HomeMy WebLinkAboutCNPS_Havlik_Froom Ranch DEIRCALIFORNIA
NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
December 23, 2019
Ms. Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
CITY OF SAN LUIS Ooi l"'U "
DEC 2·. 2019
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RE: Response to DraftEnvironmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Proposed Froom Ranch
Specific Plan at Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road, SanLuis Obispo.
Dear Ms. Scott:
The San Luis Obispo County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society wishes to
respond to the above captioned DraftEnvironmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed
Froom Ranch Specific Plan at Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road in the City of SanLuis
Obispo.
On the whole we findthe DEIR to be thorough and incisive, speaking very strongly to
changes in the project to reduce its environmental impacts. In some areas, however, we are
unclear about mitigation measures and their effects, and in one instance (the agricultural
conservation easement) we believe the DEIR overlooked some very important information.
We note that the project sponsors have publicly announced that they are no longer
seeking to develop that part of the Villaggio complex that would lie above the 150 footelevation,
at the so-called "terrace". We welcome this change; it will significantly reduce the
environmental impact of the project and presumably reduce mitigation requirements and other
costs. However, we continue to have significant concernsabout other aspects of this project and
offer the following comments on the DEIR.
Remaining development above the 150/oot level The City's General Plan requires that
new development in the Irish Hills stay below the 150 footelevation line. The original project
proposal ignored that restriction and proposed extension well above that line in two areas of the
property. Again we note that the project sponsors have eliminated development above that
elevation at the plateau or "terrace". However, the project still proposes to go above that
elevation at an area which as been referred to as the quarry or storage area.
The factthat the storage area is currently of limited natural resource value, or that is was
once a quarry, is irrelevant to City planning. The site can be easily converted to park use, as a
trailhead and neighborhood park, and as a superior location foran historic park preserving the
historic buildings of the Froom Ranch. Public use such as this is a justification fordevelopment
above the 150 footelevation in that location, while a private apartment complex that can just as
easily be developed below that elevation, is not. Such action is recommended in the DEIR. Even
if it is determined that the historic district be located closer to LOVR, it is still desirable that the
Profecfi11J CaH{ornia 's native (forasince I965
2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816-5113 • Tel: (916) 447-2677 • www.cnps.org
neighborhood park and trailhead be located next to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, from which
point numerous trails into the Reserve diverge. This site also provides an excellent opportunity to
reestablish a natural creek bank and possibly actual water flow by judicious and limited
excavation of the flood plain of Froom Creek as a part of the park.
It must be remembered that the City Council required an "actionable alternative" to the
proposal that was before them in July 2016. This "actionable alternative" was to respect the
environmental protection policies in the General Plan, particularly by restricting all development
below the 150 foot elevation line. This alternative by definition would be the "environmentally
superior" alternative.
Agricultural Impact. Although current agricultural use of the Froom Ranch is limited,
the DEIR appears to have overlooked the importance of a 7 .1 acre agricultural easement on at the
southeastern portion of the site. This easement was created in 2010 to meet requirements of the
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the annexation of the property now
occupied by the Target store. The easement, though voluntary, is subject to the requirements of
Division 10.2, Chapter 6, Sections 10270 through 10277 of the Public Resources Code, which
governs adjustment and termination of conservation easements. We note that certain lands are
proposed to be added to the easement area to maintain the acreage at 7 .1 acres; our concern is
with the 1.6 acres which are proposed to be removed from the easement for a radically different
purpose, at the request of the owner of the burdened property. Conservation easements are
intended to be permanent; therefore, any such removal can be of tremendous value to the
property owner, and as such proper compensation is due to the City of San Luis Obispo. This
action could set a dangerous precedent; one that calls into question the City's commitment to
such conservation easements, and it may tempt other property owners to seek adjustments to
their easements for similar purposes. That could result in a significant environmental impact.
Loss of Wetland Habitat in the Existing DetentionBasins. The existing drainage basins
detaining storm flows from Irish Hills Plaza are proposed to be removed and replaced with a
different, single basin further downstream. The existing basins were established some years ago
and they have become an attractive habitat in their own right.
We have included two photos of the basins taken from the hill about v.imile away. One
photo was taken in May 2016, the other in December 2019. The May 2016 photo shows that the
existing basin can retain water for a long time, as well as allowing the development of wetland
vegetation. This has created a simple but attractive and functional wildlife habitat.
It is not at all certain that the ecological functions that have developed in those basins will
be recreated in the new downstream site. This is because the downstream basin is tied into
Froom Creek, and must be able to empty fairly quickly after a storm in order to be ready to
handle flows from the next storm. Therefore, it is questionable whether the habitat being lost in
the existing basins can be mitigated forin the new single basin. This seems to be a shortcoming
in the DEIR, and calls for further analysis.
Protection of the Oak Woodlands and the "Cove" area. We have taken special note of
mitigation measure MM BI0-13, which calls for a large (300 foot) setback from Froom Creek
and streams 1, 2, and 3 where they come together and then flow into Froom Creek. This site has
been highlighted because of its role as a reliable source of water for wildlife and as a movement
corridor for that wildlife. We support this mitigation measure, and call for the elimination or
relocation of this small, isolated piece of the project. This action would have the additional
benefit of reducing the project's perimeter in an area particularly valuable as wildlife habitat, and
which as a potential wildfire hazard that would require ongoing trimming, mowing, possible
shrub and tree removal, and other management to address that hazard. This change would
eliminate both of those impacts, and consolidate the open space in that area.
Protection of Chorro Creek bog thistle stands. Again we appreciate the project
sponsors' stated intent to not undertake the development at the terrace area shown in the DEIR;
this should leave the Chorro Creek bog thistle populations intact and free from ground
disturbance that could otherwise impact them.
Southern Steelhead and theRealignment of Froom Creek. We believe that discussion
of using the realignment of Froom Creek as a benefit to fish, particularly the threatened southern
steelhead, is problematic. This is because, in order to have a truly "steelhead-friendly" habitat,
the creek must contain water-presumably flowing and cool water-all or most of the year. We
do not think this can be done without excavating down far enough to intercept the local
groundwater. This may in tum lower the groundwater table and negatively affect the Call
Joaquin wetland. Thus, the goals of "fish-friendly" habitat and a healthy wetland may be
incompatible. They are certainly not supportive of one another.
It must be pointed out that none of the smaller streams in our area which are tributary to
San Luis Obispo Creek flow all year throughout their length: They are too small, have too low a
reserve" of groundwater in their upper watersheds, and flow through too long a reach of
permeable alluvium to last very long into the dry season as "live" streams. This is true of
Prefumo Creek, the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek, Dry Creek on the Johnson Ranch, and
Froom Creek itself. Furthermore, on Froom Creek water flow becomes subterranean in the
springtime even before leaving the canyon proper, so making it a season-long or year-long
steelhead stream is not possible without grading work extending at least some distance up Froom
Creek Canyon.
While we support the concept of improving Froom Creek as a fishery, we believe that it
is not feasible to create anything more than a seasonal stream on the rerouted section without
risking damage to the Calle Joaquin wetland by the interception and diversion of groundwater
there. We therefore request that this matter be further evaluated in the DEIR.
Establishing a Healthy Riparian Woodland on the Rerouted Froom Creek. This is
another major challenge facing the project. We are uncertain as to the actual appearance of the
rerouted creek. It sounds, however, as if the creek will have a levee, and may be armored with
rock rip-rap. This has been one of our fears, and was the primary reason that we objected to the
use of the term "restoration" in regard to this effort. The DEIR needs to discuss the extent and
character of the creek banks in greater detail, so that the appearance, diversity, and ecological
functioning of the planted riparian woodland can be evaluated. We support the concept of a
gallery forest in the designed flood plain of the creek, but we would like to see more information
on species makeup, distribution, and protection during the establishment period. This was
something we asked for in the NOP and have not seen. (Note: a diverse planting of riparian
species was accomplished in the flood plain of Acacia Creek near Broad Street some years ago,
and we would be happy to share our observations of that successful effort.)
Widening of LOVR as Mitigation. This situation creates an interesting conundrum.
Mitigation measure MM-TRANS-9 calls for the widening ofLOVR on the western side by 35
feet to accommodate an additional lane of vehicle traffic, separated sidewalk and two-way bike
path, including medians. This ''mitigation" will destroy the existing willow woodland along
LOVR and require mitigation for that impact in its own right. We are unsure whether this
strange situation has been properly addressed in the DEIR. We believe that MM TRANS-9 is
overly ambitious, wasteful of space, and lacking any real indication of need. Therefore we
request that the DEIR provide more detail about the fate of this small waterway and its
vegetation, as well as recommending a less intrusive "mitigation" of traffic on LOVR.
Relationship of Froom Creek Realignment to the Cityof San Luis Obispo Creek
Setback Ordinance. While we recognize that the current condition of Froom Creek is degraded,
we believe that the drastic realignment of Froom Creek as proposed is inconsistent with the
City's creek setback ordinance. The creek setback ordinance itself has provisions for
exceptions" to the ordinance, but one of those provisions is that the exception should not be a
grant of special privilege. We are concerned that this realignment in fact may be detrimental to
the creek environment, to flooding potential in the Calle Joaquin area, and to the Calle Joaquin
wetland itself through changes in the groundwater and surface water regimes. It needs to be
clearly demonstrated that this realignment will truly be beneficial, and that such a huge
realignment is justified and not a grant of special privilege.
Finally we remain concerned that this realignment actually converts the creek into a flood
control channel, bounded by levees, which by their nature will be upland sites not conducive to
the establishment of riparian vegetation and will cover and destroy the healthy existing grassland
vegetation and create abundant opportunity for non-native, invasive species to establish there.
The Froom Creek Floodplain and Potential for Flooding. The potential for major
flooding in the project site seems to be understated in the DEIR Dramatic photographs of
several storm events emphasizing this potential are available on various local websites; we have
included one from flooding in 1973. Flood protection would appear to be a tremendously
important consideration, and the steps needed to protect the development and neighboring
properties along Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin need to be studied and addressed. We
are not reassured by the cross-sections showing the flood elevations of the project site being
within 1.1 feet of the level of Calle Joaquin roadway.
We are concerned that the Calle Joaquin wetland (including the so-called "Cutoff
Wetland" on the south side of Calle Joaquin) may end up being damaged or even destroyed by
the hydrologic regime that is being proposed. Specifically, the realigned Froom Creek will by
design overflowinto the Calle Joaquin wetland; in addition, the removal of the detention basins
currently detaining storm flows offof the impervious surfacesat Irish Hills Plaza will contribute
directly to this redirected flowwithout any detention, thus greatly increasing storm flow
volumes. This can have the effectof "drowning" the wetland, possibly even converting it to
open water. Then, by virtue of the realigned Froom Creek channel, it is possible that the water
table will be lowered, thus making the wetland drier in the summertime.
The Calle Joaquin wetland is the lowest elevation in the immediate area and we are
concerned that (1) the changes in amplitude described above will alter the botanical makeup of
the site, turningit (in a worst case) into an area of open water in the wintertime and a mudflat in
the summer. This would constitute a significant loss of biological quality. We are further
concerned that (2) the proposed replacement basin on the Mountainbrook Church property will
by necessity need to empty quickly, thus creating a different character to the basin which may
not be high quality wildlifehabitat.
Finally, we areconcerned that the Calle Joaquin wetland may not even be able to hold all
the water thatwould be discharged into it in a major storm, and thereforethe potential forlocal
flooding may be increased. This is because the current alignment and current levee along Froom
Creek bypasses the Calle Joaquin wetland; therefore the realignment will add a significant new
water flowto the area because the flowsout of the Froom Creek watershed, which currently
bypass the Calle Joaquin wetland, will no longer do so. Also, the discharge fromthe Calle
Joaquin wetland is limited to a single culvert under Calle Joaquin, and this may not be adequate
to properly handle the larger flows.
Groundwater Flow. The DEIR reports that groundwater fromFroom Creek is a major
supplier of the water forthe Calle Joaquin wetland. We have been concernedthat the
realignment of Froom Creek, which would swing offto the east, then cross back to the southwest
to exit the project site at the same point as it does today, will possibly cut into the existing
topography andmay intercept groundwater flow, which will be perpendicular to the direction of
the realigned creek. The project sponsors have given assurances that this is not the case, but we
are not convinced of this and feel that such a claim must be independently verified. Furthermore
as noted above this statement seems incompatible with other goals or objectives of the project,
namely improving the stream forsouthern steelhead trout.
Historic Resources. In our comments on the NOP, we stated the following:
The Froom Ranch buildings have been foundto be of community-wide historical value
by the City's Cultural Heritage Commission, which recommended that they be retained in
their current location if possible. Our view is that the retention and restoration of these
buildings should not be a stand-alone effort, but rather should be done in concert with
other community goals associated with this project. We do not believe that maintaining
the buildings in their current location would result in the most attractive setting forsuch a
facility, and to the degree that they can be moved and repositioned, they should be placed
in an appropriate layout at the current storage area, with the dairy barnforming one side
of the replica historic site (we understand that the dairy barncannot be moved). An
existing berm provides visual and noise separation from nearby activities, which would
result in a more attractive and appropriate setting forthis rural complex. This would be
combined with a trailhead parkand perhaps a creekside trail or walkway describing
restoration efforts that would be undertaken on Froom Creek in that location. In this way
the historic site would support and complement City General Plan policies, by having the
only development above the 150 footelevation be a public amenity."
It can be seen fromthe above comments that, at the time of the NOP, we were of the
understanding that the dairy barncould not be moved; we now understand that the project
proposes to make a replica of the barnin a differentlocation. This creates a totally different
situation than was presented at the time of the NOP; namely, that the barn, in fact, CAN (and
will) be moved. The only thing historic about this "historic area" conservation is the measured
position between the three buildings which are to be retained or replicated. This seems like a
very weak rationale forplacement. The setting will be totally different, with the buildings
surrounded by the Home Depot and other commercial and residential development and with a
busy street right in frontof them. This is hardly the best that could be done in this regard; we
continue to strongly recommend that the buildings be moved to the storage area and repositioned
there in an appropriate fashion as part of an historic park, environmental restoration area that
highlights true restoration of Froom Creek in that area, and a trailhead forthe six trails that lead
into the Irish Hills Natural Reserve fromthis spot or branch offnearby. In this way the historic
site would support and complement City General Plan policies, by having the only development
above the 150 foot elevation be a public amenity. The factthat the dairy barnwill be a replica
only adds to the strength of this recommendation. This is basically what the DEIR recommends
and we support that recommendation.
Alternatives
We support the several alternatives offered in the DEIR as being superior to the proposed
project on grounds of environmental conservation of the project site while still allowing
reasonable development there. We recommend that any City Council approval of the Final EIR
and of the project include the following:
1.Prohibit development above the 150 footelevation at the plateau or terrace. By
upholding the current General Plan, the project's impacts would be significantly reduced.
Looking at the "constraints map" prepared by the project sponsors, one caneasily see how many
constraints coalesce on the plateau. This situation cries outforavoidance, and a development
staying below that elevation will avoid many otherwise significant impacts. We appreciate the
factthat the project sponsors seem to have recognized this and have dropped that portion of the
project fromfurther consideration.
2.Prohibit development other than a possible historic park and trailhead above 150 foot
elevation at the storage area. The current storage area appears from project maps to be at an
elevation of approximately 160 feet. The project sponsors propose to fill this area with
apartments of unknown floor or roof elevations. We believe that a more appropriate approach in
this location would be to relocate the historic buildings of the Froom Ranch in order to create a
replica of the original site.
3.Eliminate or relocate development in the "cove" area, identified in the DEIR as a
sensitive habitat and important wildlife movement corridor, and preserve that area as an addition
to Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
4.Provide reasonable proof that the realignment ofFroom Creek will be truly beneficial
and will not have the drawbacks or dangers alluded to in the DEIR and in our correspondence on
the matter. This includes increased flood potential, continuing questions about the success of
revegetation efforts, and possible incompatible aims regarding fish habitat and groundwater.
5.Provide reasonable proof that the relocation of the detention basins will not diminish
the wildlife habitat values currently being provided by the existing basins, and will not
exacerbate the flood risk to the developed properties along Calle Joaquin.
6.Provide compensatory dedication of open space area to justify the removal of acreage
from the agricultural conservation easement for development. The change must be clearly and
unequivocally an improvement over the current easement. We suggest that the dedication of
lands above the 150 foot elevation, plus the "cove" area, to the City for addition to Irish Hills
Natural Reserve, while adding those lands to the existing conservation easement at Irish Hills
Natural Reserve held by the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, and expanding the
agricultural conservation easement as proposed, might meet this test.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the DEIR.
Sincerely, ·!)
A
Neil Havlik, PhD.
California Native Plant Society, San Luis Obispo County Chapter
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405