A-31 San Luis Obispo County 2012-2014 Land Use Conversion.”
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SanLuisObispo.aspx.
———. 2016. “Table A-31 San Luis Obispo County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion.”
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SanLuisObispo.aspx.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2014. “Land Use and Circulation Elements Update EIR.”
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6723.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 7-1
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
County of San Luis Obispo. 2017. “2017 Annual Crop Report.”
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/getattachment/597e9e60-dc50-4d7e-9fe0-
d2f8a80f8874/Crop-Report-2017.aspx.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016. “Soil Classification in the
Online Web Soil Survey,” 2016.
———. 2018. “Natural Resources Conservation Service - Web Soil Survey - San Luis
Obispo County, California, Coastal Part (CA664).” 2018.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2016. “Final White Paper - Beyond
2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and
Climate Action Plan Targets in California.” https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-
2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf.
Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. “Press Release: 2007-12-06 Air Board Passes Two
Major Building Blocks in State’s Effort to Fight Global Warming.” 2007.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr120607.htm.
———. 2008. “Climate Change Scoping Plan.”
California Department of Finance. 2018. “E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State — January 1, 2017 and 2018.” 2018.
http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. “California Climate Adaptation Strategy.”
2009. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf.
———. 2018. “California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment: Central Coast Region
Report.” http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/about/.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. “The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
Update.” 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
———. 2018. “Quality Assurance Air Monitoring Site Information - San Luis Obispo-
Higuera Street.” California Air Resources Board. 2018.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/qaweb/site.php?s_arb_code=40836.
———. 2019. “Air Quality Data (PST) Query Tool.” California Air Resources Board.
2019. https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2012. “Climate Action Plan.”
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-
administration/office-of-sustainability/climate-action/climate-action-plan-1949.
7-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
———. 2014. “General Plan Ch1 - Land Use Element.”
———. 2018. “Council Agenda Report - September 18, 2018: Climate Action Plan
Update Status Report, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update, and
Direction on GHG Reduction Targets Study Session.”
http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/DocView.aspx?dbid=1&id=83887&page=1&c
r=1.
San Luis Obispo APCD. 2012. “CEQA Air Quality Handbook.” 12.10.2015.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLO County APCD). 2001.
“Clean Air Plan.”
———. 2012. “CEQA Air Quality Handbook - A Guide for Assessing the Air Quality
Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review.”
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20N
ovember%202018%29_LinkedwithMemo.pdf.
———. 2019. “San Luis Obispo County Attainment Status.” 2019.
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/AttainmentStatus29January2019.pdf.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). 2017. “2050 Regional Growth
Forecast for San Luis Obispo County.” SLOCOG - Regional Growth Forecasts.
2017.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tl8ia0j8zixrry/2050RegionalGrowthForecast_01Full
Report_RevDec2017.pdf?dl=0.
United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2017. “U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) - State Carbon Dioxide Emissions Data
Summary - Data for 2015 - Released October 2017.” 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/.
———. 2018. “Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2016 Full Report.” 2018. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2016.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. “Monthly Climate Summary - San Luis
Obispo.” 2016. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7851.
SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB) Rarefinder (version 5).
City of San Luis Obispo. 2006. “General Plan - Conservation and Open Space Element.”
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 7-3
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
———. 2019. “Conservation Efforts Lead to the Discovery of a New Plant Species.”
April 23, 2019. https://www.slocity.org/Home/Components/News/News/6698/17.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2018a. “CNPS Rare Plant Ranks | California
Native Plant Society.” California Native Plant Society. 2018.
https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks.
———. 2018b. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Online Edition,
v8-03 0.39).” 2018. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/.
County of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. 2018. “Historic Fire Map - California.”
http://slocountyfire.org/firehistory/.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. “2007 Federal Recovery Outline for
the Distinct Population Segment of Southern California Coast Steelhead.” 2007.
http://friendsofventurariver.org/wp-content/themes/client-
sites/venturariver/docs/fed-recovery-outline-so-cal-coast-steelhead-2007-
final.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. “Environmental Conservation Online
System - Online Mapper.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Environmental
Conservation Online System. 2018.
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad
4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77.
SECTION 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
City of San Luis Obispo. 2009. Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines. Community Development Department. October.
Chattel, Inc. 2018. Froom Ranch, 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo,
California Linear Rock Features Historical Resource Evaluation.
Condor Country Consulting, Inc. 2018. Froom Ranch Limited Phase II Cultural
Resources Assessment, Froom Ranch Storm Water Basin, County of San Luis
Obispo, , California. Prepared for FirstCarbon Solutions and John Madonna
Construction Company. September 17.
FirstCarbon Solutions. 2015. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Cultural Resource Assessment,
San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for John
Madonna Construction Company. February 20. Revised July 21, 2017.
———. 2017. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment, San Luis
Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for John Madonna
Construction Company. February 20. Revised July 21, 2017.
7-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
———. 2018. Froom Ranch Retention Basin and Land Exchange Areas Supplemental
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Report, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared
for John Madonna Construction Company. August 10.
United States Department of the Interior. 1991. National Register Bulletin 15.
How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
Weeks, Kay D. and Grimmer, Anne E. 1995. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department
of the Interior National Parks Service, Technical Preservation Services.
Wiegers, M.O. and C.I. Gutierrez. 2010. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo 7.5’
Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California: A Digital Database. California
Department of Conservation – California Geological Survey.
SECTION 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
California Department of Conservation. 2010. “Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo
7.5’ Quadrangle.”
file:///C:/Users/taylor.lane/Downloads/SanLuisObispo24k_preliminary.pdf.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2000. “General Plan - Safety Element.”
Dibblee, Thomas W., Jr. 2004. “Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle.”
Earthquake Track. 2018. “Recent Earthquakes Near San Luis Obispo, California, United
States.” 2018. https://earthquaketrack.com/us-ca-san-luis-
obispo/recent?mag_filter=5.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2011. "Possible Explanations for
'Extent' for Expansive Soils. "
GeoSolutions, Inc. 2017. “Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation - Froom/El
Villaggio Specific Plan APNs: 067-241-030 and -031 Project SL09734-1 April
14, 2017.”
Jefferson, G.T., H.L.Fierstine, J.R.Wesling, and T.L. Ku. 1992. Pleistocene Terrestrial
Vertebrates from near Point San Luis, and Other Localities in San Luis Obispo
County, California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences Vol
9, No. 1, pp. 26-38.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2016. “San Joaquin Valley Is
Still Sinking.” 2016. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=89761.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 7-5
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
NRCS. 2018. “Natural Resources Conservation Service - Web Soil Survey - San Luis
Obispo County, California, Coastal Part (CA664).” 2018.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works (SLO County DPW). 2016. “San
Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works & Transportation - Interactive
Data Viewer.” 2016.
http://gis.slocounty.ca.gov/Html5Viewer/Index.html?configBase=/Geocortex/Ess
entials/REST/sites/PW_SGMA/viewers/PW_Viewer/virtualdirectory/Resources/
Config/Default&LayerTheme=3.
Scott, E., and K. Springer. 2003. “CEQA and Fossil Presrvation in Southern California.”
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. “Standard Procedures For the Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources.” 2010.
http://vertpaleo.org/The-Society/Governance-
Documents/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx.
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2018. Vertebrate
Paleontology Collections Database. Retrieved April 20 and May 1, 2018.
SECTION 3.7 HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND WILDFIRE
Barros, Ana M.G., Jose M.C. Pereira, Max A. Moritz, and Scott L. Stephens. 2013.
“Spatial Characterization of Wildfire Orientation Patterns in California. Forests
2013, 4; Pp 197-217.” 2013.
http://nature.berkeley.edu/moritzlab/docs/Barros_etal_Forests_2013.pdf.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2007. “Draft Fire
Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas.”
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_luis_obispo/fhszl06_1_map.40.pdf.
California Department of Conservation. 2016. “Office of Mine Reclamation - Mines On
Line (MOL).” 2016. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2014. “City of San Luis Obispo General Plan - Chapter 5
Safety.” 2014. http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645.
Cohen, J.D. 1999. “Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes: Where and How
Much.”
County of Los Angeles. 2011. “Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pepperdine
University Campus Life Project. Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA.” 2011.
http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/case/project_r2007-03064_feir.pdf.
County of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. 2018. “Historic Fire Map - California.”
http://slocountyfire.org/firehistory/.
7-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2018. “EnviroStor.” Department of
Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. 2018.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
Fire Resource and Assessment Program. 2017. “Fire Perimeters - CAL FIRE; USFW;
NPS; BLM.” 2017. http://slocountyfire.org/firehistory/.
Grisanti & & Associates. 2011. “Priliminary Site Assessment - Avila Ranch Property.”
Hubbard, T.W. 1986. “Stand Age and Growth Dynamics in Chamise Chaparral. Masters
Thesis. San Diego State University, San Diego, California.”
Johnson Aviation. 2014. “Airport Land Use Compatibility Report.”
Keeley, Jon, and Mark Borchert. 2005. “Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Model -
California Chaparral.”
Larigauderie, A., T.W. Hubbard, and H.D. Stafford. 1990. “Growth Dynamics of Two
Chaparral Shrub Species with Time After Fire. Madrono 37: p.225-236.”
Los Angeles County Fire Department. 2012. “County of Los Angeles Fire Department
Strategic Fire Plan.” 2012.
http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/fire_er/fpp_planning_plans_details?plan_id=150.
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (SLO County ALUC). 2005.
“Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport.” San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport - Airport Land Use Commission. 2005.
https://www.sloairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ALUP_TXT.pdf.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. “GeoTracker.” State Water
Resources Control Board GeoTracker. 2018.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
U.S. Forest Service. 2000. “Mangan, R.J. Improving Firefighter Safety in the Wildland-
Urban Intermix.”
———. 2012. “Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A
Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector - Risk Assessment
for Wildfire in the Western United States | Publications | SRS
Https://Www.fs.fed.us/Pnw/Pubs/pnw_gtr870/pnw_gtr870_011.pdf.” 2012.
https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/42610.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2018. “Prevailing Wind Direction.” 2018.
https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/comp_table_show.php?stype=wind_dir_avg.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 7-7
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
SECTION 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 2005. Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for Sustaining a Separated
Wetland Near Calle Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, California.
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast RWQCB). 2017.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, September 2017 Edition.
California Water Boards.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/bas
in_plan/docs2017/2017_basin_plan_r3_complete.pdf, accessed May 29, 2018.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2003. Waterway Management Plan - San Luis Obispo Creek
Watershed. http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-
works/documents-online/waterway-management-plan, accessed April 21, 2016.
Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County. 2002. San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed
Enhancement Plan.
http://www.coastalrcd.org/images/cms/files/SLO%20Creek%20Watershed%20En
hancement%20Plan.pdf, accessed May 29, 2018.
San Luis Obispo Watershed Project (SLO Watershed Project). 2014. San Luis Obispo
Creek Watershed. SLO Watershed Project.
http://www.slowatershedproject.org/reports/snapshots/Snapshot-South-County-
San-Luis-Obispo-Creek-Watershed.pdf, accessed May 29, 2018.
SWRCB. 2018. Geotracker.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=san+lui
s+obispo, accessed June 8, 2018.
Wood. 2019. Email communication with Tyler Marley, Water Resources Engineer. April
10.
SECTION 3.9 LAND USE
City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. “General Plan - Noise Element.”
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643.
———. 2006. “General Plan - Conservation and Open Space Element.”
———. 2014a. “General Plan - Circulation Element.” City of San Luis Obispo - General
Plan. 2014. http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6637.
———. 2014b. “General Plan - Land Use Element.”
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6635.
———. 2014c. “General Plan - Safety.” 2014.
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645.
7-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
———. 2015. “General Plan - Housing Element.” 2015.
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5204.
———. 2018. “General Plan - Water and Wastewater Management Element.” 2018.
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=22356.
City of San Luis Obispo, and County of San Luis Obispo. 2013. Tank Farm EIR.
County of San Luis Obispo. 2019. “San Luis Obispo County General Plan - Land Use
Ordinance.” https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/getattachment/6d93f812-df15-4203-
b033-7d802c5c9cf0/Inland-Land-Use-Ordinance-(Title-22).aspx.
Johnson Aviation. 2014. “Airport Land Use Compatibility Report.”
SLO County ALUC. 2005. “Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport.” San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport - Airport Land Use
Commission. 2005. https://www.sloairport.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/ALUP_TXT.pdf.
SECTION 3.10 NOISE
Caltrans. 1998. “Technical Noise Supplement.”
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/Technical%20Noise%20Supplement.pdf.
———. 2013. “Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.”
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf.
———. 2017. "2017 Traffic Volumes: Route 101." https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-
operations/census/traffic-volumes/2017/route-101.
City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. “General Plan Ch4 - Noise Element.”
———. 2008. “City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12.060.”
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanLuisObispo/#!/SanLuisObispo09/SanLui
sObispo0912.html#9.12.060.
———. 2014. “Land Use and Circulation Elements Update EIR.”
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6723.
Harris Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006. “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.”
May 2006.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf.
Holzman, David C. 2011. “Vehicle Motion Alarms: Necessity, Noise Pollution, or
Both?” Environmental Health Perspectives 119 (1): A30–33.
Lord and Taubitz. 2017. “Acoustics Assessment for Froom Ranch Project.” 45 dB
Acoustics Consulting.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 7-9
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
Personal communication with Manager. 2019a. “Phone Call with TJ Maxx Manager.”
———. 2019b. “Phone Call with Home Depot Manager.”
Personal communication with Receiving Department employee. 2019. “Phone Call with
Whole Foods Receiving Department Employee.”
SLO County ALUC. 2005. “Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport.” https://www.sloairport.com/airport-land-use-commission-
aluc/.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 2006. "Roadway Construction Noise Model - RCNM
Version 1.1."
———.2012. “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, Final Report.”
———. 2013. “Construction Noise Handbook.”
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/hand
book09.cfm.
SECTION 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
California Department of Finance. 2019. “E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State - January 1, 2018 and 2019.”
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/.
California Employment Development Department. 2018a. “Labor Force and
Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places.” July 2018.
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-
cities-and-census-areas.html.
———. 2018b. “Unemployment Data in California.” September 2018.
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/unemployment-and-labor-
force.html.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2014a. “General Plan Ch1 - Land Use Element.”
———. 2014b. “Land Use and Circulation Elements Update EIR.”
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6723.
———. 2015. “General Plan - Housing Element.” 2015.
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5204.
———. 2018. “General Plan Annual Report 2018.”
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=22768.
7-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
———. 2019. “2019 Affordable Housing Standards - Effective July 1, 2019.” 2019.
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=23428.
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. 2018. “San Luis Obispo Chamber of
Commerce, Major Employers.” September 2018. https://slochamber.org/our-
community/community-profile/major-employers/.
SLOCOG. 2011. “San Luis Obsipo County 2040 Population, Housing, and Employment
Forecast.”
http://www.slocog.org/sites/default/files/San%20Luis%20Obispo%20County%20
2040%20Population%20Housing%20Employment%20Forecast.PDF.
———. 2017. “2050 Regional Growth Forecast for San Luis Obispo County.” SLOCOG
- Regional Growth Forecasts. 2017.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tl8ia0j8zixrry/2050RegionalGrowthForecast_01Full
Report_RevDec2017.pdf?dl=0.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. “San Luis Obispo County/City 2013-2017 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.”
https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/2017/.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2017. “FY 2017 LMISD Local
Governments by State, Based on 2006-2010 American Community Survey.”
2017. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/acs-
low-mod-summary-data-local-government/.
SECTION 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). 2016. “Age-Friendly Atlanta Action
Plan 2014-2016.” 2016. https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-
communities/documents-2016/Age-Friendly%20Atlanta%20Action%20Plan.pdf.
California Department of Education. 2018. “Enrollment for Charter and Non-Charter
Schools - San Luis Coastal Unified District (CA Dept of Education).” 2018.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrCharterLevels.aspx?cds=4068809&a
gglevel=district&year=2017-18.
Chief Keith Aggson. 2019. Froom Ranch Specific Plan ADEIR - Fire Protection Services
SectionEmail.
City of Buellton. 2013. “Meritage Senior Living Project Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report.” 2013.
https://www.cityofbuellton.com/files/Environmental%20Documents/0629B-
Meritage%20Senior%20Living%20Project%20FEIR%20Vol%20I.pdf.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 7-11
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
City of Los Angeles. 2003. “Draft Master Environmental Impact Report for Corbin and
Nordhoff Redevelopment Project.” 2003.
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/Corbin_Nordhoff/MEIR/index.htm.
———. 2008. “La Cienega Eldercare Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact
Report.” 2008.
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CienegaElderCare/DEIR/DEIR%20Sections/IV.L.
%20Recreation.pdf.
City of Sacramento. 2016. “Sacramento Senior Living [P15-041].” 2016.
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-
/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/Environmental-Impact-
Reports/RevisedSacSeniorLiving_DraftISMND_050416.pdf?la=en.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2018. “Fire Department Summary.” 2018.
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/fire-department.
———. 2019. “San Luis Obispo Parks + Recreation Master Plan Community Needs
Assessment.”
City of San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD). 2017. “San Luis Obispo Police
Annual Report 2016.” 2017.
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=16481.
———. 2018. “About the Department | City of San Luis Obispo, CA.” 2018.
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/police-
department/about-the-department.
County of Monterey. 2018. “Monterey County, CA : River View at Las Palmas Assisted
Living Senior Facility.” 2018.
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-i-z/resource-
management-agency-rma-/planning/current-major-projects/river-view-at-las-
palmas-assisted-living-senior-facility.
Governing. 2016. “FBI’s Uniform Crime Report Data.” 2016.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-officers-per-capita-
rates-employment-for-city-departments.html.
Personal Communication With SLOFD Fire Chief. 2018. “Phone Call with SLOFD Fire
Chief Garret Olson.”
Personal Communication with SLOPD Watch Officer. 2018. “Phone Call with Jeff
Booth, Sergeant with the Police Department - August 1, 2018.”
San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD). 2015. “San Luis Coastal Unified
School District Enrollment Projections Capacity Analysis 2014/15 Update.”
7-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
———. 2018. “Developer Fees.” 2018. http://www.slcusd.org/department-
page.php?id=38.
———. 2019. “San Luis Coastal USD SchoolSite Locator.” SchoolSite Locator. 2019.
http://apps.schoolsitelocator.com/?districtcode=00200.
Town of Windham. 2008. “Impact Fees for Public Facilities.”
http://www.nhctap.com/documents/ctap/products/Windham/Impact%20Fee%20St
udy%20for%20Safety%20Facilities.pdf.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2018. “Healthy Aging.” 2018.
https://www.hhs.gov/aging/healthy-aging/index.html#active.
SECTION 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Caltrans. 2002. “Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.”
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/guide_preparation_traffic_impact_studies_caltrans.pdf.
Transportation Research Board. 2010. “Highway Capacity Manual.”
SECTION 3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2016. “National Transportation Statistics | Bureau of
Transportation Statistics.” 2016.
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_trans
portation_statistics/index.html#chapter_4.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2013a.
“Commercial Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.” 2013.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Commercial.htm.
———. 2013b. “Residential Developments: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.”
2013. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Residential.htm.
———. 2013c. “Service Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.” 2013.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Service.htm.
———. 2018. “Solid Waste Facility Listing/Details Page - Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc.
(40-AA-0004).” 2018. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/40-
AA-0004/Detail/.
———. 2019a. “Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion /
Disposal Progress Report.” 2019.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DiversionDisposal.
———. 2019b. “SWIS Facility/Site Search.” 2019.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/40-AA-0004/Index.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 7-13
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
Caltrans. 2016. “San Luis Obispo County Transportation Quick Facts.”
———. 2017. “California Transportation Quick Facts - 2017.”
http://www.dot.ca.gov/drisi/library/qf/qf2017.pdf.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015. “California’s Major Sources of Energy.”
2015. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_sources.html.
———. 2018. “California Energy Consumption Database.” California Energy
Commission. 2018. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/.
———. 2019a. “California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics.” 2019.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/.
———. 2019b. “Energy Consumption Database - Electricity Consumption (GWh) and
Natural Gas Consumption (Millions of Therms).” 2019.
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/.
———. 2019c. “Total System Electric Generation.” 2019.
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. “Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).” 2010.
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6369.
———. 2012. “Climate Action Plan 2012 - Resolution No. 10388 - Community
Development Department.” 2012.
http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/SLO_CAP_WEb.pdf.
———. 2014a. “Background Report: Circulation.”
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6737.
———. 2014b. “Land Use and Circulation Elements Update EIR.”
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6723.
———. 2014c. “Sewer System Management Plan Update.” 2014.
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6347.
———. 2015b. “Final WRRF Facilities Plan.” 2015.
http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink8/1/doc/43362/Page1.aspx.
———. 2015c. “Waste Resources Recovery Facility Project Final EIR.”
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=10532.
———. 2015d. “Water Master Plan.”
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6439.
———. 2016a. “2015 Urban Water Management Plan.” 2016.
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=13618.
7-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
———. 2016b. “2015 Water Resources Status Report.”
———. 2016c. “Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and 2016 Amendments to
Water and Wastewater Management Element.” 2016.
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=9995.
———. 2017a. “2017 Water Resources Status Report - For the Time Period October 1,
2016 through September 30, 2017.” 2017.
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=17651.
———. 2017b. “Avila Ranch Final EIR.” 2017.
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/avila-ranch-
final-eir.
———. 2017c. “Recylced Water Master Plan.”
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=14955.
———. 2018a. “2018 Water Resources Status Report.”
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=22442.
———. 2018b. “Garbage & Recycling - Solid Waste Disposal.” 2018.
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-
department/garbage-recycling/solid-waste.
———. 2018c. “General Plan - Water and Wastewater Management Element.” 2018.
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=22356.
———. 2018d. “Water Sources.” 2018. http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/utilities-department/water/water-sources.
———. 2019a. “2019 Sewer System Management Plan Update.”
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6347.
———. 2019b. “Draft 2016 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update.”
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=23298.
———. 2019c. “Inflow and Infiltration.” 2019.
https://form.jotformpro.com/63327044468963.
———. 2019d. “Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project.” May 8, 2019.
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-
department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment/wrrf-upgrade-project.
Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP). 2019. “Monterey Bay Community Power
2018 Power Content Label.” https://www.mbcommunitypower.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/MBCP-2018-PCL_MBchoice-and-MBprime.pdf.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 7-15
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
Personal Communication with Jennifer Metz, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities
Department. 2019. “Email communication with Jennifer Metz, City of San Luis
Obispo.”
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2018a. “PG&E 2017 Power Content.”
———. 2018b. “PG&E Overview.” Pacific Gas and Electric Company - PG&E Overview.
2018.
http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2015/bu01_pge_overview.jsp.
SLOCOG. 2010. “SB 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Target-
Setting Report for the San Luis Obispo Region.”
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/mpo/slocog/slocogreport52110.pdf.
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2019. “Company Profile | SoCalGas.”
Southern California Gas Company - Company Profile. 2019.
https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2019a. “QuickFacts: California.” 2019.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ca.
———. 2019b. “San Luis Obispo City California QuickFacts from the US Census
Bureau.” 2019. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA.
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2015. “Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure
Renewal Strategy.” 2015. http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6504.
SECTION 3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES
California Department of Conservation. 1989. “Special Report 162 - Mineral Land
Classification: Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate and Active Mines of All
Other Mineral Commodities in the San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara Production-
Consumption Region.”
———. 2017a. “2017 Mining Operation Annual Report for CA Mine ID # 91-40-0024.”
———. 2017. “Mines Online Interactive Web Map.”
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html.
———. 2017b. “SMGB Designation Report No. 15 - State Mining and Geology Board
Designation of Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources in the San Luis
Obispo-Santa Barbara Production-Consumption Region.”
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/reports/Documents/Designation_Reports/
Designation-Report-15-SLO-SB.pdf.
California Geological Survey. 2011. “Update of Mineral Land Classification: Concrete
Aggregate in the San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara Production-Consumption
Region, California.”
7-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Draft EIR
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
City of San Luis Obispo. 2006. “General Plan - Conservation and Open Space Element.”
Cody Scheel, San Luis Obispo County Planner. 2019. Phone Call with Cody Scheel, San
Luis Obispo County Planner County Planner.
County of San Luis Obispo. 2010. “Conservation and Open Space Element.”
FirstCarbon Solutions, and Chattel, Inc. 2017. “Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic
Resource Assessment. Revised.”
SECTION 5.0 ALTERNATIVES
SLO County ALUC. 2005. Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport.
——. 2014. Airport Land Use Commission Agenda Item 1 July 16, 2014.
Central Coast Transportation Consulting. 2016. Avila Ranch Draft Transportation Impact
Study.
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 7-17
Draft EIR
www.woodplc.com
Wood Environment &
Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A
San Luis Obispo, California 93101