HomeMy WebLinkAboutSierra Club_Froom Ranch DEIR1
Scott, Shawna
From:Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
Sent:Monday, December 23, 2019 4:30 PM
To:Scott, Shawna
Subject:Comments of the Sierra Club on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Froom Ranch Specific
Plan
Dec. 23, 2019
Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
Community Development Dept.
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Ms. Scott,
We are herewith submitting the comments of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. As the time frame and length of time allotted
for public review of this document was less than ideal in view of its size, this represents essentially a
preliminary response based on an initial review.
In summary, we are aware that the Froom Ranch proposal is being marketed as a vitally needed senior
housing/assisted living project, but San Luis Obispo is also in vital need of the ecological services provided by
wetlands, native grassland, and mature trees, as well as prime agricultural soils and habitat that should be
permanently set aside for sensitive species. It is unfortunate that the proposed site, scope and design of the
development is such that these two needs have been pitted against each other.
We commend the applicant’s decision to keep the project’s footprint below the 150-foot elevation line, but note
that this elevation is still exceeded at the quarry area. The City’s General Plan is clear: all new development in
the Irish Hills must stay below 150 feet, reaffirmed by the City Council’s 2016 “actionable alternative”
requirement for this proposal. Any development above this level would require an amendment to the General
Plan.
Beyond this issue, the most serious issues presented by the project in terms of impact on biological resources
are apparent on page 3.4-37 in Table 3.4-6, the Summary of Project Impacts. Even with all proposed mitigation
measures in place and implemented, impacts to sensitive and special status species, state and federally protected
wetlands, wildlife corridors, and riparian, wetland, and native grassland habitats protected by state and City
policy would remain “Significant and unavoidable.”
Virtually all the proposed impact mitigation measures can be summed up as “We will come up with a plan:”
MM-BIO1: “The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that
identifies both construction and operational related avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measures…”
2
MM-BIO2: “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.”
MM-BIO3: “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”
MM-BIO6: “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.”
and so on. The public cannot see, comment on, or evaluate the efficacy of mitigation measures to be included
in plans to be drafted and approved after the EIR has been certified. While this omission must be rectified, we
are able to note and comment on the Draft EIR's confidence in and heavy reliance on environmental restoration
as a mitigation measure, a confidence which is belied by the well-documented failure rates of restoration
projects.
As noted by the draft EIR, the re-channeling and revegetation of Froom Creek is particularly fraught, stating
successful establishment of a riparian woodland and, more importantly, its long-term survival may be
challenging," and "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” (3.4-41). The level of uncertainty expressed in the EIR for
the success of this proposed mitigation measure is not permissible under CEQA. The lack of information on the
nature and function of the creek ecosystem and proposed woodland and how each will be maintained, and the
lack of data on the potential impact of the creek’s diversion on grassland vegetation, the Calle Joaquin wetland,
flooding and groundwater diversion must be remedied in the Final EIR.
The requirement that “Temporary wetland, native grassland, and riparian habitat impacts shall be mitigated at a
minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio” (MM BIO-5) will result in a net loss of onsite habitat if any of the offsite options
offered by MM BIO-4 are selected, as onsite mitigation will occur only “if feasible onsite restoration
opportunities exist and at ratios consistent with those identified in MM BIO-5.” An onsite net loss will also
occur if the mitigation options of “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) purchase of mitigation
credits at a USFWS- and/or CDFW-approved mitigation bank” are selected in lieu of 1:1 mitigation of impacts
to sensitive natural communities.
As we pointed out in our comments on the Notice of Preparation, when a Specific Plan/General Plan
amendment is proposed, the Project objectives should be stated in terms of development options within the
range of intensity of the residential and commercial development called out in the Land Use Element, not just
the high end of that range. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require analysis of only the
project design that will assure the maximum level of residential and commercial development allowed in the
General Plan and dismissal of any alternative of reduced scale as infeasible solely because the scale is reduced.
We urge the City not to take the position that Project objectives serve as a bar to the analysis of scaled-back
alternatives, nor maintain that a Project alternative may not be considered unless it meets all of the Project
objectives.
Thank you for your attention to these issues,
Andrew Christie, Director
Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter
P.O. Box 15755
3
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
805) 543-8717