The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBates 12606-13635 - FroomRanchFEIR_compiledPart 1_ f ♦ ♦ OO • ��a 4 �i�� r i� . - `*. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2017071033 luly 2020 '� y� �_ . � �� `` �'��° �� ;��.' �k� ' r�F�� - . � � �� -�-.,� : .. _ �-z ;,,x-` , . � � +s�� -� c,,y."' , a� ,� ,y y- ,,. . �� , '�.�w r — ` '"�� , , _ , '4i�" ,r �'��+_r� . - _ Y . . . � . �� '�`�'`�' ' �r•, � ��'� � `�5�1� ]f��r ,'�t � ��y . I � �,' ;:�- _,. :J ' 1tjA � x 1 ' , . .. ��:`^� „ �- ,� '� �i �:�� .r>,- " .-�A�:. .. n: - . , _ ,. . . :r . ` .s.� ., N�A` �� ` _ „ r f � Yr ^ gs-��. v,r��i;., - rn , ,� � 1� � l - '. �± - �3,� �n�Y�yk�� '�` f . �� Li'�K t �is,F i j 1 �S � n 5f� �� ( 5��6,� . ,. ',� �� Y ., .��14SA�y,ti��`�' �,t��Y��`��r �I�i �1�� f��ir� r ��{�*�r.f r.{,��i ' w Wwl �. t�.y� � �i`��a' ."h r� if5 ��;, �f ., �. ,��4 N _� ir �. i �aF�'��' ,� 1"! ��1�r, � y'� � t''�tr�i�� ,3 b� ,��,t� r 4 vv � '3i>pl; �t �`� r} y e ��aC.� 6�-.Y �c 3ti� n � ,. r-... � r r v 1�J' �'�' � � Y ]� r 9� .�'-� y. -1 ,��"`�� t�y -..��.�„�, -:: n'�� . � � nb•�nn"s ' y � s�" �+r��1 !��'�� i.�, ; �� P� �.k�,7 q � �I y� � _.,� r i p �' q A ,�, p �. ri � �. n i ! �`T{. � j.,,. � �,s �l!d"��' c�9 �'Sa:. � --.'h u .�1 �`/i��,� -��'�� .�,�!f��f, 'r� y,_r±r�. �4� i ,i�a � � i� ��g; �g x �� , �, �i�� i . � ADX493'f�1`� y��lL�_r7 , 1 �,''; ., r k � �;� �� + �� t ��.`��'��'°tP 3$ -�1 � �afi 1. 1 d�a.: ;"`- � �.��` , � _ � , � � � � � .�� . .�. ; � ,p: �!. �` i .,� ��°� �.�, � � `� +�u� ;�;� �j. . � >�� f rt�. y,•�� S �_ � � ;�.. _ . ." k� .. I� ., g � -` e .--i.."�" �' a �.�-- �i_L � s�w�n �i 3' �4'. �:.�_ ,�„i �4�-4S14.S �. k�L fk�, 'h 4 � �M:� -�zaw� `� 9 � ;��kA;- _1�.. l�� .. '�4w+:_ ..t` ..� ' - � ' �`'$::'- - ..�� _ . �� ..,w. �� .'ri�'� _ �3' ':�, i ".. .::, . - GaL,� a�- . ..�` _, . . .. �g , �..�!..:.d.�,�, . ...a. . .� . _. � . . .. . . � ' . . . �AfT��..�� _v1 . Prepared for: Prepared by: City of San Luis Obispo Wood Environment& Community Services Department Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 919 Palm Street 104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A 12606 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 San Luis Obispo, California 93101 12607 w�a . STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2017071033 FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 PREPARED BY: Wood Environment&Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204-A Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Contact: Dan Gira 805.962.0992 July 2020 12608 Wood Environment&Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. July 2020. Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, CA. 12609 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 5pecific Plan ES-1 Final EIR 12610 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�red rock quarry in the northwestern portion used for construction materials storage and temporary stockpiling. 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 Final EIR 12611 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 I� —a significant impact that can be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation; 3. Less Than Significant (Class II� — 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 I� — 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(�(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 5pecific Plan ES-3 Final EIR 12612 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 an eli_i�ble 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 ofprojectedpopulation growth,•��'��^'�*r��, ^ra ��'�;^'� m;'�� +r^�,�'�a. Implementation of the Project and associate net increases in ES-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12613 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. Biolo�ical Resources The Proj ect 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 andlor exceedance of intersection capacities, resulting in poor levels of service for automobiles, pedestrians and bicycle modes of transportation. More specifically, Project Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan ES-5 Final EIR 12614 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 Final EIR 12615 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts � � . , , � � • � , 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources VIS-1.Project implementation would change views MM VIS-1 The Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan shall be revised to include Less than Significant of scenic resources,including hillsides,rock the following Landscape Screening Guidelines to provide effective screening With Mitigation outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings, ofproposed structural massing as experienced from public views along LOVR from an eli �g�b1e State Scenic Highway or local and the LOVR Overpass. The Project landscape plan shall be prepared by a � scenic roadway. qualified landscape architect and include the following: 1_Ma�imize protection of existing vegetation along the Project site boundary to provide visual screening during Project constr�uction and operation. �z. Retain existing ve�etation f'�^ontin�the Pro7ect site alon�LOVR to the greatest extent feasible to screen construction activities. �3_Spec�a plantpalette and landscape plan that ensure a vegetated site boundary of sufficient height and densiry to provide visual screening of the proposed development from public views. Robust riparian planting shall be included in landscape plans to achieve visual screenin,=�g the proposed realigned Froom Creek. �4_Native tree specimens and shr�ubs capable of reaching or exceeding the heights of the adjacent proposed structures shall be planted along Project site boundaries visible from public views. �5_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 str�uctures within the Project site. �6. 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. �7. 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. �8. A bond for screening landscaping and irrigation shall be provided to ensure establishment of plantings. The bond shall be revoked upon N satisfactory establishment of screen planting vegetation according to °' the plan. rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-7 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , Repuirements 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,outside of buildin sg ites shall be in place priar to issuance of building permits for each phase of the Project. � Landscape plantin�s, including irrigation, within buildin,gs sites shall be in place prior to occupancy for each phase. 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. Monitorin�.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 MM VIS-1 The Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan shall be revised to include Significant and existing visual character of the site by changing a the following Landscape Screening Guidelines to provide effective screening Unavoidable rural setting to a commercial and residential setting, ofproposed structural massing as experienced from public views along LOVR particularly as viewed from the Irish Hills Natural and the LOVR Overpass. The Project landscape plan shall be prepared by a Reserve trail system. qualified landscape architect and include the following: 1. Maximize protection of existing vegetation along the Project site boundary to provide visual screening during Project constr�uction and operation. �z. Retain existinQ ve�etation frontin�the Proiect site alon�LOVR to the greatest extent feasible to screen construction activities. �3_Spec�a plantpalette and landscape plan that ensure a vegetated site boundary of su�cient height and density to provide visual screening of the proposed development fi�om public views. Robust riparian planting shall be included in landscape plans to achieve visual screening along the proposed realigned Froom Creek. �4_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 puhlic views. �5_Screening planting specimen selection and location shall emphasize the N abiliry to interr�upt the contiguous massing of structures as experienced rn V ES-8 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � from area roadways and scenic vistas. Spacing shall be sufficient to minimize views of sh^uctures within the Project site. �6. 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. �7. Native tree specimens capable of reaching or exceeding the heights of adjacent structures shall be planted adjacent to multi family and commercial str�uctures located within the interior of the Specific Plan area consistent with the specifications above. �8. A bond for screening landscaping and irrigation shall be provided to ensure establishinent 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 Ciry Community Development Department prior to vesting tract map recordation. Landscape plantings,including irrigation,outside of buildin sg ites shall be in � place prior to issuance of building permits for each phase of the Project. Landscape plantings, including irri�ation, within buildings sites shall be in I nlace priar to occupancv for each phase. 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 None required. Less than Significant nighttime light,impacting the quality of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light. N � � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-9 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � � . , , � � • � , 3.2 Agricultural Resources AG-1. The Project would convert onsite Farmland of None required. Less than Significant Local Potential and prime soils if irrigated to non- agricultural uses. AG-2. Implementation of the Project would create None required. Less than Significant potential conflicts with existing agricultural zoning. AG-3. The Project would adjust the boundary of an None required. Less than Significant existing open space and agricultural conservation easement to a location that would reduce the viability of agricultural operations within the recorded easement. 3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions AQ-1. The Project would result in potentially MM AQ-I A Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP) shall be Less than Significant significant construction-related emissions,including included as part of Project grading and building plans and shall be submitted with Mitigarion dust and air pollutant emissions. to SLO Counry APCD and to the Ciry for review and approval prior to the start of constr�uction. 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 t�ucks 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 1 S 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 arnount 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 � ES-10 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 inonth 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; • T�ehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed I S 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 fi^eeboard in accordance with California llehicle 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 tr�ack-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, rurrcble strips or steel plate devices shall be cleaned periodically. If paved roadways accumulate tracked-outsoils, 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 N O Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-11 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , complaints,reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opaciry,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 constr�uction 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 ininimize diesel emissions: • Maintain all construction eguipment 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-dury trucks that meet the CARB's 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-dury 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) inay 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,- N � N ES-12 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , • 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); S. 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 C�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 far 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 T�olatile Organic Compound(VOC)-emission paint shall be N 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, Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-13 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 Counry 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�4n-If reguired, 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 �maV provide appropriate funding necessary to offset the Project's residual construction-related ROG+NOx emissions beyond SLO County APCD's daily threshold; in the event fundin ig s required, it shall be provided at least two months prior to the start of construction to help facilitate emission offsets that are as real-time as possible. £�s�If required, 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 Projectphase. 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; N � N W ES-14 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , • Purchase Verified Diesel Emission Contr�ol 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 mitigarion strategy to SLO Counry APCD for review and to the Ciry for approval at least three months priar to the issuance of grading permits for Phase 1 construcrion. The Applicant shall provide any necessary funding to SLO Counry APCD at least two months priar to the start of construction. Monitoring.SLO Counry 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 � � reviewed by the City and SLO County APCD and a�proved bv the Cit�prior to implementation. City and SLO County APCD staff shall monitor proposed improvements to ensure compliance. AQ-2. The Project would result in potentially MM AQ-4 Consistent with standard mitigation measures set forth by SLO Significant and significant long-term operational emissions. County APCD, Projects generating more than 50 lbs/day of combined ROG Unavoidable + NOx shall implement all feasible measures within Table 3-S 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 Counry 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 fmal VTM prior to recordation. City staff shall ensure the above measures are incorporated into the FRSP, final VTM, and building plans priar to permit issuance. Monitorin�. 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. AQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions or naturally None Required. Less than Significant � occurring asbestos during construction of the Project N A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-15 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , could expose sensitive receptors to emissions-related health risks. AQ-4. The Project would be consistent with the MM AQ-5 The Applicant shall revise the Draft FRSP to include measures Significant and City's Climate Action Plan,but would result in necessary to reduce Project operational stationary-source GHG emissions to Unavoidable potentially significant GHG emissions during achieve net zero emissions, consistent with the City's 2035 net-zero GHG construction and operation which would be emissions target. These measures shall include Best Available Mitigation inconsistent with other state and local goals for strategies for reducing operational emissions, including but not limited to the reducing GHG emissions. following: • Electricitv shall be the onlv ener�v source for the entiretv of Proiect operations including but not limited to space conditioning, water heatinQ, illumination, cookin�appliances, and plug loads (exemptions to this requirement shall be limited to a�pliances in commercial kitchens, emer,gencv backup Qenerators, and medical end-uses that have no viable electric alternative). • 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 ofgrid 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 fi^om renewable or carbon fi^ee sources.As a first priority, carbon- free sourced energy shall be purchased fi^om 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. At a minimum, for nonresidential, mixed-use, and mid-rise residential buildin�s, a solar photovoltaic svstem shall,fill the entirety of the Solar Zone (as defined in Section I10.10 and specified in.Toint A�pendix JA1 of the 2019 California Ener�y Code). This rec�uireinent shall not a�plv to historic structures within the Froom Ranch Dai� Complex to be relocated to the proposed trailhead park. • All proposed commercial and health care facilities shall exceed the � minimum standards of Title 24, Part 11 (Cal Green)by adopting all or N � ES-16 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � some elements of Cal Green Tier 1 and/or 2 voluntary elective � ineasures to increase energy e�ciency in new buildings, remodels and additions. These measures shall prioritize upgrading lighting (e.g., using light-emitting diode[LEDJ lights), heating and cooling systems, appliances, equipment and control systems to be more energy e�cient. This requirementshall not a�lv to historic structures within the Froom Ranch Dairv Complex to be relocated to the proposed trailhead park. 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. Monitorin�. 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. MMAQ-6 The Applicantshall 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 developmentparticipate in the San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare program. • Senior Shuttle Service: Villaggio shall provide clean f'uel shuttle services and shall provide su�ficient onsite electric vehicle char�inQ inf�^astructure to su�port the services. Electric vehicle charging inf�'astructure included to meet requirements for personal vehicles may not be used to fulfill this requirement�� a��'�� ' � ��:,��-�'�,�''� �dlEc�S-blEi�in-n:,,,l�'��te�-ci�•":,•^ /'.,I C'7„+�7„ �l£lc N E,,,h�-v-cci'�5�2"'t�ccrii�S2=�vic^-c^�v�Y2�Ec'�ac'-'Fccr� .,� s7„ 7;77,,,.,.;,, 7;f� � ('r,,,,,.,,,�,,,�;+. D1,,,� N • � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-17 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � � . . , � � • � , • All Electric Small T�ehicles: The FRSP shall require all personal small vehicles(e.g.,golf carts)be 100 percent electr^ic powered. I • : . . . �,,,��,��,,,�;,,, pi,.,. ,.,�,� nq,.,�,.N,�,. z�,,,,,,N. u,.,�„i ,. • Promote Carpools, Tlanpools, and Electi^ic Vehicle (EV) Ttehicles: Provide dedicated parking for carpools, vanpools, and high-e�ciency vehicles in exceedance of Cal Green Tier 2 standards. � � nrr:.;�„ cv r,�r,,. �,,,.,,.; rar,.,�,,.;�i rrn�,.�,,.., n n�n f,. ,,..� ,.a.. �.��a 4�� {�Ti'TJ i.�r�T �4r4�� f�� T��.4 4��/�:f.• Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall include all feasible Best � Management Strategies as part of the final FRSP ��a �'��' �'"''"'�. 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 as vehicles are the largest source of operational emissions, noting that vehicle emissions are re�ulated on a state and federal level. City and SLO County APCD staff shall ensure the above measures are incorparated into the FRSP ^�a ��^' �'T"� prior to recordation. � Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are listed on the final �'� FRSP submitted for review and approval by the City. City and SLO County APCD staff shall wark 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 MMAQ-2 To reduce ROG and NOX levels during the architectural coating Significant and SLO County APCD's Clean Air Plan. phase, low or no T�olatile Organic Compound(VOC)-emission paint shall be Unavoidable 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 activiry 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 Ciry and SLO County APCD for review and approvaL Measures shall be indicated on all building and construcrion plans and submitted to SLO Counry APCD and to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of the final VTM. � Monitorin�. City shall verify measures with the Applicant and SLO County � APCD. City staff shall ensure measures are depicted on all building and ES-18 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , construction plans. City building inspectors shall perform site inspections to ensure compliance. MM AQ-4 Consistent with standard mitigation measures set forth bv SLO Countv APCD, Proiects generating more than 50 lbs/dav of combined ROG + NOx shall implement all feasible measures within Table 3-S of the Air Qualitv Handbook. The following miti�ation measures shall applv to the Project(Table 3.3-9� Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall include the miti�ation measures in Table 3-5 of the 2012 SLO County APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook(as amended bv 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 miti�ation measures shall be included in the FRSP prior to a�roval 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 a�proval by the City. City staff shall wark with the A�plicant to ensure that these strategies are implemented. The City shall conduct periodic site visits to ensure compliance,in consultation with the SLO County APCD. MM TRANS-5 The Proiect A�licant shall pav a fair share mitiQation fee towards bicvcle improvements atSouth Hi�uera/TankFarm to be constructed bv the Avila Ranch development, which include extendin�the westbound bike lane on Tank Parm Road to the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road intersection and installation o,f a bike box (with loop detection) to,facilitate bicvcle left-turn movements. Fair share contribution is satisfied through participation in the Cit7�wide Ti^ansportation Impact Fee pro rg am• If the planned bic cly e improvements have not yet been completed prior to development of the Villag�io Lower Area, the A�licant shall be responsible or desi�n and installation of the bic cv le improvements. ..�,. ,.��;t,,,�,,,� f..,.r,a., � ,�.� .,+� N � N � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-19 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of buildin�permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements throu_gh pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. If the planned improvements have not yet been completed by others prior to issuance of first building�ermits for Villa,ggio's Lower Area development, the A�plicant shall be responsible for desi�n and installation of the bicycle improvements prior to first occupancy permits far the Villa,ggio Lower Area development.��-:�r +� �r�a;„� ��a ,,,-,l.,r;,,«„FtL.o fi«..1�7TT�T C,-�lo..ol,,,..�.o,,.t,.F�7:11.,,...:,.�� i ,. .- A,-o., tL.o 0 0 ��i�«��;��,.,,l..r.;r D„1.1;C�icic��i� D��1�WW—unci ..,1 l.. �L.v�'':r.. T.Y.,.lo,v.o.��.,�;,,.. �L...11 l.o,. ,.lo�v,a.� ,-�,.�L.o; .,F.. ,.o.-t;C,,.,.ro „F,.,.,.,,...,..,...,.,-1.,,:1,�1;«..,,. .-...;�� F,-\/:11......:,.�� T ,. .- A,-o.. ,70.,01..,�.,v.o«.♦ TF:,�...,-,,.o ..�� .. .�.lo�o,] � .-1..,,,�l.o,-� �L.o A,�..�.1:,..,,�.♦ .l.o.- �:1-.lo F.-., F;.-�1..,.-o ,. ,,.�.-:1.,,�;,,.. .. ,-�.. ; � „Fl.,,;1,7;..,. .v.:�� F,-� :11.,....:,.��T„ ,- A,-o., .lo.,ol..v.,v.o,�.� Monitoring. The Ciry 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 Ciry. 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. Some�aps in phvsical separation mav remain due to ri�ht-of-wav limitations or other desi�n constraints.n,�;��*; �;�'� �,��;,� �'�,�� ,�'-;�°,�;�,� +.,..,.,a.. ,.t� ..*.. Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior*��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�first certificates of occupancy ^r'��'a��-„��*� for Villaggio's Lower Area development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project's proportional share may be eligible � for F��r�a�*� � �m'��r��m��*�private reimbursement. Monitorin�. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the �I improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans� ..�.-;1.,,�0� ., .,�o F;,-�L..,.-o., ,v,]1...�l,o l�;t.. N � N � ES-20 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , MM TRANS-9 The ProjectApplicant 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 .Toaguin. 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. This miti�ation measure requires Caltrans a�proval and coordination for improvements near the LOVR/U.S. 101 interchange. If Class IV bikewavs are not a�roved for se�ments within Caltrans riQht-of-wav. or are deemed infeasible for short se�ments due to other �eometric constraints, alternative treatments to improve pedestrian levels of service mav be a�proved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Potential alternative treatments include installation o,f striped bike lane bu,ffers,street trees or other features that further bu,�fer pedestrians fi^om streettra�fic.T�„ n,,,.;,,.,.; �;�.�„�, ,.n�.,.,.,t..,.,�,..,,a+., . �..fi,,.,�:.,,� ,.� ,.,�„ ,,,,a;,�,.*;,,,� �, ,.+„,. , rnvuirr r �n� „�+,,,,,,i,.N,.,, Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to^~��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�first certificates of occupancy ^r'��'a��-„�-��*� for Villaggio's Lower Area development. A�plicable construction costs for improvements alon�LOVR between Calle Joaquin and Froom Ranch Wav consistent with the planned Bob Jones Trail (Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire)Connection Project ma, b�gible for credits or reimbursement throu,gh the City's Transportation Impact Fee program. Costs exceeding the Project's proportional share for improvements alon,� other se�ments may be eligible for private reimbursement on1�R:� «r,...�a�o 0.7:«.'�L.o D,-..;o..��.,. ...-a:..«..1 .,L...,-o.�. l.o ol;..:l.lo F.-F o,..-e,l:r� „ ,�.1....-..o.v.o«t� Monitorin�. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans--e� ..r.-:L.,,�o� .. ..ro F;,-�1...,-o., .o,�l 1...�L.o�'':r.. MM TRANS-10 The Project A�licant shall pa�fair share miti�ation fees towards Madonna Road improvements to be const�^ucted bv the San Luis N g; Ranch development, which include installation o,f a Class I Multi-Use Path 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-21 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , parallel to Madonna Road between Oceanaire Drive and the U.S. 101 southbound ramps intersection. This project is in construction currentiv.Fair share contributions are satisfied through participation in the Citvwide Transportation Impact Fee pro r�'''�� n,��;��* ^„„';��,�*�'�" a,,..;,.,� ,,,�a Li-cS-�"I�ci�B T '��BE TJ..sI ..7/.,1 s., Tif...J..,,,,�.. A.,...7 1..,�-,,r, �.,..,,...;,,.r, Il,,.;,„ ,,..J sl„ T7 C. �r�B„sG�Av,"'"-cc�'iE�-1^�r^i'52�3$—'c"fricf'8E"��Ec rl,,. ,.7 ,.. ,�f,.Fr';s.. T,,.Fl;„ 7,,.,.,..,.„� L',.,,.. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of building�ermits for each development phase, the A�licant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti�ation improvements through pavment of Citywide Trans�ortation Impact Fees.�~:�~'� �~�a;~�- �~a ~� �~a�':�~ �F*'�� F„-..,1 �ITT�T F,- ,70.,01,...,�.o..♦ „F[7:11.,....:,,�� T„ .- A,-o., �l.o A,.,�.1;,..,..♦ �l..,ll „1-.,�.;�.,D„l.l;..C�,-oo�T.v.,.,-....o.v,o,�.�Dl..,�.F.-.-o.,;o..,....,7 ., ,.,1 1.. �L.o�';�.. T,�...lo,�.o..�.,�;,,.. �l..,ll l.o ,. ,�.lo�o,l ,�. ,- ♦„ �l,o : ,.F., o,-�;F;...,�o „F .- 1.,,;1,7;,-... .. ,v.;f.. f,- �7:11.,....;,,�.. T,. A.-o., .lo..ol,.,..v.o..♦ T,v.,.,-,,..o...o..�,.,,��o ov�l;,-,..�l,o D,-,,;o,.��.. ..,..-t:,,,-..,1 �1,.,.-o„-,.,..L.o ol;..;l.lo F,-f o ,..-0,7;�� „ .v.1.,,,-..o,v.o..�.. T4';.v.,..-,,..o..,o,-.�� ., ..lo�o,] .. ,-L... > i�3 �32zrcy'-1�t�1�2 T,-.. ,,,-r..ti,.,,, i.v..,...,.♦ L'oo ♦,. o „C 1.,.:1,7:,,.,.,. ...-.-.:r� F,-�I:11.,,.,.:,.�.. 7 .. .- A.-o., ,70, ol,..,.,ti.o.�.r Monitorin�. The Citv shall verifv that the A�plicant pavs fair share costs in accordance to the a�roved phase and desi�n plans.T�.o r';',.��.�" .,or;F.'�,�' ..,] ,lo�;,.,�. ,.1.,,�.� „ ..�,-;l.,,to� ., .,�o F;.- �1..,,-o ., o,] 1-..,tL.o � 3.4 Biological Resources BIO-1.Project implementation would impact MM HAZ-2 In accordance with PRC Section 4291, the Applicant shall hire Significant and sensitive riparian,wetland, and native grassland a City-gualified team that consists of appropriate specialists (i.e., fire Unavoidable habitats identified as sensitive natural communities management professionals, biologists) to prepare a Community Fire under state and City policy. Protection Plan to design the creation and maintenance of required fzre buffers and fuel management zones around developable areas and detail methods for achieving fire safety around new buildings while preserving the integrity and f'unction of'affected native plant communities to the maximum extent feasible, and that ensures that consistent fire fuel management � practices are applied throughout the Ciry. The Plan shall incorporate w ES-22 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 fi^om 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: • T�egetation 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 scr�ub, and grassland shall be thinned and limbed up but left in place; • All allowable weed abatement techniques, gualifications, 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 Communiry 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 w N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-23 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 f'eet.f'rom 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. d) All consb^uction 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, or if anv unanticipated hazardous materials are discovered, materials and/or contaminants shall be cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the W� RWQCB, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and/or San w ES-24 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � Luis Obispo Countv Public Health Environmental Services, as � applicable. 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 runof'f 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 Ciry- 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 ma�imum extent possible to minimize disturbance of undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and rninimize habitat fragmentation. Plan Requirements and Timing.The Biological Mitigarion 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 N g; incorporate any additional measures or requirements identified by state and A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-25 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 locarions, 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 Mitigarion 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. Monitorin�.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 sha11 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 andlor 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 Ciry 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 guarterly reports to the City regarding construction activities, enf'orcement 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 N � W � ES-26 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 woYk day during construction activities.Any vegetation clearing activities shall be monitored by the biologist and/or Environmental Coordinator. Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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. Monitorin�. 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 construcrion 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 iinplementation of required habitat restoration, enhancement, or creation N g; measures. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP shall rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-27 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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-consb^uction 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 ineasures to be undertaken to enhance the mitigation site for the target species and to protect sensitive resources. d) Record necessary Yeplacement of disturbed, altered, and/or lost area of habitat. e) A binding long-terin agreement with the Applicant to implement and inaintain 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 perf'ormance 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. � 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 perf'ormance or final success criteria within 5 years are completed through an extension of the plan for an additional 2 years or at the N � W V ES-28 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � discretion of the Ciry 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 Communiry 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 inonitoring of vegetation surrounding the development and prepare a reportsummarizing the avoidance or disturbance ofsensitive 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 Ciry 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. Monitorin�.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 N g; with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan through � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-29 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � , � ' � � 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 Scr�ub Community, Coastal and Central Ttalley 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 MMBIO-5; b) Offsite restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted species at the ininimum 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 Timin�. 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. Monitorin�. 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 andlor restoration activities through routine monitoring, inspection, and reporting of restoration activities pursuant to the approved Biological Mitigarion 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. N � W � ES-30 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � MM BIO-S The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require all temporary and permanent direct and indirect impacts to wetlands,grasslands, � and riparian habitat be mitigated, as follows: a) Temporary direct impacts to wetland, native grassland, and riparian � habitat�.�shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (area of restored habitat to impacted habitat). b) Permanent direct impacts to sensitive natural communities, such as � 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 � (as a�propriate�. �Potential indirect impacts to the Calle.Toaquin wetlands affected by the Froom Creek realignment and changes to site hydrology shall be mitigated as follows.As a part of the HMMP prepared,for the Project, the A�plicant shall prepare and implement a Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin� Plan that is designed to guantitativelv and c�ualitatively assess the e�fectiveness of the HMMP over time to ensure its ob'ec� tives are achieved. The Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin� Plan shall be supported bv a Baseline Conditions Assessment that identifies the pre- constr�uction condition of the Calle Joaquin wetlands and establishes success criteria for sustained wetland conditions. The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall provide gualitative and quantitative information that will be used in comparin� data obtained during subsec�uent monitoring,vears to determine if a siQ,nifzcant deviance from baseline conditions has occurred at the site. The Long-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan will establish the parameters of a significant deviance from baseline conditions.A si�nificant deviance from baseline mav be defined as a "change in wetland area�reater than 10%". The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall be updated prior to the start of construction to su�ort agency�ermittin�Quide implementation of the LonQ-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan. This updated baseline shall be considered in combination with existin� and past baseline documentation to provide an expanded baseline reflective of a ran�e o� acceptable conditions to compare post Project conditions. The N A Baseline Conditions Assessment shall include a focused description o� 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-31 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � the site's hvdrolo�ic settin�, veQetative cover and composition, puantified wetland areas and classifications, and shall establish the threshold for a significant deviance fi^om wetland area based on the presence of hvdrophvtic plant species, hvdric soil indicators, and wetland hvdrolo� At minimum, the condition of the wetland shall be evaluated on an annual basis throu h�completion of a wetland assessment using a regulatorv agencv a�proved model (such as, but not limited to, the California Rapid Assessment Method [CRAMj) to document and facilitate lon�-term monitorin�of chan�es to the wetland. The annual evaluation shall determine and document anv de�ree of change to the wetland as a result of the proposed chanQes to site h�drolo,�v and development throu�hout build-out under the Specific Plan. Reports documentin� the annual wetland assessinent shall be provided to the Citv and relevant re u�y;v agencies. Lon�-Term Wetland Monitoring_for the Calle.Ioac�uin wetlands shall occur continuously for a period ofno less than 7 vears followin P� I build-out of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. After the initial 7- years of minimum annual monitoring, the frequenc�of lon -g term evaluations shall be determined in coordination with regulator� aQencies and per the requirements of' the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan. The LonQ-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan shall include (at minimum� the followinQ requirements. Additional detailed criteria and performance standards will be established in the HMMP prepared for the proiect and a�proved bv reQulatorv aQencies, but thev shall not be anv less strin�ent than the followin� criteria and performance standards: i. Annual monitorinQ shall evaluate and track the wetland health and biolo�ical inte�t�of the Calle.Ioaquin wetlands. ii. Annual evaluations shall utilize intensive site assessments to provide a more thorou�h and detailed measure of wetland condition b�gatherin� direct measurements of biolo�ical taxa and hvdroQeomorphic functions. iii. Typical industr;v standards for the quantitative evaluation of�lant cover will be used(e.�., Bonham 1989 and Daubenmire 1968 to N � A ES-32 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � evaluate plant composition and structure as well as direct inspections of soil conditions and h dv rolo'eic functions. iv. Annual or semi-annual evaluations shall observe and document theefollowing, at a minimum: ■ whether �roundwater rechar�e fi^om Froom Creek to the shallow ac�uifer is being sustained, ■ whether the onsite artesian well has been dischar�inQ to the wetland, ■ evidence of over/lows enterin� the Calle Joaquin wetland from the realiQned Froom Creek, ■ excessive pondin�, as evidenced by chanQes in ve�etation related to increased duration o�ondinQ, ■ measured depth to �roundwater in the onsite artesian well and the relationship ofthese conditions with conditions in the wetland, ■ specific conductance and temperature in the wetland and other surface sources, ■ the presence or absence o,f salt ef'florescences in the wetland, ■ anv persistent �reen ve�etation patches or chan e,g s in willow/grass ecotone, and ■ representative photo points. v. Monitorin�of the reali�ned creek's hvdrologv would be required followin� lar�e storm events durin� the rain season that are sufficient to initiate flowin�water throu�h the site.Ifafter the 3rd vear ofmonitoring, vegetation has successfullv established alon� the creek corridor and sedimentation and erosion are not observed bevond what is deterinined to be a normal level, then the rainv season monitorinQ could be scaled back to occur on a quarterlv or as-needed basis for the remainder of the monitoring schedule, upon review and a�proval of the City's Natural Resources Mana�er and a�licable regulato�:��encies and consistent with the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin� vi. Success criteria to determine whether the Calle Joaguin wetland functions are sustained shall include the followin�,at a minimum: ■ The constructed bank between the reali�ned Froom Creek channel and the Calle.Ioaquin wetlands remains functional N � A N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-33 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � and does not recurrentiv scour or fill to a de�ree that impairs its operation or impedes circulation throu�h the wetland, ■ Excessive surface water does not pond for periods of long duration, ■ Salts do not accumulate such that discernible increases in salt e�'florescences at the�round su�ace are not visible, ■ Evidence o,f deposition bv hi�h flows is not found within the wetland Lg., silt, or�anics, or other�lood deposits� vii. If success criteria are not achieved within the 7-vear initial monitorinQ period, a hvdrolo�ic assessment will be conducted by a USACE-a�roved specialist in groundwater su�orted wetlands to establish whether non-attainment is attributable to onsite conditions or actions bevond the e�ective control of the ProiectA�plicant. The specialistshall be a registered hvdrolo� or certified hvdrogeolog,ist with statewide expertise,familiaritX with groundwater su�orted wetlands in centi^al coastal California and verifiable experience conducting functional analvses of such wetlands. Recommendations for remedial actions will be submitted by the �roundwater specialist to the USACE for review and written a�proval prior to implementation. If wetland failures are determined to be directiv related to the reali�nment of Froom Creek and development within the Froom Creek Specific Plan area, possible remedial actions would include, at minimum, the followin�: ■ Engineering controls include biotechnical erosion controls such as the installation of willow wattles and brush mattressinQ and addition of native cobble to reinforce the low �low berm separating the creek channel,fi^om the wetland area to help contain flows into the wetland area. ■ If ve�etation establishment is takin,g longer than expected, remedial measures such as re-seeding bare soils, replanting areas of mortality, and increased maintenance and monitorinQ mav be prescribed. • Ifthere is si�nificant evidence ofscourinQ, collapse,or fillin� of the overflow hank between the realiQned low-flow Froom Creek channel and the Calle.Ioaguin wetlands, a re is� N A professional engineer shall re-evaluate bank ty�e, size, and w ES-34 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � slope and recommend a solution, such as auQmentation or replacement. ■ If there is excessive ponding (spatial or temporal), a reQistered professional engineer shall assess access to and capacitv of existinQ draina�e outlets and recommend a solution, such as au�mentation or replacement if necessar� ■ If salt e�florescence is observed and speci�c conductance in the wetland is�reater than baseline conditions, a re isg tered professional en�ineer shall re-evaluate the bank type, slope, size, and convevance between the reali�ned Froom Creek low-flow channel and the Calle.Ioac�uin wetlands to increase the frequencv o�salt flushin�, such as alterin�rfacee ows to more frec�uentiv overflow to the wetland area. viii. If throug,h monitorin�it is determined that the Project does not adverselv impact the Calle .Ioac�uin wetland areas (as defined above , the A�plicant shall provide documentation annuall� minimum) to the Citv, for review and a�proval bv the Citv's Natural Resources Manager, that no si�nificant si ns�o� hvdrolo�ical interruption, erosion (including bank failure), or sedimentation have occurred, that the wetland is sustained in biolo�ical inte�tv and health with existin� hvdrolo ig c inputs, and that channel mi�ration has not adversel�a�fected existing wetland features ad�acent to Calle,Ioaquin. ix. If throuQh monitorin�it is determined that the Project adversely impacts the Calle Joac�uin wetland area, recommendations shall be made for modifzcations to the Proiect desi�n in consultation with the Citv and a�propriate re u�ry a�encies for review and concurrence as described in subsection viii above. The annual reports would detail the issue or problem area and proposed remedial actions. x. If throu�h monitorin� it is determined that the Calle Joaquin wetland condition and function cannot be remediated with implementation of all feasible remedial actions and recommendations identified throu�h lon�-term monitorinQ and as described in subsection vii above and the Long-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan, then adverselv a�'fected wetland areas shall be N A delineated and miti�ated on- or o�fsite at a minimum 3:1 ratio A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-35 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � unless otherwise directed bv state and federal aQencies, including but not limited to the CDF'W, RWQCB, NMPS, and USFWS(as appropriate), consistent with subsection �c)above. �-xi. Funding for long,-term wetland inonitoring, adaptive manaQement, and anv recommended contingencv measures shall be the responsibilitv of the A�plicant. Pavment of a bond bv the �plicant would be rec�uired to ensure the availabilit�_f adequate funds to ensure successful implementation and completion of the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin� Plan throu�hout huild-out under the Specifc Plan. �' � ��;,�;��„�� ':' i"-cciiv cciiw i"c��"ctiii c iiiiiigEE�f6�72 6,��--c�c� t�2cci'r� ��'Y�ccci°E�—�L1� ti2E Po+,,,,.f;,.�L.,+,,,1��.,�z'ccciir��iid'�E WE'si"u-i'"rc'�i� ,,,r7,.„�+ ,.�/�,.I7„ T,.,.,,;,� ;+1;,,. r1„ Q,..,,.,;F.., D7,,,,. ,,..1 „r7�„�r,.�r1„.. ,,,7 D,,. „�,. /',�„1 1,... A.,.. �1,.,,.,,.,,1 �}�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 rype 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. e}fZRiparian 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 reguirements of the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan outlined in MM BIO-3. Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the Biological Mitigarion and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the Ciry for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. Monitorin�.The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and ,I Monitoring Plan and HMMP(including the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitoring N A Plan to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mitigation measures have been � ES-36 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 and Long-Term Wetland Monitorin�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 mazimum 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 l years.If su�cient 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, N A including a detailed planting plan and maintenance plans using locally rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-37 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � obtained native species, and shall include habitat enhancement to support native wildlife and plant species. e) A weed managementplan and weed identification listshall be included in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. � Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be maintained weekly for the first three years after Project completion and guarterly 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. Monitorin�.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 Utility line installation shall be timed so that sensitive habitat areas are not disturbed(e.�., prior to the developinent and restoration of the new Froom Creek reali�nment, after removal of riparian areas alon� LOVR Ditch due to LOVR widening).In the event a�utility line�is proposed to be installed across the existing or realigned Froom Creek, or the sensitive r�arian areas along the LOVR Ditch, while these features are in their natural or restored conditions, installation � �� 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 N A recommendations for avoidance of frac-outs and/or other HDD related V ES-38 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 fi�ac-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 fi^ac-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 Timin�. Geotechnical investigations shall be conducted, and a report of findings submitted to the City for approval. The fmdings shall be incorporated into the final Utilities Plan prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. Monitorin�. The City shall review the findings of the geotechnical investigarions 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.Ioaquin wetlands to protect the bank f'rom erosion and prevent migration of the Froom Creek channel into these wetlands. Measures for securing the bank may include a mix ofnatural and biotechnical measures capable ofprevention erosion based on the anticipated erosive velociry 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. Monitorin�. 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 MMHAZ-2In accordance with PRC Section 4291, the Applicant shall hire a Significant and N substanrial direct and indirect adverse impacts on Ciry-qualified team that consists of appropriate specialists (i.e., fire Unavoidable A management professionals, biologists) to prepare a Community Fire � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-39 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , candidate,sensitive,or special-status species that are Protection Plan to design the creation and maintenance of required fire known to or may occur on the Project site. buffers and fuel management zones around developable areas and detail methods for achieving fzre safety around new buildings while preserving the integrity and function of affected native plant coinmunities 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: • T�egetation 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, gualifications, and requirements for weed abatement contractors, as well as measures and technigues that ensure the required fuel management and vegetation clearance, shall be designed and implemented to provide adequate str�ucture protection and avoid degradation of sensitive biological habitat;and • Invasive species shall be removed and controlled. Plan Requirements and Timing.Priar 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 N � A � ES-40 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 activiries that took place. Conformance with the Community Fire Protection Plan shall be demonstrated through the submittal of annual photo documentarion by the Applicant or site visits as necessary at the discrerion 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 const�uction-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 minirrcum of 25 feet fi^om 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 Ciry-approved biological monitor shall be present and have the authority to stop or redirect work as needed � to protect biological resources. 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-41 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , d) All constr�uction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building materials) shall be stored at designated construction staging areas, which shall be located outside ofdesignated sensitive areas. � Should spills occur, or if anv unanticipated hazardous materials are discovered, materials and/or contaminants shall be cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the RWQCB, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and/or San Luis Obispo Countv Public Health Environmental Services, as applicable. e) All trash and constr�uction 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 storrn events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand weather conditions. � 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 t�^enches 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 hy 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 N �a'„ storage to the mcz�imum extent possible to minimize disturbance of ES-42 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and ininimize habitatfi^agmentation. Plan Requirements and Timing.The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Ciry priar 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 gading 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. Monitorin�.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 andlor restoration activities through routine monitoring, inspecrion,and reporting of restoration activities. 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. N � � N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-43 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , Projectphasing 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 Ciry for review and approval priar to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. Monitorin�.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 and Special-Status Plant Manageinent. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the � Applicant shall submit or fund a site survey for special-status plants, including Chorro Creek bog thistle, and: � 1. All individual locations of special-status species, includin�Chorro Creek bog thistle, and suitable habitat areas shall be mapped using GPS coordinates.No construction activities or disturbance shall occur � within SO feet of mapped �ecial-status species, includin�Chorro Creek bog thistle, or suitable habitat areas. 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 ininimum 50 foot buffer from mapped Chorro Creek bog thistle occurrences. tti.�,.,1.��$��7., P,,...;r,.,f ,,.�, .,��/.,��..7ccc�-oc ,,,�,,..;,.,�„a *,. „ cn �,.t �„��, �;,,,,�� N „a �i,.,,,. �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 SO feet from the top of the bank or edge of delineated �� wetland during construction. The Applicant shall ensure and a' demonstrate to the City through frequent reporting requirements � w ES-44 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , approved by the City that these areas are managed and maintained in perpetuity to maintain wetland and Chorro Creek bog thistle habitat values to the extent feasible. 4. �the site survev results identi�special-status plant species, including Chorro Creek bog thistle, or suitable habitat that mav be disturbed or lost fi�om Project construction, the Proiect shall be redesigned to ensure a minimum 50 foot bu�fer from ma�ped individual occurrences and suitable habitat areas. If bu�fers cannot be maintained, then consultation with CDFW shall occur to determine a�propriate minimization and miti�ation measures,for impacts to special-status plant species, or in the case of�lant species listed pursuant to CESA or the Native Plant Protection Act, to determine if'take can be avoided.If take cannot be avoided, take authorization prior to anv �round- disturbin� activities mav be warranted. Take authorization would occur through issuance o,f an ITP bv CDFW, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 L). 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. Monitorin�.The Ciry shall review and approve the Biological Mitigarion 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 I S to April I S)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, mortaliry tq 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,- A � � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-45 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , relocation (if necessary) of frogs and steelhead from the work area by a professional biologist authorized by the USPWS and/or CDPW,� and monitoring of construction activities within the viciniry 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 authoriry over a portion of the Project. Any other sensitive species observed during the pre-construction surveys shall be relocated by the gualified biologist into the nearest suitable habitat outside the disturbance area as determined in consultation with the appropriate jurisdictional resource agency. Plan Repuirements and Timin�. 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 Ciry shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mirigation measures have been included. The City shall ensure compliance with requirements in the Biological Mitigarion 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 hahitation and movement of special-status wildli e species, as follows: 1. Migratory and Nesting/BurrowinQ Bird Management. Grading and construction activities shall avoid the breeding season (rypically froin February I S to August I S)to the extentpracticable,particularly within SO feet of riparian or wetland habitat and mature trees and within onsite grasslands. If Project activities must be conducted during this period and within the vicinity of riparian or wetland habitat grasslands, and/or mature trees, pre-construction nesting/burrowinQ bird surveys shall take place no more than one week prior to habitat � disturbance associated with each phase; if active nests or burrows are located during these surveys, the following measures shall be implemented.• a. Construction activities within 50 feet of active nests shall be resh^icted until chicks have fledged, unless the nest belongs to a N � � � ES-46 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , raptor or burrowin� owl, in which case a minimum S00 foot � activity restriction buffer shall be observed. b. Const�^uction 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 reportshall 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 Ciry prior to vegetation removal. If sensitive or �ecial-status 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. a'.e. Ifburrowin�owls are found onsite and avoidance is notpossible, burrow exclusion shall be conducted bv Citv-a�proved gualified biologists and onlv durin� the non-breedin� season, be,fore breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confrmed em�tv through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. CDFW recommends replacement of occupied burrows with artificial burrows at a ratio of one burrow collapsed to one artificial burrow constructed (1:1) To avoid recolonization, ongoin� surveillance shall be provided bv the Citv-a�roved Project biolo�ists throughout Proiect construction at a rate that is sufficient to detect burrowin�owls i�v return. 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 Ciry and CDFW- N �°'„ approved biologist to determine if any tree or structure proposed for rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-47 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 materniry 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 fi^om 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 unril after the completion of surveys and Ciry review of corresponding reports. Any required permits shall be obtained from appropriate state and federal agencies prior to issuance of grading and construcrion permits and recardarion of the final VTM. Monitorin�.The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigarion 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 N � ensure compliance during habitat compensation and/or restoration activities. V ES-48 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � BIO-3.Project implementation would have a MM BIO-1 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological Significant and substantial adverse impact on state and federally Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and Unavoidable protected wetlands. 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 f'ollowing 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 fi^om 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 authoriry 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, or if anv unanticipated hazardous materials � are discovered, materials and/or contaminants shall be cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the RWQCB, Departinent of Toxic Suhstances Control, and/or San Luis Obispo Countv Public Health Environmental Services, as N � applicable. � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-49 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � , � ' � � e) All tr�ash 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 storin events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand weather conditions. � 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 ti^ench to escape.All open ti^enches 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 othenvise 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 mazimum extentpossible to minimize disturbance of undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and minimize habitatfi^agmentation. 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 N � USFWS. The Applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan that � ES-50 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 sha11 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. Monitorin�.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 sha11 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 activiries 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, enf'orcement issues, and remedial measures. The Applicant's Environmental Coordinator shall be responsible f'or 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 ident�ed, the Environmental Coordinator shall implement measures that could include, but not be limited to, hazing, fencing, and wildlife removals to eliminate the exposure risk. N � � O Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-51 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � In addition, the Applicant's Environmental Coordinator shall monitor and regulate all construction occurring within 50 feet of the existing and proposed Frooin 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 const�^uction 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 CooYdinator. Plan Repuirements 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 Coardinator 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, regularions, and policies. The Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist shall be onsite during all construcrion 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 Communiry, Coastal and Central valley Freshwater Marsh, and wetland areas to the mazimurr� extent feasible. Mitigation for N � impacted sensitive natural comrnunities that cannot be avoided shall be ES-52 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � , � ' � � achieved through one or more of the following options, subject to Ciry approval: a) Onsite restoration, enhancement, or creation of suitable replacement habitat, if feasible onsite restoration opportunities exist and at ratios consistent with those identifzed in MMBIO-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 �nitigation bank. Plan Requirements and TiminE. 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 Ciry 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 andlor 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 direct and indirect impacts to wetlands,grasslands, � and riparian habitat be mitigated, as follows: a) Temporary direct impacts to wetland, native grassland, and riparian � habitat�shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (area of restored habitat to impacted habitat). b) Permanent direct impacts to sensitive natural communities, such as � 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 N � 3:1 ratio unless otherwise directed by state and federal agencies, N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-53 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � , � ' � � � including but not limited to the CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and USFWS (as a�propriate�. �Potential indirect impacts to the Calle.Toaquin wetlands affected by the Froom Creek realignment and changes to site hydrology shall be mitigated as follows.As a part of the HMMP prepared,for the Project, the A�plicant shall prepare and implement a Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin� Plan that is designed to guantitativelv and c�ualitatively assess the e�fectiveness of the HMMP over time to ensure its ob'ec� tives are achieved. The Long-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan shall be supported bv a Baseline Conditions Assessment that identifies the pre- construction condition of the Calle Joaquin wetlands and establishes success criteria for sustained wetland conditions. The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall provide c�ualitative and quantitative information that will be used in coinparing data obtained during subsequent monitoring,vears to determine if a siQ,nifzcant deviance from baseline conditions has occurred at the site. The Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan will establish the parameters of a significant deviance from baseline conditions.A si�nificant deviance from baseline mav be defined as a "change in wetland area�reater than 10%". The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall be updated prior to the start of construction to su�ort agenc�permitting and�uide implementation of the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan. This updated baseline shall be considered in combination with existin� and past baseline documentation to provide an expanded baseline reflective of a ran�e o�' acceptable conditions to compare post Project conditions. The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall include a focused description o�' the site's hvdrolo�ic setting, vegetative cover and composition, quantified wetland areas and classifications, and shall establish the threshold for a si�nificant deviance fi^om wetland area based on the presence of hvdrophvtic plant species, hvdric soil indicators, and wetland hvdrolo� At minimum, the condition of the wetland shall be evaluated on an annual basis throu�h completion of a wetland assessment usin� a reQulatorv a�v a�roved model (such as, but not limited to, the Cali ornia Rapid Assessment Method �CRAM]) to document and � facilitate long-term monitoring of chan�es to the wetland. The annual � evaluation shall determine and document anv degree of change to the w ES-54 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � wetland as a result of the proposed chanQes to site hvdrolo�>> and development throu�hout build-out under the Specific Plan. Reports documentin� the annual wetland assessinent shall be provided to the Citv and relevant re u�y;v agencies. Lon�-Term Wetland Monitoring_for the Calle.Ioac�uin wetlands shall occur continuously for a period ofno less than 7 vears followin P� I build-out of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. After the initial 7- years of minimum annual monitoring, the frequenc�of long-term evaluations shall be determined in coordination with regulatory a�encies and per the requirements of the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin P�lan. The Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan shall include (at minimum� the followinQ reguirements. Additional detailed criteria and performance standards will be established in the HMMP prepared for the pro�ect and a�proved bv reQulatorv aQencies, but thev shall not be anv less strinQent than the following criteria and per,formance standards: i. Annual monitorinQ shall evaluate and track the wetland health and biological inte�t�of the Calle.Ioaquin wetlands. ii. Annual evaluations shall utilize intensive site assessments to provide a more thorou�h and detailed measure of wetland condition b�gatherin� direct measurement.s of hiolo�ical taca and hvdroQeomorphic functions. iii. Typical industr;v standards or the quantitative evaluation of�lant cover will be used(e.�., Bonham 1989 and Daubenmire 1968 to evaluate plant composition and structure as well as direct inspections of soil conditions and h dv rolo'eic functions. iv. Annual or semi-annual evaluations shall observe and document the,following, at a minimum: ■ whether groundwater rechar�e from Froom Creek to the shallow aquifer is bein�sustained, ■ whether the onsite artesian well has been dischar�in�to the wetland, ■ evidence of overflows enterinQ the Calle ,Ioaquin wetland from the reali�ned Froom Creek, ■ excessive ponding, as evidenced bv changes in vegetation N � related to increased duration o�ponding� A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-55 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � ■ measured depth to �roundwater in the onsite artesian well and the relationship ofthese conditions with conditions in the wetland, ■ specific conductance and temperature in the wetland and other surface sources, ■ the presence or absence o,f salt ef'florescences in the wetland, ■ anv persistent green ve�etation patches or chan e,g s in willow/grass ecotone, and ■ representative photo points. v. Monitorin�of the reali�ned creek's hvdrolo.gv would be required followin� lar�e storm events durin� the rain season that are sufficient to initiate flowin�water throu�h the site.Ifafter the 3rd vear ofmonitorin�, veg,etation has successfullv established along the creek corridor and sedimentation and erosion are not observed bevond what is deterinined to be a normal level, then the rainv season monitorinQ could be scaled back to occur on a quarterlv or as-needed basis for the remainder of the monitoring schedule, upon review and a�roval of the Citv's Natural Resources Mana�er and a�plicable regulato�:��encies and consistent with the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan• vi. Success criteria to determine whether the Calle Joaquin wetland functions are sustained shall include the followin�,at a rninimum: ■ The constr�ucted bank between the reali�ned Froom Creek channel and the Calle Joaquin wetlands remains functional and does not recurrentiv scour or fzll to a de�ree that impairs its operation or impedes circulation throu�h the wetland, ■ Excessive surface water does not pond for periods of long duration, ■ Salts do not accumulate such that discernible increases in salt e�florescences at the ground surface are not visible, ■ Evidence of deposition bv hi�h flows is not found within the wetland Lg., silt, or�anics, or other�lood deposits� vii. If success criteria are not achieved within the 7-vear initial monitorinQ period, a hvdrolo�ic assessment will be conducted by a USACE-a�roved specialist in �roundwater su�orted wetlands to establish whether non-attainment is attributable to N a' onsite conditions or actions bevond the e�'fective control of the � � ES-56 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � ProjectA�plicant. The specialistshall be a re�istered hvdrolo�ist or certified hvdrogeolog,ist with statewide expertise,familiaritX with �roundwater su�ported wetlands in central coastal California and verifiable experience conductin� functional analvses of such wetlands. Recommendations for remedial actions will be submitted bv the �roundwater specialist to the USACE far review and written a�proval prior to implementation. If wetland failures are determined to be directiv related to the reali�nment ofFroom Creek and development within the Froom Creek Specific Plan area, possible remedial actions would include, at minimum, the followinQ: ■ EnQineerin� controls include biotechnical erosion controls such as the installation of willow wattles and brush mattressing and addition of native cobble to reinforce the low �low berm separatin� the creek channel fYom the wetland area to help contain flows into the wetland area. • If vegetation establishment is taking lon�er than expected, remedial measures such as re-seedinQ bare soils, replanting areas of mortalit7�, and increased maintenance and monitoring may be prescribed. ■ If there is si�nifcant evidence ofscourin ,�pse,or f lling of the overflow bank between the realiQned low-flow Froom Creek channel and the Calle,Ioaquin wetlands, a reQistered professional enQineer shall re-evaluate bank type, size, and slope and recommend a solution, such as augmentation or replacement. ■ If there is excessive ponding (spatial or temporal), a re�istered professional engineer shall assess access to and capacitv of existinQ draina�e outlets and recommend a solution, such as augmentation or replacement if necessarz ■ If salt efflorescence is observed and specific conductance in the wetland is�reater than baseline conditions, a re is,g tered professional en�ineer shall re-evaluate the bank type, slope, size, and convevance between the reali�ned Froom Creek low-�low channel and the Calle.Ioaguin wetlands to increase the frec�uencv of salt flushin�, such as altering surface flows N � to more,fi^ec�uentiv overflow to the wetland area. rn ` Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-57 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � viii. If throu�h monitorin�it is determined that the Proiect does not adverselv impact the Calle .Ioac�uin wetland areas (as defined above), the A�plicant shall provide documentation annually at minimum) to the Citv, for review and a�proval bv the Citv's Natural Resources Manager, that no si�nificant si ns�o,� hvdrological interruption, erosion (includin,g bank failureZ or sedimentation have occurred, that the wetland is sustained in biolo�ical inte�tv and health with existin� hvdrolo i�puts, and that channel mi�ration has not adversel�a�fected existing wetland�atures ad�acent to Calle,Ioaquin. ix. If throu�h monitorin�it is determined that the Proiect adversely impacts the Calle Joaquin wetland area, recommendations shall be made for modifzcations to the Proiect desi�n in consultation with the Citv and a�propriate re u�ry a�encies for review and concurrence, as described in subsection viii above. The annual reports would detail the issue or problem area and proposed remedial actions. x. If through monitoring it is determined that the Calle Joaquin wetland condition and function cannot be remediated with implementation of all f'easible remedial actions and recommendations identified through lon�-term monitorin�and as described in subsection vii ahove and the LonQ-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan, then adverselv a�'fected wetland areas shall be delineated and mitiQated on- or o�fsite at a minimum 3:1 ratio unless otherwise directed bv state and federal agencies, including but not limited to the CDFW, RWQCB, NMPS, and USFWS(as appropriate), consistent with subsection �c)above. �-xi. Fundin�for lon�-term wetland monitorin,g, adaptive mana�ement, and anv recommended contingencv measures shall be the responsibilitv of the A�licant. Pa my ent of a bond by the �plicant would be required to ensure the availabili.� of adequate funds to ensure successful implementation and completion of the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin� Plan throu�hout build-out under the Specific Plan. �' � ��;,�;��„�� ':' i"-cciiv cciiw i"c��"ctiii c iii-i�-igEE�l692 6,��--c�c� t�2EEi'r� ��'Y�ccBi°E�—�B1 ti2E N ' � P�r,,,��L�.r„�l�p�;�l,t '�"."1"$u'��$2 bVE�iiu-iia� ......... �y ....._. � ��, V ES-58 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � ,t�,.,,..� ,.��,.n„ �,.,,,.,,;,. :f�:.. t�„ c��,,,,;a� n�,.,. ,... ,.a I ,,.�,,,,�+,.�+�„� ,,,a �,,. ,�. �,,,,,>>,.., n.,.. ��,.,.,.,,� d) 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 containerplants 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. e) 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 inaintenance of riparian vegetation conditions shall be conducted consistent with the requirements of the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan outlined in MMBIO-3. Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the Ciry 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(including the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitoring I Plan 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 and Long-Term Wetland Monitorin,_�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 Ciry'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 N � � � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-59 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 mazimum extentpossible. c) Habitat restoration or enhancement sites shall be placed within existing or additional necessary deed-restricted area(s) and shall be inaintained and monitored for a minimum of l years.If su�cient 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 managementplan and weed identification listshall be included in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. � Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be maintained weekly for the first three years after Project completion and quarterly thereafter. Maintenance shall include replaceinent 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. N � � � ES-60 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 Timin�.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. Monitorin�.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 Utility line installation shall be timed so that sensitive habitat areas are not disturbed(e.Q., prior to the development and restoration of the new Froom Creek reali�nment, after removal of riparian areas alon� LOVR Ditch due to LOVR widening).In the event a�utility line�i�roposed to be installed across the existing or realigned Froom Creek, or the sensitive riparian areas along the LOVR Ditch, while these features are in their natural or restored conditions, installation-'��,�� r nvA t„ *�,,, p,�,,;�„t ..;*„ ��,.n �,,, �� 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 fi^om at least three borings, a geologic cross-section, a discussion of�drilling conditions, and fNac-out clean-up plan. The fi^ac-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. N � V O Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-61 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � Plan Repuirements and Timing. Geotechnical investigations shall be conducted, and a report of findings submitted to the City for approval. The fmdings 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 MM BIO-1 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological Significant and have a substantial adverse impact on the movement Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and Unavoidable of resident ar migratory fish or wildlife species or operational related avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measures for resident and migratory wildlife corridors along impacts to sensitive natural communities. The Biological Mitigation and Froom Creek,Drainages 1,2,and 3 and across open Monitoring Plan shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid grasslands on the Upper Terrace of the Project site. 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 fi^om 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 SO 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. N � V ES-62 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , d) All constr�uction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building materials) shall be stored at designated construction staging areas, which shall be located outside ofdesignated sensitive areas. Should spills occur, or if anv unanticipated hazardous materials � are discovered, materials and/or contaminants shall be cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the RWQCB, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and/or San Luis Obispo Countv Public Health Environmental Services, as applicable. e) All trash and constr�uction 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 storrn events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand weather conditions. � 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 t�^enches 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 hy 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 N � storage to the mcz�imum extent possible to minimize disturbance of N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-63 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and ininimize habitatfi^agmentation. Plan Requirements and Timing.The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City priar 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 gading 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. Monitorin�.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 andlor restoration activities through routine monitoring, inspecrion,and reporting of restoration activities. MM BIO-2 The Applicant shall retain a qualified Environmental Coordinator/qualified hiologist, subject to review and approval by the Ciry 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 N � construction workers prior to the initiation of any clearing or construction w ES-64 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , activities, and provide quarterly reports to the Ciry 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 tq 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 SO 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 Environinental Coordinator shall also conduct sensitive species surveys immediately prior to construction activities and shall monitor construction activities in the viciniry 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 Timin�. 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 acrivities occurring within the vicinity of sensitive habitats or known location of sensirive 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, N � regulations, and policies. The Environmental Coordinator/qualified biologist A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-65 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 coinmunities outside approved development footprints such as the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance, Central Coast Arroyo Willow Scr�ub Community, Coastal and Central T�alley 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 MMBIO-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 Repuirements 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 Mitigarion and Monitoring Plan and HMMP.The City shall ensure compliance with requirements far the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP through receipt and review of monitoring reports, and site inspections. MM BIO-S The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require all �� temporary and permanent direct and indirect impacts to wetlands,grasslands, � and riparian habitat be mitigated, as follows: � ES-66 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , a) Temporary direct impacts to wetland, native grassland, and riparian habitat�.�shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (area of restored habitat to impacted habitat). b) Permanent direct impacts to sensitive natural cominunities, such as � 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 (as a�r^opriate�. �Potential indirect impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetlands affected by the Froom Creek realignment and changes to site hydrology shall be initigated as follows.As a part o,f the HMMP prepared for the Project, the A�plicant shall prepare and implement a Long-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan that is desi�ned to quantitativelv and c�ualitativelX assess the e�fectiveness of the HMMP over time to ensure its objectives are achieved. The Lon�-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan shall be supported bv a Baseline Conditions Assessment that identifies the pre- construction condition of the Calle Joaquin wetlands and establishes success criteria for sustained wetland conditions. The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall provide qualitative and quantitative information that will be used in comparin�data obtained durinQ subsequent monitorin�vears to determine ifa siQnificant deviance from baseline conditions has occurred at the site. The Lon�-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan will establish the parameters of a si�nifzcant deviance from baseline conditions.A significant deviance from baseline mav be defined as a "change in wetland area greater than 10%". The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall be updated prior to the start of construction to support agenc�permitting and�uide implementation of the Long-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan. This updated baseline shall be considered in combination with existin� and past baseline documentation to provide an expanded baseline reflective ofa ran�e o�� acceptable conditions to compare post Proiect conditions. The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall include a,focused description o�' the site's hvdrolo�ic settin�, veQetative cover and composition, puantified wetland areas and classifications, and shall establish the N ` � threshold for a significant deviance fi^om wetland area based on the rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-67 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , presence of hvdrophvtic plant species, hvdric soil indicators, and wetland hvdrolo� At minimum, the condition of the wetland shall be evaluated on an annual basis through completion of a wetland assessment usin�a re�ulator�genc��proved model (such as, but not limited to, the California Rapid Assessment Method [CRAM�) to document and facilitate lon�-term monitorin�of chan�es to the wetland. The annual evaluation shall determine and document anv de r�of chan�e to the wetland as a result of the proposed changes to site h dy rolog�l and development throu�hout build-out under the Specific Plan. Reports documenting the annual wetland assessment shall be provided to the Citv and relevant reQulator� e� Long-Term Wetland Monitoring for the Calle.Ioac�uin wetlands shall occur continuousd�for a period o,f no less than 7 vears following Phase I build-out of the Froom Ranch Spec�c Plan area. After the initial 7- vears of minimum annual monitoring, the frequencv of long-term evaluations shall be determined in coordination with regulato� aQencies and per the requirements of the Long-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan• The Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan shall include (at minimum� the following requirements. Additional detailed criteria and performance standards will he established in the HMMP preparede� the proiect and a�roved bv reQulator;v aQencies, but thev shall not be anv less strin�ent than the followinQ criteria and per,formance standards: i. Annual monitorin�shall evaluate and track the wetland health and biolo�ical inte�ritv of the Calle.Ioaquin wetlands. ii. Annual evaluations shall utilize intensive site assessments to provide a more thorough and detailed measure of wetland condition bv �athering direct measurements of biolo�ical taxa and hydrogeomorphic functions. iii. Typical industry standards for the quantitative evaluation o�plant cover will be used L,g., Bonham 1989 and Daubenmire 1968) to evaluate plant composition and structure as well as direct inspections ofsoil conditions and hvdroloQic functions. iv. Annual or semi-annual evaluations shall observe and document N � the followinQ, at a minimum: V ES-68 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , ■ whether Qroundwater rechar�e f�'om Froom Creek to the shallow ac�uifer is bein�sustained, ■ whether the onsite artesian well has been dischargin�to the wetland, ■ evidence of overflows entering the Calle .Ioaquin wetland fi^om the reali�ned Froom Creek, ■ excessive pondin�, as evidenced bv chan�es in vegetation related to increased duration o�onding ■ measured depth to �roundwater in the onsite artesian well and the relationship ofthese conditions with conditions in the wetland, ■ specific conductance and temperature in the wetland and other sur,face sources, ■ the presence or absence ofsalt e,�florescences in the wetland, ■ anv persistent �reen vegetation patches or chan eg s in willow/grass ecotone, and ■ representative photo points. v. Monitorin�ofthe reali�ned creek's h dy rologv would be required _ollowing lar�e storm events durin� the rain season that are sufficient to initiate flowin�water through the site.I{after the 3rd ey ar ofmonitoring, ve�etation has successfullv established along the creek corridor and sedimentation and erosion are not observed bevond what is determined to be a normal level, then the rainv season monitorin�could be scaled back to occur on a quarterlv or as-needed basis,for the remainder of the monitoring schedule, upon review and a�proval of the Citv's Natural Resources Manager and a�plicable re u,= l�atorv a�encies and consistent with the Long-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan• vi. Success criteria to determine whether the Calle.Ioaquin wetland %unctions are sustained shall include the followin�,at a minimum: ■ The constructed bank between the reali�ned Froom Creek channel and the Calle Joaquin wetlands remains functional and does not recurrentiv scour or fill to a de�ree that impairs its operation or impedes circulation throu�h the wetland, ■ Excessive surface water does not pond,for periods of lon� duration, N � V � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-69 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , ■ Salts do not accumulate such that discernible increases in salt e,�florescences at the ground surf�ace are not visible, ■ Evidence of deposition bv high flows is not found within the wetland�Q., silt, or�anics, or other,flood deposits� vii. If success criteria are not achieved within the 7-vear initial monitoringperiod, a hvdrologic assessment will be conducted by a USACE-a�proved specialist in groundwater supported wetlands to establish whether non-attainment is attributable to onsite conditions or actions bevond the e�fective control of the ProjectA�plicant. The specialistshall be a re�istered hvdrolo�ist or certified hvdro�eologist with statewide ex�ertise, familiarity with �roundwater supported wetlands in central coastal Cal�ornia and ver�able experience conductin� functional analvses o,f such wetlands. Recommendations ,for remedial actions will be submitted bv the groundwater specialist to the USACE for review and written a�proval prior to implementation. If wetland failures are determined to be directiv related to the reali�nment of Froom Creek and development within the Froom Creek Specific Plan area, possible remedial actions would include, at minimum, the followin� ■ En�ineerin� controls include biotechnical erosion controls such as the installation of willow wattles and brush mattressin�and addition ofnative cobble to reinforce the low .flow berm separatin� the creek channel from the wetland area to help contain,flows into the wetland area. ■ If ve�etation establishment is taking longer than expected, remedial measures such as re-seedin�bare soils, replanting areas of mortalitv, and increased maintenance and monitoring mav be prescribed. ■ If there is si�nifcant evidence ofscourin ,�pse,or f lling of the over/low bank between the reali�ned low-flow F'room Creek channel and the Calle Joaquin wetlands, a registered professional enQineer shall re-evaluate bank type, size, and slope and recommend a solution, such as au�mentation or replacement. ■ If there is excessive ponding (spatial or temporal), a N � re�istered pro,fessional engineer shall assess access to and � ES-70 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , capacit�of existin� drainaQe outlets and recommend a solution, such as augmentation or replacement if necessar� ■ I,f salt e�'florescence is observed and specific conductance in the wetland is greater than baseline conditions, a re 'sgz tered professional en�ineer shall re-evaluate the bank type, slope, size, and convevance between the reali�ned Froom Creek low-flow channel and the Calle.Ioaquin wetlands to increase the f�^equencv of salt flushin�, such as altering surface flows to more frequentiv overflow to the wetland area. viii. If throu�h monitorin�it is determined that the Proiect does not adverselv impact the Calle Joaguin wetland areas (as defined above), the A�plicant shall provide documentation annuallv (at minimum) to the Citv, for review and a�proval bv the Citv's Natural Resources Mana�er, that no significant signs o� hvdrolo�ical interruption, erosion (including bank efailure� sedimentation have occurred, that the wetland is sustained in biolo�ical inte�ty and health with existing hvdrolo ig c inputs, and that channel migration has not adverselv a�fected existing wetland features adjacent to Calle Joaquin. ix. I�throu�h monitorin�it is determined that the Project adversely impacts the Calle.Ioaquin wetland area, recommendations shall be made for modi�cations to the Proiect desi�n in consultation with the Citv and a�ropriate reQulatorv a�encies for review and concurrence, as described in subsection viii above. The annual reports would detail the issue or problem area and proposed remedial actions. x. I,f throu�h monitorin� it is determined that the Calle .Ioaquin wetland condition and function cannot be remediated with implementation of all feasible remedial actions and recommendations identified through lon�-term monitorin�and as described in subsection vii above and the Long-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan, then adverselv a�fected wetland areas shall be delineated and mitiQated on- or o�fsite at a minimum 3:1 ratio unless otherwise directed bv state and federal aQencies, including but not limited to the CDF'W, RWQCB, NMFS, and USFWS(as appropriate), consistent with subsection �c)above. N � � O Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-71 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , t-i-xi. Fundin� ,for lonQ-term wetland monitorin�, adaptive mana�err�ent, and anv recommended contingencv measures shall be the responsibilitv of the A�licant. Pavment o,f a bond bv the A�plicant would be rec�uired to ensure the availabilitv of adequate funds to ensure successful implementation and completion of the Long-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan throu�hout build-out under the Specific Plan. ^f� ��•�� ':' �a�iE��a�–�c��e–�-i�tigtttie��-Et�lea�t�-9:��9--� .s�'-'�te �tent-i��y--af'feeEe�—�—t-kt�gi��ee��ese rae�� ,��,.,,... ,.��,.n„ �,.,,,.,,;,. :+�:,. .�„ o�„�;a� n�,.,. ,.a ,.��,,,.�.,.t�.�„r „a c.,. � �,,,,,v�,.,, n.,,. ��,,,.,.,,� d) Habitat revegetation or creation shall occur in the fall or winter no inore than 1 year following habitat disturbance. Revegetation shall be inonitored monthly for 7 years with a goal of at least 70 percent survival of container plants and 70-percent relative cover by vegetation rype 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. e) 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 inaintenance of riparian vegetation conditions shall be conducted consistent with the requirements of the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan outlined in MMBIO-3. Plan Requirements and Timing. All requirements shall be included in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the Ciry for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. Monitorin�.The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and I Monitoring Plan and HMMP(including the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan 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, N � inspection, and reporting of restoration activities. The City shall ensure ES-72 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , compliance with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and Lon,g-Term Wetland 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 reguired 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 hy the Ciry and the Applicant's Environmental Coordinator, and shall.� a) Descrihe 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 mazimum extent possible. c) Habitat restoration or enhancement sites shall be placed within existing or additional necessary deed-restricted area(s) and shall be inaintained and monitored for a minimum of l years.If su�cient 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. N � � N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-73 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , e) A weed management plan and weed identification list shall be included in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. � 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 otherrvise managed. g) Quarterly and annual reports documenting site inspections and site recovery status shall be prepared and sent to the Ciry 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 far 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 Mitigarion 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 N � Plan, and final VTM for compliance. The Applicant's Environmental w ES-74 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , 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 manageinent. Grading and construction activities shall avoid the rainy season(typically October I S to April I S)to the extent practicable, particularly within SO 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 fi^ogs and steelhead from the work area by a professional biologist authorized by the USPWS and/or CDPW,� and monitoring of construction activities within the viciniry 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 gualified biologist into the nearest suitable habitat outside the disturbance area as determined in consultation with the appropriate jurisdictional resource agency. Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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 Ciry 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 Mitigarion 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 habitation and movement of special-status wildli e species, as follows: � N � � A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-75 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , � 1. Migratory and Nesting/BurrowinQ Bird Management. Grading and construction activities shall avoid the breeding season (typically froin February I S to August I S)to the extentpracticable,particularly within SO feet of riparian or wetland habitat and mature trees and within onsite grasslands. If Project activities must be conducted during this period and within the viciniry of riparian or wetland habitat �rasslands, and/or mature trees, pre-construction nesting/burrowinQ bird surveys shall take place no more than one week prior to habitat � disturbance associated with each phase; if active nests or burrows 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 or burrowing owl, in which case a minimum 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 � �ecial-status 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. �e. Ifburrowing owls are,found onsite and avoidance is notpossible, N � burrow exclusion shall be conducted bv Citv-a�proved gualifzed � ES-76 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , biolo�ists and onlv durin� the non-breedin� season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is con zrmed em�tv through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. CDFW recommends replacement o,f occupied burrows with artificial burrows at a ratio of one burrow collapsed to one artificial burrow constructed (1:1) To avoid recolonization, ongoing surveillance shall be provided bv the Citv-a�proved Project biolo�ists throughout Proiect construction at a rate that is sufficient to detect burrowin�if they return. 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 fi^om 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 N � VTM. Construction shall be conducted between August 16 and February 14 rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-77 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 recardation of the final VTM. Monitorin�.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 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 buff'er shall extend fi�om 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 Wildl fe 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 N � Final FRSP prior to Project approval. V ES-78 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � BIO-5.Project construction would result in the MMBIO-I S Native Tree Protection. To ensure protection of native protected Less than Significant potential disturbance,trimming,or removal of up to �ees with respect to the tree trunk, canopy, and root zone, the Applicant shall With Mitigation 75 mature trees. 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 tr^ees 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 gualified biologist f'or up to 5 years if necessary and as determined at the discretion of the Ciry. Should Project activities result in the compromised health of native trees resulting from encroachment, the Applicant shall submit a native tree replacementplantingprogram,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 deterinining 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 fi�om live stakes following guidelines provided in the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual for planting dormant cuttings and container stock(CDFW 2010). • Ti-ee 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 f'easible, 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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-79 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � � . , . � . . , , 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 fi^om 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 rype, 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 monitar 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 MM CR-1 A Phase 2 — Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation Less than Significant within areas of prehistoric archaeological sensitivity (SARE)investigation shall be conducted prior to any grading or development with Mitigation. with the potential to impact subsurface cultural or proposed within 200 feet of the recorded P-40-000783 and P-40-001195 sites, tribal cultural resources. 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 � ES-80 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , unknown buried archaeological resources but conclude there is a possibiliry 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 invesrigations shall be conducted by a City-approved archaeologist prior to approval of the VTM or Project entitlements. Monitorin�. 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-2If 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 const�^uction 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 eguipment 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. Monitorin�. The City shall verity that required elements are shown on the final VTM and grading permits. Compliance shall be verified pursuant to the N � approved Archaeological Monitoring Plan. 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-81 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 tq 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; • 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 Ciry- 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 Ciry-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 Timin�. The conditions for monitoring and treatment of discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans. Priar 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 � ES-82 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 Ciry 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-S 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 Comrnunity 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 Ciry. Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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 Ciry shall review and approve the selected archaeologist to ensure they meet appropriate professional qualification standards, consistent with the Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Monitorin�. 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 N � implemented in the event of any inadvertent discovery. N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-83 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i . � � ' � � 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 const�^uction. 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, spec�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. Constr�uction shall halt around the discovery of human remains, the area shall be protected,and consultation and h^eatmentshall occur as prescribed by law. N � � W ES-84 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � � , ,. „ � • , , I Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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 fieldwark.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. CR-2.Future resident recreational activities could MM CR-8 No designated recreational areas,facilities,pedestrian paths, or Less than Significant impact archaeological resources located within roadways shall be located with 50 feet of a known prehistoric or tribal With Mitigation. proposed open space. cultural resource site.All archaeological site soils within 100 feet of a known prehistoric or tribal cultural site shall be seeded with shallow rooted native � vegetation unless existing natural vegetation (i.e., existing grasslands) can screen the cultural resource fi^om 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-O011 95 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 vegetarion seeding covering the archaeological site boundaries prior to issuance of occupancy. CR-3.The Project would result in relocation, MM CR-9 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional historic Significant and demolition,disturbance,and/or removal of historic architect meeting the Secretary of�the Interior's Professional Qualifications Unavoidable resources onsite,including individually eligible Standards (36 CFR Part 61) to review and comment on design and historic resources and a historic district. 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 iteins 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 N replaced to exactly match the old. Ac) All character-defining features are retained. Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-85 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , d) Physical tr�eatments 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. � 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. 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 submitted^"'�� to� 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)Levelll documentation and investigate additional a�plicable surve�Lg., oral histories, LIDAR, and/or photo�rammetrv). This documentation shall record the existing appearance of all seven contributing buildings in large and medium format HABS photographs. HABS Level II documentation shall pertain to the entire Froom Ranch Dairv complex so that functional relationships between the N � buildinQs can be documented. All documentation components shall be � ES-86 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � 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 ParkService (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 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 and/or additional means(e.Q., signa eg ,interpretive plan,mobile-fNiendlv content),subiect to a�proval by the C�. This �s'�rtlshleEinterpretive proiect 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 properry relates to the larger dairy farm context in San Luis Obispo, the Central Coast, and California. Pive hundred copies of the pamphlet shall be published. These professionally researched, written and printed rr�aterials 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 thatprovide 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 N � CHC and approved by the Community Development Director. The Parks and rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-87 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , 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 str�uctures 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. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit draft documentation to the Ciry for review and approval by the Community Development Director priar 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. Monitorin�. The design guidelines shall be reviewed by the CHC and approved by the Community Development Director. MM CR-I4 Prior to commencement ofPhase 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 dainage during construction activities. N � � V ES-88 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , 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 recordarion 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 Ciry-approved structural engineer shall periodically monitor vibration during vibration-causing construcrion acrivities 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 None required Less than Significant structures to adverse effects from earthquakes and seismically induced hazards. GEO-2. The Project has the potential to exacerbate None required Less than Significant potential soils hazards,including eapansive soils, differential settlement,and subsidence. GEO-3.The Project would potentially cause erosion, None required Less than Significant landslides,and rockfall. GEO-4.The Project would include subterranean None required Less than Significant parking in Villaggio and may require groundwater � dewatering in areas with high groundwater. � � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-89 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � GEO-5.Project construction could uncover MM GEO-1 Prior to construction of each phase, workers shall receive Less than Significant paleontological resources in geologic deposits during education regarding the recognition of possible paleontological resources, With Mitigation earthwork activities. If improperly handled, such during grading and excavation. Such training shall provide construction resources could be adversely impacted. 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 signifzcant impacts to paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground disturbance or consh^uction 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 Timin�.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 Ciry 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 N � made; � ES-90 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 verificarion 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 far 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, MM HAZ-1 The Applicant shall prepare and submit a Consti^uction Impact Significant and thereby exposing occupants to wildfire hazards,and Management Plan to the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department(SLOFD) Unavoidable impair emergency response,and would require prior to the issuance of grading permits. The Plan shall list measures taken wildfire fuel management in the Irish Hills Natural during construction to reduce the potential for brush or grass fires fi^om use Reserve. 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 eguipment 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 N J O O Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-91 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � • 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 Counry Fire Department,and the Ciry,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 priar 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 developahle areas and detail methods for achieving fire safery around new buildings while preserving the integrity and function of affected native plant communities to the maximum extent feasible, and that ensures that consistent fzre fuel manageinent 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, N would reduce the mitigating effect of the Plan. Specifzcally, the Plan shall o include, but not be limited tq the following elements: ES-92 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , • T�egetation coverage and rype; • 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, gualifications, 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.Priar to approval of the final development plan,the Communiry 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 Counry Fire Department. The Plan shall be implemented consistent with the approved maintenance schedule. Monitorin�.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. MMHAZ-3 The Froom Ranch Specific Plan(FRSP)shall designate smokz'ng 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. N J O N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-93 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � Plan Repuirements and Timin�. 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. MMHAZ-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 Villaggiq 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. Monitorin�. The City and SLOFD shall review the Evacuation Plan and ensure all recommendations are incorporated. The City Fire Marshall shall N J O W ES-94 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 fzre 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 fi^om Villaggio and one fi�om 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 adoprion 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. HAZ-2.The Project would potenrially expose None Required. Less than Significant persons to toxic,hazardous,or otherwise harmful chemicals through accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. HAZ-3. The Project site is located within the ALUP None Required. Less than Significant Safety Areas and would potentially result in an airport-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project site. 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality HYD-1. Project construction activities would result MM HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or Less than Significant in impacts to water quality due to polluted runoff and the commencement of any clearing, grading, or excavation, the Applicant with Mitigation increased erosion ar siltation. shall submit a Notice oflntent(NOI)for discharge fi�om the Project site to the California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit. Plan Requirements and Timing.The NOI shall be submitted far review and approval to the SWRCB. The City will verify that a Waste Discharge Identification(WDID)number is assigned by the Board priar to the issuance of grading permits far construction activities.The NOI shall address discharge during all phases of development of the site until all disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. N J O A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-95 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � Monitorin�. 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 constr�uction 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 contYol 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. • Su�cient 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 ofgraded 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 f'ollowed 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. 0 � ES-96 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � • 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, identif'ying that pollution sources were controlled during the construction of the Project and implementing a closure SWPPP for the site. Plan Repuirements 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 activiries. A Qualified SWPPP Pracririoner(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 f'eatures shall be f'ully 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 N review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits for each Project � phase. Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-97 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � Monitorin�. The City shall review grading and construction plans for all phases to ensure compliance. City grading monitors shall spot check for compliance. HYD-2. TheProjectwouldpotentiallyexacerbate MMHYD-4TheApplicantshallsubmitfinalFroomCreekRealignmentplans LessthanSignificant flooding and erosion hazards onsite and in areas and supporting technical studies that provide a refined bio-engineering With Mitigarion downstream,particularly related to the proposed approach to ensure creek bank and channel bottom stability and avoidance realignment and design of Froom Creek and or reduction of further erosion. Final creek design plans and a supporting developed areas of the site. 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 .Ioaquin wetlands, and to protect mid- to upper-bank areas and top-of-bank fi^om 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 priar 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 None Required. Less than Significant impact water quality of Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek due to polluted urban runoff and sedimentation. HYD-4. The Project would involve development of None Required. Less than Significant new impervious surfaces and potentially interfere with groundwater recharge. � 3.9 Land Use LU-1. The Project would allow urban development MM BIO-1 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological Significant and above the 150-foot elevation and would relocate Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and Unavoidable portions of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex,which operational related avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measures for owould potentially conflict with City General Plan impacts to sensitive natural communities. The Biological Mitigation and V ES-98 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding impacts Monitoring Plan shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid to visual,biological,and cultural resources and or minimize impacts to biological resources, and implementation of on and wildfire hazards. 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 fi^om existing and proposed drainage features and adjacent riparian habitat, and all construction vehicle maintenance shall be perf'ormed in a designated off"site vehicle storage and maintenance area approved by the Ciry. 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 minirr�um 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 construcfion. 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 authoriry to stop or redirect work as needed to protect biological resources. d) All constr�uction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building materials) shall be stored at designated construction staging areas,which shall be located outside ofdesignated sensitive areas. Should spills occur, or i�v unanticipated hazardous are � discovered, materials and/or contaminants shall be cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the RWQCB, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and/or San Luis Obispo Countv Public Health Environmental Services, as applicable. e) All trash and constr�uction debris shall be properly dispo.sed 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 N J O � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-99 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � storm events. All sheeting shall be carefully secured to withstand weather conditions. � 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 fi^om 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 wildlif'e species found during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the Project site by a gualified biologist or othenvise trained and City- approved personnel. Ti^enches 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 habitatfragmentation. 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 N o locations, timing of surveys and activities, species composition, habitat � ES-100 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 priar to the issuance of gading 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. Monitorin�.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, inspecrion,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 constr�uction activities, conduct a biological resources education program for all construction workeYs prior to the initiation of any clearing or construction activities, and provide quarterly reports to the Ciry 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 const�^uction-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 N ; habitat, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4, and seasonal or permanent wetlands. 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-101 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 viciniry 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 Timin�. 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 Coardinator shall be present onsite to monitor construction activities pursuant to the approved Biological Mitigation and Monitaring Plan. Monitorin�. The Environmental Coordinator shall monitor all grading and construction activities occurring within the vicinity of sensitive habitats or known location of sensirive 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): J ES-102 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � , � ' � � 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 ineasures 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 initigation 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 Ciry 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 f'or 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. N ; If success criteria cannot be met through the HMMP, the City Natural N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-103 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 t�^ain 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 ofsensitive 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) Reguirements 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 Timin�. 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 N ; footprints such as the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance, Central Coast w ES-104 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � Arroyo Willow Scrub Communiry, Coastal and Central T�alley Freshwater Marsh, and wetland areas to the ma�imum 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 Ciry 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 rreitigation 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-S The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require all temporary and permanent direct and indirect impacts to wetlands,grasslands, � and riparian habitat be mitigated, as follows: a) Temporary direct impacts to wetland, native grassland, and riparian � habitat�.�shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (area of restored habitat to impacted habitat). N J A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-105 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � � b) Permanent direct impacts to sensitive natural communities, such as 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 (as a�propriate�. �Potential indirect impacts to the Calle.Ioaquin wetlands affected by the Froom Creek realignment and changes to site hydrology shall be mitigated as follows.As a part of the HMMP prepared for the Proiect, the Applicant shall prepare and im�lement a Lon��Term Wetland MonitorinQ Plan that is desi�ned to quantitatively and c�ualitativelX assess the effectiveness of the HMMP over time to ensure its obiectives are achieved. The Long-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan shall be supported bv a Baseline Conditions Assessrnent that identifies the pre- construction condition of the Calle Joaquin wetlands and establishes success criteria for sustained wetland conditions. The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall provide c�ualitative and c�uantitative information that will be used in comparin� data obtained during subsequent monitoringvears to determine ifa si�nificant deviance from baseline conditions has occurred at the site. The Long-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan will establish the parametens of a si�ificant deviance from baseline conditions.A si�nificant deviance,from haseline ma,v be defined as a "chanQe in wetland area�reater than 10%". The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall be updated prior to the start of consh^uction to su�port agency�erinittinQ and�uide implementation of the Long-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan. This updated baseline shall be considered in combination with existing and past baseline documentation to provide an expanded baseline reflective of a ran�e o� acceptable conditions to compare post Proiect conditions. The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall include a focused description o� the site's hvdrolo�ic setting, vegetative cover and composition, puantified wetland areas and classifications, and shall establish the threshold for a si�nificant deviance f�'om wetland area based on the presence of hvdro�h tv ic plant species, hvdric soil indicators, and � wetland hvdrolo� J � ES-106 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � At minimum, the condition of the wetland shall be evaluated on an annual basis through completion of a wetland assessment usin�a re�ulatorv a�v a�proved model (such as, but not limited to, the California Rapid Assessment Method [CRAM7) to docurr�ent and facilitate lon�-term monitorin�of chan�es to the wetland. The annual evaluation shall determine and document anv de r�o,f chanQe to the wetland as a result o,f the proposed chan�es to site hvdrologv and development throu�hout build-out under the Specific Plan. Reports documentin� the annual wetland assessment shall be provided to the Citv and relevant reQulatorv a�encies. LonQ-Term Wetland Monitorin�for the Calle.Ioaquin wetlands shall occur continuousl�for a period of no less than 7 vears following Phase I build-out of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. After the initial 7- vears of ininimum annual monitorin�, the frequencv of lon -� term evaluations shall be determined in coordination with re L�� aQencies and per the rec�uirements of the Long-Term Wetland Monitorin� The Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan shall include (at minimum� the following requirements. Additional detailed criteria and performance standards will be established in the HMMP prepared for the pro�ect and a�proved b.�gulator��encies, but thev shall not be anv less stringent than the followin� criteria and performance standards: i. Annual monitorin�shall evaluate and track the wetland health and biological inte�ritv of the Calle Joac�uin wetlands. ii. Annual evaluations shall utilize intensive site assessments to provide a more thorou�h and detailed measure of wetland condition bv �atherin� direct measurements of bioloQical ta�a and hvdro eg omorphic functions. iii. Typical industry standards for the quantitative evaluation o�plant cover will be used(e.�., Bonham 1989 and Daubenmire 1968) to evaluate plant composition and structure as well as direct inspections ofsoil conditions and hvdroloQic functions. iv. Annual or semi-annual evaluations shall observe and document the followinQ, at a minimum: ■ whether groundwater recharge fYom Froom Creek to the N ; shallow aguifer is beinQ sustained, rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-107 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � ■ whether the onsite artesian well has been dischar�in�to the wetland, ■ evidence of overflows enterin� the Calle .Ioaquin wetland from the realigned Froom Creek, ■ excessive pondin�, as evidenced bv chan�es in ve et,g ation related to increased duration o,�ponding ■ measured depth to Qroundwater in the onsite artesian well and the relationship ofthese conditions with conditions in the wetland, ■ specific conductance and temperature in the wetland and other surface sources, ■ the presence or absence ofsalt e�'florescences in the wetland, ■ anv persistent �reen vegetation patches or chan e� willow/�rass ecotone, and ■ representative photo points. v. Monitorin�ofthe realiQned creek's hvdrolo�v would be reguired ollowin,g lar�e storm events during the rain season that are s�ficient to initiate,flowing water throuQh the site.I�after the 3rd ey ar ofmonitoring, ve�etation has successfullv established along the creek corridor and sedimentation and erosion are not observed bevond what is determined to be a normal level, then the rainv season monitoring could be scaled back to occur on a puarterlv or as-needed basis for the remainder of the monitorin� schedule, upon review and a�proval of the Citv's Natural Resources ManaQer and a�plicable re u� latorv a�encies and consistent with the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan. vi. Success criteria to determine whether the Calle Joac�uin wetland functions are sustained shall include the following,at a minimum: ■ The constructed bank between the realigned Froom Creek channel and the Calle Joaquin wetlands remains functional and does not recurrentiv scour or f ll to a de�ree that impairs its operation or impedes circulation throu�h the wetland, ■ Excessive surface water does not pond,for periods of lon� duration, ■ Salts do not accumulate such that discernible increases in salt e�florescences at the ground surface are not visible, N J V ES-108 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � ■ Evidence of deposition bv hiQh flows is not found within the wetland�Q., silt, or�anics, or otherflood deposits� vii. If success criteria are not achieved within the 7,vear initial monitorinQ period, a hvdrolo�ic assessment will be conducted bX a USACE-a�proved specialist in groundwater su�orted wetlands to establish whether non-attainment is attributable to onsite conditions or actions bevond the e�fective control of the Pro'e� ct A�plicant. The specialist shall be a re�istered h dv rolo z�'st or certified hYdrogeologist with statewide expertise, familiarit� with �roundwater su�orted wetlands in central coastal California and verifiahle experience conductin� functional anal sV es of such wetlands. Recommendations ,for remedial actions will be submitted bv the g,roundwater specialist to the USACE for review and written a�proval prior to implementation. If wetland failures are determined to be directiv related to the reali�nment of Froom Creek and development within the Froom Creek Specifc Plan area, possible remedial actions would include, at minimum, the followin� ■ En�ineerin� controls include biotechnical erosion controls such as the installation of willow wattles and br�ush mattressin�and addition ofnative cobble to reinforce the low .flow berm separatin� the creek channel from the wetland area to help contain flows into the wetland area. • If ve�etation establishment is takin� lon�er than expected, remedial measures such as re-seeding bare soils, replanting areas of mortalitv, and increased maintenance and monitorinQ mav be prescribed. • Ifthere is si�nificant evidence ofscouring, collapse,orfilling of the overflow bank between the realigned low-�low Froom Creek channel and the Calle Joaquin wetlands, a re�istered professional engineer shall re-evaluate bank type, size, and slope and recommend a solution, such as augmentation or replacement. • If there is excessive pondinQ �atial or temporal), a re�istered professional en�neer shall assess access to and capacitv of existin� drainage outlets and recommend a N ; solution, such as augmentation or replacement ifnecessar� � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-109 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � • If salt e�'florescence is obser�ved and specific conductance in the wetland is greater than baseline conditions, a re 'si� professional enQineer shall re-evaluate the bank tXpe, slope, size, and convevance between the reali�ned Froom Creek low-flow channel and the Calle.Ioac�uin wetlands to increase the frec�uenc�of salt,flushin�, such as alterin,g surface flows to more frequentiv overflow to the wetland area. viii. If through monitorin�it is determined that the Pro�ect does not adversely impact the Calle .Ioaquin wetland areas (as defined above), the A�plicant shall provide documentation annuallv(at minimum) to the Cit�for review and a�proval hv the Citv's Natural Resources Mana�er, that no signifcant si�ns o� hvdrolo�ical interruption, erosion (includin�failure , or sedimentation have occurred, that the wetland is sustained in biolo�ical integritv and health with existin� hvdrologic inputs, and that channel miQration has not adverselv a,�fected existing wetland,features adiacent to Calle.Ioac�uin. ix. If through monitorinQ it is determined that the Project adverselX impacts the Calle Joaquin wetland area, recommendations shall be made for modifications to the Pro�ect desi�n in consultation with the Citv and a�propriate regulatorv a eg ncies for review and concurrence, as described in subsection viii above. The annual reports would detail the issue or problem area and proposed remedial actions. x. If throu�h monitorin� it is determined that the Calle .Ioaquin wetland condition and function cannot be remediated with implementation of all feasible remedial actions and recommendations identified through long-term monitorin a� described in subsection vii above and the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan, then adverselv a�fected wetland areas shall be delineated and mitigated on- or o�fsite at a minimum 3:1 ratio unless otherwise directed bv state and federal agencies, including but not limited to the CDF'W, RWQCB, NMFS, and USFWS(as appropriate), consistent with subsection�c)above. tti-xi. Fundin� for lon�-term wetland monitorin� adaptive mana�ement, and anv recommended contingencv measures shall ; be the responsibilitv of the A�plicant. Pavment o,f a bond bv the � ES-110 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � A�plicant would be required to ensure the availabilitv of adec�uate funds to ensure successful implementation and completion of the Lon�-Term Wetland MonitorinQ Plan throughout build-out under the Specific Plan. ^*� ��•�� ':' �a�--�-�e�u i�e--��-iiig��ie�--e�-��a�t�z�4—�s.�� ,.�+i; ;+;,.,.+;,,, .i„ ,.�.i„�,.n„ r,.,.,,;, „f�,.,�,�� +,,,.�z„+,,,��^�tkte�'� w�e'�� ,.i,.,,..� ,.��,.n„ r,.,.,.,.;,� ;,�;,. ��„ r�,,,,;r,,, n�,.,. ,.a ,.�i,,,...�,.��„r ..a �,,. � �,,,,,� i,.,., n,,,. .,�,.,.,.,,� d) 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 othenvise determined necessary by the Applicant's Environmental Coordinator. e) 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 f'ollowing winter storm seasons to assess damage to riparian vegetation and need f'or 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 Repuirements and TiminE. 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(including the Long-Term Wetland Monitoring I Plan 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 and Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorinp Plan through receipt of monitoring � N N reports and site inspections. 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-111 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 �nethods, 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 l 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 wildlif'e and plant species. e) A weed management plan and weed identification list shall be included in the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. � Habitat restoration or enhancement areas shall be maintained weekly � for the first three years after Project completion and quarterly N , ES-112 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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. Monitorin�.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 Ciry shall ensure compliance with requirements for the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP through receipt of monitoring reports and site inspecrions. 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. Projectphasing 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 Ciry far 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 and Special-Status Plant � N N Management. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-113 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � � Applicant shall submit or fund a site survey for�ecial-status plants, includin� Chorro Creek bog thistle, and: � 1. All individual locations of special-status species, includin�Chorro Creek bog thistle, and suitable habitat areas shall be mapped using GPS coordinates.No construction activities or disturbance shall occur � within 50 feet of mapped special-status species, including Chorro Creek bog thistle, or suitable habitat areas. 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. El%s-�,,,l•,,u�oc-a-v^��3=t��i'4^�;;^�2^ci-c^-v^izS-�,,,•,,�cccci^v'r^�t,J^^�-o�D•^^,2£rs-�4~�i�ci-02 ,,,�,,..;,.,�„a *,. „ cn �,.t t,,,��, �;,,,,�� N „a �i,.,,,. i+,,,,,i �,,,,.fi;...�„,. �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 SO feet from the top of the bank or edge of delineated � wetland durin� construction. 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 to the extent feasible. 4. If the site survev r'esults identi�special-status plant species, including Chorro Creek bog thistle, or suitable habitat that mav be disturbed or lost from Proiect construction, the Project shall be redesigned to ensure a minimum 50-foot bu�fer from ma�ed individual occurrences and suitable habitat areas. If bu�fers cannot be maintained, then consultation with CDFW shall occur to determine a�propriate minimization and miti�ation measures,for impacts to special-status plant species, or in the case of�lant species listed pursuant to CESA or the Native Plant Protection Act, to determine if take can be avoided.I�' ,� take cannot be avoided, take authorization prior to anv �round- w ES-114 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � disturbin� activities mav be warranted. Take authorization would occur throug,h issuance of an ITP bv CDFW, pursuant to Fish and Gaine Code section 2081�b). Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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 Mitigarion 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 I S to April I S)to the extent practicable, particularly within SO 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 Calif'ornia red-legged f'rog, 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 Repuirements and Timin�. All requirements shall be included on the N N Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-115 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits and recordation of the final VTM. Monitorin�.The City shall review and approve the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and HMMP to ensure that all BMPs and appropriate mirigation 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 andlor restoration activities. MM BIO-l2 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address � the habitation and movement of special-status wildli e species, as follows: 1. Migratory and Nesting/BurrowinQ Bird Management. Grading and constr�uction activities shall avoid the breeding season (typically fNom February I S to August I S)to the extentpracticable,particularly within SO feet of riparian or wetland habitat and mature trees and within onsite Qrasslands. If Project activities must be conducted during this period and within the vicinity of riparian or wetland habitat �rasslands, 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 or burrows 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 or burrowin,�, in which case a minimum S00 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 Ciry immediately upon completion of the survey. The reportshall 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 N ,� authority to reduce or increase the recommended buffer � ' ES-116 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 or � special-status 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. a'.e. I/'burrowin�owls are found onsite and avoidance is not possible, burrow exclusion shall be conducted bv Ci��roved qualified biolo�ists and onlv durin� the non-breedin� season, before breedinQ behavior is exhihited and after the burrow is confirmed em� through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. CDFW recommends replacement of occupied burrows with artificial burrows at a ratio of one burrow collapsed to one artificial burrow constructed (1:1) To avoid recolonization, on,goinQ surveillance shall be provided bv the Citv-a�roved Project biolo�ists throu�hout Proiect const�^uction at a rate that is su�ficient to detect burrowin�if thev return. 2. Bat Colony Management. Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) or demolition/relocation of existing onsite str�uctures, a survey shall be conducted by a Ciry 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 inust conduct a daily site- clearance during dernolition.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 sirr�ilar cavities or crevices to N N those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-117 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � height above ground, and thermal conditions.If a bat colony would be eliminated from the Pro ject 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 Timin�.The Biological Mirigation 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. Monitorin�.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 iteins 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 unf'oreseen circumstance in a manner that conf'orms 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. V ES-118 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 identifzed as a contemporary re- creation. � 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 ofsimilar age. In addition to the technical report, the findings fi^om 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 Ciry 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 ^"'��submitted to� 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. Monitorin�.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 and investiQate additional a�plicable survevs L,�., oral histories. LIDAR, and/or photo�rammetrv). This documentation shall record the existing appearance of all seven contributing buildings in large and medium format HABS photographs. HABS Level II documentation shall pertain to the entire � ,� Froom Ranch Dairv complex so that functional relationships between the � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-119 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � , � ' � � � buildin�s can be documented. 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 fzber-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 ParkService (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 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 and/or additional measures �e.�., si�nage, interpretive plan, mobile-f�'iendlv content), sub'ec� t to a�proval bv the Citv. This�e�interpretive proiect 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. Pive 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 Timin�. 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. N J N � ES-120 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � Monitorin�.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 Ciry 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 architectuYal recycling before being disposed. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall prepare and submit draft documentation to the Ciry for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase 3. Monitoring. The markering 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 integriry 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 Ciry and CHC for review and approval prior to approval of entitlements and the issuance of grading permits for Phase 1. Monitorin�. 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 Ciry-approved qualified structural engineer and historical architect shall survey the existing foundations and other structural aspects of the main residence, creamery, N J W O Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-121 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 ident�ing 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. Monitorin�.The Ciry engineer shall review and approve the preservation plan priar to recordation of the final map and issuance of grading permits for Phase L 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 fzre buffers and fuel management zones around developable areas and detail methods f'or achieving fire saf'ety around new buildings while preserving the integrity and f'unction of'aff'ected 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, N W and conservation of sensitive habitats and rare species, while developing fire ES-122 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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: • Tlegetation coverage and type; • Setbacks between structures, sensitive wildlif'e 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 str�ucture protection and avoid degradation of sensitive biological habitat,•and • Invasive species shall be removed and controlled. Plan Requirements and Timin�.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. Monitorin�.The City-qualified biologist shall submit a monitaring 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 Protecrion 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. MMHAZ-3 The Froom Ranch Specific Plan(FRSP)shall designate smoking � areas, located away from onsite fire hazards areas and within acceptable w N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-123 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � locations consistent with Chapter 8.16, Smoking Prohibition and Secondhand Smoke Control, of the Ciry 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 Timin�. 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. Monitorin�. The Final FRSP shall be reviewed by the SLOFD and City for inclusion of the above measure. MMHAZ-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 reguired 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 priinary 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 Timin�. T`he 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 w w ES-124 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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. Monitorin�. 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-S 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 fi^om 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 Timin�. Prior to adoption of the Final FRSP, the Applicant shall amend the Final FRSP to include the required accessway, in coardination 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-19�The Project shall desi�n and install�a landscaped � median along LOVR from the terminus of the existing median at northern Project frontage to Calle.Ioaquin. � , . . �;, ..�,,,„ ,��.,;�.,.�;.,,� ;�.,,,,�....,,,.,.,,a�., .,.�,,,., � Plan Requirements and Timin�. The final FRSP shall be amended to incorporate the above median improvement prior to adoption and submitted to the City for review and a�proval.Prior to recordation of the final VTM for development of Villaggio's Lower Area, the A�licant shall submit a public improvement plan for review and a�proval bv the City.Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance first cerrificates of occupancv for development of Villa,ggio's Lower Area.T�.o fi��, �DCD��.�" �.o�...o�aoa '� ,..,*o *�.o „�.,..,o w.oa;.,� ; .,*.. ...,. „a,.�*:,.� „�a �„�.w,:..oa r,.rt.o r;r. F.-,-o.; ...,7., ,.,1 Tt.o.Y.o,7;,.,�.�t,.,ll t�o;...�o,..-..ro,7�,.�t,o 4;,�...1 �ITTR.. ,-�„ .. ,.,1 „F,7o..01,,,..�.o,�.r,�.1,.,�.� Monitorin�.The Citv shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the final FRSP prior to Project a�roval. The City shall verify that the A�licant N W installs the improvements in accordance to the a�roved phase and design � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-125 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � lpans'r�.o r;.., ��,.,ii o o .i,o ,.�.,,.,o,..o o ,.,..oa ;�.,, .�.o x�.,i �n c n� ,..,,n..,,;o,.... ,.,t MM TRANS-203�The Project shall include an emergency access point fi^om Villaggio's Lower Area to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to provide access to the existing dirt road network to fzght 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. Monitorin�.The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the final FRSP prior to Project approval. � MM TRANS-213� 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 Timin�. 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. Monitorin�.The Ciry shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the final FRSP priar to Project approval. LU-2. The Project would potentially be inconsistent None Required. Less than Significant with existing easements and setback requirements onsite. 3.10 Noise �, NO-1. Project construction,including site grading MM NO-1 Except for emergency repair of public service utilities, or where Less than Significant � and heavy truck trips,would generate noise levels an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no with Mitigation ES-126 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � that exceed thresholds established in the City's operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook alteration, or demolition work shall occur between the hours of 7:00 PM and resulting in potentially significant impacts to 7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, such that the proximate sensitive receptors. 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 310-10, 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. Monitorin�. The Applicant's permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform periodic site inspections to verify compliance with acrivity schedules and respond to complaints. MM NO-2 For all constr�uction 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 912 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include: • Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment. • Stationary construction equipment thatgenerates 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 eguipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with f'actory-recommended mufflers. • Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and aff'ected uses. Plan Requirements and Timin�.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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-127 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � � , , . � . . , , 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. MMNO-3 The Applicant shall inform landowners and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the Project site of proposed construction timelines and noise complaintprocedures to minimize potential annoyance or nuisance complaints related to construction noise no less than 10 days prior to initiation of any grading and const�^uction 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. Monitorin�. 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., None Required. Less than Significant excavation,transportation of heavy equipment)could with Mitigation result in exposure of sensitive receptars and buildings to excessive groundborne vibration. N J W V ES-128 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � . NO-3. Long-term operational noise impacts would None Required. Less than Significant 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. NO-4. Future residents and occupants of the Project MMNO-4 Prior to approval of park and residential development within the Less than Significant could be exposed to periodic high noise levels from Madonna Froom Ranch area of the Specific Plan, the Applicant shall submit With Mitigation nearby commercial uses(e.g.,delivery trucks, a project-specific noise study that evaluates the potential for noise exposure forklifts,backup alarms)that would exceed City f�'om adjacent commercial uses and identifies project-specific design thresholds for residential land uses. 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 mitigarion within the final FRSP priar 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 attenuarion measures are shown on construcrion plans prior to issuance of building permits. 3.11 Population and Housing PH-1. Residential and commercial development None Required. Less than Significant associated with the Project would induce population growth. PH-2. The Project would provide additional housing None Required. Less than Significant for the City,assisting the jobs-to-housing ratio. PH-3. The Project would provide additional None Required. Less than Significant affardable housing for the City 312 Public Services and Recreation PS-1. The Project would increase demand on the None Required. Less than Significant WSLOPD for police protection services. � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-129 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � PS-2. The Project would increase the demand on None Required. Less than Significant 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 PS-3. The Project would generate increases in None Required. Less than Significant enrollment at public schools(especially C.L. Elementary and Laguna Middle Schools). PS-4. The Project would increase the demand for MM PS-1 Public Parkland Requirements for Villaggio. Mitigation shall be Less than Significant public parkland and neighborhood parks from calculated based on actual buildout populations within Madonna Froom With Mitigation increased residential population. Ranch.At the discretion of the Communiry Development Department and Ciry 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 ofparkland, including � 2.79 acres of neighborhood park(in addition to the 2.9 acres o,�public parkland proposed bv the Pro�ect), within the City's Sphere of Influence, consistent with City General Plan PRE Policies 3.13.1, 3.15.1, S.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 oflnfluence 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 Ciry shall ensure compliance with General Plan PRE N 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. ES-130 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � MM PS-2 Public Parkland Requirements for Madonna Froom Ranch. The Applicant shall identify, designate, dedicate, and/or develop up to 116 acres of public parkland into the Froom Ranch Specific Plan to be operational at the time of buildout of the Project, in addition to parkland provided under � MM PS-1. 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 313.1, 3151, 5.0.1, and 5.0.2, or b) The Applicant shall identify and purchase or dedicate up to 1.16 acres ofparkland within the City's Sphere oflnfluence, 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 coordinaring 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. 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 Traftic TRANS-1. Project construction acrivities would MM TRANS-1 The Applicant shall prepare a Construction Transportation Less than Significant potentially create traffic impacts due to congestion Management Plan for all phases of the Project for review and approval by the with Mitigarion from construction vehicles(e.g.,construction trucks, Ciry prior to issuance of grading or building permits to address and manage construction worker vehicles,equipment,etc.)as traffic during constr�uction. The A�plicant shall coordinate with SLO Re�ional � well as temporary traffic lane and sidewalk closures. Rideshare for the development of the Plan. The Plan shall be designed to: • Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network; • Restrict constr^uction staging to within the Project site; N J A O Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-131 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , • 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;a� !Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoodsi and • Provide strategies to reduce sin lg e-occupancv vehicle trips made bX resident and emplovees.- 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. The A�licant shall identie('�point of contact to coordinate Plan implementation. 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 constr�uction 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 Communiry 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 fNom 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 constr�uction material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way outside of these � hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an after-hours A ES-132 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , construction permit administered by the Building and Safery Division. Additional restrictions may be put in place by Public Works Department depending on particular constr�uction 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 Ciry. • Where construction activities require closure ofbike lanes orsidewalks alon� LOVR, temporarv bicvcle and pedestrian pathwavs shall be provided where,feasible with phvsical separation provided between users and adjacent vehicle tra�c consistent with Public Works rec�uirerrcents. 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 Aaffected agencies (e.g., Police Department, Fire Department, Public N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-133 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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. • Construction tra�c plans, routes, and schedules shall be shared with the City Active Transportation Committee, Counry Public Works Department (for distribution to the Countv Bicvcle Adviso� Committee), the Los Tterdes Park 1 and 2 Homeowners Associations, and local bicvcle advocacy_ r�oups, such as Bike SLO Countv and the SLO Bicvcle Club. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit the Construction Transpartation Management Plan to the Ciry 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 wark within the public right-of-way. Monitorin�. The City shall ensure compliance with the Construction Transportation Management Plan with periodic inspections of the Proj ect 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 Proj ect conditions, MMAQ-6 The Applicant shall revise the FRSP to include measures necessary Significant and the addition of Project traffic would exacerbate to reduce the Project's operational, mobile-source ernissions, and VMT to the Unavoidable existing queuing and peak hour traffic for maximum extent feasible, including, but not limited to the following: automobiles,and poor levels of service for • Rideshare and Employee Ridership Programs: The FRSP shall be Apedestrians and bicycle modes of transportation, amended to include measures for encouraging and incentivizing w ES-134 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � causing transportation deficiencies in the Project residents and employees of the proposed developmentparticipate in the vicinity. San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare program. • Senior Shuttle Service: Villaggio shall provide clean fuel shuttle services and shall provide su�fzcient onsite electric vehicle char inQ infrastructure to su�ort the services. Electric vehicle char,gin� infi^astructure included to meet requirements for personal vehicles maX not be used to fulfill this requirement ��Ee��ee�t�ta��4 �ide��l—t�ie—�e��-ie��e�E��e—�-��tde e,,,� ,� � �i�e�ttde �e;ate��e�ide�t �� itill�ggiE'�i-� �,.,��,��,.,�:,. n�,,,� • All Electric Small T�ehicles: The FRSP shall require all personal small vehicles(e.g.,golf carts)be 100 percent electric powered. . . • I �,,,��,��,.,�;+., n�,,,. ,.,,a n,r„a.,,�,�,. z,,,,.,.,�. u,.,..,� „ • Promote Carpools, T�anpools, and Electric Vehicle (EV) T�ehicles: Provide dedicated parking for carpools, vanpools, and high-e�ciency vehicles in exceedance of Cal Green Tier 2 standards. � nrr:.;�„ cv r,�r,,. �,,,.,,., rar,.,�,,.;�� rrn�,..,,.., n n�n ,,. ....� ,.a.. � �.��a 4�� Ti'TJ i.�r�T �4r4�� f�� T��.4 4��/�:f.• Requirements and Timin�. The Applicant shall include all feasible Best Management Strategies as part of the final FRSP ��a �'��' �'"''"'�. For the � selected Best Management Strategies,the Applicant shall wark with City and SLO County APCD staff to calculate estimated mobile-source emissions to ensure emissions are reduced to the maximum extent feasible as vehicles are the largest source of operational emissions, noting that vehicle emissions are re�ulated on a state and federal level. City and SLO County APCD staff shall ensure the above measures are incorparated into the FRSP ^�a ��^' �'T"� prior to recordation. Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are listed on the final � I FRSP 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. MMTRANS-2 The ProiectA�plicantshall desi�n and construct the extension of the southbound ri�ht-turn pocket at the LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ram�s � intersection to provide a storaQe IenQth of at least I50 feet. In coordination � with the A�plicant, the Citv and Caltrans shall also implement tra�c si� Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-135 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � coordination between the LOVR/Calle Joaguin intersection and adiacent U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps and optimize tra�c si�nal timings at these three intersections.In addition, the A�plicant shall also pav a fair share mitiQation fee towards the improvements that are required to be constructed bv the San Luis Ranch development at this intersection, which include extension of the southbound o�f-ramp throu,gh/left-turn pocket to provide a stora,ge len�of at least 320 feet.''�-� ",��;-��f ^��';��,�* ��'r �'��;�,� ,��' ��i,. ,�a rnrrA�rr o. �-Brse,,t�1.., ,�a $. �=cF�2�1^v^=ot;sEi;£z+�—ci�� f��"�•f�� *��'� ��* ��*�. This mitigation measure requires Caltrans approval and coordination. Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to^�^�recordation of the final VTM for subdivision of the a�-��'�~~��~' �F Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the Applicant shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for roadway improvements at the southbound right-turn pocket and a Traffic Engineering Study€e�with signal timing recommendations for review and a�e�implementation by the City and Caltrans.Payment of fair share mitigation fees shall be provided prior to first buildin�permit issuance for Madonna Froom Ranch development, while construction of a�plicable improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of first certificate of occupancy far Madonna Froom Ranch development.Tmr'�m��*�*:�� F o..�� l..,ll L,o ,. ..lo�o,] .. ,- �„ �l,o : „f ., ,.o.-t:F;...,�o „4' .-1.,,:1.1:...... ,v.;f� 4:,.-fl.o TR.,.7,,,-...., R.-,.,,,v. D.,....1. .]o..ol,.,..v.o..♦ TF;.v....-,,, o ..r� .. ..loro,l .. ,-l.. „rl.o.-.. rl.o A.,..,.1:,...,,.r�l...11 .�...lro .. v o 0 F..;.-�L..,.-o,. «t.-:l.,,ti,..,. ,. .-t„ : ,.Cl.,,;l,�l;...... ....-.;r., F,-rl.o T�.,,7,.,,.«.. L',-,.,..�. D.,.�.,.1. ,�lo..ol,,,..�.o..♦ Monitorin�. 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 pav a fair share miti a�fee towards Athe improvements to be constructed bv the Avila Ranch development project, � ES-136 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � which include the followinQ• �'�"a��;�-,� �,�a; �'�".� . � '� , �'�;�'left turns at the South Higuera Street/T�achell Lane intersection, e�t�n�extension �Buckley Road from T�achell Lane to South Higuera Street, and installation �a tra�c signal at Buckley Road/South Higuera Sti^eet intersection. If the Bucklev Road Extension has not been completed prior to the Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the A�plicant shall be responsible for design and installation of alternate measures to miti�ate the Proiect's proportional share of intersection impacts to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Alternative measures mav include installation of a center refu�e on S. Hi�uera to allow two-sta�e left turns from T�achell, installation of le�t-turn restrictions at South HiQuera/T�achell if the planned Earthwood Lane street connection between T�achell and Suburban has been completed, or signalization of the S. Higuera/T�achell intersection. Miti�ation maX require Countv coordination. r�; ,�+., �.,fi,,.,+„a �.., eee�� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of building_permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a prorated fair share contriburion towards the South Higuera/Vachell and Buckley Road improvements per the terms established in the Avila Ranch Private Reimbursement Agreement. If the Bucklev Road Extension has not been completed by others prior to issuance of first buildin� permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the A�licant shall design and construct alternate mitigation measures to the satisfaction of the Public Warks Director prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy for Madonna Froom Ranch.�..:....... ......a;�,.,.�a ..o ,,,.a.,.:,.� ,.F.�.v�;�..i v-rr,r F,.ao,oi,,,....o�.„F ��e.,�., �..,,,,ri. n.,�c-l�, �l�€ ��e-�� skr'� „�.ri.;� n„�.�;,. ��€€� r.�,,..-,,.,o..,o„�ni.,., �.-.-o.,:o....,,,,a ., ,.,i �..,��,o r:.., r„...iv,v.o,,..,.:,,,, .,�..,ii i.o ,. �io.o,a ,. ...,, *�.o ; ,.�„ ,.o...:�:,.,,.o ,.�,. ..�.,,:ia:�,. ..,.;r.. F.- rl,o T�.,.7...�..�... L',-.....�. D..«,.L. .70.,01..,..�.o«♦ iF: .�.r� .. ..loto,]� ,-L..,,.rL.o.-.. tL.o A..,.1:,..,«r�l,..11,�..,l�e.,F:,-�L..,,-o,. ,,.t.-:l.,.ti,,.. 0 piiv��6—i�S�liric•.v ,.F 1.,,:1,7:,.,. ,.�5-�9��z1�6...... L'.-,,,,.ti. D � ao o�rr Monitorin�. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans or N A contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the City. rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-137 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � MM TRANS-4 The Project Applicant shall a�� -�a �-��'�" ''� a a air share miti a�fee towards improvements to be constructed bv the Avila Ranch developrrcent, which include restriping of the westbound approach of the South Higuera St�^eet/Suburban Road intersection to extend the left- and right-turn pocket storage to 250 feet. If planned improvements have not vet been completed prior to issuance of buildingpermits,for the Madonna Froom Ranch development, the A�licant shall be responsible for installation o,f the striping improvements. ��*� � �'�•��'�a � � ��. �''�,� ''� �y�iea�2�t—rr�y�--o��e�o;��ible�f-a-=��i��e e�fi�zie�—E�� Plan Repuirements and Timing.Prior to�-r�a;�rt��a r� ��a�';��''��' �ITTR F.-,70..01,,,..Y.o,�.t,.FTR..,a,,,�.«.,L'.-,,,,.r.D..,�.,.1. �l.o A,.,,.1:,..,..��L...11 .,,,1.,�.;♦ � a D„1.��'^ coci€��€-1�3€-��Tiz'H3��v^�ri€�1�W "•—cscxa--c'L�,-,. .,1 1-... ♦L.o �';�., r�...iv�.o�.,,.;,,� ��.,,ii �.o ,. ,.io.oa ,. ,. .,, the issuance of., o,..,•�� sE�building permits far Madonna Froom Ranch development, the Apnlicant. T�: o.,�� ., ,.�o.o,a � .. �,., ,,.�,o..� .�,o n..,.�;,..,,,. ^��'��r��^�^�'�'��^r�^'��^^shall provide a fair share contribution towards the intersection striping improvements.If the planned improvements have not yet been completed bv others prior to issuance of buildin��permits for Madonna Froom Ranch development, the a�plicant shall be responsible for installation of the intersection striping improvements priar to issuance of first certificates of occupancy for ^ � *� � ��'�,,:'a:�rt ��;*� F� the Madonna Froom Ranch development. Monitorin�. 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 A�licant shall pav a fair share miti ag tion fee towards bicvcle improvements atSouth Hi�uera/TankFarm to be constructed bv the Avila Ranch development, which include extendinQ the westbound hike lane on Tank Farm Road to the South Higuera St�^eet/Tank Farm Road intersection and installation of a bike box (with loop detection) to facilitate bicvcle left-turn movements. Fair share contribution is satisfied throuQh participation in the Citvwide Ti^ansportation Impact Pee program. If the planned bicvcle improvements have not vet been completed prior to development of the Villag�io Lower Area, the A�plicant shall be responsible � or desiQn and installation ofthe bicvcle improvements.'''� n,��;�� ^��';��,�* A V ES-138 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 0 �i,. Mf,,;�.,,.;,,,� f,.,.,.U,�.. ,�+„ ,,.� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of building_permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements through pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. If the planned improvements have not vet been completed bv others prior to issuance of first buildin� permits for Villaggio's Lower Area development, the A�licant shall be responsible for design and installation of the bic, cl�provements prior to first occupancy permits for the Villaggio Lower Area development.�r��r *� �-��a;��- ��a ,,.-,7.,�;,,..„F�l.o F:,�..,1�ITTR F,-,lo.ol,,.,.,�.o,�.t„F�7;11.,....:..��T„ ,- A.-o., �l.o 0 0 ��1•iC-�1�51ri?ri��„1..�,:♦ D„1.1;,. C`�.-€€��€-1�3€i� D�€�1�WW—mici ..,1 1...�L.o!'';�.. T,v.,�lo.v.o,��.,�:,,,� �l..,ll l.o,. ..1v�v,],. ,-�.,�l.o: .�F., ,.o,-t:F;,..,�o „f.,,.,.,,...,.......,.-L.,,;1,7;.-,.... ,-.-,-.:�� F.-�7;11.,....;.,�� 7., .- A,-o., .]o.,ol.,.....v,-.♦ T4';.v.,..-,,..o..-,o,-,�� ., ,.lo�o,] � ,-1..,,,�l.o,-.. fl.o A..,.1;,..,.-,� .l.o,- ..:l.lo F.-., F:,-..1,..,-o ,. ..�,-;L.,,ti,.,,. .. ,-r,. : � „F 1...:1,1:,,.,. .�,ti,;r.. F,-�7;11.,....:..�.. T., ,- A.-o., .70, ol...,.,v.o«r Y� � • Monitorin�. 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-6a The Project A�licant shall pav fair share miti a�fees towards intersection improvements to be constructed by the Avila Ranch development, which include installation ofa second southbound left-turn lane at the South Hi�uera Street/Tank Farm Road intersection. Fair share contributions are satisfied throu�h �articipation in the Ci. wide Transportation Irnpact Fee pro r�am. If installation of dual southbound left-turn lanes has not been completed prior to Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the A�plicant shall coordinate with the City to retime the tra�fic siQnal at South Hi�uera/Tank Farm to miti�ate the Project's proportional contribution to queuein� impacts.�'1�e N J A � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-139 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � �., .,.�,,,s t;��;.,,.,�+ ;» �.,, „��o;�-��s12� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of building_permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti,gation improvements through pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. If the planned South Higuera/Tank Farm intersection improvements have not yet been completed by others prior to issuance of first buildin�permits for Madonna Froom Ranch development, the A�plicant shall submit a Traffic Engineering Studv with si�nal timin� recommendations for review and implementation bv the City�rior to issuance of first certificates of occupancy for Madonna Froom Ranch development.n�� r�a��rt �a ��ser�;�� €��'�V�'"�� ,la.,ol..,�.,v.o«.♦ ..F T�T.,,7........ R,-,,,,,�. D.,.�.,.1. �l.o A,�..�.1;,..,..��l..,ll �„l..v.:�.. D„1-.1:,. C�,-ov� T,v...,-,,.,o,v.o..� Dl.,.. F,-.- ...1 ., ..,1 L...�l.o !'';�.. F.-�l.v C.,,,�1. �Ii�e��'-a��i�r�€�s€s�ie�i��e�e�ts. ��e-�e�rt-��e�e€ ,,.o,-�o,..;,,., o.,�� ,.,n i,o ..io.o,a ,- �„ .�.o . „s� ., ,.o,-r;F:,..,ro ,.F,. .-L.,,:1,7:,,.,. ... ....-.:r.. F,-rl,o T�T..,�1,.«.,... L',-,.,.,�. D.,«,.1. .7e, ol...�,v.v..r i«ro,-..v,.ti..« . . acvcxvp��xc�xc. xvccxocccxv�� i�ixpiovc�33213� E9S�S 23EE22 1}3�� e ��'AJ2E��S� �t{e�s��e �e�g��€ei-�ee s�e�i�s�ie��rse�e�t� n.,...:,.:r,..;,,.. :� .�,v r;... ;ao rr,.,...��,,...,..;,,� r...�,,,.*�oo� ;ii F,i�;ii ��3��€C�'c�S�likf��iz'H�C-1-a�--6�g��16i�t$�'b�c'i�Ci�t�i��i'1�6�c^v c'lE� ��e��ss�n�e�c-l�g�o��e�—a�l t�-�e�gtte�a�',,..,� �,....�, n,,,.a �.o..�o,..:,,� : �.� :�,. �.,.,,,..oa � ..,...,,.�.v..� �.,.,ri.o�.,.��;.., T.-.,..�,.,,.-�.,�;,,,�. T.v.,�..,,.r Roo� �l..,ll l.o .- ,-o,l .. ,- ♦„ . „F 1-.,,;l,l;..,. .v.:�� F,-o ,.L. ,70.,01...��..-.o.��,.1..,�0 Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant pays fair share costs in accordance to the approved phase and design plans. MM TRANS-6b The Proiect A�plicant shall pav fair share costs for construction of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project. Fair share contributions are satisfzed throu h�participation in the Citvwide Transportation Impact Fee pYOQram. Plan Repuirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of buildin� permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share N J A � ES-140 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � contribution towards the mitigation improvements throu�h pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees Monitoring. The City shall verify that the A�plicant pavs fair share costs in accordance to the a�proved phase and design plans. MM TRANS-7 The Proiect A�licant shall pav a,fair share miti�ation fee towards the intersection improvements to be constr�ucted bv the Citv at the South HiQuera/Prado intersection, which includes installation of a second northbound left-turn lane, a second southbound left-turn lane, a second eastbound through lane, bicvcle protected intersection features, tra�c siQnal modifications, and widenin�of the ad�acent Prado Road Creek Bridge west of South Hi�uera. Fair share contributions for both improvements are satisfied through participation in the Citvwide Ti^ansportation Impact Fee pro r� am• ��„ ��,..,,,,��,,,.. ,.r ,�„ n,,.a,. n,.,.a n,;a,�„ ..� �� ,.� r,,,..i ��,�+„a.. ,�,,.,.+�,,,., Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each development phase, the Ap�licant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti,gation improvements through pavment of Citvwide Transportation Impact Fees.Dr;^r*^ �r^�':^^ ^�a � ^r�'^*;^� ^'�*'�� ;.,.,i v-rra �,- ,ao..oi,,....,o„� „�n�r.,,a,,.,.,., �,-,,,,.., n.,,,,.t, .t,o n..,.i;,..,.,� �t,.,ii .,�...:.., v„t.�:,.c...eo�T,.,..,.,..,o...o.,�n�„�F.-.-o..:o.. �a .. ...��...t,o r:.., r.v.,�lo,v,v.�t..r;,,.� �L..,11 l�o ,. .�loro,7 .� ,- ♦., rl,o ; „F., o.-tiF:,...to „F ,-1..,;1.1;«.... .�..-.:t.. C,-tL.o A�T.,.7...�.«., L',-.....ti. D......1. .7v,.ol......v.o.�.a T.Y.,..-,,.o ..�,.,,.,�.,o 0,7:«..�l.o D.-,,:o,.t��,. ,,.-t;,,..,.1 .,L.,.,-o,r.....L.o ol;,.:l.lo F.-F o ,.,-o,�l;r., „ .Y.l.,,.-�v.�.o,�.r., TF;,v....-,,.o ..�� ,. ..lo�o,�l � .-1... in +�'v`d:��aiic •-+•,ti,,•• T,'••••,E�T@€�v,••-•,," •- ♦„ ;S,rthiicE€�i 1.,,;1,7;,�.,.,�. ,v.:t� F,-�l.o T�T.,,7,,,�.,�..,R,-,,,,,v.D.,..,.1. ,70.ol,,,�..v.o,�.♦ Monitoring. The City shall verifv that the A�plicant pavs fair share costs in accordance to the a�proved phase and desien plans.�''��;*�.�'�^„ „�r:�.*'�^* ��,o n,.�i;,,,,,,,;,,,,�.,ii� .�,o; o„�� ; ,,,-,a.,,,,.o�„.�,o ., ,o,a..�..,�o �,a ae�:,�., ..i,.�� ,. �..-:�..,.o,. ,. ,..o �:,. ��,,,..o ,. ,oa �..,.�.o N J r•, O �t� Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-141 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � 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 tra�c 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. Some�s in phvsical separation mav r'emain due to right_of-wav limitations or other desiQn constraints."��*� ��'�'� '�� *��"°•*�� ,,.,.,.,,�.. ,..„ ..�.. ' Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to^~��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. I Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance of�first certificates of occupancy ^�'��'a��- ��*� for Villaggio's Lower Area development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project's proportional share may be eligible � for F��r�a�*� � �m'��r��m��*�nrivate reimbursement. Monitoring. The Ciry shall verify that the Applicant installs the I improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans� ..�,-;L.,,�o� ., ;.,�o f:,-�L..,,-o., .o,]L...�l.o!'';�.. 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 .Ioaquin. 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. This mitiQation measure rec�uires Caltrans a�proval and coordination for improvements near the LOVR/U.S. 101 interchan�If Class IV bikewavs are not a�proved or se�ments within Caltrans ri�o,f-wav, or are deemed in,feasible for short segments due to other geometi^ic constraints, alternative treatments to improve pedestrian levels of service mav be a�roved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Potential alternative treatments include installation of striped bike lane bu�fers,street trees or other features that further bu�fer pedestrians f�'om street tra�'fic.T�„ n.,,.;,,.,�; �;z.�„�, „n`., �...,„�,.�„a.., � ....r,.,.;,,,� ,.� � D � ,�a� ,,,a;,.,.�;.,,, t�, ,�+.,,� rnr nirr o �n� „�+,,,�.,�,.,.�.,, N J � ES-142 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � Plan Repuirements and Timing.Prior to�-r��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 afirst certificates of occupancy ^r'��'��^� ^��*^ for Villaggio's Lower Area development. Applicable construction costs for improvements along LOVR between Calle Joaquin and Froom Ranch Wav consistent with the planned Bob Jones Trail �Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire)Connection Project may be eli�ible for credits or reimbursement throu,�h the City's Transportation Impact Fee proQram. Costs exceeding the Project's proportional share for improvements alon� other se�ments mav be eligible for private reimbursement on1�B'� ,�.r,.,,��o 0,7:«..�L.o D,-,.;o,.��,,. ,,.-t;,,....1 .,L...,-o.Y. . l.o ol;..:l.lo F.-F o...-0,7;�� „ ,v.l-.,,,-�o,Y.o..�� Monitorin�. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans--e� ..�,-;L.,,�o� ., :.,�o f:,-�L..,,-o., .o,]L...�l.o!'';�.. MM TRANS-10 The Project A�licant shall pav fair share miti a�,fees towards Madonna Road improvements to be constructed bv the San Luis Ranch development, which include installation of a Class I Multi-Use Path parallel to Madonna Road between Oceanaire Drive and the U.S. 101 southbound ramps intersection. This proiect is in construction currentiv. Fair share contributions are satisfied throu�participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee pro�ram.''�� n,�:��' ^r�';��,�*�'�" a��:�� .�a ge,,,.,.,.;,., r,,;.,,, ,.a .�„ rro. �9r�e,,.�t,., ,�a �=�;��'�e^�;��h2 +�,.,,,,.� � ,�..,��;., a;..��., rN.�...,+ �,,,,.. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of building_permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements through pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees.�~;�~+� �~�a:~�- �~�' ~� �~a�':�~ ��''�� x�,.i ��'rrrt �,- ae..oi,.�...o�. „F��;ii,,,.,.;,,�., r ,. ,. n..o,. .�o n,.�i:,...�. .,t,..ii e „�.Y.:.,,n„�i:,.c...00.r,..�,-,..,o...o�.ni,.�F....o.,;o..,,...a,. .,.i�....t,o r;.., T.Y.,.lo,v.v..�.,�;,,.. �L...11 l.o ,. ,,.l0�0,7 ,�. ,- ♦,. �l,o ; ..F.. ,.o.-t;F:,.,.ro „F ,- 1.,,;1,�1;«.. ,.. .-.r.;r� F.- �7;11......;,,�., T .. A,-o,. ,70..01...,.,v.v..♦ T,�...,-,,.o o..�,.,,��o 00,7:....�l.o D,-,,;o,.��.. ,.,-t;,,...,1 �L...,-o.v. ,1-.0 01:,.;l.lo N J F.-F o ,..-0,7:�� „ .�.1-.,,,-�o.v.o.�� TF;.v.,..-,,.,o.�.o..r� ., ..lo�o,l � .-1... � o 0 0 N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-143 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � � . , . � . . , , , � .�.o �;..,..,;ao �� ....,.;,,.. �ri....,e�Te��a,...,,ri. .. .,, ;s.�c€� 1.,,;1,1;..,... ,�.;�� F.-�7:11.,....;,.��T,. .- A,-o., ,lo.,ol..,�..v.o..♦ Monitoring. The City shall verifv that the A�plicant pavs fair share costs in accordance to the a�proved phase and desien plans.�''��;*�.�'�^„ „�r:�.*'�^* rt,o n,.,�l:.......:....�.,11� .l,o; o„�� ; ,,,-a.,,,,.o�„.l,o ., ,oa..1,.,�0 ..,] .]o�;...� ..1.,.�� „ ..�.-;l.,,fo� ., ;.,�0 4:,;,- �1..,,-o ., .o,] L..,fl.o � MM TRANS-II 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. Tra cc calminQ measures shall be desi�ned to the satisfaction of the Citv Public Works and Fire Departments. Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to^r��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. � Implementarion shall be completed prior to the issuance of afirst cerrificates of occupancy^r'��'a�^^��rm�*�for development of Villaggio's Lower Area. Monitorin�. 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 MM TRANS-2 The Pro7ect A�plicant shall desi�n and construct the extension Significant and 2)conditions,the addition of Project traffic would of the southbound ri�ht-turn pocket at the LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps Unavoidable exacerbate existing queuing and peak hour traffic for intersection to provide a storaQe length of at least I50 feez In coordination automobiles and poor levels of service for with the A�plicant, the Citv and Caltrans shall also implement tra�fic si�nal pedestrians and bike modes of transportation, coordination between the LOVR/Calle Joaguin intersection and adiacent U.S. causing transportation deficiencies in the Project 101 northbound and southbound ramps and optimize tra�c si�nal timings at vicinity. these three intersections.In addition, the A�plicant shall also pav a,fair share mitigation,fee towards the improvements that are required to be constructed bv the San Luis Ranch development at this intersection, which include extension of the southbound o�f-ramp through/left-turn pocket to provide a storage len�of at least 320 feet.�''� n,� �' ^��';��,�' �'�" a��;�� ,�a N � J � W ES-144 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , �vE2£�-Lli'r"�aii��t^raA/Trr��S6„��ccft�6uYttt�`a-t7-2j-Ji�� i-]9`tj3rvdci"r"ccr"ciTEN`2 .,l�,.1r,,.,,,�.. „ ,.1,.,�„7. ,,1;,�„+:,.,,. Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to^�^�recordation of the final VTM for subdivision of the ��'^^m�^* ^�' Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the Applicant shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for roadway improvements at the southbound right-turn pocket and a Traffic Engineering Study€e�with signal timing recommendations for review and a�e�implementation by the City and Caltrans.Payment of fair share mitigation fees shall be provided prior to first buildin�permit issuance for Madonna Froom Ranch development, while construction of a�licable improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of first certificate of occupancy far Madonna Froom Ranch development.Tmr'�m��*�*:�� F ..�� l..,ll l.o ,. ,�.lo�o,] ,�. .- �„ �l,o , „F ., o.-�:�,..,�o „F .-1.,,:1.1:...... ,v.;f� 4:,.-fl,o TR.,.7,,,-...., R.-,.,,,v. D.,....L. .lo..ol,.,..v.o..♦ Tf:,v.,.,-,...o...o..�� ., ,.lo�o,l � .-1...„�l.o,-� �l.o A....1;,..,..��l,.,ll .v..,Lo ., F.,;.-�1,.,.-o,. ..�.-;L.,,f;.,.� .. ,-f„ : .,4'L.,,:1,7:,�..,. ,v.;�.. F.-�L.o T�T.,A,,.�.�., L',-,.,..�. D.,.�.,.1. ,�lo..ol,,,..�.o,,.♦ Monitorin�. 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 A�plicant shall pav a fair share miti ag tion fee towards bicvcle improvements atSouth Higuera/TankFarm to be constructed bv the flvila Ranch development, which include extending the westbound bike lane on Tank Farm Road to the South Hi�uera Street/Tank Farm Road intersection and installation of a bike box (with loop detection) to facilitate bicycle left-turn movements. Fair share contribution is satisfced throu�h participation in the Cirywide Transportation Impact Fee pr^o�r^am. If the planned bic cly e improvements have not vet been completed prior to development of the Villag�io Lower Area, the A�plicant shall be responsible _or desi�n and installation of the bic cv le improvements.� � � o N J � A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-145 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , ..�,. ,��,;�,,,�,.,� f..,.,.,a., ,�+� .,.� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of building�ermits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti,gation improvements through �avment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. If the planned improvements have not yet been completed by others prior to issuance of first building�ermits for Villaggio's Lower Area development, the A�plicant shall be responsible far desi�n and installation of the bicvcle improvements prior to first occupancy nermits far the Villa��io Lower Area development.�r:�r *� �-r�a:r�- �ra ,,,-,7.,�;,,..„FrL.o C„�..,1�ITTR F,-,ao..ol,,,..Y.o,�.r„F�I:11......:,.��T ,. .- A,-o,, rL.o 0 0 ��i�«��;��,.,,l..r.;r D„1.1;C�i��?3�.�-ii�n�v�r�1�WW—unci .,1 1...�l.o l�;�.. T,�..�lo,�.o«.�.,�;,,,� �l..,ll l.o,. ,.lo�v,l.� .-�..�l.o; .�F.. ,.o,-t;F:,...�o „F....,.,,,�.............1.,,;1,1:,�...,. ,ti.;�� F,-�7;11.,..,.:..�� T., ,- A.-o., ,70.,01..,�.,v.o«.♦ TF:,�..�..-,,.o ..�� .. .�.lo�o,] � .-1..,,,�l.o,-� �L.o A,�..�.1:,..,,�.♦ .L.o,- �;1.10 F,-., F;.-�L,.,,-o ,.,.,��.-:L.,,�;.,.. ,. .-�,. ; � „F 1.,,:1.7:.�,. .�..�,:�� F.-�7:11.,....;,.��T„ .- A,-o., .]o.,ol.,.....o.�� Monitoring. The Ciry 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-6a The Project A�licant shall pav fair share mitigation fees towards intersection improvements to be constructed bv the Avila Ranch development, which include installation of a second southbound left-turn lane at the South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road intersection. Fair share contributions are satisfied throu,gh participation in the Citvwide Transportation Impact Fee program• If installation of dual southbound le,ft-turn lanes has not been completed prior to Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the A�plicant shall coordinate with the Citv to retime the tra�fic si�nal at South Higuera/Tank Farm to miti�ate the Project's proportional contribution to queueing impacts.�e seo�re��ce;�t�e��t��l—��–;�es f}o:�s inle��s�ia-�e N J � � ES-146 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of building�ermits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti,gation improvements through �avment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. If the planned South Hi,guera/Tank Farm intersection improvements have not yet been completed by others prior to issuance of first building�ermits for Madonna Froom Ranch development, the A�plicant shall submit a Traffic En 'ni e�ering Studv with si�nal timing recommendations for review and implementation bv the City�rior to issuance of first certificates of occupancy for Madonna Froom Ranch development.��te g��i�g-��l��cer�t�e��€��'��'"�� ,70.,01..,�.,v.o«.♦ ..F T�T.,,7........ R,-,,,,,�. D.,,�.,.1. �l.o A,.,�.1;,..,..��l..,ll �„l..v.:�.. D„1-.1:,. C`�,-oo� T,�..,..-,,.,o.v,o,-.� Dl.,.. F,-,- ..,] .. ..,1 1.. �l.o r`;�.. F,-�l.v C`,,,,�1. rn�e,-•,/��iir�Hi�€�,s€E�ioi�H�lPivv€�3€i�S. �ipi€-t3}€i�"iiivr�9� ..�o,-�o,.�;.,.� o.�� L,.,11 L.o ..lofo,] ,- �„ �l.o . „4' ., �o.-�;F:,..,�o .,F.,,.,.,,...,...... ,,.-L.,,;1,7;....,. ,v.;�� f,-�l,o TR.,,7,,,-„-,., R,-,,.,..-, D.,.-,,.1, .]o.,ol.,.....v,�♦ T.��o.-�v,.�;.,.� ' �� ' � acvcxvpixx�..xxc. znccxocccxo:x ixi:pivvc�33@13� 695�5 @3EE@@ l��c @ ��AJ@6� S �ePe�iex,�s��e �e�g��€ei-�ee s�e�i�s�ie��rse�� D.,,-r:,.:„.,�;,..-. :« rl,o I'';r.. ;,7e T..............r..r;,,.�, i,�..,..,,.r L'oo.. ;11 F„14:11 ��te �es�'S�s�i,�e ��s�a,'--^�'�'iga��e�Ee��s t�e '��le�e�R ��e��ss�n�e�c-l�g�o��e�—a�l t�-�e�gtte�a�',,..,� �,....�, n,,,.a ,�.to,-�o..r;.,.�. : ,�.t� ;F...,..��,-.,..�v.7 � ,-1....,�L.o.-., D....,v.o..♦ ..F(`:t.. v o 0 T,-.,..�,.,.,-t..r:,.,�. T,v.,....,.r L'oo� �l...11 l.o .- ,-v,�l ,. ,- r„ , „F L.,,:1,7:«.,. .v.:�� F,-o ,.L. ,70.,01...��..-.o.��,.1..,�0 Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant pays fair share costs in accordance to the approved phase and design plans. MM TRANS-6b The Project A�plicant shall pav fair share costs for construction of the Prado Road Overpass/InterchanQe project. Fair share contributions are satisfzed throu h�participation in the Citvwide Transportation Impact Fee pYOQram. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of buildin� permits for each develo�ment phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements throu�h pavment of Citvwide Transportation Impact Fees N J � � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-147 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , Monitoring. The Citv shall verifv that the A�plicant pavs fair share costs in accordance to the a�proved phase and design plans. MM TRANS-7 The Proiect Applicant shall pav a fair share miti ag tion fee towards the intersection improvements to be constructed bv the Citv at the South Higuera/Prado intersection, which includes installation of a second northbound left-turn lane, a second southbound left-turn lane, a second eastbound throu�h lane, bicvcle protected intersection features, tra�c signal modifications, and widenin�of the ad�acent Prado Road Creek Bridge west of South Hi�uera. Fair share contributions for both improvements are satisfed throu�h participation in the Citvwide Transportation Impact Fee pro�ram. Plan Requirements and Timing. Priar to the issuance of buildin� nermits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti,gation improvements throu_gh pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. Monitoring. The City shall verify that the A�plicant pavs 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. Some�aps in phvsical separation mav remain due to ri�ht-of-wav limitations or other desi�n constraints.n,� �'; �;�'� �,��;, �'�.�� ,�',;�•,':�,� +.,..,.,�a.. ,.t� ..+.. Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to^r��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. � Implementarion shall be completed prior to the issuance of afirst cerrificates of occupancy ^r'��'a��- ��+� for Villaggio's Lower Area development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project's proportional share may be eligible � for F��r�a�*� � ��'��-��*�private reimbursement. Monitorin�. 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 Pro ject Applicant shall design and install ADA-compliant N ��„ curb, gutter and sidewalk along the west side of LOVR to complete the V ES-148 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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. This miti�ation measure requires Caltrans a�proval and coordination for improvements near the LOVR/U.S. 101 interchange• If Class IV bikewavs are not a�proved for se�ments within Caltrans right_of-wav, or are deemed infeasible for short se�ments due to other �eometric constraints, alternative treatments to improve pedestrian levels of service mav be a�proved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Potential alternative treatments include installation of striped bike lane bu�'fers,street trees or other features that/urther huffer pedestrians,fi�om streettra�fic.T�„ n,,,.;,,.,.; �;�.�„�, ,.n�.,.,.,t..,.,�,,.,,a+., . �..fi,,.,�:.,,� ,.� ,.,�„ ,,,,a;,�,.*;,,,� �, ,.+�,,, , r nvu ir r r �n� „�+,,,,,,i,.N,.,, Plan Requirements and Timing.Priar to^�^�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�first certificates of occupancy ^r'��'a��- ��+� for Villaggio's Lower Area development. A�plicable construction costs for improvements alon�LOVR between Calle Joaquin and Froom Ranch Wav consistent with the planned Bob Jones Trail �Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire)Connection Project may be eligible for credits or reimbursement throu,gh the City's Transportation Impact Fee pro�ram. Costs exceedin� the Project's proportional share for improvements alon,g other se�ments may be eligible for private reimbursement on1�R:� o..�,.,,��o 00.7;.-,..�l.o D,-.,:o..�'�.. ,,,-�:,,...,1 ..L..,.-o,v..,.,l.o ol:..;l.lo F,-f o...-0.7:�� „ ...1.,,.-�o,v.o..�� Monitorin�. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans--e� «t.-:L.,,ro.. .. .,ro F:,-..1,..,-o., .o,]1..,rL.o!'':t., MM TRANS-12 In coordination with the Countv, the Project A�plicant shall pav a fair share miti�ation fee for costs to construct the e ollowin future i�rovements at the LOVR/Foothill Boulevard intersection: widen northbound a�proach to provide one left-turn, two throu�h, and one ri h,�t- N ��„ turn lane,- widen westbound a�proach to provide one le,ft-turn lane, one � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-149 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , shared throu�h/ri�ht-turn lane, and one ri�ht-turn lane. Additional improvements include roadwav striping and t�^a�c signal modifications needed to accommodate new lane con�rations. This miti�ation measure requires Countv a�proval and coordination.r,� .,,..,,a;,�,.�;,,,� ..;.� +�.,�.,.,,�,., Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to recordation of the final VTM for development of Villagg,io's Lower Area, the A�plicant shall submit nreliminarv intersection improvement plans for review and a�proval by the Countv, with plans developed to a level of detail sufficient to provide an en,gineer's estimate of probable construction costs, includin� ri,ght-of-way acquisition (if needed). Fair share miti,gation fees for these improvements shall be paid to the County�rior to issuance of first certificates of occupancy development of Villaggio's Lower Area.Dr;^r*^ ^r^�':^^ ^^�' r ^��'^*;^� ^� �t,o f;.,.,i��rrra�,-,ao..oi,,.,,,,o.,.,,f��;ii.,,,,.:,,��r,. ,- n,-o., .t,o n,.,.i;,..,��t,.,ii „L..v.:♦ ., T.-.,4'4:,. F,-.�.;.-,00,-;..,. C�,,,7., :,]o,-,�:F.:,-... ,- �.,.,]o.] .. .,1 �;...:,-,.. i330c'�rmEtk'��6�irS-�vfrP,'o92�=�H�—ck�3•-,•, •,rv-�v�t�32zr"v'c'rrr"+c"�vi '��t� ""�'T��6n �l,..11 1,0 ,. ..loro,7 r,. rL.o .,..ti�C,.ti,.,,. „Ftl,o!`,,,,..t.,.. ,-r„ !'':r..: „F o.-tifi,..,ro,.F.............,.,...,,.-1.,,:1,7:«,.,. .-.�.,.:t.. F.-,lv..ol,..,.,ti.o«r„F� :11..,.,':,.�� T A,- �rc-�r Monitorin�.The Citv shall verifv that the A�licant has provided a�licable design plans and contributes an a�propriate fair share mitigation fee to the satisfaction of the Countv.T�.o r';*�,��.�"t vr;F.*�,�**�.o n rr':��*; r'omo�*� .�.o ; �.� ; ,,..a„�,.o .,, .�.o .. ,va ��..,�o ,,..a ao�:,.� ,.�„�� „ ..�.-:1-.,,�o� ., .,�o F;,-�L..,,-o�„�l.o�.,ti�F,.�:,,.. ,.F�l.o(`,,,,,�.�.. MM TRANS-13 In coordination with the A�plicant, the Citv shall retime the tra�c si�nal at LOVR/Madonna to implement Lead Pedestrian Intervals for each pedestrian crossing phase. �,,, .,f: �� Plan Repuirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of first building nermits for the Villaggio Lower Area development phase, the Cit,� implement the si,gnal timing modifications.��:�r*��-r�a;��-��a r��ra�*:��F N J �l.o�,�..,1�ITT�T F.-,70.ol,..,..r.a..�„F�7;11.,,.,.;,,��T„ ,- A.-o., �l.o A,.,.1;,..,..*�L..,11 � � � � ES-150 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , „�,v.;. ., �r,-.,Fr,,. �..,.;�oo..:r,. c.,,a., ;ao...;F,;..,. ,. �aoa � .,i .;,,.;..,. rin�miiEz'�-i^vicS�Fv^"'ri€�1€W •�—arm--c�,-„ ,•,1 1... �l.v �';�., '��pioP^vS@�z€-&'�v .-1.,,:1,7:,�.,.,�. ,v.:�� F.-�7;11.,....;..��T,. .- A,-o., ,lo.,ol..,�..v.o«.♦ Monitoring. The City shall verify that the signal timin� modifications are implemented in accordance to the approved project phase.T'��^�" �€�i�t-ka� ��e-a��-ins�a��t��e-�e�rts--in--asser�s� te t� oa ,.�.,,..o „�a ae�:,.., ,.�..�� „ ...,.;�.,,.o� „ ,..o �:,. ..�,,,,.o „ oa�....�,o r:... ni/ni/ TD A7�Q 7A T7„ D,,.,.;,,r,+ A,....7;.,,.,,.+ �1,.77 l;,,;.,. �7,.,,.,, �r., �, fi28;S.*ft�}eci�",a� .�T�fl��`a;=frl3i�t�i-�6••o�a;"-'ci-Et�Ef�i�912 i�`l—t;c��cEle zT--c"-ixic •-�•,�:,,,�• T•�••�••,E�T€��ii�•••-•,•�• ,;11 F„14;11 tL.o D�^:@E��9�Sthiic ��.� F;...,....:.,1 „L.1:...,�;,,.-, ♦,,....,.-.l� �L.o D,-.,.]„ D,,.,.1 ll..o.-...,��/T,-.�o,-..1,.,.-...o .. o,.♦ D.,..,v.o.-,� .,4' f`:�.. T,-.,,-.�,.,.,-t.,�:,,,-, T..-,...,,.f Roo.. �L..,11 L.o ,-o.l ,- ♦., „4'1.,,:1,7:,�.... .�...:�� F.-o.,..L, ,]o..ol,,....-,o,��,�L..,�o �14e�i�erin�"��,� �s�i,x;:-�e�i:�t�a� t�e �e-��E e��ates—� ,,.o�:�..�.,,..o., oa�..,.�,o r;... MM TRANS-14�5In 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 far 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. Monitorin�. 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-15�6 The Pro'e� ct A�licant shall pav fair share miti�ation fees towards extension of the northbound ri�ht-turn pocket stora�e at the South Higuera/Tank Farm Road intersection to 230,feet. Improvements are to be N � constructed bv the San Luis Ranch Development or as a Citv-led capital 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-151 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , i�rovement project. Fair share contrihutions are satisfied throu�h participation in the Citvwide TransportationlmpactFeepro rg ain•''''�� .1„,,''�.,�"' `-13�2�'y`–o�resj3c�;^�3=i�vi�Si^—c^i–�=c�s-�lccf�e..,�s,;l.,,s;.,,� +..,.,.,,,J� �p 3 Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of building�ermits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti�ation improvements through pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees.�~:�~'� �~�a;~�- �~a ~� �~a�':�~ �F''�� f:,�...1 �ITTR F.- ,70.ol,,,..,v.o«♦ ,.F TR.,,7,.,�.«., L',-,,,.,v. D.,..,.1, �L.o A,...,.1;,...,�.r �L...11 > „1-.,�.;�.,D„l.l;..C�,-oo�T.v.,.,-....o.v,o,�.�Dl..,�.F.-.-o.,;o..,....,7 ., ,.,1 1.. �L.o�';�.. Tl.o .�, o,] : ,�.�� l..,ll l.o ,. ..lo�o,l ,�. .- �.. �l.o ; „F., 1.,,;1,7;..,. .v.:� F,- TR.,,7,.,,.,,.., F7,-,,,,,�. D.,....1. ,70.,01,...,v.o..♦ T,v.,.,-,,..o...o..�,.,,��o ov�l;,-,..�l,o D,-,,;o,.��.. ..,.,-t:,,,-..,1 �1,.,.-o„-,.,..L.o ol;..;l.lo €er €€€ s�e�i�s��€�t�is€�e�rts. �€ e�s��s�€� sec�e-� l�at-k€�r ,,.,,-.;,.;...,.:,,., ;,, �t,o r;.....,;,ao 'r.-.,,,�.,,,,-..,.:,,,, r..,...,,.. �oo .. .;ii �;,i�;ii 4L.o D,-�,:o,.a'� C:,- �L..,.-e C,.�...«,.;..1 ..L.l;...,a:..« D.,..,�.o«� ..F(`:t..T,-.,.�..,,...,-t..ti..« T.v.....,.♦ Roo� ..L...11 l.o ,- ,-v,�l .,. ,-�., ; „F 1.,,:1.a:«,... ...�.;r., F.- o ,.1. ,7e, ol,..�.v.o.�r,.1�....v Monitorin�. The City shall verify that the A�licant pavs its fair share fees.�r�.o r:... ��.,.n o..:�:, .t,.,. .�.o n��i:,.,.�* ,��*,.ii� *�.o . o o�*� �ecer�e��e t�a��s��s�g��s--e�cei�a�s--a.=� .,�o F;,-�L...,-o., 0,7 1-...�l.o/�:�.. �ITTR F.-,70.ol,,,..Y.o,�.t,.FTR.,,7,,,�.«.,L'.-,,,,.r.D..,�.,.1. �l.o A,.,,.1:,..,..��L...11 .,,,1.,�.;♦ � a D„1.��'^ coci€��€-1�3€-��Tiz'H3��v^�ri€�1�W "•—cscxa--c'L�,-,. .,1 1-... ♦L.o �';�., N J T,�..,.lo,�.o..�.,�;,,«. �L...11 l.o ,. .�.lo�o,l ,. ,-r„ �l.o ; „F., � � ES-152 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 1.,,:1,7:,�.,. .. ...v.;♦ F.- �l,o T�T.,,a,.««., L'.-,,,,,r. D,.,�.,.L. ,ao.ol,,,..r.o..♦ T.Y.,..-,,.,o,v.o«� „��o 00,7;..,.�l.o D.-..;o,.��.,. ..,-�:,,...,1�1..,,-o,�. .,l.o ol;..;l.lo F,-F o,..-0,7;�� 62'z€i£�3vc�i�€�€i�9.��E9i�S�iciE�€� S60ir€-2'�n€-�.s�iE-�"�ic E'riy=v`d;-ic��ainS�O a1�;,,•�•�E�T€��v•'•,•'�• :11 F„l f;l l �l.o D,-,.;€E��Ylzsii �1,.,,-o F;,-..,..,.;.,1 „1.1:...,�;,..-, D.,..,v.o.,,�.,4'!'';�..T,-.,.-,�,.,,,-�.,�:,,,-. T...,..,..�Roo� �l..,ll L.o,- .-o,].. .-�.,: .,4'1.,,;1.7;..,.,.o,-„-,;��F.-o.,,.l. .]o..ol.,....-,o,��..1..,�0 �14��e�-��'��n�s�l ��i��ra� �� c-�� i�s�a�s t-1� �,� ,,..a,,.,,.o .,, *�.o .oa ,.�.,...v �a ae�:,�.. ��„�.. «t.-:L.,,ro.. .. .,ro F:,-..1,..,-o., .o,]1..,rL.o!`:t., MM TRANS-16�In coordination with the Citv and Caltrans, the Proiect �plicant shall fund costs required to optimize tr�a�fic si�nal timin�s alon�the LOVR corridor between Descanso Street and the South HiQuera to improve tra�c coordination and operations along this roadwav segment. These intersections include LOVR/Descanso, LOVR/Roval, LOVR/Laguna, LOVR/Madonna, LOVR/Froom Ranch, LOVR/Auto Park, LOVR/Calle .Ioaquin, LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps, LOVR/U.S. 101 northbound ramps and LOVR/S. Higuera. This requires coordination with Caltrans.�n :.�� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of first building�ermits for development of Villa�gio Lower Area,the A�plicant shall submit a Traffic En ing eerin,g Studv identifving recommended signal timing modifications for review and approval by the City and Caltrans. Signal timing implementation shall be completed by the City and Caltrans.�r;^�*^ ^�^�;^^ ^^a r ^��'^*�^^ .,Frl.o fi.,...1 �7TTrt F.-,ao..ol,,,...,.o«♦ ,.FT�T.,,a,..,..... C,-,....�. D..«,.1, rl.o A.,...1;,...,,.♦ � �l,..11 „1.,�.;r .. T.-..FF:,. L',,.,.;«oo.-:.�.,. Cr,,,l.. :,7v«t:C..;.... .- ,,.,10,7 .,1 �;,.,;.,,�,..,,a:�:.....:......�....o..:o..,„�,a., .,.i�..*�o r:..,,.�a r,.i,,.,,..., c:,.�„i ..�;,v.:.�..r;,,.. .,L.,.11 l.o ,. ,..loro,7 ♦„ rL.o �.,ti.,F,.r:,.,�. ,.F rL.o �'':r.. ..,�.,7 !`.,lr,-....� ,- r„ !'4�.. ; „F.. ,.o.-t;F:..,.ro ..F„ ,- L.,,:1,7:,�.,. .,. ,-.k.;r., F.- TR..,7,.,�.«..L',-,,,,.ti. D,.,�.,.L. ,70..01,,,,.,k.o«r Monitoring. The Citv shall verify that the A�plicant submits the required N � Traffic Engineering StudX-r�.o r,;k ��..,ii ,o�;� *�..,*.�.v n,.ri;,..,.,*;��*.,ii� *�.o N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-153 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , ��e-�e�ts-in--aseer�e�te ��~a�-R��gr� ~�ns--or ..�.-:1-.,,�o� ., .,�o F;.-�1..,.-o., ,o,l l.. �l.o r`;�.. MM TRANS-17�The ProjectA�licant shall pav a,fair share miti a"�fee to fund restripin�ifications at the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection to increase southbound turn pocket stora�e to 365 feet.'''-� "��* ^��-��* Plan Repuirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of first building nermits for the Villagg,io Lower Area development phase,the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements. Improvements to be installed bv the Citv as part of re ug lar signing and striping improvements.n�� eera��;�� *'�� €�a-� V�'"�� .]o.,ol.,.....v,-.♦ .,FTR.,.l,.,-,,.., R.-,,,,,v. D.,.-,,.1. �l.o A....1;,..,..��l,.,ll �„l.,v.;�., D„1.1;,. Cf,-oo�T.v.,..-,,..o.v.v,-.�Dl.,.,.4:,.-,-o..;o.�..,,-.,]., ..,1 L...�l.o f'':�.. T.v.,.lo...o,-.�.,�:,,,-. �l..,ll L.o ,. ..lo�o,] .. ,-�„ ♦L,o : „f.,.. ., .-L.,,;1.7;.-,,... .�.-.-.:♦ F.-tl.e T�T...�1..««.. L',-.....�. D.,«,.L. .70, ol...,.,ti.o..r i..,...,-�,..o.�.o«r ......t., o 0.7;«.. ��►e �es�'s�He�s��e �,�}�-o�e�igi�l� €ei- €ee s�e�li�s� v..�.,.....ow.o�... ,�,.,.��...,,,..oa.. ..�...,,.�,o,.� ,.,,,.�;,.:�,,.;,,,,:�.�.o r:.....,:av 0 0 ��s�c�t�e��e��€�o,.,.,.w. .:>> a,�r,n t-��'�€e�'s-�s�i�a� F:,�..,..,.:,.1 „l.l;,.,.�;,,« D...,.Y.o,�.t ,.F �'':t.. T,-.,..�,.,,,-t,.t:,.,�. T.Y.,...,.♦ L'oo., �l,.,ll l.o .-o,l.. ,-�..: ,.Fl..,:l,l:,�,.,� ...v.:r� F.-o ,.L. ,70..01,,,..r.o,�r.�1....,o Monitoring. The City shall verify that the A�plicant pavs its fair share fees and that adequate funding is collected to implement these improvements.� �„��,o., ,va..�,.,�o.,,,a,�o�;,.,,,.�.,,,.,„ ,,...;�,,,.o�., :.,.o�.,;..��,.,,.o ,oa�...��,o r:.., MM TRANS-18�A The Project A�plicant shall pav a fair share miti ag tion fee to fund modifcations to the tra�fic si�nal at the Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive intersection to provide an eastbound ri�ht-turn overla�phase concurrent with the northbound left-turn phase. �� n.� �' ^rr';��.�':'�"-� �a;� ''�',�� N ' J .,;h 1„f�, ,. /;,;,,..,7,.,„ ,,.+,;F.,,+;..,,. +....,.,,7.. ; ,,.t,l,..r.. � . • W ES-154 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , Plan Repuirements and Timin�. Prior to the issuance of first building permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements. Improvements to be implemented by the City as part of its ongoin tg raffic operations improvement pro,�ram or installed in conjunction with other intersection modifications to be constructed bv the San Luis Ranch development project.n,-;,,.- �„ ,..-.,,a:,,,, ,,,,,a .- ,..-,�.,.:,,� „f.�,o r,.,.,i v-rr�r s�.- .7e, ol...,.,v.v..a ..F T�T...l..«.�... L',-.....�. D.,«,.L. al.o A,..,.1:,...«t..l...11 �„1...,.;r.. D.,l.l;,. e Ct.-oor T.�....-.,, o ..r Dl.,,,.C,-,-v.; .�..�1.. .,1 L..,rl.o!'';r.. T.v...l„v.v.�.r.,r;.,« �L..,11 l.o ,. ..lo�v,�l ,�. ,-�„ �l.o ; „F.. ,-1.,,:1,7:,�.,.,. ,-.Y.;♦ F.-rl.o TR..,7,.,�.«.. L',-,.,,,v. D..«,.L. ,70.ol,......o..♦ T.r.,,.,-,..,o.r.o,�.r ,.,,�r� o o,�l;«.. ��3��@E��S�HI��Hiir`y=-v��i�i�� rc�crEttlz�vr zT--c'-ixicS}30ia"k�ivii-iiiPixE�T€��ii�••,-•,•'�• ,;11 F„14;11 tL.o Dr^:@E��9�Sthiic 3 ��.� F„-..,..,.;..1 „1.1;...,�:,.,�. D....,�.o..♦ ..F l�;�.. T.-.,..�,.,,.w.,ti..,-. T,�....,..♦ T7oo� �l,.,ll l.o ,-o.].. ,-�,.; .,F1.,,;1.]:..,...o.-.v.;�� F,-o.,..l, .lo..ol,,.�,v.o.��..L..,�o Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant pavs its fair share fees and that adequate fundin,g is collected to implement tbese improvements.� r:.., ..t,..ii . ,-:�: .t,...*�o n��i;,.,,.,. ;��...ii.. *�o : �... ; ,,,.,a„�,.o �,.�L.o., .va,.1..,,.o.,�a ao�;,.�.�1.,,,�,. �...:1.,,.0�.. .,+e F..;....L..,..o .o,]L..,rl.o f":r., TRANS-4.The Project would result in traffic safety MMHAZ-4 The Applicantshall prepare and implement an Evacuation Plan, Less than Significant impacts and inadequate emergency access and which shall address both Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch areas. The With Mitigation evacuarion options,resulting in potential for Evacuation Plan shall be subject to review by the City and SLOFD, and shall structural damage,injuries,or loss of life due to include, but not be limited to: wildland fires or other emergency situations. • 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 constr�uction schedule or phasing � plan that would affect the primary evacuation plan and routes; � A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-155 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � , � ' � � • 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. Monitorin�. 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-193� The Project shall desi�n and install�e a landscaped median along LOVR from the terminus of the existing median at northern Projectfrontage to Calle.Ioaquin. "�� *� �� *�°•�f�� ' �:. �)�� 1.�•{:i.... :�i.i......{...i.4..a{.. ..{)i.... ' 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 a�roval.Prior to recordation of the final VTM for development of Villagg,io's Lower Area, the A�plicant shall submit a public improvement plan for review and a�proval by the City. Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance first certificates of occupancv for development of Villaggio's Lower Area.T�,o�;^^' �DCD��,^" �.o^...o^ao,a *^ ,..,�o ��,o .,�,,,.,o ri.oa:.,., ; o.,�.. ,..,, .,a,,..�;,,., .,,,a �„�....:�.oa �„�t,o r-�;,�.�,-,-v..;o..,.,,,,a., ,.,i -rt,o,v.o,a:.,��t,.,n i.o:,,.o,,,-.,�o,a.,..t,o f:.,.,i ��'rra.� ,-.,. ., ,.,� ,.�ao..o�,,,..,.o�..,�..�� Monitoring.The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the final FRSP prior to Project a�proval. The City shall verify that the A�plicant installs the improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design Ipans'r�.o r;.., ��,.,ii o v .�v ,.�,,.,o,..o o ,.,..oa ;�.,, .�.o ar.,i L'D CD,. .-t.�D.-..:o..�.. ..,1 N MM TRANS-203�The Project shall include an emergency access point fi^om o'', Villaggio's Lower Area to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to provide access � ES-156 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � to the existing dirt road network to fight fires in Irish Hills,specifically to Neil Havlik Way which connects to the four utiliry 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 Timin�. The final FRSP shall be amended to incorporate the above emergency access connection prior to adoption and submitted to the Ciry and SLOFD for review and approval. The above access road shall be integrated to the final VTM prior to approval of development plans. Monitorin�.The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the final FRSP prior to Project approval. MM TRANS-21� 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. Monitorin�.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 MM TRANS-2234 To address pedestrian and bicycle circulation safety Less than Significant impacts to pedestrian and bicycle access. issues, the Pro�ect A�plicant shall incorporate the following ��g with Mitigarion n.�;��'�;'��.��.��,��,��,�a�a elements into public improvements plans hased on design guidance published by National Association of City Transportation O�cials and the Federal Highway Administration: • Install pedestrian ref'uges within center medians at north and south legs of the LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection; N J � � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-157 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , • 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. • Minimize the amount of roadwav widenin�reguired alonQ LOVR to the extent practicable bv reducin�turn pocket len�ths at the LOVR/Auto Park intersection to the minimum extent required per a�licable tra�'fic en�ineerin�standards; • 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, conceptuall�consistent with planned improvements at the nearby LOVR/Froom Ranch Way and Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive � intersections, and as illustrated in the Bob.Iones Trail(Calle.Ioaquin to Oceanaire)Proiect Studv Report; • 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-sti^eet with a physical barrier between cyclists and vehicular traffc or by constructing raised bicycle facilities at the sidewalk level adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks; • Sidewalks shall be provided within the Madonna Proom 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 Timin�. 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. Prior to recordation of the final VTM for development of Villaggio's Lower Area,the A�licant shall submit a public improvement plan for review and a�proval bv the Cit� � Implementation shall be completed prior issuance of first certificates of � V ES-158 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , ,. „ � • , , I occupancv for development of Villagg,io's Lower Area.��e� ...� ��„ii �.v �.o,.,.,,.oa .,, .�o �..,,i ��-rr,r � ,. .,. ...i �� ao.,oi,..,,�.o��,.i.,�� Monitoring.The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the final FRSP prior to Project approval. The City shall verifv that the A�licant installs the improvements in accordance to the a�proved phase and design lp ans• TRANS-6.Under long-term Cumulative plus Project MMTRANS-2 The ProiectApplicantshall desi�n and construct the extension Less than Significant conditions,Project-generated traffic would result in a of the southbound right-turn pocket at the LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps With Mitigation cumulatively considerable contribution to traffic for intersection to provide a storage length of at least I50 feet. In coordination automobiles and poor levels of service for with the A�plicant, the City and Caltrans shall also implement tra�'fic siQnal pedestrians and bike modes of transpartarion, coordination between the LOVR/Calle Joaguin intersection and adiacent U.S. causing transportation deficiencies in the Project 101 northbound and southbound ramps and optimize tra�c siQnal timinQs at vicinity. these three intersections.In addition, the A�plicant shall also pav a fair share mitiQation fee towards the improvements that are required to be constructed bv the San Luis Ranch development at this intersection, which include extension of the southbound o�f-ramp throu,gh/left-turn pocket to provide a stora,ge len t�h of at least 320 feet. Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to recordation of the final VTM for subdivision of the Madonna Froom Ranch development phase,the A�licant shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for roadway improvements at the southbound ri�ht-turn pocket and a Traffic En �ng� eerin'- S��dy with si�nal timin� recommendations for review and implementation by the City and Caltrans.Payment of fair share mitigation fees shall be provided prior to first buildin�permit issuance for Madonna Froom Ranch development, while construction of a�plicable improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of first certificate of occupancy for Madonna Froom Ranch development. Monitoring. The City shall verify that the A�licant installs the improvements in accordance to the approved phase and desi�n plans or contributes an a�propriate fair share as a�proved by the Cit� MM TRANS-5 The Project A�plicant shall pav a fair share miti a� tion fee towards bicvcle improvements atSouth Higuera/TankFarm to be constructed bv the�Ivila Ranch development, which include extendin�the westbound bike lane on Tank Farm Road to the South Hi�uera Street/Tank Farm Road � intersection and installation of a bike box (with loop detection) to facilitate � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-159 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � bicvcle left-turn movements. Fair share contribution is satisfied throu�h participation in the Citvwide Transportation Impact Fee proQram. If the planned bic cly e improvements have not vet been completed prior to development of the Villag�io Lower Area, the A�licant shall be responsible for desi�n and installation ofthe bicvcle improvements.�''� n.��;��' ^r~';��,�' , Q �i,. Mf,,;�.,,.;,,,� f,.,.,.U,�.. � ,�+„ ,,.� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of building_permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements through pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. If the planned improvements have not vet been completed by others priar to issuance of first building�ermits for Villagg,io's Lower Area development, the A�licant shall be responsible for design and installation of the bic, cl�provements prior to first occupancy nermits far the Villa��io Lower Area development.�r:�r *� �-r�a:r�- �ra ,,.-,7.,�;,,..„F�l.o F:,�..,1�ITTR F,-,lo.ol,,.,.,�.o,�.t„F�7;11.,....:..��T„ ,- A.-o., �l.o 0 0 ��1•iC-�1�51ri?ri��„1..�,:♦ D„1.1;,. C`�.-€€��€-1�3€i� D�€�1�WW—mici .,1 1...�l.o l�;�.. T,�..�lo,�.o,��.,�;,,«. �l..,ll l.o,. ,.lo�v,l.� .-�..�l.o; �,F., ,.o,-t:F;,..,�o „f.,,.,.,,...,.......,.-L.,,;1,7;.-,.... ,-.-,-.:�� F.-�7;11.,....;.,�� 7., .- A,-o., .]o.,ol.,.....v,-.♦ T4';.v.,..-,,..o..-,o,-,�� ., ,.lo�o,] � ,-1..,,,�l.o,-.. fl.o A..,.1;,..,.-,� .L.o,- �;1.10 F,-., F;.-�L,.,,-o ,.,.,��.-:L.,,�;.,.. ,. .-�,. ; � „F L.,,:1.7:.�,. ...�.;r.. F,-�7;11.,....:..�.. T., ,- A.-o., .70, ol...,.,v.o«r Monitorin�. 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-6a The Project A�plicant shall pav fair share miti ag tion fees towards intersection improvements to be constructed by the flvila Ranch development, which include installation ofa second southbound left-turn lane at the South Hi�uera Street/Tank Farm Road intersection. Fair share contributions are satisfied throu�h �articipation in the Ci. wide Transportation Irnpact Fee pro r� am. If installation of dual southbound left-turn lanes has not been completed prior � to Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the A�plicant shall coordinate � ES-160 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , with the Citv to retime the tra�f c siQnal at South HiQuera/Tank Farm to miti�ate the Project's proportional contribution to c�ueuein�pacts.�ke ti„ „fi f�, t,'„� �r;,,,.,�+ ;n ti„ U„��i��o%��s-kea;� Plan Repuirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of buildin�nermits for each development phase, the A�licant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti�ation improvements through pavment of Citvwide Transportation Impact Fees. If the planned South Higuera/Tank Farm intersection improvements have not yet been completed by others prior to issuance of first building permits for Madonna Froom Ranch development, the A�plicant shall submit a Traffic En in,� eerin'-� Studv with si�nal timing recommendations for review and implementation by the City�rior to issuance of first certificates of occupancy for Madonna Froom Ranch development.Pr� t��esei-��en-=��t�►e �x�'�V�'"�� lle..ol....,v,o.,4�,F l��T...l..«.,.. L',-.....�. D�.,,.L. al.o A,,..,.1:,...«t..l...11 �„1...,.;r.. D„1.1;.. e Cr.-ovr T.,-.«,-....o..-.o«r Dl.... F.-.- «.7 .. ...1 1.., rl.o !'':t., F,-rl.v C..,.rL. mgtre�a/�'��-�.n��i�rte�3�e��e�i��e�e�ts��e�e�t�t-ie�e€ ,�.�o,-�o,.r:,.,�. «r� �l..,ll l.o ..loro,7 .- r„ �l.v „F .. ..o,-r;F;,..,�o ,.F,. .-1.,,:1,a:,�... .,. .-.r.:r� F,-�l,o TR..,7,.««,. L',-,,,.,v. D,.,�.,.L. �e�e�e�e-�rt. �rte�J�s��.-��e�e�t ees�s e�c€€di��€e�'s �pr.�pv ci��s�ia'k�€ t33,iy v�€��€er�e� sfe�ns�ie��viirs€�e�t� D.,.-r;,.;,�..,�:,,.. ;.�. �l,o /�:�....:,7o T.-.,,,.�.�.,,,-�.,�;,,.. T.v..�..,,.�Roo,. :11 �,1F;11 �l� �€s�'s�� sl��€ €�a�si-��ga�ie�te�var�s t� ��le� 9ve�as��r��ek;�g€�.�€s�—a�c� t�€ �sAt��g�e�a�'-a�rk�ar-r�}�� .o,.�o,.*;,.� . �.., ;�,. �...,.,..va � ,.�. ,.��o,.., v.,.,...o�. „�r:... v o 0 T,-.,.�.�,.,.,-r..ti,.,,, i,�..,...,.t ❑oo� ..1,..11 L.o .-o,,,,:,-v,7 ,..-:...- ♦,. ;��,,.,.�.,.o „F L.,.:1,7:,,.,. ,-.�.;r� F.-o ,.L. ,70, ol,..�,v.v.�r,.1..,..o Monitorin�. The City shall verify that the Applicant pays fair share costs in accordance to the approved phase and design plans. MM TRANS-6b The Proiect Ap�licant shall pav fair share costs for ,�, construction of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchan�project. Fair share J V O Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-161 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � contributions are satisfied throu�h participation in the Citvwide Transportation Impact Fee proQram. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of buildin� permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti�ation improvements through pavment of Citywide Trans�ortation Impact Fees Monitoring. The City shall verifv that the A�plicant�avs fair share costs in accordance to the a�proved phase and design plans. MM TRANS-7 The Pro7ect A�plicant shall pav a fair share miti at�ion fee towards the intersection improvement.s to be constructed by the Ci. at the South HiQuera/Prado intersection, which includes installation of a second northbound left-turn lane, a second southbound left-turn lane, a second eastbound through lane, bicvcle protected intersection features, tra�c si n,�al modifzcations, and widening, of the adjacent Prado Road Creek BridQe west of South HiQuera. Fair share contributions for both improvements are satisfied through participation in the Citvwide Ti^ansportation Impact Fee program. Plan Requirements and Timing. Priar to the issuance of buildin�permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements through pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. Monitoring. The City shall verifv that the A�licant pavs fair share costs in accordance to the a�roved phase and desi�n 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 tra�c 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. Some�s in phvsical separation mav r'emain due to right_of-wav limitations or other desi�n constraints.p�� '� ��'� �� '�,� ,�',;�•,';�,� ,,.,.,.,,�.., ,..„ ..�.. Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to^~��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�first certificates � of occupancy ^r'��'a�� ;+� for Villaggio's Lower Area development. V ES-162 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � Improvement costs exceeding the Project's proportional share may be eligible for F��r�a�*� � �m'��r��m��*�nrivate reimbursement. I 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 Ciry. 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 .Ioaquin. 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. This miti�ation measure reguires Caltrans a�proval and coordination for improvements near the LOVR/U.S. 101 interchan�If Class IV bikewavs are not a�proved for se�ments within Caltrans right-of-wav, or are deemed infeasible for short seQments due to other geometi^ic constraints, alternative treatments to improve pedestrian levels of service mav be a�proved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Potential alternative treatments include installation of striped bike lane bu�fers,street trees or other features that further bu�fer pedestrians f�'om streettra�fic.T�„ p,,. .,*; �;�.�„�, ,.n`.,,,�t�,„�„*„a t,. „ ..�,r..,�;,,,� „� ,.a., ,a;,.,..:,.,. r, ,..�, r nr Qiri o �n� .,..,,,.,�,...,.,, Plan Repuirements and Timing.Prior to�-r��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 afirst certificates of occupancy ^r'��'��^� ^��*^ for Villaggio's Lower Area development. Applicable construction costs for improvements along LOVR between Calle Joaquin and Froom Ranch Wav consistent with the planned Bob Jones Trail �Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire)Connection Project may be eli�ible for credits or reimbursement throu,gh the City's Transportation Impact Fee pro�ram. Costs exceeding the Project's proportional share for improvements alon� other se�ments may be eligible for private reimbursement onl�u'� r*,.,,�.�o oa:�,..�.o n,.,.;o,..��r ,,.�;,,�,.� .,�.,.ro w. ..�.o v�;,.:�.�o F.-F o...-0,7;�� „ o.v.l.,,,-�o,�.o..t� N J V N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-163 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � Monitorin�. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans--e� ..�.-:1-.,,�o� ., .,�o F;.-�1..,.-o., ,o,l l.. �l.o r`;�.. MM TRANS-12 In coordination with the Countv, the Proiect A�plicant shall pav a fair share miti a,g tion,fee for costs to construct the following Future improvements at the LOVR/Foothill Boulevard intersection: widen northbound a�proach to provide one left-turn, two throuQh, and one right- turn lane; widen westbound a�roach to provide one left-turn lane, one shared throu,gh/ri�ht-turn lane, and one ri�ht-turn lane. Additional i�rovements include roadwav stripinQ and tr�a�fic siQnal modifcations needed to accommodate new lane confi�urations. This miti�ation measure reguires Countv a�proval and coordination. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to recordation of the final VTM for development of Villap�io's Lower Area, the A�plicant shall submit preliminary intersection improvement plans for review and a�roval bv the Countv, with plans developed to a level of detail sufficient to provide an en,gineer's estimate of probable construction costs, including ri,ght-of-waX acquisition (if needed). Fair share miti,�ation fees for these improvements shall be paid to the Countyprior to issuance of first certificates of occupancy development of Villaggio's Lower Area. Monitoring.The City shall verify that the A�plicant has provided a�plicable design plans and contributes an a�propriate fair share mitigation fee to the satisfaction of the Countv. MM TRANS-13 In coordination with the A�plicant, the Citv shall retime the traffic signal at LOVR/Madonna to implement Lead Pedestrian Intervals for each pedestrian crossin�phase.� ��a;,��,� ;*' *�� r';'� *'� �,�;�� M t„ ,,,;� �� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of first building permits far the Villa,g,gio Lower Area development phase, the City shall implement the signal timin�modificarions.��:��*��-�-�a:��a�� a�*:��F ♦L.o F:,�..,1�ITTR F.-,70.ol,,,,.,r.o,�.r„F�7;11.,,.,.;,,�.,T ,. .- A,-o.. �L.o A.,..,.1:....,�.r�L.,.11 0 „L.,v.;♦ ., T,-.,FC,,. T1..,.;«oo.-:,�.,. C'r,,,7.. ;,7o«�;F..;«.. ,- ,�.,70,7 � .,1 ♦;,�.;«.. rin�criiiCz'��16nS-�9�€�1€�'-ztYtct 1 1... �L.o !`'�.. YYT s�cc�n€z�a —c'l�3'^v=dirr-v�cx�c-crc� �pi�^vj�^v" Do,lo��.-:.,.. T..�o.-.,.,1� �l..,ll 1-.0 ;,�.��.,ll0,7 .�. .-�„ �L.o : o „F., o.w;F:,...�o „F N J .-1.,,:1,7:..,..,. .v.:�� F.-�7:11.,,.,.;,,�� T,. ,- A,-o., ,lo..ol,,,�..v.o,,.♦ V � � ' W ES-164 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � Monitorin�. The Citv shall verifv that the signal timing modifications are implemented in accordance to the a�roved project phase.T''��" �€�ia •'�..• •'�� n,.��:c��s��"s--t��e-�e�rts--in--aeser�e�� o,l ,.1..,�0 .,«.,l ,lo�;,.,�. ,.1.,..� ,. ,,.�,-;1.,,�0� ., .,�o F;.- �1,.,.-o .. ,o,a�,.,.�,o r;... MM TRANS-14 In coordination with the Citv, the Pro'e� ct Applicant shall fund anv costs rec�uired to implement Lead Pedestrian Intervals for each pedestrian crossin�phase at the South Hi�uera Street/Tank Farm Road intersection. Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to gradin�and recordation of the final VTM for development of Villaggio's Lower Area,the A�licant shall submit a Traffic En�ineering Studv identifyin� recommended signal timing modifications for review and a�proval bv the City. The proposed Lead Pedestrian Intervals shall be installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy or buildingzpermit for Villaggio's Lower Area development. Monitoring. The Citv shall verify that the A�licant installs the improvements in accordance to the a�proved phase and desi�n plans or contributes an a�propriate fair share as a�roved by the Cit� MM TRANS-16 In coordination with the Citv and Caltrans, the Proiect �plicant shall fund costs required to optimize tra�fc si�nal timin s,g alon,g the LOVR corridor between Descanso Street and the South Hi�uera to improve tra�c coordination and operations alonQ this roadway se�ment. These intersections include LOVR/Descanso, LOVR/Roval, LOVR/LaQuna, LOVR/Madonna, LOVR/Froom Ranch, LOVR/Auto Park, LOVR/Calle .Ioac�uin, LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps, LOVR/U.S. 101 northbound ramps and LOVR/S. Hi�uera. This requires coordination with Caltrans. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of first buildin�permits for development of Villa��io Lower Area,the A�plicant shall submit a Traffic En 'n,_�g Study identif�g recommended signal timing modifications for review and a�proval by the City and Caltrans. Signal timing implementarion shall be completed bv the City and Caltrans. Monitoring. The City shall verify that the A�plicant submits the required Traffic Engineerin�Stud� MM TRANS-18 The Proiect A�plicant shall pay a fair.share rniti a,�tion,fee to fund modifications to the tra fFe ac si�nal at the Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive intersection to provide an eastbound ri�ht-turn overla�phase concurrent with N � the northbound left-turn phase. The Project A�licant shall modi the tra�c A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-165 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � s�nal at the Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive intersection to provide EB ri�ht- turn overlap phase concurrent with NB left-turn phase. If intersecfion improvements are constructed sooner bv others, the A�plicant will be responsible for a fair share contribution towards improvement costs. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of first building permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mirigation improvements. Improvements to be implemented by the City as part of its ongoin� �erations improvement program or installed in conjunction with other intersection modifications to be constructed bv the San Luis Ranch development�roj ect. Monitoring. The City shall verifv that the A�plicant pavs its fair share fees and that adequate fundin,�is collected to implement these improvements. �a',^xcc--S;-^c'��i„l+ +,., r,.,�„ � �,��;r,. ,.+;,,,,.,.1 ^-o^=di-79`te-;^rc�s—c�v^--c�r�'cc sig�t�3tfi�i�e�a�a' �i�ag��ed-isa��ie�cs �a�—be �e�ri�e�� ITTR F.-,70.ol,,,..Y.o,�.t,.FTR..,a,,,�.«.,L'.-,,,,.r.D..,�.,.1. �l.o A,.,,.1:,..,..��L...11 .,,,1.,�.;r � ., D„l.l:,. Ct.-oo�T,v.,..,-,..,o.r.o,�.r Dl..« ..,�.,1 T�',�.,.;..ov.-�� R��:.ti.,.ro ,.FD,-„l.,.L.lo �'',,.,♦ �z€vie�-ar�l-a�,.,.. „��'��ne-�� "'s�,�`r'i�s-��s��€ F o� ♦,. �l.o /�,,,,,�.�..,. ,-�.. �l.o ; „F., .-1.,,;1,7;....,. ,-.Y.;♦ F.-TR.,,7..,�....,R.-,,,.,v.D.,..,.1.,]o.ol,,,..v,o,�.��„F,,..,]: ..lo,�.o..�.,�:,,,�.„F�l.o�,�,,,-o 1�,� 4,,�. Tl. f'':+., l, 11 '� �1..,� fl.o A 1;...,..♦ '.]o� �l,o ' .] 1YYvir'rCtl1�—rc5 srcirrc�crir�mr.�c cnc�z"p�'p-rxcurrc�r`�`�o"'vic[cscnc—ici7i'srrca .7e�:..« ..1.,..., «.7 «*.-:L.,,�o.. . ..*o F..;.- ..1....-o .. o.�l l.. *L.o !`,,,,«t.,; ,,,-,1....,.v t,.rL.o., e,l ,lo, ol,...,�.o«r..L...�o MM TRANS-23�The Proiect A�plicant shall pav a fair share miti ag tion fee to fund stripin�modifications to extend the northbound le t-turn pocket at the LOVR/Roval Wav intersection to I50 feet. This miti�ation measure requires Caltrans a�roval and coordination.'''� n,�;��* ^��':��,�*�'�"��, ;*� �;,� N J V � � ES-166 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � �a� „a;, „�; Plan Requirements and Timin�.Prior to issuance of first building�ermits� �'��'�'��^��*for Madonna Froom Ranch,the Applicant shall pay its fair share fees to the Ciry. Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant contributes an appropriate fair share as approved by the Ciry and that adequate funding is collected to implement these improvements. MM TRANS-24�In coordination with the A�plicant, the Citv shall retime the tra�f c si�nal at LOVR/Calle Joaquin to implement Lead Pedestrian Intervals ,for each pedestrian crossin��hase. Reguires Caltrans coordination.r,� ., .,,a;,�,,,;.,,�� ,;f� .�„�;fi. .�„ p,�,.;,,.,f �„��;.,,.,�..,�„n„ ;.� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of first building permits for the Villa,�gio Lower Area development phase, the Ci , shall implement the si,�nal timin,g modifications.��:^r*^: ^�^� ^ .-1.,,;1.];«..,. .-.,-.:a F.-TR...l..««.. C,-....,�. D..«..L. tL.o A,.,.l;,.....a�l..,ll,. :t..F..;.- 0 �1,..,-o f o��.,�l,o I'4r.. Monitoring. The City shall verify that the si�nal rimin� modifications are im�lemented in accordance to the approved project phase.''''��" ��i�-c'H� '��i€�L��="•un�'�,'„�m�-rT ,'�E61ice�€�te—mipi€i�3€i�t 'ci c3c �f�� MM TRANS-253� The Project Applicant shall pay its fair share rr�itigation fees to fund intersection stripin�provements to extend''� �v�� 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 first � building permits for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its fair share fees to the City. Monitorin�. 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. N I J V . � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-167 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . � � ' � � �� i.,,;i,�;�,. ,. ...�.:. �.- r�.,,a,,.,,,., �,-,.,..�, n.,.,,.�, ��,o n,.�i:,..,.,� ��,.,ii ,. ;�� s�;.- �t,.,,-o�o�.,,.t,o r�;�.. �^vir'r�BY-.ir��E'�S�Hl��€-Fi�t�iz'1� t� �pp�iiC-&ii� C�T��i�ist@S—c1i� .,ao F:.- �t,.,,-o ., 0,7 t�., at,v !'';a., ...�,a at,..♦ .,,]o,.,,..to �..�,7:.�,. ; ,.11o,.rv,7 r„: .�lo.v.o.�t rl,o..o: .�r� A,.,�r,7 ,.,,�;, �1,.,„ ,,,r,,.;l.,,r;.,,,, ;�'r,..,,..,+,,..,+,�,1� F., ..s1,,,., �ITT�T F,-Ao..ol,,,.,v.o..�,.FT�T.,,7,,...-,.,R,-,,,,,v.D.,....L, ♦L,o A....1;...,,-.��L..,11 �„L...,:� ., D„L.1:,. C�,-oo� T.v.,.,-,,..o.v.o..♦ Dl.,,-. f,-,- ..,] ., ..,1 1...�L.o f'':�.. Tl.o 0,7 «t.. ..1,..11 L.o .-.loto�l ♦„ rl.o „F .. .-.ti.:r F,-T�T..,l,..,..�... L'.-,.,.,�. D..,,.,.L. ,7e, ol,..,.,v.o..r Aii..,.;�.,,.:...� Tl,v r`;�..�l..,ll. .-:F.�L..,t tl.o A,�.,�.1;,..,..�:..��.,11��l.o ��c-crcy 3rn.-ar�cc-i�r�xc�zpp-ricuxxc-iixo-ccrcro--crtc 0.�4� ; .,.-.].,....o�,.�l,o., .o,l«.1,.,�0 .,.�.1 .]o�;,..�..1.,.�� „ ..r,-;1.,,�0� ., :.,�0 4:,:,-�L,.,,-o., .0,7 L...�l.o!'':r.. 3.14 Utilities and Energy Conservation UT-1. The Project would require tbe expansion of MM AQ-1 A Constr�uction Activiry Management Plan (CAMP) shall be Less than Significant utility infrastructure to serve new development, included as part of Project grading and building plans and shall be submitted With Mitigation including water,sewer,natural gas,and elech-icity to SLO County APCD and to the Ciry for review and approval prior to the into the site;the construcrion of which could cause start of construction. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following environmental effects. 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 ES-168 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , period.At a minimum, this would require twice-daily applications. Increased watering frequency would be required when wind speeds exceed I S 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 Counry 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 inonth 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; • T�ehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed I S 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 fi^eeboard 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 tr�ack-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 V � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-169 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , accumulate tracked-outsoils, the track-outprevention device shall be modifzed or replaced to prevent track-out,• • Sweep str^eets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacentpaved 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 opaciry,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 Counry 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 ininimize diesel emissions: • Maintain all const�^uction eguipment in proper tune according to inanufacturer's specifzcations; • Fuel all off road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-ta�ed version suitable for use off-road). • Use on-road heavy-dury 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; V � ES-170 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , • On-and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for inore 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); S. 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 City 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 Jactivities until occupancy is issued and landscaping is successfully installed. w 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-171 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , Monitorin�.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 inspectars 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 fi^om 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 SO.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 constr�uction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building inaterials) shall be stored at designated construction staging N � areas, which shall be located outside of designated sensitive areas. ES-172 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , Should spills occur, or if anv unanticipated hazardous materials � are discovered, materials and/or contaminants shall be cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the RWQCB Departrrcent o,f Toxic Substances Control,and/or San Luis Obispo County Public Health Environmental Services, as applicable. e) All trash and constr�uction 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. � 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 fi^om 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 othenvise trained and City- approved personnel. Ti^enches 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 ma�imum extentpossible to minimize disturhance of undeveloped habitats. All construction access roads and staging areas shall be located to avoid known/mapped habitat and N � ininimize habitatfi^agmentation. w N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-173 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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. Monitorin�.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 tiine, spot checkin�,- � • Description of what resources are expected to be encountered,� ES-174 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � • 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 Timin�. The AMP shall be prepared by a City- approved archaeologist prior to issuance of grading or building permits and recordation of the final map. Monitorin�. 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 Timin�. 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 Ciry 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. Ciry 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-S In the event of any inadvertent discovery of prehistoric Aarchaeological resources, including but not limited to stone, bone, glass, Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-175 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , ceramics,fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or historic period archaeological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall irrcmediately 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 Ciry 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 Ciry. Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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 Ciry shall review and approve the selected archaeologist to ensure they meet appropriate professional qualification standards, consistent with the Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Monitorin�. 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 Ciry 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 fi^om 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 N appropriate mufflers and have extinguishers mounted on each vehicle; J � � ES-176 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , • 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 Counry Fire Department,and the Ciry,and submit the Plan to the SLOFD for approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.Provisions far 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 priar to commencement of construction or grading activities. MonitorinQ. 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 oflntent(NOI)for discharge fi^om the Project site to the California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit. Plan Repuirements 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 w rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-177 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i . � � ' � � 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 construcrion to ensure compliance. MM HYD-2 For each phase of construction, the Applicant shall reguire 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 inactiviry 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 ofgraded 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.). w V ES-178 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i . � � ' � � • 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 Repuirements and Timin�.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. Monitorin,g. City monitoring staff shall periodically inspect the site for compliance with the SWPPP during grading to monitor r�unoff 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 310-9 and Table N 3.10-10, across a residential or commercial property line. J � � Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-179 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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. Monitorin�. The Applicant's permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity schedules and respond to complaints. MMNO-2 For all consh^uction activity at the Projectsite, 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 eguipment. • 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-recominended 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. Construcrion plans shall idenrify 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 ES-180 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 inspecrions to verify compliance with activity schedules. MMNO-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 constr�uction activity for any Phase. The notice shall include the name and contact information of the Project's construction manager and contact information for the Ciry'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 priar to iniriation of any earth movement. Monitorin�. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout all construction phases. The Applicant's permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform periodic site inspections to ver� compliance with activiry 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-specifzc 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. Monitorin�. City staff shall ensure compliance with required site design and N � noise reduction measures within the final FRSP prior to adoption and shall 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-181 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , 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 constr�uction. The A�plicant shall coordinate with SLO Re�ional Rideshare for the development of the Plan. The Plan shall be designed to: • Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network,• • Restrict constr^uction 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; • Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoodsi and • Provide strate�ies to reduce sin�le-occupancv vehicle trips made by resident and emplovees.- 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. The A�licant shall identi('�point of contact to coordinate Plan implementation. 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 inf'ormation 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 Communiry Development N Department and implemented in accordance with this approval. J � ES-182 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , • 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 .Ioaquin to access the Upper Terrace after that tiine. • 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 consh^uction activiry. Work shall generally be per formed between 8:30 AM and 4:00 PM. This work includes dirt hauling and construction inaterial 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 eguipment shall be cleaned in accordance with established Public Works requirements. • Trucks shall only travel on a Ciry-approved construction route.Limited queuing may occur on the construction site itself. • Materials and equipment shall be minimally visible to the public; the pref'erred 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 parkz'ng for constr�uction workers, which may include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if determined necessary by the City. • Where construction activities rec�uire closure ofbike lanes orsidewalks alon� LOVR, temporarv bicvcle and pedestrian pathwavs shall be provided where feasible with phvsical separation provided between users and adjacent vehicle tra�c consistent with Public Works rec�uirements. Project Coordination Elements That Shall Be Iinpleinented Prior to Commencement of Construction: • The traveling public shall be advised of impending construction � activities that may substantially affect key roadways or other facilities � N Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-183 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � . , . � � � • � , (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 constr�uction 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. !Public Works Department approval of any haul routes f'or construction materials and equipment deliveries shall be obtained. • Construction tra�c plans, routes, and schedules shall be shared with the Citv Active Transportation Committee, Countv Public Works Department (for distribution to the Countv Bicvcle Adviso� Committee), the Los Tterdes Park 1 and 2 Homeowners Associations, and local bicvcle advocacv Qroups, such as Bike SLO Countv and the SLO Bicvcle Club. 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 N J � W ES-184 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) � , , . � � � • � , 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 Construcrion 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 IIT-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 infi^astructure shall be subject to review and approval by the Ciry'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. Monitorin�. City staff shall ensure measures are on all Project plans. City staff shall wark with the Applicant to ensure that these requirements are implemented. UT-2.Project-related increases in water use would None Required. Less than Significant increase demand for the City's potable water supply. UT-3.Project-generated wastewater would MM UT-2 The Applicant shall pay fair share costs for replacement of the Less than Significant contribute to demand for wastewater collection Laguna lift station or construction of capacity improvements through with Mitigarion facilities and remaining available and planned negotiation of a private reimbursement agreement with the Ciry. capacity of the City's WRRF. 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. N J � A Froom Ranch Specific Plan ES-185 Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) i � � ' � � UT-4.The Project would generate additional solid None Required. Less than Significant waste for disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill. UT-5. The Project would result in an increase of None Required. Less than Significant energy consumption and requirement for additional energy resources. 315 Mineral Resources MN-1. Project implemcntarion would result in the None Required. Less than Significant loss of the existing onsite red rock quarry(Froom Ranch Pit). N J � � ES-186 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-C SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The CEQA Guidelines state that an `BIR 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 5pecific Plan ES-187 Final EIR 12796 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-188 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12797 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan ES-189 Final EIR 12798 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-2. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project .� � � � � ,� : • � i , . � � � � • � � � � � � � � � � � i i Aesthetics and Less Less Less Less Visual Resources Agricultural Less Similar Similar Less Resources Air Quality and GHG Emissions Less Similar Similar Less Biological Less Less Less Less Resources Cultural and Greater Less Less Less Tribal Resources Geology and Soils Less Similar Similar Similar Hazards, Hazardous Less Less Less Less Materials,and Wild�res Hydrology and Less Similar Similar Less Water Quality Land Use and Less Less Less Less Planning Noise Less Less Less Less Population and Greater Similar Similar Less Housing Public Services Less Similar Similar Less Transportation Less Similar Similar Less and Traffic Utilities and Energy Less Similar Similar Less Conservation Mineral Less Similar Similar Similar Resources Project � No Yes Partially Partially Objectives Met. ES-190 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12799 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATNE 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 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan ES-191 Final EIR 12800 12801 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................XV 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 PxEpA�T1oN.......................................................................................... 1-4 1.5 SCOPE OF THE EIR.......................................................................................... 1-6 1.5.1 Areas of Known Public Controversy................................................. 1-7 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR............................................................................ 1-8 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..........................................................................................Z-3 2.2.1 Project Site Boundaries......................................................................2-3 2.2.2 Project Vicinity..................................................................................2-6 2.2.3 Existing Project Site Characteristics..................................................2-7 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES....................................................................................Z-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...............................................................2-29 2.4.3 Circulation........................................................................................2-32 2.4.3.1 Los Osos Valley Road Improvements ..............................2-34 2.4.3.2 Primary Access .................................................................2-34 2.4.3.3 Project Roadway Network................................................2-34 2.4.3.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities......................................2-38 2.4.3.5 Parking..............................................................................2-39 2.4.3.6 Transit Improvements.......................................................2-40 2.4.4 Utilities and Services .......................................................................2-40 2.4.4.1 Water Supply Infrastructure..............................................2-40 2.4.4.2 Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure ...........................................2-43 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan i Final EIR 12802 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa�e 2.4.4.3 Electricity, Gas, Telephone, Cable, and Solid Waste Facilities............................................................................2-43 2.4.4.4 Stormwater Management System and Froom Creek Realignment......................................................................2-45 2.4.4.5 Froom Creek Realignment and Reconstruction................2-46 2.4.4.6 Stormwater Detention Features.........................................2-49 2.4.4.7 Point- and Non-Point Source Water Quality Treatment..........................................................................2-50 2.4.4.8 Headwalls and Culverts for Drainage Crossings..............2-52 2.S REQUIRED APPROVALS.................................................................................2-53 Z.6 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION..............................................................................Z-SS 2.6.1 Construction Phasing and Implementation......................................2-55 2.6.2 Construction Activities ....................................................................2-57 2.6.2.1 Site Preparation, Demolition and Grading........................2-57 2.6.2.2 Infrastructure Improvements.............................................2-58 2.6.2.3 Building Construction.......................................................2-59 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 Proj ect 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....................................................3.1-19 3.1.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................3.1-19 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.......................................................3.1-40 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................ 3.Z-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 ................................................................................3.2-9 3.2.3 Environmental Impact Analysis....................................................3.2-13 3.2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................3.2-13 ii Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12803 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa�e 3.2.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology.................................. 3.2-14 3.2.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................3.2-15 3.2.3.4 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................3.2-21 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 Loca1 ..............................................................................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 3.3.3.4 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................3.3-68 3.4 BroLOGicaL REsouxcEs.............................................................................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...........................3.4-26 3.4.1.7 Tree Inventory................................................................3.4-27 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................3.4-28 3.4.2.1 Federal............................................................................3.4-28 3.4.2.2 State................................................................................ 3.4-29 3.4.2.3 Loca1 ..............................................................................3.4-30 3.4.3 Environmental Impact Analysis.................................................... 3.4-36 3.4.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................3.4-36 3.4.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology.................................. 3.4-37 3.4.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................3.4-39 3.4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................3.4-97 3.S 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 ........................................................................3.5-13 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan iii Final EIR 12804 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa�e 3.5.2.1 Federal............................................................................3.5-13 3.5.2.2 State................................................................................3.5-14 3.5.2.3 Loca1 .............................................................................. 3.5-16 3.5.3 Environmental Impact Analysis....................................................3.5-18 3.5.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................3.5-18 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.......................................................3.5-40 3.6 GEOLOGYANDSOILS...................................................................................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...............................................3.6-9 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 Loca1 ..............................................................................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.......................................................3.6-28 3.� HAZARDS,HAZARDOUS MATERIALS,AND WILDFIRE..................................3.�-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 ..................................................3.7-10 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 Loca1 ..............................................................................3.7-17 3.7.3 Environmental Impact Analysis.................................................... 3.7-21 3.7.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................3.7-21 3.7.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology.................................. 3.7-23 3.7.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................3.7-24 3.7.3.4 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................3.7-42 3.g HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................................3.H-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 iv Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12805 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa�e 3.8.2.1 Federal............................................................................3.8-13 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 3.8.3.4 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................3.8-40 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...............................3.9-5 3.9.1.3 Easements within Project Site..........................................3.9-6 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................3.9-7 3.9.2.1 State.................................................................................. 3.9-8 3.9.2.2 Regional...........................................................................3.9-9 3.9.2.3 Local .............................................................................. 3.9-12 3.9.3 Consistency with Plans and Policies.............................................3.9-16 3.9.4 Environmental Impact Analysis.................................................... 3.9-61 3.9.41 Thresholds of Significance ............................................3.9-61 3.9.4.2 Impact Assessment Methodology.................................. 3.9-61 3.9.4.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................3.9-62 3.9.4.4 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................3.9-68 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.............................................................................. 3.10-13 3.10.2.3 Loca1 ............................................................................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 PoPULaTiotv 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 ......................................................................3.11-12 3.11.2.1 State..............................................................................3.11-12 3.11.2.2 Local ............................................................................3.11-13 3.11.3 Environmental Impact Analysis..................................................3.11-17 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan v Final EIR 12806 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa�e 3.11.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ..........................................3.11-17 3.11.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology................................3.11-18 3.11.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................3.11-18 3.11.3.4 Cumulative Impacts.....................................................3.11-23 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION.......................................................... 3.IZ-1 3.12.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................3.12-1 3.12.1.1 Police Services...............................................................3.12-3 312.1.2 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.............................................................................. 3.12-10 3.12.2.3 Loca1 ............................................................................3.12-11 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.....................................................3.12-26 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......................................... 3.13-5 3.13.1.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities .............................................3.13-7 3.13.1.4 Existing Transit Facilities..............................................3.13-8 3.13.1.5 Existing Collision History..............................................3.13-8 3.13.1.6 Multi-Modal Transportation System Operations........... 3.13-9 3.13.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................3.13-52 3.13.2.1 Federal..........................................................................3.13-52 3.13.2.2 State..............................................................................3.13-52 3.13.2.3 Local ............................................................................ 3.13-54 3.13.3 Environmental Impact Analysis..................................................3.13-58 3.13.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ..........................................3.13-58 3.13.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology................................3.13-63 3.13.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................3.13-73 3.13.3.4 Cumulative Impacts...................................................3.13-124 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..................................................3.14-27 vi Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12807 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa�e 3.14.3.1 Thresholds for Determining Significance....................3.14-27 3.14.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology................................3.14-28 3.14.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................3.14-29 3.14.3.4 Cumulative Impacts.....................................................3.14-46 3.15 MINERAL RESOURCES................................................................................ 3.IS-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 Loca1 ..............................................................................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-S 4.3.1 Forestry Resources.............................................................................4-5 4.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...............................4-S 5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES.....................................................................................5-1 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................................6-1 7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED.......................................................................................................7-1 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS............................................................................8-1 9.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.................9-1 9.1 PURPOSE.........................................................................................................9-1 9.2 RESPONSIBILITIES...........................................................................................9-1 9.3 MONITORING PROCEDURES.............................................................................9-2 9.4 MONITORING TABLE.......................................................................................9-2 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan vii Final EIR 12808 TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 M Supplemental Traffic Operations Analysis for LOVR/U.S. 101 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan viii Final EIR 12809 LIST OF FIGURES Pa�e LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure2-1. Regional Location.................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-2. Project Site Existing Setting.................................................................2-8 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..........................2-30 Figure2-8. Fencing Plan .......................................................................................2-31 Figure 2-9. Proposed Circulation Plan ..................................................................2-33 Figure 2.9. LOVR Improvements .........................................................................2-34 Figure 2-11. Public Roads Cross Sections...............................................................2-36 Figure 2-11. Private Road Cross Sections...............................................................2-37 Figure 2-13. Water Supply System..........................................................................2-42 Figure 2-14. Wastewater Collection System...........................................................2-44 Figure 2-15. Conceptual Creek Cross Sections.......................................................2-48 Figure 2-16. Stormwater Control Plan ....................................................................2-51 Figure 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects............................................................................3-10 Figure 3.1-1. KVA Location Map.........................................................................3.1-22 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.........3.6-20 Figure 3.7-1. Fire Hazard Severity Zones ...............................................................3.7-4 Figure 3.7-2. Conceptual Defensible Space Area..................................................3.7-29 Figure 3.7-3. Illustrative Defensible Space Setback Cross Section ......................3.7-30 Figure 3.8-L Existing Drainage Conditions on the Project Site .............................3.8-5 Figure 3.9-1. Land Use Designations......................................................................3.9-4 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 .............................................................3.13-6 Figure 3.13-2. Existing Plus Project Traffic Impacts............................................3.13-81 Figure 3.13-3. Applicant Funded City Improvements to Transportation Network .......................................................................................3.13-100 Figure 5-1. Alternative 1 - Land Use Plan............................................................. 5-26 Figure 5-2. Alternative 1 - Villaggio Conceptual Cross-Sections.........................5-27 Figure 5-4. Alternative 2 - Land Use Plan............................................................. 5-92 Figure 5-5. Alternative 3 - Land Use Plan........................................................... 5-105 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan ix Final EIR 12810 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-190 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..............................................2-28 Table 2-6. Pipe Sizes at Drainage Crossings........................................................2-53 Table 2-7. Project Construction Phases................................................................2-56 Table 2-8. List of Construction Equipment..........................................................2-57 Table 2-9. Project Grading Estimates ..................................................................2-58 Table 3.0-L Cumulative Projects List.......................................................................3-4 Table 3.1-1. Summary of Proj ect 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............................................................3.2-16 Table 3.2-5. Final LESA Score Sheet..................................................................3.2-17 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).................3.3-55 Table 3.3-11. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Unmitigated)...................3.3-56 Table 3.4-L Habitat Types Located within the Project Site ..................................3.4-9 Table 3.4-2. Special-Status Plants with High Potential to Occur in the ProjectSite.......................................................................................3.4-16 Table 3.4-3. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the ProjectSite.......................................................................................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 ..........................3.4-26 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.......................................3.4-73 Table 3.5-1. Cultural Resources Recorded within the Project Site........................3.5-4 x Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12811 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3.5-2. Cultural Resources Recorded within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site.....3.5-4 Table 3.5-3. Structures Associated with the Historic Froom Ranch Dairy............3.5-7 Table 3.5-4. Summary of Project Impacts............................................................3.5-23 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............................................................................................3.6-10 Table 3.6-4. Non-UCMP Pleistocene Localities of San Luis Obispo County..... 3.6-11 Table 3.6-5. Summary of Project Impacts............................................................3.6-16 Table 3.7-1. Potential for Firefighting Success and Tactics on Steep Slopes........3.7-5 Table 3.7-2. USTs and Cleanup Sites within a 0.5 mile-Radius of the Project Site.....................................................................................................3.7-9 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............................................................3.7-24 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 Land Use within Project Vicinity.............3.9-1 Table 3.9-2. Existing City and County Zoning Districts within Project Vicinity..............................................................................................3.9-2 Table 3.9-3. LUCE Performance Standards for Madonna at LOVR Specific PlanArea............................................................................................3.9-6 Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis..............................3.9-17 Table 3.9-5. County General Plan Policy Consistency Summary........................3.9-59 Table 3.9-6. Summary of Project Impacts............................................................3.9-62 Table 3.10-1. Representative Noise Levels............................................................ 3.10-3 Table 3.10-2. Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration..........................................................................................3.10-5 Table 3.10-3. LUCE Update EIR Projected Roadway Noise Levels within ProjectSite.......................................................................................3.10-8 Table 3.10-4. Measured Noise Levels within the Project Sitel .............................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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan xi Final EIR 12812 LIST OF TABLES Page 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 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.......................................................................................3.10-3 2 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 ..............................3.11-6 Table 3.11-8. Affordable Rent and Purchase Prices for All Income Categories ...3.11-8 Table 3.11-9. Remaining RHNA Need Based on Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction, ar Built, 2014 to 2019 ..................................3.11-10 Table 3.11-10. City and Regional Jobs-to-Housing Ratio.....................................3.11-11 Table 3.11-ll. SLOCOG Projections vs. LUCE Buildout Capacity far 2035.......3.11-12 Table 3.11-12a. Inclusionary Housing Requirements..............................................3.11-16 Table 3.11-12b. Inclusionary Housing Adjustment Factors ....................................3.11-16 Table 3.11-13. Summary of Proj ect Impacts..........................................................3.11-19 Table 3.11-14. Summary of Estimated Population Generated by the Project.......3.11-19 Table 3.11-15. City and Countywide Population and Housing Projections, 2010-203 5......................................................................................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. Proj ect 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......................................3.13-11 Table 3.13-3. Freeway Segments LOS Methodology..........................................3.13-11 Table 3.13-4. LOS Criteria for Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities/Services..........................................................................3.13-12 Table 3.13-5. Pedestrian Segment and Intersection LOS Methodology..............3.13-13 Table 3.13-6. Bicycle and Transit Segment and Intersection LOS Methodology..................................................................................3.13-13 xii Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12813 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3.13-7. Existing Intersection LOS - Automobile.......................................3.13-16 Table 3.13-8. Existing Intersection LOS - Pedestrian..........................................3.13-17 Table 3.13-9. Existing Intersection LOS - Bicycle..............................................3.13-20 Table 3.13-10. Existing Conditions - 95th-Percentile Queuing.............................3.13-22 Table 3.13-11. Existing Segment LOS - Automobile............................................3.13-28 Table 3.13-12. Existing Segment LOS - Pedestrian...............................................3.13-29 Table 3.13-13. Existing Segment LOS - Bicycle...................................................3.13-30 Table 3.13-14. Existing Segment LOS - Transit....................................................3.13-31 Table 3.13-15. Existing Segment LOS - Freeway Mainline, Ramps and Weaving Sections ..........................................................................3.13-32 Table 3.13-16. Near-Term Transportation Project List..........................................3.13-33 Table 3.13-17. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Automobile.................3.13-35 Table 3.13-18. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Pedestrian...................3.13-37 Table 3.13-19. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Bicycle........................3.13-39 Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95th-Percentile Queuing..........................................................................................3.13-41 Table 3.13-21. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment Level of Service - Automobile...3.13-47 Table 3.13-22. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment Level of Service - Pedestrian.....3.13-48 Table 3.13-23. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS - Bicycle.............................3.13-49 Table 3.13-24. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS - Transit .............................3.13-50 Table 3.13-25. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS - Freeway Mainline, Ramps and Weaving Sections........................................................3.13-51 Table 3.13-26. LOS Objective and Minimum Standard for Each Transportation Mode..............................................................................................3.13-59 Table 3.13-27. City LOS Modal Priority Ranking by Area...................................3.13-61 Table 3.13-28. Project Person Trips by Mode of Travel........................................3.13-66 Table 3.13-29. Net External Vehicle Trip Generation Forecast ............................3.13-67 Table 3.13-30. Project Operational Vehicle Trip Generation by Phase.................3.13-68 Table 3.13-31. Average Estimated Year 2035 VMT for the County and Project..3.13-70 Table 3.13 32. Summary of Project Impacts..........................................................3.13-74 Table 3.13-33. Existing Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary...............3.13-101 Table 3.13-34. Near-Term Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary..........3.13-115 Table 3.13-35. Cumulative Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary.........3.13-133 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..3.14-35 Table 3.14-9. Wastewater Projections Resulting from the Project. .....................3.14-36 Table 3.14-10. Estimated Solid Waste Production ................................................3.14-39 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan xiii Final EIR 12814 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3.14-11. Estimated Project Electricity and Natural Gas Demands ..............3.14-40 Table 3.14-12. Estimated Project Construction Fuel Consumption.......................3.14-42 Table 3.14-13. Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled................................................3.14-43 Table 3.14-14. Estimated Operational Fuel Consumption.....................................3.14-43 Table 3.14-15. Comparison of Total and Per Capita Electricity and Natural GasDemands.................................................................................3.14-44 Table 3.15-1. Summary of Project Impacts............................................................3.15-8 Table 5-1. Summary of Alternative 1 Zoning and Land Uses.............................5-20 Table 5-2. Proposed Development Standards for Residential Zones................... 5-21 Table 5-3. Types of Senior Housing within Villaggio.........................................5-22 Table 5-4. Comparison of Alternative 1 to the Proposed Project........................ 5-29 Table 5-5. Summary and Comparison of Housing and Population......................5-34 Table 5-6. Alternative 1 Construction Phasing....................................................5-35 Table 5-7. Alternative 1 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts................................................................................................5-36 Table 5-8. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Unmitigated)........... 5-54 Table 5-9. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Mitigated)...............5-54 Table 5-10. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Unmitigated).............5-55 Table 5-11. Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated)....................5-57 Table 5-12. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Unmitigated)...................... 5-57 Table 5-13. Estimated Solid Waste Production Under Alternative 1 ....................5-89 Table 5-14. Summary of Alternative 2 Zoning and Land Uses.............................5-93 Table 5-15. Summary and Comparison of Housing and Population......................5-95 Table 5-16. Summary of Alternative 3 Zoning and Land Uses...........................5-106 Table 5-17. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project............5-116 Table 8-1. Index of Comments Received on the Draft EIR................................... 8-2 Table 9-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program....................................9-3 xiv Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12815 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS /m3 micro ram er cubic meter AARP American Association of Retired Persons AB Assembl Bill ACM asbestos-containin material ADT avera e dail tri s AEP Association of Environmental Professionals AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet er ear AG A riculture Ai ort San Luis Obis o Count Re ional Ai ort ALUC San Luis Obis o Ai ort Land Use Commission ALUP Ai ort Land Use Plan ALUPA Ai ort Land Use Plannin Area AMP Archaeolo ical Monitorin Plan AOZ Ai ort Overla Zone APCD Air Pollution Control District A licant JM Develo ment Grou , Inc. APS Alternative Plannin Strate ARC Architectural Review Commission ARI Archaeolo ical Resource Invento ARIM Archaeolo ical Resource Im act Miti ation AST above round stora e tank AT&T American Tele hone and Tele ra h Com an ATCM Air Toxics Control Measure BACT Best Available Control Technolo b s below round surface BMP best mana ement ractices BTP Bic cle Trans ortation Plan BTU British Thermal Unit C&D construction and demolition C/OS Conservation/O en S ace CAAQS California Ambient Air Quali Standards CAC Certified Asbestos Consultant CaIEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CaIEPA California Environmental Protection A enc CALFIRE California De artment of Forest and Fire Protection CAL-OSHA California Occu ational Safet and Health Administration Caltrans California De artment of Trans ortation CAMP Construction Activit Mana ement Plan CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Buildin Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCIC Central Coast Information Center CCR California Code of Re ulations Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan xv Final EIR 12816 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CDFA California De artment of Food and A riculture CDFW California De artment of Fish and Wildlife CE Circulation Element CEC California Ener Commission CED California Ener Demand CEQA California Environmental Qualit Act CESA California Endangered S ecies Act CFC chlorofluorocarbon CFR Code of Federal Re ulations cfs cubic feet er second CH4 methane CHC Cultural Heritage Commission Cit Cit of San Luis Obis o CLOMR Conditional Letter of Ma Revision CNDDB California Natural Diversi Database CNEL Communit Noise E uivalent Level CNG com ressed natural as CNPS California Native Plant Societ CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide COSE Conservation and O en S ace Element Count Count of San Luis Obis o Count Sheriff San Luis Obis o Count Sheriff CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CR Commercial Retail C-R retail-commercial CRHR California Re ister of Historic Resources C-R-SP retail-commercial S ecific Plan CSA-7A Count Service Area No. 7A GS-PD Commercial-Service-Planned Develo ment C-S-S Commercial-Service-S ecial Considerations CSU California State Universit GT Commercial-Tourist CVC California Vehicle Code CWA Clean Water Act c cubic ard dB decibel dBA A-wei hted decibel DBH diameter-at-breast-hei ht DCDA double detector check assembl DDM Draina e Desi n Manual DHS De artment of Health Services DPM diesel articulate matter DTSC De artment of Toxic Substances du/ac dwellin units er acre xvi Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12817 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS du/ac dwellin units er acre EB eastbound EBL eastbound thru-lane EBR eastbound ri ht-turn lane EIR Environmental Im act Re ort EOP Emer enc O erations Plan ESA Endan ered S ecies Act EV Electric Vehicle EX Ener and Extraction Area FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCAA Federal Clean Air Act FEMA Federal Emer enc Mana ement Agency FHSZ Fire Hazard Severit Zone FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Ma FMMP Farmland Ma in and Monitorin Pro ram f s feet er second FRSP Froom Ranch S ecific Plan FTA Federal Transit Administration FWHA Federal Hi hwa Administration /L ram er liter aUh /hr allons er horse ower er hour GHG reenhouse as GIS Geo ra hic Information S stem Golden State State Route 277 Hi hwa GPAR General Plan Annual Re ort cd allons er ca ita er da GPM gallons er minute GWh i awatt hours HaS h dro en sulfide HABS Histaric American Buildin Surve HAER Historic American En ineerin Record HAP hazardous air ollutant HCD California De artment of Housin and Communit Develo ment HCM Hi hwa Ca acit Manual HDD horizontal directional drillin HE Housin Element HEC H draulic En ineerin Circular HMMP Habitat Miti ation and Monitorin Plan HRE Historic Resource Evaluation HTL hi h tidal line HVAC heatin , ventilation, and air conditionin IBC International Buildin Code in/sec inches er second IS Initial Study Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan xvii Final EIR 12818 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ITE Institute of Trans ortation En ineers KMA Kevin Merk Associates, LLC KVA Ke Viewin Area LAFCO San Luis Obis o Local A enc Formation Commission LBP lead-based aint lbs/da ounds er da LCC land com atibilit classification Lan da -ni ht avera e noise level LED li ht-emittin diodes LEED Leadershi in Ener and Environmental Desi n Leq e uivalent ener noise level LID low im act develo ment Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level L,,,�„ minimum instantaneous noise level LNG li uified natural as LOMR Letter of Ma Revision LOS Level of Service LOVR Los Osos Valle Road LRA Local Res onsibilit Area LUCE Land Use and Circulation Element LUE Land Use Element LUST Leakin Under round Stora e Tank MBCP Montere Ba Communit Power MBTA Mi rato Bird Treat Act MDZ Minin Disclosure Zone m /m3 milli ram er cubic meter MGD million allons er da MMLOS Multi-Modal Level of Service MMT CO2e million metric tons CO2 e uivalent MOA Memorandum of A reement m miles er allon m h miles er hour MPO Metro olitan Planning Organization MRF Material Recove Facilit MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MS4 Munici al Se arate Storm Sewer S stem msl mean sea level MT COae metric tons CO2 e uivalent MUN Munici al and Domestic Water Su 1 MWh me awatt hours MWh/ r me awatt hours er ear NAAQS National Ambient Air Qualit Standards NAHC Native American Herita e Commission NB northbound NBL northbound thru-lane xviii Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12819 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS NBR northbound ri ht-turn lane NBT northbound tra NCTC Northern Chumash Tribal Council NE Noise Element NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOZ nitrous oxide NOA Naturall Occurrin Asbestos NOAA National Oceanic and Atmos heric Administration NOAA Fisheries NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Pre aration NOX nitro en oxides NPDES National Pollutant Dischar e Elimination System NPPA Native Plant Protection Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Re ister of Historic Places 03 ozone OHWM ordina hi h water mark OPR Office of Plannin and Research OSHA Occu ational Safet and Health Administration Pb lead c/mi/h assen er cars er mile er hour PCB ol chlorinated bi hen 1 Ci/L icocuries er liter PCR Post Construction Re uirement PF ublic facilities PF-SP ublic facilities S ecific Plan PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric PM�o 10-micron articulate matter PMz.s 2.5-micron articulate matter b arts er billion m arts er million PPM Pollution Prevention Methods PPVRef reference Peak Particle Velocit PRC Public Resources Code PRE Parks and Recreation Element Pro�ect Froom Ranch S ecific Plan Pro�ect PV hotovoltaic R-3 medium-hi h densit residential R-3-SP medium-hi h densit residential S ecific Plan R-4 hi h densit residential R-4-SP hi h densit residential S ecific Plan RCRA Resource Conservation and Recove Act RHNA Re ional Housin Needs Allocation Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan xix Final EIR 12820 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS RL Rural Lands ROG reactive or anic as RPZ Runwa Protection Zone RRP Resource Recove Park RTP Re ional Trans ortation Plan RWQCB Re ional Water Qualit Control Board SA S ecial Animal SANDAG San Die o Association of Governments SARE Subsurface Archaeolo ical Resource Evaluation SB Senate Bill SB southbound SBL southbound thru-lane SBR southbound ri ht-turn lane SBT southbound tra SCCAB South Central Coast Air Basin SCS Sustainable Communities Strate SE Safet Element sf s uare feet sf/ s uare feet er erson SIP State Im lementation Plan SLCUSD San Luis Coastal Unified School District SLO Count APCD San Luis Obis o Count Air Pollution Control District SLO Transit Cit Transit Division SLOCOG San Luis Obis o Count Association of Goverments SLOFD Ci of San Luis Obis o Fire De artment SLOPD Cit of San Luis Obis o Police De artment SLORTA San Luis Obis o Re ional Transit Authorit SMARA Surface Minin and Reclamation Act SMARTS Stormwater Multi-A lication, Re ortin , and Trackin S stem SOz sulfur dioxide SoCal Gas Southern California Gas Com any SOI Secreta of Interior SP service o ulation SP-3 S ecial Focus Area SRA State Res onsibilit Area SRO school resource officer SSC S ecies of S ecial Concern SVP Societ of Vertebrate Paleontolo SWMP Stormwater Mana ement Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminant TAZ traffic anal sis zone therms/ r therms er ear TIA Traffic Im act Anal sis xx Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12821 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS TIS Trans ortation Im act Stud TMDL total maximum dail load ton/ tr tons er uarter TSO Time Schedule Order U.S. 101 U.S. Hi hwa 101 U.S. EIA U.S. Ener Information Administration U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection A enc UCMP Universit of California Museum of Paleontolo URL Urban Reserve Line USACE U.S. Arm Co s of En ineers USC U.S. Code USDA U.S. De artment of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geolo ical Survey UST under round stora e tank UWMP Urban Water Mana ement Plan VdB vibration decibel VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strate ies Villa io Villa io Life Plan Communit VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile or anic com ound v d vehicles er da VTTM Vestin Tentative Tract Ma WB westbound WBL westbound thru-lane WBR westbound ri ht-turn lane WDID Waste Dischar e Identification WMP Waterwa s Mana ement Plan WMZ Watershed Mana ement Zone Wood Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. WRRF Waste Resources Recovery Facility WSA Water Su 1 Assessment WSE water surface elevation WWME Water and Wastewater Mana ement Element Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan xxi Final EIR 12822 12823 lA 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, P�oject 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 ��'�commercial uses, along with open space and/or agricultural uses. The SP-3 I 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. �, �.-'�i��..�?�"`,r_,.a�ir�!„*�y �x•� _,_ - _ �.:-. _ `�;'°. _ �;�°�.F.. r_. _-_ _ :.. .d. �,' - <0 ,�,,�� .�.�_ _- ��- `��«¢�`,�9u-�' � °Y�r+t'�'�X�'��' d 't.� .. '*.r..2�r �.:� �:. �T-�"l '►i1i�i+r��ri��3�.&.+�a ih..a��fi, -k �Vo.� � "S�Z'.!:v1 - �d4 �, *5`,...: �s" • . � a.:s� ^s,a ^..t' .3L, -_-i�Y.n..� '.,a....�.� �r��,� ,.��,_.��,, u _._ . „'.r` ` _' � �Y� .:, � .�. v . _:-� ' �s-'..'.." � =--_"'`�"Q�.�..:� _ � ai;� Y , ��e-- .•, - _ _� _ ` ,,.•-+1� . , �-'�`. �__ � �.��a� � � —.,:+�.-.��,±. '�.�yrny�:,:^ ��.. ,' �,y�+t f �„ - �« .� �, - x '•`S� -,► `i6t,.., ��a'"T # �. �.� �� _ r,� .f�' ` .+Pµ�^E "+ y�� ~ ✓r^� �;� ��. x�; � � ,�r r,y�:"'",�+�'. .� '�f ��.+�'' �� ti :.w'Y?� + �k� e� � I �y!-r�4. ,A,.�'�i '�, � 1f,.�1".� \¢*',.`1,, .;,:i: _ .. `.Y e.� . � . , w�;!W�3�`a�. ��:. . �� The Pr�ojecl would allow for�the develo�ment of senior housirzg cznd multi farnily residential ur�its, 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 5pecific Plan 1-1 Final EIR 12824 1.O 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 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 ,��^�� ;�.�-_ v�� V � ��- (2.9 acres), and retail commercial uses �,�� - r ��;�;, —�� :�� °�:;:� r=:�:�� . _�-� ti_ , � �;�,� (3.1 acres) within the approximately - _ 109.7-acre Specific Plan area. The ��,r:��h=�'��',��;�� -��"� �-�, _�.��..�►�: ��-r.:�� .�'`��.�r.��+� PI'O�eCt WOu1C� allOW fOT eVeritual The Project site is largely undeveloped but supports the historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex, construction construction of up to 578 residential coinpany o�ce and material storage within an existing units, including 174 multi-family quarry, and horse graZing. 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 (s� 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. 1-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12825 lA 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 5pecific Plan 1-3 Final EIR 12826 1.O 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 far public review at: http://www.slocity.or�overnment/department-directorv/communit� development/plannin -zo�n�in�eneral-plan. 1-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12827 lA 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(�(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. The�Draft EIR�ras�iee�was distributed to federal, state,regional, and local agencies, key stakeholders, interested parties, neighborhood groups, and NOP commenters. The � EIR is available for review online at the City's Community Development Department website at: http://www.slocit. .�or�/government/de�artment-directory/communit,� develo�ment/documents-online/environmental-review-documents Hardcopies of the Draft EIR �were available for review at City Hall, as well as local libraries. The Draft EIR public review period ran�s for a period of 45 da�from November 4th, 2019 to December 19th, 2019. Comments on the Draft EIR�ewere sent to: Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 1-5 Final EIR 12828 1.O INTRODUCTION City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Durin_� the public review �eriod, Ecomments on the Draft EIR were also��, �,�� '�� emailed to Shawna Scott, Senior Planner, at sscott@slocity.org. Written comments were received from 4 state a�encies, 4 local agencies, 8 or�anizations, and 10 individuals. A total of 20 oral testimonies were received from individuals durin� several Citv public hearin�s held on November 18, 2109, December 4, 2019, December 10, 2019, and December 11, 2019. All Ecomments received during this period ��are provided and responded to in writing^ra ^aar��' ;�*'��';r^' �'TD in Section 8,Response to Comments, and comments are addressed as needed throughout this 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 1-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12829 lA INTRODUCTION • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Energy Conservation • 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 accardance 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,Environmentallmpact Analysis and Mitigation Measures. Cumulative proj ect 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,Alte�natives. 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 1-7 Final EIR 12830 1.O INTRODUCTION 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 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; 1-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12831 lA INTRODUCTION • Construction-related impacts, such as interference with pedestrian and vehicle traffic circulation, dust, and other emissions; and • Potential impacts to histaric Froom Ranch Dairy complex onsite. l.f) ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR This EIR is organized into the following chapters: • Chapter 1,Introduction, summarizes the background of the Proj ect 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 Measu�es, 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. • Chapter 8, Response to Comments, includes responses to all written and oral comments received from the public, organizations, agencies, and the Applicant on the Draft EIR. • Cha�ter 9, Miti�ation Monitorin� and Repo�tin� Plan, �rovides the required miti_atg ion �rogram for the Project, includin t� imin ,�res�onsible parties, and monitorin�. • 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 5pecific Plan 1-9 Final EIR 12832 12833 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION JM Development Group, Inc. � (Applicant) proposes adoption of the . . • . - ��g.g acres Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan '� � � ��`�.7 �cres • ' ' ' 7.1 acres (FRSP; see Appendix C)by the City of _ � � � 404 units151 beds San Luis Obispo (City). The proposed - ��4 units FRSP includes a request for a General ' 1oD,000 square feet • �• �• - - 59.0 acres Plan Amendment to allow ' � 2.s acres 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,EnvironmentallmpactAnalysis. The actionable alternative(Alternative 1)is described in Chapter 5,Alte�natives, 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(s� of mixed commercial uses,including a potentia170,000- 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 5pecific Plan 2-1 Final EIR 12834 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project would also include 2.9 acres for a new public park within Madonna Froom Ranch � and ��desi an1€��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. Proj ect entitlements to support adoption of the FRSP would include General Plan amendments, prezoning, �y annexation of the Specific Plan area into the City, and a Vesting Tentative �=_ Tract Map (VTTM). Amendments to ��+-� - �� '�'`�" _. � '�'°;s�;��- the General Plan would include a � � � � '� ° �� „� ' -=�;;;, � , change in the land uses to include a ��= �; �� ,�. �o-�.a - ,„ ;,=�: � rs �� : senior residential community and to ;��°"�'�� ` � � � �� .�,� ��:;�,.� � -�- allow development above 150 feet in �•�_�°� '��`�° '��''' ��"��'��'��' The FRSP would guic�e development of residential, elevation, since hillside development commercial, and recreation uses on the former Proom 1S I'egulateCl by SeV0Y21 G0n0i'21 Plan Ranch Dairy Farm property, along with proposed General Plan amendments and annexation to the City. 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; 2-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12835 2.O 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: Project Design: JM Development Group, Inc. RRM Design Group John Madonna Victor Montgomery, AIA PO Box 5310 Tim Walters San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 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 : � �, �.� �� - ' � - ;�.� ._,:_� r p z'. �.�._ ^ '� ' .. Specific Plan area is generally bounded � �� _�, �� -- �r � .:�• � �. , :, ,�r _ •.... .�• , by LOVR to the east, Calle Joaquin and � � �� .�. Mountainbrook Church to the south, ��_ � '>' � �� Irish Hills Plaza to the north, and the � ' � �� `'� ��`' '��F; ` ,.�1' . , _ . _ K � Clty-oWned ITISh Hllls NatuTal ReSeTVe The 116.8-acre Project site is located�southwest of the to the west. The SpeC1f1C Plan area City at the base of�the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. 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 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-3 Final EIR 12836 ' ; � FEET i ,______ � �'�. � i i b/ , , � �� o e,000 '— -- ioi � F��PQ`� `--._ ��-,<<oi;�,,;:�``a �,, f ��E ��k � ��J% ��,i�,� �ze� SAN LUIS�---- -o �, OBISPO � - �-.,��s ¢ '_ 9 101 w � Dt�i�� C ee _� � 1�� . � �� .{� - a{ "� 09� 5� 'TANKFARM� 9�9 - � + -4 ' ROAD — zz� -----' D� - _ � _ PROJECT�' ,--_-_ �. SITE SAN LUIS OBISPO O \�/\� `_ ILL61�1@idltl COUNTYREGIONALAIRPORT �r lLake �soso �� C==��0�� s �� \ ,0 O ` ,o, D°°a�� '� sP �Q�o 0� I ��o � � / � �PP� P �p,0/ o MP��N � � � �� O� � op � AUTO ARKWAY � � IRISH HILLS� � PLAZA \� �00 ,� IRISH HILLS � o NATURAL RESERVE �'r� � �� ,�ek � \ � m�,eek o ,�, u� �� o� � TANK FARM ROAD � � D SUBURBAN CHEVRON SAN LUIS r/ � � ROAD oaisPO y = � TANK FARM m r 0 r r Z J �v� m �C3 �' � �O t� \��i�S� o �� 5°� ��k UCKLEY RO D ' � � a � o � � �� . m LEGEND 70 �� O � Project Site �� z � 0 Froom Ranch Specific � Plan Area O O � � Irish Hills Natural Reserve a City of San Luis Obispo Sphere of Influence �� ,�� City of San Luis Obispo ,o' �`\��`� SCALE IN MILES 0 County of San Luis Obispo 0 0.5 � wOOd. Regional Location FIGURE 2-1 2-4 12837 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proj ect site includes 116.8 acres(refer to Figure 2-2). The Proj ect 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 adj acent 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). 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, .�..� ..� .:a i ..�ir. . ... � . ,�T,y r,�+!-. ._:sifc. ti . � .;n�. .�w�' �� .��` - ..,+" .. .�.� � �.-F ��a�re�, . .� � � : _�. �' � 1 ,�-��y � pITy :�"4 F' P ,�_ _'- � �1°: � �a' � -'�,.� 4 � ��Y.illllm Y�+'�"a" ��.wt �.�� . � .. , ^y... - _ `�� ,. . 3�� =.�a .�rp� ��y - ': . _._.nrWM-- . r :+.•,,. '° ..��. 3 s.i . . .. - -� -- - . � . � x�i;; . . � . - -��.. .,. � . - _'— — - ' — - � � .... .A�r �s' �..s tu+l�sz� di'�".'ga4, 1 � 'h (ef" `��'� %�„ _ � 1 .. - ` .. ._... �t,_ F«�. „,. . . ... -_"" ,--. a �,.� ...�svi".ti: 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 2-5 Final EIR 12838 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 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. 2-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12839 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 t �� ' � ,:`'- along lower Froom Creek adjacent to �.=. ' -�:= 3 � �-w �`�`�.��.�. , � . LOVR. Upper elevations of the site - �� _ - — __ �;�� -=- � _ s �.�:, have steeper slopes and drainages - - _ that transition to the Irish Hills � ,�-` �:� �_� "' � � yr i ` LL �- .. = � �t�.��.�J� �•��" " � � � " Natural Reserve in the hills above. �� a. �-�" '� �` �:� �-, �� ..� �. �,, �,,,� � �� •� � •� �� Relativel flat rassland, disturbed ' � � -�. � ¢ � .�. �*�, '�r.,�r ,s� `�',�' � # - . �,.� Y g ��`.� ;�.� 3,.._., �: � N.�:. �. �_: areas, the Froom Creek channel, and The Project site has highly varied topography rar�ging fi-orn low-lying wetlands along LOVR to the steep hillsides at the wetlands occur in lower elevations base of the Irish Hills. Froom Creek and four local drainages flow through the site. of the Project site. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-7 Final EIR 12840 } . �\p�\ }:,, .:, �" ti F,��,�i i . ;�; '��'� �.. � �I 9 II 1 .\\ `�� .. ♦t. �n�4 �R 4�.. �p zg. ',�� n�" a� � �P� •"i" ♦ c,�.� w` "`� `slu ' �6 � �y 4 � �/ � � _ � ' '� u Tj rr t � � �� , � ,.� �y�� c �s�� • "•� F` °��`� �a(�"� 4�L k�r � �l f!g a�.��. � �r ? � .� �'' v �°�tt,. ' < \•_ &��¢ '. � �� xn.c �� f� � `� 6��♦ �.�; �t'� "Q� } � .�� v. �� -. � f � � e��,� . ��;, . \ ��• _ O �,i�� v. �4�S y"\ a! s�i+�s� �"� . �'" � � � � � ��\ �p� [ � � ;.'°i' � •. ��. . i�^..� t` .�� . �•".' ��5�' �' N.�� , � ��\�,"?� �sY� �.��p��i"=. �. +� � C t ..i�.=� , � .�I , i ♦ QK�4� 4 fq, � �� `� . :� ,'� y .l ' �,.. ' .�. �� •.:�^"� i.,qX ��a`�'''�.F'i d '�S.� J� , �'^-n'.�=' .�•.y�� r '�'' ��`` � �g � , � .p .�C+ �I, w'�-�•• a�".. nl F ia f e��. \� �#� � � '�-t�3,w I °'�� g �� Y•�` .. � Y ,,�� f . � ��f - ... •:��, ei aF rr� ��'r. � �` ea_ , � ��[ a � -,.�. � ,�� p`., ,,�a 3 < �'�� .�d I�1� �' ,� �i: � ,� .;�,' Mi�?� � . f e+ ,,dt�ed .fi� � . . '� �C. � e�2'S�� a''x'` '`y ��'� � 7a�,t � �F s � � �- �� . ." ._ _ � ��, <c�� g q,�� _`t �s .` 'P'�� .._ �'��.4+1' �,� .�� r r'� . . � �: 9`'fl�, t `C� '_t t �� . �� F�.,w_�� J�_�*J� :�! 6� •�� ,. ��_ .,-.. .. yi_y��, ��.�.��.� �,�' .$ W � ��i' ... ]P'rt�.. LI� �� i � i '�� 'v� .� .�r l' `��:: . - . - �'�` , � • , • : v.�u ! -� . . e e�,a . �. c . tA'L � -`6r �i% �� '�" _ � �� M r� x � � ♦ `R "k ' ��-s. �I k.,.I I � j j� 3�r ea� .- , � , '� � i f ,,'"i_. . _, � j`� , z. �, 1 . � � �� t�14 „ `� �, � � � R 'a` Y' �Z �P x � '� �f ., ,. 1� � ` N� �y, - �,� i`' � . ' j, � �• . t.r, � � � m�� .� ` �• � � �� . v�� • � . '�. � �� `'�� „ �`�x`,'',� � � �. �`� � _ � `b.��` � i \w,n` � _.�� •�� y� � � � '�: � Rz� k �, , 0 � +�:� . � �� Y •"• � �'<. , � t� : 2 ' e '° , r �� c R, e . .. �. ..-. �.�;- `�.� f� * . � :� �.. ��, - � .-� �� 0n�. Y` � �` '�y�k�wfi- ;3 �'�\ ,� 5; � � �Ypa �P L ' . ��4 x` �F � �b R��i�w�i'�:t�} l _ , �x� �� ' �t• :� Y 4 � l x� . � .i N. ♦ �. 'I � :1V ' 'm',_``.S.�N�i,-` `nm .�'"��r�`�.�'�A�''� `�� N' ♦ .3-f�S '.''L�q+�"° � 1!'}�+ -� `~� .. a;�. � � �I J -'r '�"�., � �� i y'i� � �e J i Q �w�.�} .J fl ��. �a.� � �� f.�� `( �/ /� .+ t,},��•T' 4�. , �.5� � ' 4 �.F. ��r� a� . .�• ,�`. • .:i � y . y� � • , 1 � �Nr.� . : .. .wi� �'� �� i� 4��y a, ...I,� � )', ��„ �� „ � �yy�. � ,r'� �"�, �� `-1t � , '�� •' ' �a� �s.�s��` A.p"�,, "�. �� /�Gr T�-iu _ - �� . , � .. . � P -.... . \ 4 4 �� > � '� ♦��.`1 1�. _ _ . :•� r .. .: i� ` . �.. � a`Q�1: 'a !F� � t ... � y �. .r, .�' ;�f`° . �101 �`. i tN�`� ; �:��. / ,�,r t!�, �` � a. - Ne� a . � , - . i .��;'� .��' '`�� . � f. .F'� �" � . ��♦• �� - '� ��- � � �� #. .'i. � .. �� ,4� ` " . i` �` .0 ♦ _ '. i . '�� . ��r'h •••�� °�"+� � jr ¢ , •� �� '�° .y��.� f. ♦ � f� � :i� `� � . . '�r.� aF,p��y � �� ♦ , y �w i�� "' '� a r�PF� ♦' , ♦ . ''1��".. �'.i `rn � •♦ �'� i"`� �a��_ � .�� .� ,�'e`�.p � . �. �.,r �,�¢,7A �'t' 1 �' "t'f"'.. kl� 1�.� �� Y B�D� � f r� P ��i � I � I� g .,i� �,� ��"�.?•�� l ° . ./�,�, � t,��: • ` � j d�_ � ".� �, `��. � :�'_-�- . � x �. y�': ..� , '.. .� _ •� r . I . il ♦� � � LEGEND � Project Site Federal and State O 3.2-Acre Existing Detention O Historic Froom Ranch Dairy - Wetlands and Riparian Basin for Irish Hills Plaza Complex Froom Ranch Habitat Specific Plan Area 7.1-Acre Existing Open Space �5 Paved Site Access Road 150-Foot Elevation 02 and Agricultural Conservation � Irish Hills Natural Contour from Site Easement SCALE IN FEET � Reserve Survey Public Trail 0 Materials Sto ansetruction 0 500 N City of San Luis Obispo 9 Aeria/Source:Google 2018. wOOd. Project Site Existing Setting FIGURE 2-2 2—s 12841 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Froom Creek watershed flows from ��' the Irish Hills and the creek channel ,. traverses the Specific Plan area from ,T . � :� .� north to south. Three small tributaries also flow through the southwestern •� � � ��, portion of the Specific Plan area to � �� "�"� F� ��, �' ` fi �� `''' . connect to Froom Creek and feed several � , ;� � -� � �'�� wetlands onsite; a fourth drainage flows - :_ � �� ,:: �,� . � , � '�� .i.% �' `'�`�tl: through the proposed stormwater � r� ,'�'� � � detention basin area adj acent to Calle " � =�`` "� � �-�u � "�-�`� The Spee fic Plan ai ecz is largely zu�d�v�lr��ecl uncl JOaCIUln to COnneCt t0 FrOOm Creek and used for grazing. However, the northwestern portion San LulS OblspO Creek (I'efel�'eCl to as °f the site is developed with historic dairy ranch buildings and a permitted quarry used for storage of Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4; Figure 2-2). construction materials. 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 ��'� << ,ia� �� i � Ii � � . - �' �' � `� .,.�• �+�' �, . � y � , i r . "��.�I _ �'•� J ly� i�'. � "�I � �� ,�p :�.f�c�-,�x-``r ��r . i` �� . k;�y ,� ti-7k ��`.= � ,� R-1I�, " j'�h �t K � � - � p k �. �,�," �'�'• . :a: �:a, .� ` ', � � � � ��1 , . �'�- � - 'a4,,, �� `;,,,. �� .�' '��.,a. '3�. �� a +�"r� h! 4 . �, ��-F: '�`�'`"%4,:• -'., r .< As,',�"':�':" .. . y �-� �" ,s g r'��'�. :r5 " � . -'fi:"`r�,.�. .. _ '�, `�Y�'k: �Y k-fa�� : �x + ,r i �. ` • <, . f = ;�': ,r�w " �. ,�.. ' •vi i �,:oi"�- 5 1�:•yA��fe;'.y��Zrta . r�.+ y ', r ' � � . ' � �f -� t�' � a�a I;�.� ��1 S Ys�r4;�^� :�f�Wj. ..:,' :�1.,y S.Y�' �%�i'ry � �� x � '" ,' � �.V .°S � `s:� '�"'�' .�b:��J.'' `rh .,�;��;.Y:' ',��c¢:. ��.,` . . .._ . �5 ��v� . � _ .. x��Y n.� +�' .'^ r�e'+: . ��- sa,l,', ��,,..'s�;'m.•r'v' .ri'Fd�,>aiw��i•�a;.:,7�y?Yr��'w'^^'% . . The Project site was historically used for^agriculture and contain.a seven historic dairy farm str^uctur^es 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,Ioaquin (right). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-9 Final EIR 12842 2.O 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 ��ea�„a,� � `� _ �� =�� -_� `�� several internal unpaved/dirt access An existing paved driveway off LOVR provides primary access to the Specific Plan area approximately 200 feet roads. A manmade earthen berm south oflrish xills Plaza. 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 2-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12843 2.O 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 meet or 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 5pecific Plan 2-11 Final EIR 12844 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.4 PROJ�cT Ov�RviEw 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 StandaNds). 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 ��desi_n� ate a total of 59.0 acres of open space within the Specific Plan area, as further described below. 2-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12845 2.O PROJECT DESCRiPTION SCALE IN FEET �� j .'.. �� j' � �'�'S� - / �"�„L�: � � I y� e 1��.�r �.� � ,. �/ . � V��.i�. / , �i. ._ �s '►�J \ 0 1,000 � � '' . p . � � ,t� . . ,��^� Aerial Source:Google 2018. :� � { � � ��+� ° ��`L�.. /� , .D 0 ;< c�� ; i � '*� �r � , . 0 0 �uu�u ��f /�,'� - �r Y� � ws ' = �� l' {+. � " ` �¢ _ . � ��,,,�r' �.�# �G �• �;�, � A . ..�r , � ��i �:4 `o� , Y � �_. J ty • �.*'as S.� � +. 8' � b. .. �,# � �'�'��t , � � ''�� a .w. vC �� ..h,. � ��.� a .; � . .. . ' �`i�.r� ti.�,'�_'y'°�' � � +��y' '�'+• � s,+ � � �� /� ^T �' �a`5 � " �� `� � , �; � � .. ., ✓r ',_Y .�. ;. . .:, ' .. �a . ..,:.-}�y� �.. ._ �i pYp�pl _ S�,�'��;..,.. . vu��.a,.��:,�:� ; . .. ';�A�' : f� 4� � � �Y ` A'' .... �I��Lt{ �� E� (�� 4 � ��t�/ 7' 1 � k : � +,�a��. �,�''�� t�� ` � � + � � �. ,� .�` � � �'s �`. ,�C ' �� urr�, y_\ a 3,��",��.` . � � � ��;� '�y�z:. ��%•�. � � � ,� '�a ro � r �v .Y�k ! } ',oi � a�t�;� w; k ,�q ., ✓T M�k' 1r,# '4! .��- • �� (`�� F� � �t �i °�`e�' '§^ . ' �lTL`fr.UJ(�JlU�ri! *:�� , .,,.1, � M4r.1( i"' ��i� t�.`taif "t&,� a �F t `��" � t---_. . ^� . �df � � �� .�o �'/�� ° ., �� , . �� `_�`�"'�. �� ,.� � �' �12� �•� � � �� ,,�� :. �(�� „n.. � ' y lY�, r�r t,� . . �,a, �'�� / �'�.,�'• . r � �' .�` �/ • ..ili!� ,, �r g f�'�i. n �, �,f,� °.m ,� WOO�. Villaggio Life Plan Community FIGURE and Madonna Froom Ranch 2_3 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 5pecific Plan 2-13 Final EIR 12846 2.O 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 � , � � � � � � • � � � � � � • � . ' . _ . , , ' , . Maximum Density 18 du/ace 20 du/ac 24 du/ac 24 du/ac (units/acre) Maximum Building 60% 60% 60% 60% Coverage Maximum Building 35 feet 35 feet for 35 feet 35 feet Height',z,3 Madonna Froom Ranch;45 feet for Villaggio Minimum Street 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Yard Setback' Minimum Other 10 feet 0-5 feet 10 feet 0-5 feet Yard Setback' Minimum Lot Sizes 5,000 sf 1,000 sf 5,000 sf 1,000 sf Minimum Lot 50 feet 20 feet 50 feet 20 feet Widths Minimum Lot Depths 80 feet 50 feet 80 feet 50 feet Note:du/ac=dwelling units per acre ' Building heights are measured from finished grades established at the time of completion of subdivision grading. �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 far properties within an Airpart Safery Zone;20 du/ac for all other properties. 2-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12847 LEGEND � Project Site Public Site Access C-R-SP-Retail R-3-SP-Medium-High Density 0 Roadways:5.6 acres � Commercial/General 0 Residential:37.3 acres Proposed Specific Plan Commercial:3.1 acres Land Use 0 Private Site Access Roadways R-4-SP—High Density Residential: C/OS-SP—Conservation/ 0 1.8acres Easement for Relocated 0 Open Space:59 acres ��a�� Villaggio(Private) 0 StormwaterBasin:7.1 acres 'Notes:RoadwayswithinVillaggioareprivateandareincludedaspart PF-SP—Public Facilities: of the metlium high density residential lantl use.Froom Creek • • ` '. Madonna Froom Reconfigured Open Space 0 2.9 acres would be realigned. + • . o • • Ranch � and Agricultural Conservation Easement � '' � � " , e _ ��V�� -<. Z �� 4 � ,� � � +� '�:�•�°�� . . � . �. i�T � � ��'' ``'�, ��4Rcst�H ati'��rl°�ly�fi�' . .. . 'i°Jr,, s '' ��'� �,'fil ' . � . �, �� . r" \ �,��" x``�' ��`' � "'� �: v°r _ '�,� ��t �''. � � �d�a�a' �h� � �Ys�� A� ��'• k'''f � ' � �1t�. � � a `r ,'�.¢''s�` \ s�.s�r ,�/ j��,��'{yy,, _ • : . . ��- � r�*` �q � �o•. �� `." � � � tz _ . .�r yr'� � �.. � � r. !� �"��, '�; �k .�s a '� � �� {1 =-. , t E`� . _ °�� f!' `yf ,Ffrf � �� i � '. .. �. � /�� .• \ �^ r� � dy.,.;�,fy.., . �`q ., / . . __.. �� ' , ,� ?A. �� F� A .w ��T.� re� . �� _ \ �D NNA ��g y,t� �� _ �y � . � - ; . � �F�A C� � ��' � - � �`�1" r � _ - ��'� � : e � --— t �� ;�.,r. �- r��' �.e-�-"� - . � �t R.� � � „_.}� § . . ; s �� , s� �� , , , s . .,y,M � ,.f '�� ,�Y � t � .+ �� ,y, .,:zKs ,; ww� � ;. t � n,' . , , .' .�! h ,..t: �- ' . e •�� ,�. ta� ��- ' . . a�`�". ...: . .,....r ... — �`��.3'� / . �� ' " •' • �- '� � ..., � ��v. . . �. �- k . . � . , y�r.,,�..-,. _____ e.�" q k Fa� _.. y�M'_• � `l�` v��,�s�' �"�y��`�. : � �� k ` . ,�,w.zy_, � tF� �.�`��., � +�.�.�� .. � � - � F:�..— t Fp�4p� g�t_,�l^, �e ^� . ��} 4 � �� \-�� .'ar le� � - _ , _�+'S �,��\�t"x a�� • �� '- c"' d�' ��, � �3 �` � :.., �;.,: LOWER �- ��,� °'', ''� ��,.� � : ;�R`�`�� AREA �`�'_'' �. ��, " �.� � � 4• ,�. . �, , . � : .� r � + � q .�1 'Y F � tl. . �,.� d+ � a Y� ,:y , �'..i� r -� � __ _ �r •�� 'a_ -�. _'�,y �� ...� ryr UILLAN� l0 � �: s� : . _. � � ` � � � ;�� .�. /� LIFE f��L� N ,� ��\,� � xL . r � � ° �= COMMW I Y ` , � � '� ,� �"-1¢� \ `4�� /��! �,. 1 \ a .i�C 3 � `�"��j �� . � ,:.�'��'�� :�"-;� �'� a' y � ..0 4.-, I� � // f - f � 7a// ;r a s� �',s. s`- �wy , ��`�,�, �� .q _ `� � ,�� ' , /� > �� , �' �'%f �„�,t I� � 4�,w e1�t�, ,,�� ' �`�r. �� =� ra 3e� r �4, �`� �W � � - I I JPPER ` ��', '`�4;.�L� > �`+� �ERRACE *��'�` ��`�: "` � •+�t _ �� ,� �� _ .'k -'�s ;� r t 101` `'��`�c �, °,,� / 4. S � �'Hy h�� . 3 �' ' �G��' . ,� � f, _ � � �.�, ��j�"i�� i 1°� � .r�- d' . � :.r. �� .� . _�� _v� �'�M''r'�'l �1�I�1� �A�'• ,� _µF Y�'d _,�b�l '71 ' `�', � ` t `''�, �` / �/ � �� .'•:�.. "'Y SCALE INIFEET ,i�, � � a; � w � � ��- � � � � • ' � N a. � � ' `.� . r ��`�� 0 500 ,:;, ,y,�,. � ,; „�}° �.t=' � Aeria/Source:Google 2018. wOOd. Proposed Land Use Plan FIGURE 2-4 12848 2-15 2.O 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 I �� viLLaccro R-3-SP Medium-High Density Residential 31.6 404 units/51 beds Independent Living Zlnits 366 units Assisted Living Dnits 38 units Health Care Ilnits(Skilled Nursing&Memory Care) 51 beds Health Care Administration Building 85,670 sf Ancillary I7ses(wellness center, restaurants,theater, 84,078 sf etc.) 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 519 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 Final EIR 12849 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION acres of��desi n�open space within a conservation/open space zone, and 2.9 I 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 r �.. �� housing community for residents 4 � '�� =P�� `` �� .�� : � � .:� ..� . ,,�. � aged 60 years old or older. Villaggio � �� ._ - � :�� .�� F� � �� , would provide a variety of senior � :� � , ; , � •�.�� i. , i� . i ' �� housing choices for independent or ' � ��`' ,_;,�,.��:a � �� r ` � �'�,n �`y ,. �; assisted living and would include � '�� :: � �, ��y;`,� '��` �� " i �b-� r �i - � � � \ ` � � '�'-`L��- ��r �.' �� :^ '€�,�,.. private amenities for residents, such : � �Y �� -� � as indoor and outdoor recreational ` -��`�� "`:��' ""`� ` '�' ��'' "�'' � � �� u.. ,� �� _ �-:- � � .��_ � � � _: = ��_�f � , facilities, health care services, � � � Villaggio would include a 3-story community area with T'eStauY'ants, a mOvle theateY, and 2 common area providing resident-serving amenities, such as retail uses, restaurants and a theater, designed as a network of private onsite trails. Mediterranean promenade. 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). Villag�io 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-17 Final EIR 12850 2.O 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-stary 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 � Independent Living Units� 366 units 700-2,000 sf Piazza Apartments 150 units 700-1,900 sf Village Suites 47 units 700-1,900 sf Garden TerraceApartments 108 units 1,300-1,800 sf Villas 61 units 1,700-2,000 sf Assisted Living Units� 38 units 310-620 sf Memory Care 17 beds N/A Skilled Nursing 34 beds N/A � Independent Living Units would be limited to dual occupancy. �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 Final EIR 12851 �� Y SCALE IN FEET �� "� �' M. .� �� n�» �,q��' � � �, � �:�` > l,�'' ' . ;F i .f.. �a,1�xN� �l,f � - 0 550 �'�`� I \ ��c�+�`��Py ��.�'�� a Aerial Source:Google 2018. �~'` � ' ' � ' � •` P°�o��`, � f�� ", � S'�>� � �� j � � �� ` �w+"�� '��w��s `�e �� =✓ — .�` �;\.� e i�w., , � �. ""� �, e�"'� �� \ ��r�"�� ` � ��`'v�: ,�y... :. �- - . . ,. ,�s .i c �' � y .� „� .� '� �� \\ � s �{� �� ..�.• . e�� . +�..w•Y.,,!. Z � � �.i Q� ` �g��9„ � .i �`_ � � � � . .�J 1 �� . � - ,} . > �� ;. � .� ..:� . � ° �/ 6 .1 . 1- �,� ;,�� '' 1 :� � � � a J . 1 _� . !'� .r�.1 � �� `os�l��' � � s . , , / �.i , �+ :5- i� _.. zS �.s±: `. v/ J ' , � � l" . ,`. ,. � � :� %r' �y7N � ' � • ■■ �-�/• "� ��8 �� _ � � J � !r� /:�o` • �. ��G�� i. � •�14r '�1��•:.. �" ..I' � \ Y ,�k�Y �t�4a'�"'z ea xaLQ .s iTr. . � ,1� �.. . . .. . !i . � "�q `n � ��F�.�pd�''�,.� � �, Q ;�,� $o - ,�,'�l��o � ��1��0�' "`'• N ;�a � J4 �� - � ri.5'� ' �" '?� �j��,,y '�- � �f�a ��'�� r' .d,1�G9B � -e ..F.' . �''( 'y_13_.i �� )�'� 19 , ..��J� `�� ,��e?s��^�, t �q`, .. ,;:,, ' ��(��'' ```��,,, t .�` �t a -- r L ER f�E �' J � (� �,. '� � �. , \J �, c ��k� ,�:.�, k�. � . . a :� . �� ' 11 e ��, �� i�k r�� .!G' �se �$� a � � �� 0`-, a x v,�' 1�. a. � _.y4� ��. ,. , . �-�. _.,e � 2s .. �� ' d�"��'tr� 3'k �.�o � .JJ \� `�� . LL� `�"-�r� �J �-�....'.O� 12 - � . ..n=..- 'w• � -'. :,' _ �,I� . i�•• '•` � ��'� 'r� ��. � vU �� _ � `L � ��: .l • 20��' 0 ..S 22 : � /�15 ;o �,�. ^� � e � �-• 22 � .�� QO �� - � �� v�� {,Z i o _ 21 . t c,� �'�` ta`� .r��. �� ' .16We�� ,�'� ��s �.` r � �� #�� . ' �, � ,.J'� ��j/ �.y��v� � ��r � �`'_ 1 '�,rl: , +E< "u \ '"�,1' � � � ��T"�Ti� 22 `�,� ��=+;��.��"}". :/4 t �,,. i ` K ,,°� = � 'r � �,o, ��t � "�� i 3,�; � �� a,'� „�� ` � 4 UPPER � � �+� ' r4�c ' TERRACE r � /� �I�f.��` r �,`'« A,� J a �101 � �� , ,,.._.�" - � , .�..�?�� .�,. ,'_��,,,.�,�•�•, 2z� �i _ �,.�'t�;" .��'_ .,1�' - =`f : � G�� ( ��r�. � - .�` �,, 1�1� ' �� I �/ `�t,� . ;:, Y ��.�.��1' �r� � ( � ��.. ��; .,�y.r. - , . O . �� • � Z` I a� ) � . U' II i � .� , RELOCATED � � N 1'H��E ' .!�- •�S' � �.' �`... BASIN �; �F � � ,�MOUNTAIN�� , �, r �.� �,: CHUR�H��` "` ' � ,� ,, ,-' - �� j I;� ;� �` `� � '�M � 'Ci ♦ `�i `�� .� . . ! � : � LEGEND ' KEY � � ��o�� Madonna Froom Ranch � ��a�� Villaggio Project Site -------- 1-to 2-Foot Berm Q Trailhead Park Boundary �9 Commons 16 Wellness Center �2 Relocated Historic Structures �0 Upper Commons 17 Security Gatehouse —, Cross Section Location �� (refer to Figures 2-6 � Retail/Office—30,000 sf �� Garden Terraces— �a Health Care Administration � 108totalunits � Building-51 beds and 2-15) Q Commercial/Hotel—70,000 sf PI'o osed Buildin Hei hts Hi h-Densit Multi-Famil Housin �p Piazza Apartments and 19 Assisted Living—38 units p g g � 44 units including 27 affordable u gts � VillageSuites—197 total units 2o Trail Access � 1Story-18'-20'High �3 Villas-6ltotalunits Medium-High Density Attached 21 Recreational Facility � 2 Story—24'-30'High � Multi-Family Housing—130 units 14 Health Center Support pp Recreational Area � Buildings — 3 Story—36'-45'High O LOVR/Auto Park Way Signalized Intersection Reconfigured Open Space — Tower-45'-55'High g Trail Access �5 and Agricultural Conservation � Easement wOOd. Conceptual Site Plan FIGURE 2-5 12852 2-19 2.O 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 Final EIR 12853 200 180 45'High Piazza Apartments Irish Hills �so Natural 20'High z Reserve Villa Resitlential Resitlential 0 a ' ��' Residential � '�� Residential � w 140 �"' o Residential Residential Residential � � r 1 12� `� Subterranean Parking � Gradet 5'Hi h pg� � Existing g 3.5'High Fence Retaining Wall Local Road"C° 1 a� Gratle Path 100 Cross Section A-A—Irish Hills Natural Reserve to Villaggio Center 200 55'High 180 Tower 45'High 45'High The Commons Piazza Apartments z �so �� Resitlential Resitlential �-- ¢ w � :F,^ Mixetl-Use Commerical Mixed-Use Commerical 2nd Level Skybritlge Residential Residential w 140 ��`��; and Residential and Residential � �'°� u� Commercial Uses(i.e., Commercial Uses(i.e., Residential o Residential restaurants,recreation restaurants,recreation �. . rooms,movie theater) rooms,movie iheater) . °,�' � Resitlential Resitlential Project 120 ' ' � � Grade II Subterranean Parking � Existing 18� �g� pg� Grade Path Path Local 100 Road"C° Cross Section B-B—Villaggio Center , wOOd. Villaggio Life Plan Community Conceptual Cross Sections FIGURE N 2_6 � 12854 2.O 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-Hi�h Density Residential(R-3-SP� Madonna Froom Ranch would contain 5.7 acres of inedium-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. Hi,�h 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 Final EIR 12855 2.O 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 d�desi n�open space and an existing 7.1-acre I 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 ineeting General Plan requirements.Accordingly,the 51.9 acres of��desi�nated open space would meet I 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 5pecific Plan 2-23 Final EIR 12856 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 2-4. Summary of Proposed Open Space viLLaGcio 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. 2-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12857 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Architectural style would differ also by proposed land uses. Design features of residential areas within Madonna Froom Ranch would include the following: • 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 outdoar 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 confarmance with the California Building Code (CBC) to be at Net Zero in 2020. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-25 Final EIR 12858 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION • 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 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, StoNmwate� Management Systein and F�oom 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 2-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12859 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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.). 2.4.2.4 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). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-27 Final EIR 12860 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 2-5. Proposal for Existing Structures Onsite Main 1915 Rehabilitate as building for public park:� Residence Structurally reinfarce Provide new foundation and relocate Install utilities to building Old Barn Unknown, Remove and document per SOI standards est. 125 years old Bunkhouse 1915 Remove and document per SOI standards Round- 1913 Reconstruct and relocate building out of fault setback consistent with nose Dairy SOI standards for adaptive reuse in public park Barn Creamery Unknown, Relocate and reconstruct western portion of the building as public park House est.prior restrooms.Repurpose eastern portion for use as covered area for picnics to 1900 and events Granary 1913 Relocate and reconstruct in public park Shed 1913 Remove and document per SOI standards Building Cell 2013 Retain in place Tower Storage 2010 Remove Building Outhouse 2000 Remove � [t is unknown at this time whether the City,Applicant,ar 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 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). 2-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12861 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-29 Final EIR 12862 N ' SCALE IN FEET W o i � N _ Existing Structures 0 90 � HOME DEPOT � � 10 Main Residence 02 Creamery � 03 Dairy Barn O4 Granary I 0 Relocated Structures �5 Main Residence 06 Creamery O7 Dairy Barn Og Granary � \ 1 �� \. \ O 132'-6" � 4 2 ,,d' 8 � 3 � � � � 0 0 OLEGEND � Trailhead Park(2.9 acres dedicated to the City of San Luis Obispo) EXISTING FAULT LINE ND SETBACK • • Removable Bollards -- Benches wOOd. Proposed Plan for Historic Froom Ranch Structures FIGURE `Z-•7 12863 LEGEND SCALE IN FEET � Project Site �� Proposed Agricultural Fence N 0 500 � Existing Agricultural Proposed Security Fencing/ Fence Yard Fencing Aerial Source:Google 2018. - „ s � ��'�.6 -0- w.,� � " �E �� . �< <9.�„ . �'�;�• f' �.:.h tf i � � � � `� .- F ,Y �� a ��`t' a' , i r�'. 'R` .� f. e"� � \,.y( y,..r ��i�, Y�;t,- u.s�W�.��< r r, s! ,�, _ �� f. &�.�99� 1 �.\ � �� ' �"� r��1 ^;�R T , Y �`� fS?F 3k��r N'Q±,�I�I � ae N � � v./' � .. SR � v� .6 T y�1 ✓ } �` . \�. > �aYl . � x�s � � � � ,� � � �� d�+r � • � ,. � � .: tt � y �T k i � . f¢'e� � �,?� st ` � �4{� � s�' m k�� `�� Yc� k�¢`� '.. r�^ y�,,(�� .. �v� 4 \� f F (��v\� �i ' T/ �'?�y r s �`/�� v 'J ,. ' +��' �� \� �s � � �' �€ � • o- rs, . ' R} ,, + �,. � � &�' � � : � `�4R4'NN n.. l !,�y ,�p� . r ., �� > y'" � x� � q�� ,, � �'�� - - .n.� .. ';,P �,, , .+�"��.. ;�� ,�g. %.�R1�'3� � i�s� ��,re. � ` .� ��.+..,v �� . 1 ti"."` ;�a 9' a:�, � � �� I��r � � ,�F \.: �. �` �4. �� . \ - o;u.r'�" �s�.'.s.. �,�:;j. ��. .�$ r .:�a� /� av-� 4. �k'�� r �"� y F�e�,��. . �,i '�4 � a� �� n a , ;�r,_ -0 �,e.i�� I/ �"'4-,��„ � s " 1 ,a '��yr-y. � � . . , � _ �� ' `'6�� t� - � > � `'.��, �� ?� � x� � „ . , . . •w„� a *� �� . ��, � � � , �� ,� � l � � ' ' . .�'� � � � �y t�� : �; � g��-`'^ dwa =. � � �� - � , ) - �:� ' i.�� -� � � q �� ' �� , � � �� ,.c��ar �`�� k� �''i '' '''' � l r'� f � � ,r � � �" �! t�.. . ��''""� ��-��' .�� ' � . .. n Q�� "�. ^� `' ��.j� ��/� e�� :- ��.` . . �; y ' / —�. ��_ �r�.�' .�. - . �..� • f � � .,�� . � �� . � � , � � , �„ ,� � � , �` �'A�� .. ; ¢ . _ . _j � �h' �- pl� � f a♦ ,�r. R . . ✓ '� ��'� � �^ �< l.,t �� } � �r I I� �$� 4 A� " yt • C . �`� . f f�� ' , . � ( JJJ� � C-�'� � R\d-..: '�r �t �� . .� , �,� � 4 � e�i_ �`."i +� } � . "Cy, �+ �� / J �i� 54'i �v a . "y�c ,�.. �,.. �`��'�� .1 / f r ,"�� .'�� ,�}za '� .� ..:,_ �5et>- . r v�' � � � �� " .�, .y� "E, rw ! , � J � ! ` �`"t"� ;" � . � • ` , \ ; � � .,a� � ��.�� ' �e-°. .�� ✓� " � �� 2 � �" 4 f �i .i'� � ��-� � , ��. •"�' I ��,� �� N �� c.i � �: �� ' •i � � : -�� - � � �1-, � � ^ d �`.�' t k.Y „r.., � : ..N • ♦ 1;. \ t � ��# v i r iF� �y�y . �r �Y"�d I '��' '• '{ 5 YH� ".7s''. . �� f �• `�� ,\ �. ��'' g � ♦ �� J� �• ^ �•`'' �"`��i� "�J�� ` '/' � �I • jg�y��% hPK d �'^'� ��11 • � � - �� S e � <I�' I ♦ .J Q �I�. �� ¢-. � � : `�. �.: �� /' ,'`� t , � � , � ' �• �`� � � . � 'S ''---�: �� \;y `�a � � "� _ �. ✓� � I ; `r —: ) • ,.> � � 'r ,: ; 4 �,, •'� . ��. �� r� v.,�c �,� =� �. .::�,r�5�;��"'4"� ..,� r$f.�'�� '� ��'�:�. _ �1 � 5. '�°� y, ♦ 4 ,�� 1 .-�f � 1; ` �.� , '��r x e ; _�,��;,� '• , ::��`.' ` �� ' .��' �� '+@c . : `' � '� �J ..�r` ��u� ��.,,,c�_._ � A � �.�" ' =7 . �' 101�,_ ,, . 'sff . ( 1 +Y � � + i ♦ j. -- j � ,,,�� a :" � 1`:��''' 't '�%� ��,' �'. F ,� �I ��: � �.�'�� f � .:,�r�. �'� �'- � `��'?:��i�� 1 �,� ! ` ��r,�, � $ 4t ' i� I f� • � � K�,�..� ,�;, � � ,� s .:+�,.'F �� '�' �� ,� . i� .�� : ��,. "+ S` Ste� °r�:u rh wt p ,'"t ��-!� "�� . � i r�� ' / �+kl '�°� � 1 �4 4. �I � ' �� I �� fi � '�%�`, 4t �` � � '° � r �,�a��,��s�&,-_4 '. !; ; �:. ^ 4 �•. , ' -:a+� ` . R S� a„ � � :��= �!'. �-v�. .F� '' '�� ° �; � ;�, �'+ ::3� .!r :� � ''� wOOd. Fencing Plan FIGURE 2-8 12864 2-31 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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.i 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; 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. ' At this time, it is unknown whether the developer or City would own/maintain the proposed public roads within Madonna Froom Ranch. 2-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12865 LEGEND ProjectCirculation Elements � Project Site � LOVR Improvements � Local Road"B"(Private) * Gated Pedestrian Access �� Public Pedestrian Points Trail • Trail Commercial Collector"A° _ Local Road"C"(Private) _ (Public) O Proposed Transit Stop ..... Private Pedestrian Existing Class II Signalized Intersection � Trail Bike Lanes � Commercial Collector"B" Emergency Access (Public) Refer to Figures 2-9,2-10,and 2-11 Roadway Q Rest Area �� Bus Routes 4b _ Local Road"A°(Public) for representative cross sections. ,,, Removable Bollards and 5a _ '` - 4 t �L Q a �� , � • �,�,� ,� . � � , ' , �;��° �� ,�\�� ,. , ,>, , . „ � �j,� �.,- � _ ° �o�� ''. �� ,��"�� ,�, 4�� „' ��. � ., � r, ,. � � � . , a � �� -�+� � � �° �� , ' . . \ �:`� ' '�' .+� 5��,<.4 t 4�N h l t.!!d b ..�� +� ` �+ �im� ' ' �� Y,.;..t� �.i.�`� y:?. '�� x��°3 F � i�� i re.�' . .,.�� '�:::, " � ° y, � ��k � r v" �� , J Fe r � � a:��1�', m � L � ��. � �4� ��G, �, . �;' . .. �."-:s '� ,�,,,�"�, ..�$ <a` ��+ ' �- �raa��`�. '�a `'a ,� ��W, � P'!M .� (� '�i4 $ f �t�� `d t; �� . , ��. �/ �� A e/ �}. ^ c:�' � �� ,� . . . ,�„�.�•`� �. :4.�'�� .-�� .� ; �•w . .�. �,. �,�,R. `^s �r j -' � r� "'' .� F �,;i�`c t ��. - � . �� . �'� :�. - `b�` ��`�",, � < ' � � .�' �� .. �� > '�'' k',% %� , "/ : ,1 "� � � , �� "'-'�t . e� �.�R �, i✓ � � � , , - � . + � .� 1��`"J'� '�` � ' J -� � _ � . .. . � - � a • J .. ♦ ♦ � .. °�c �: '.. � �� - -• .` '1 . �1� •��• �� i �� , �`r,^.� .y `::�.r1" R � ��••• � •• . �� r� `f t �' f. . ^. , i � � . — , ��. �h�r':-�.,� "�r ,�M!�� ' ;" � 9b� .aJ"�-..: � �i �`�c..�, �`, E:�� r �� 41~ �n.�Primary Villaggio Gate ; . < <�� a,4:� _ ,� �,. - 1 C� ; '� �� ,,, � e�� ,<� ,r, � � , s-t ��- + ■ z ��R x �"`.�e,,,� _ r � �` �-,� �H�1�,�. : � 'C"�� 4��, 9 h f� . }`4, r . / � _ O .`� � �"Y� 4' �t �'iy ... f .♦ - � I� ♦ .. ;.T �, .,�i.. r � //� �:/1 . ��Si` { � � `/ � • _S� tr �� F4 � . . "�, 4�'� I\ �s ) /� sl �.:; �� r `��"vx a`; � �� ' / ! �.�. �. ��w . � _ � � ^� � ~ 1 h�� - ��, •• ♦ . `� r �`�� :� �. �• � • " ,�., � .. � �.��„� . • - - � -� • � . ��:�..'r � � 2, .� •''�' �I I . �t ,,��' x ,.,, �..% � ♦ �._� ,• � :� � x • �ppyy,,. � � '� 5��' � j, �� . `v�r �• \�\ 1�� }q jYi , :� .� •.�• —'ii /�.,�• �• � -�� ',f � ` � � _:� ��• j t' �< < � ; �`. • g . � �. � � ; ,R a~ �� 3� : �% �Kd is J � ,�� S �`✓ � s, . � - g_ � l �� i: \�� _+� ��♦ � ��T t �I�. � �/� / ��%. .. �.i�"' ♦�� I �y' � a � !,i _ � Y g"�/� / . � ♦ �♦ /�- . -� /� �.�I�" �i ♦�'�: F.a . � � �/b `E " ■�J � i f � � �� /�' 1� �a"�` � � �. r `�a � , N � � "��4; �.,�,,,� � r sf.��.� >`. � '.. 1^�J' — '� ';, • v�� e yf � � '�V,� ��.E.t, � �€��r � a '� � . ...>�Y•I�w,/ �� , i . .T�""S'�;�. � �'i� � �� - ..�.,c�. � A � ie w ' ...,_1. � "k +� '� (101�i ■ � . Ia �y�,.�t, ��.~ �'`- F '� Emergency k � ..,�1�,:�� - � Access Gate � �` ;' �;`�` � . — �' g 4t . , _ I f : • �� K�` ' ��:i a ,� ' .;+�,''� �� r� �, � <<� '�• ��`-� . �: w� 'a 4N�, � ��:� . ��. `�i' � t��'? �` u r"1 �^I"�` .ez .. - _ $ ' , : �. ` �+k�.��°, � 4 �` 4•. � ' �l, ,�i? ��,�� :ta � �.• '�� '` 4 '� SCALE IN FEET ,��.�.� :�r� , i i : I � � � � ' ..�' : `�� ,�. o soo N �,�„ � _. ,ti}� ' ,tT ._ ' Aerial Source:Google 2018. wOOd. Proposed Circulation Plan FIGURE 2-9 12866 2-33 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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. Proposed Right-of-Way Ezisting Right-of-Way � .��1. ,��1. ,L�. � � � �ii '�ii '�ii ' 10' '6 12' �6' �3'' 10'-6„ � 10'-6" � 23'-5" � Ezlsling Roadway � Sidewalk Parkway Transition Class II Buffer Travel Lane Travel Lane Median(width varies)I Lane Bike 12'Tum Lane I, Lane I I � Widened Roadway f Existing Roadway(restripe only) � wQQd. LOVR Improvements FIGURE `L-1� 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. 2.4.3.3 Project Roadway Netwark 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. 2-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12867 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Roadwavs 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. 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. '1., r�� Local Road "A" would be a 44-foot-wide '� � �� . 1,� `- _____ �� roadway with 5-foot-wide parkways and � - ---- 5-foot-wide sidewalks. �I ; �------� f"� '� -- � -,,/' , .- -- ��, ;� , A roundabout intersection of Commercial N`k,_•_ ; � , ;I :� ; Collectors "A" and "B" and Local Road '�� ` ,�' ,��. , '` - - � � ! I: "A"is proposed with one travel lane and a ,,�:�� \: �� central island within landscaping, signage, %�� -- - _ �.- -� - _ � and decorative features. The roundabout _ i ��_ � intersection would include designated �� ` The proposed roundabout would consist of a single pedesti'lan CYOssings. lane roundabout with a 66 foot radius and landscaped center median with sidewalk and crosswalk facilities. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-35 Final EIR 12868 N W O� i�w , � , . �_ . _� � . ' - - '� ' � o O � � � �I�_ � �I � I�� RetaillGeneral 6' 8' 6' 2' 12'Travel Lane 5'Metlian 12'Travel Lane 2' 6' 8' 6' High Density Commercial Sidewalk Parkway Class II Buffer (additional at LOVR) (width varies) (additional at LOVR) Buffer Class II Parkway Sidewalk Residential Bike Lane Bike Lane 73'Minimum Roadway Right-of-Way Commercial Collector "A" � ! � ° o � � � � � � � � � �'� Medium-High 5' 5' 12' 12' 5' 5' High Density Density Sidewalk Parkway Travel Lane with Travel Lane with Parkway Sidewalk Residential or Residertial Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route Public Facilities I I 44'Minimum Roadway Right-of-Way Commercial Collector "B"/Public Local Road "A" wOOd. Public Roads Cross Sections FIGURE 2-11 12869 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Private Roadwa,vs 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. .�. ��-, � .. � - ��„ _ ,, , �_'i 'f� i i � I'-'� � Open 5' 5' 17 10'Medlan 12' 5' 5' Medium- Space Sitlewalk Parkway Travel Lane (Gateway) Travel Lane Parkway Sidewalk High Densiry I I Residential I 54'Minimum Roadway Right-oi-Way � Private Local Road"B" .L�—�1. �� i u i � � I� _ � � f`�I T f T Conservatlonl 2' 12' 17 2' Medlum-High Open Space Shoultler Travel Lane Travel Lane Shoulder Density Residential I 28'Minimum Roadway Right-of-Way I Private Local Road"C" WOO�. FIGURE Private Road Cross Sections 2-12 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-37 Final EIR 12870 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Emergencv 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 Bicvcle 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 far shared vehicular and bicycle 2-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12871 2.O 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 S_ s�� 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-39 Final EIR 12872 2.O 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 2-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12873 2.O 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).� 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). �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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-41 Final EIR 12874 LEGEND Proposed Water Supply Elements � Project 8"Public Potable Water 8"Public Recycled � 6"Private Domestic e Connection to Existing Site Main Line Water Main Water Meter Infrastructure � 8"Private Potable Water _ 8"Private Recycled 6"Private Recycled Main Line Water Main ❑R Water Meter Aerial Source:Google 2018. � C� � �� de� �' � � �r�� ; � s. a� E�� ) �� " u.a�t� ��`P ' `;y � �a e r e�.' y fp� � �, � �^ F:� z�. ��✓�`� ' r `� A ae� p�, �'',��'�s. _ - ' •� 41 � ,� �a �S�F h �� ' � � � y� � � � � � \ S � v� t �1 �� • � p a lQ � �� alro� �S[-.�S �\ i } � � ` � ��e � r ��" � �. ': 2 y ,�v •t �t � \�4P � '� kk ,..� � \q��`.�` �a k p�.¢M G^ �� 4�.. �{v' � .,. �� +��' �� , . Aa ��s � -�, ��`/>� � '�, `" � �� o-c�� T��Rr �. � , a •,1f � . A il .i .. Y� �� x0 ��'4R4'NN h /Iltd y .. Rt. ,, a �f� � �` � .. ., : � t 'd.i �ro - �`" :. �ny �.� �m ' �� ,:-+...� � � �" �y,� ��b�n� 'a ra ..� .._ .. - � hY � m �� L ti;.t` 4�� - �� u��.;,� !� � ` 4�.. . : �.: �+��'". ,\ �'�e 4�`� �� o,ur'�"�^ .. �.�::s ��\\ �,,,�"�.r.,4 <" .+ e ��a+�; Q ;:k't r �s"l {;a�W,�„'. . y �� . _.r " �� _��'�� a� �;e� + .�Y 'j ' � � ,;��,- � ,^, - t��'� �` � - �'� �i� � . . . _I _ `�� e ra`�� ',� S�' ... ,.w. `',��, �`� �?�� s � 3 ¢ M � . �p __ . - l� � � � .I , � R�p �'��j�4a r`�'.. _ # � , w '-el.� d S � �ly 1 �� . , ✓ �r�� '�-�" �� .� � � � � .� � ��. � � .. ✓ . J � � � , . 1 1 i, p � '' a �'�`s�-Je y�- e __ , ' ' , . , � - :�. � � .: , ,_ T�' F v:�'e'H ?..,. �� w� .��;:�:�. r_ t,� f. � n. ��Q�� .,t=�, -R , M.� � . .. �� ✓ m, j ��•/�j: : . �::� ��.• �� . . . �' . ' I __ � , <41�` 5,. /� ��y�� ` F i . ��f 9 / ` �.,l'Sl.-J�. `E'°- ,�. � ,� � 'r�'A��" .. ; t ' - ' � � e!e F�%P� 5 �� .,s ��`3 . ��Y 4 . . t ^�l� '� \ _ Ya f+ �-K ,� � . � � �[,a f I _ a iF i �� g� �-� � . � ` r r, / 4,` � '��° �`"�i +�,�e,�} � . "�° °°'',y`�" v�. M ,/'�f P`� 51`�i - � � £� f :'�'4�� . y �}2a-�'a�" ,�Y `^,_""��5et'�.ti ' ✓j. � r . - � ''a� � i� �w � r Y � ,�: � � � � � �_�..- �c�S� �..-�. _� �'�•+"�� - e; '�' �r •��•s , � a _ _ �,i � ,- � �' � �� •� �� - � Z � -- �� _ � �y�h�1 �L . i� _ �`Y `�N' ��i t . s �� — r �' � r g � �` « �,� , �" ��- � a� z�� / h�K d '\� ��^ S �`,.( �,�! � g_, u1 � +.� , �R t � � � �� rt a ��" .. .-- �' `�� :. . - ,,� rp"� � �'�- ` - I i.' J . � �,� �r �� E - � r � y �� i � .�5��` v.,`e�c �. J .. .::� !�;%" ! � .�F' �� ..� r ,�� I .� `... _ 1�� 5. '� � e � J_,, - , ::��"�� " �`�`�� x� �1 •,� ��4.-�" ` 6� A�1 �-� �� `T . _ �Ck" , 101; . sff ( yg � / -- ,�� w4��-' .��' F ,�= I a �. �. k. � �¢'�A ,, � �, y s�` . �. � ,� . ` '�'rr`�'�. � � = 4t • � � ��, � � "� �,�� ' d ~ �'� v� _y��'' �� - �� . i� ,��. '��e� . �: w� 'a 4.��, � ��:� . ��. `�i' � t`��1 ��y��`Y'�1 �"1��" •ez � ! � . � � �� a��F � �y^�� 4.� � ��' ., �Y�`, S�yi1 4 iR. ��"}� ��, � �'9. . . . . ��},--4 `� �i. ��'fi f'� � �f ' � 'r� ^ ` , �` SCALE IN FEET � � ..r+'�'• ��!' ��" N . � _ � , � a ,�." " ::3° � ,� 0 500 �,� wOOd. Water Su I S stem FIGURE pp y y 2-13 2-42 12875 2.O 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-43 Final EIR 12876 LEGEND Proposed WastewaterCollection System E/ements SCALE IN FEET � Project �t� 8"Public Sanitary Sewer �t� 8"Private Sanitary Sewer e Connection to Existing � Site Main Gravity Line showing Main Gravity Line showing Infrastructure 0 500 ��' Flow Direction Flow Direction Aerial Source:Google 2018. .� . ,i, , e ��'�.�6 -0' w:� n � -'� �'��- � `:e��' � � �� ' ��"��t`�E./ ..a, pt ; � � �� ..,'" ,. . � �� Y �� "` � ��£ a- �� t��. �` ,� � "e+b c� � \\ �� 4'``� ��4Q'' ��u.a�t��.�`S� r t� � .. � .a t.K � �' �. l ,� ! ,{' �,� r�i'� .� �T'� '��r, � Fg yt.,�.� �, �+�'��i ., � #� � _ - �,`�� w � � � u r �„ �� ,� 7�.' �?� �_°�' �, �� l°' , �, ` �' �' � : I ' tt `' �" ° � , � � � � ��< , ;� ' 4�r = �� ,� „ � f 4 . �.� � " ,�,, +�_ k �. ,�' 4 n ;, �,'� ��• ` � �� . . A ` �`"�° �'r�"` � " • � �� ``' r, � � ,. � +� f ? � �� -� '� �; � �Rc��h�, ��r«bf . '"� . _. � , . . . F . +>°" "� � .-� m� �� ` 3 C �'m`' �� . : - �� '� a ra ':. _ � .� �� o �:� : t c ,�'� _ x�'� � ��1�'. v � e� �`\ ,�.z',. � �/ �s��,,' !� . �� l ��." ��:.- \\�,,rP"',r.,4 <<`! �o�* �. e ��,�t � ��e� r �" y Q ,.e�w�' . ' � . � _ �,b.* � � ..I� .� �"#-��a '�'s ' 1 -,� '��i; ,;�', m� � �.. . _I s � 7 , �?"�#'�'�4 �e ��`� �'� y�� "... '.w. . *` �� . 3�g � � ��' � .I ' �. � r / �. ` R i'�,� �a'��`s� r`Y�.,r - / � �.� " � � ./ —' ` r�. �� ° E..• �� • .`�= ' r '4`°�_.� '�� `, ., J �.�a� �� ,, , � � � , ; , � - ' ,, � �� -� � �"�`�c ' "' .. . 1 ". . , r .. : ,c�'aH � 'y+�• T�'�w.� ..s�';.7F:_.. r_ . . �l � ,,� f. y,s n .�Q`� �=�, . . . "R ' M., Y .. ' '%�✓ �K��,f�j: : �, _ ��' ..�"�♦ ,�'�� .�.�, .. — � $� s,. _, . / <�` �` � F i d��.� � 1y�__ . -- -, ,� �,.. . .� ,�: � � �• �,�_. ; ` � , _ � ...1 �_- .�� e�p'l�fiai" x �`�e,.� �. r . . >> ta� �� . � ��7� 4 . ' ,� � `=�� '�� _ Yr� 9 . ' .. 1 r -�i4 ��t�,a «j '��9- �r � I � % /' l. F j�." � ��r �� '� � �j �. (/� f 4 ~ .,�i- �"�i +� } � :. . "�, paa'� . �� /'_ �`/ � f si`j i� .a�� _" ''� �� i4=�"'++� � �_ ' I'� �f _ �� :� � '�-� „�Y,�,�t" � � ,vj ^� 1 � . °�� e•� �� -� �� r' �� a.� �". •,�� ,�.. —� �% , , ' �; "� �� _ � S �� 'i � �k�� L � = ,Y,��"✓ ��, t ,1�� _= ' r �\ � , J,, � " i�, � � �� ,� r z � �� °�� ` �'.� ��d� *1 y ,.i^ .. � _ \� ��'+�'7��'M{4a � �' � �� 'Y/ i � ` 7M, ,'' ... . . � c ' '� -'- � iy_ ., a � � - � g/„8 . — F.s . � i� �+ !'/�� Y! � J f � � � � .. 7� i� � .�� >> %° 9' v.,`e�c ��. v -- " .. � �"�,r�4;��"'4'� :..,� ,J r �!� �I _� �F. ' � 7��'��',��,/ �" v�� .� ,! ,yi �.G _ t`��,-1 "� / . �.*�6�� k`�t.��. x�� '1 ,�Zt r ..,.�� ` A ' a� ' '.� :k �� '� �101Z , � �,,,_(E� '�b"��' �,' F �1; �a a"y{ iJ �i� � � k. � ��~ ,, � �, � � . ,. �� - 1�� ,� � = tt � r ' I i �� __ �r�' a .;+�..'F �� ,< <��„� , �� ,- - . ��., i� �f'r �6`�:u�y'�`lw��" �'�et � ��f= � �� - �' � `'"� � �f �;�;,��°s; � , :�'e 4.. � • ,z, � � �� '�"��"�. �'�-4 � �.: '�+` �,. ;.: r. �,,,,: �.:�y �' .� 4 � ' 4 t.-'�1 �. � S��S ��i�" � ' ..�+'� �� ' '`� '' �� :S' .�^ A � . �- ��'+ ::3° .!r c. ''A wOOd. Wastewater Collection System FIGURE 2-14 2-44 12877 2.O 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; Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-45 Final EIR 12878 2.O 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). 2-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12879 2.O 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 GC 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-47 Final EIR 12880 N A � 200 180 45'High Piazza Apartments 0 160 � Residential Resideniial � ��„:.,;, w 140 Residential � Residential 5'High�,�� - Fence' �� Residential l Residential � �y Project �20 Subterranean Parking I� �� Grade High Water Line-109.8'± Sidewalk and 110.9'± �I 6��Trail � � Parkway� . � � � , Existing 35' 65' �' -----`Existing Wetlantl antl Overbank Area �� 86� -� Grade Creek Setback Realigned Froom Creek �_____ ../ � Calle Joaquin-Existing Roadway � Cross Section C-C- Mid-Creek �� r�Y r - 'w'F �`� �,�dbt ��„ High Water r � �� - ��' Elevation 121.5'± Line 110.4't Q� �`� - "� , g _ 1 9 � 106.5'± ` ��1` � g � = 103.5'± ` � Existin Grade y ` �iFence Existin Hotel 5'Hi h Fence� �; P arkin g 1 0 9.3'± �� Project Grade � M�°� � �Top of Bank 6� Trail �.��. ,� "'� Elevation 111.4't 40'± 35'± Flow to Praposed Flow to U.S.101 35' 65' 35' Stormwater Basin Box Culverts 7' Creek Setback Realignetl Froom Creek Creek Setback Realigned Froom Creek Cross Section D-D- Upper Creek Bridge Crossing Cross Section E-E- Lower Creek wOOd. Conceptual Creek Cross Sections FIGURE 2-15 12881 2.O 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 '�'' "�"`;�� " � � . �. "�� A� �� : �� proposed basin would include infiltration � �� -.v �, �. -. ,� - w.�. wells to enable groundwater recharge and subsurface drainage. All stormwater detention basin The proposed stormwater detention basin would be COmpOnents wOUld be COnStrilCted anCl constructed downstream from the Specific Plan malntalneCl by the AppllCant. ACCesS to area within Mountainbrook Church properry, Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-49 Final EIR 12882 2.O 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. 2-50 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12883 LEGEND Proposed Stormwater Control Elements � Project Site � Stormwater � _ Proposed Treated �� Headwall and Arch- �� Headwall and Treatment Area Stormwater Outlet �� Culvert Crossing �� Pipe Culverts �� Proposed Stormwater Linear Water Quality �� Headwall and Four Detention Basin Treatment Area �� 24-Inch Storm Drains Aerial Source:Google 2018. � � �� . ,�2 4' � � r��'� '�` � ; '� f�' a� �p;�� ).�Ye� �� u.a�W �'�' ,� � `�y �a e � a�'� 9 rp ti � . ! �" �� z 4� �4 �✓', ' r `� fi s4� pr�, ^.-'��ys� •� „ � , � r � �� ,� b• t�S?4 v.`°� � t � 1 , . �r > ✓°� � i� ,t� '�+: i'# `�� - 1 t�,". �� S. �� +, p � 4 � $�ti A kk ri ,� , 4 n '.. /e � r �1. •tR��t - . �V{� k " �\��;• +Ye'� ` t �i^ y�� 4�.. �v ..i�' ��J � \ 4 �d —� � �\\\\\ �� j ' •�' ir, F � �(�i�� ' A r ,: � +��. f� ' . ` A� ��s � � � 0 ��t ��tc��`� ' i�t�fi b�' � .. : � . � , > .,,¢ t� �.��.. -� `�° a� _"�`' �""�� . .. ` 00 � � . � ��_ ��.. . . •..s .' ' t � . . i �" �x �s� � re� ' 4:. '�� . � .�._ ' s. � � � � �'��" �� r m � . � . 1 t r 'i, .♦ / e .� � f!$ . !� � ��. . \: '.t �`�� t��.l . ti *�� .. �;s. :� ��*'. ..i t � ��a � � : :�� .�� r �sa ,� � ��`. , � ;�'�- . $ �-'s�� I i �� t�� "�;s � 1 -,� '��y. �y.. . . � � ` �"a£�� y� <�c��` �'F'��`` yy '•w� � A `�`�'� �� *� z� �` '�� ' � ,yk¢ � v � �� _' . .i .� . � � / p+,`Aly ��,°'-. l{'" � � ' � '� � ✓ / � � @ Py ;, �� ' � . r�'"` \ � ° E.� � . � . � '4 .� �� , �:?-5^ d`�a -� .. � � � � � ' , 1 _� l�� .c��° �� . � _. , � . , � . � ' � ��`�c '. . � F c�'e'H ,-..,. }�� "w�� ,s�,;:�:_. r— 1) .� ,t<�,� f. �', ny -�� - '�� .. I - �e��.�.,f .. �' Q�'�` ��, . . . "� t _. �/ � � 3��yy��,, � .�•' +�"w� ,.��p�-." . �� ' ' ,�•�/�• _ � `, ��. � �� .�es � �� !:A��-�� ¢ . - . �.{.1 J i'� i, ! �iV�M1 g f'.:ap, �. t . . �� \ F�' �*, � ..;'. �,. .�. �� `, 'J� � ' ��Y� 4 I � •=�� '� _ �' ' t14. . q �`. .. . . �_ ., . "�'� %��[ y#�, , :, �.. . .,c i�� "F � r;\ � 'J � f 4`~ � °'�i s�•r +� t �� : . "�, aaa�� /' �� J f i4i a . .tr � � �, £ `�w ve . , /'" � � �n� .,�� '�`' '�:'. �,�-��'+. �+ �^ � / f �. � � Y � �� "�� r y � � r� . ? � � ez�.�� t�a.-_:=.�;. � e; . � �' �r` •��, � ' ',� - �: � � �, � �: "� - �� , 9 ky 1 �I . `�\ t i � il� e� ° � '� .' � : : . + 3` �`` �,� �. � , � �l J� , 4, �-' q�� 4�� S ° `� �Nd g� � �� ul � ��i^ " \ �'�� `��'�M�T,� � �_ �✓�,� �/ �r�l � J� F s�� q � ,� �,��„�� ,��, v.,`e�c � . 1 _'`_t- s at �e �e r$f,� !�,� • -�� a �� rn`�'H ,�4;. 'p'�,,,4„� 4^'"i� � ;y �� t' 'a.�. �. � s' • � e�^ 3"w� �� .s��, ' - i . :T� �.'6�� ` ��C,�' x�' /1. ��Itt =��;" � `�� ii'�' ' (101�` k � , '.� �` ' �� ~ �:�"' ' wR�. �'. F �` I a . "i�' (_ � ��Ss�A ,, q�,, t . s �� ' �� ` �`�`�,•- � � = 4t • � � ��, � � "� �,�� ' d ~ �'� v� _y��'' �� - ,�'� . i� ,1• ,��- I , �: w� 'a 4�:f � ��,� .�j. � `�'� , t`��1 ��y��`Y'�1 �"1��" •ez � ! � . � � �� tfu�,��°F ' �` 4 f ,r. �l' �,��4 . X". ��. . � �. _ 4 �i. J Y : i �... � ,� � SCALE IN FEET .' s�• �' ..'�' • �v�. .F�, � ` �- N `,a` �c.� '�7�p' ::3° • .!r �•� 0 500 6' wOOd. Stormwater Control Plan FIGURE 2-16 12884 2-51 2.O 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 Collectar "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. 2-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12885 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 2-6. Pipe Sizes at Drainage Crossings , � � � . , � � . � , . � � i . � ' ' � � � Auto Park Way Intersection 100-year 24 4 200 (LOVR ditch) Irish Hills Plaza(Home Depot 100-year 24 3 200 ditcb) Realigned Froom Creek 100-year natural bottom 1 400 (arched) Upper Villaggio(4) 100-year natural bottom 2(each) 400 (arched) 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-53 Final EIR 12886 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Villaggio component of the Project and preliminary review of the design guidelines in the Draft FRSP and provided comments. I • Annexation. If the Project is approved, Applicant-proposed annexation would be initiated by the City 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; • 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; and • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for any needed improvements within the Caltrans right of way. 2-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12887 2.O 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). r P ' P 2020 2021 2022 2023 I 2024 Feb Sept '� � N O N C May Sept � C O � R May Dec Jul Mar � Q 0 Jul Dec V � .� O L a *Phase 3 grading of Upper Terrace-Villaggio only **Phase 4(Madonna Froom Ranch building construction)assumed to occur concurrent with Phase 3 for purposes of EIR analysis. 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-55 Final EIR 12888 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 2-7. Project Construction Phases Installation of Project Infi^astructure and Stormwater Management System. • Rough grading for Madonna Froom Ranch and distribution of expart 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". 1 • 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. • 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. 2 • 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. Development of Villaggio Zlpper 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. 3 • 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. • Development of Madonna Froom Ranch. 4 • 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. 2-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12889 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 � � � • 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. 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; Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-57 Final EIR 12890 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION • 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 J 1��f.l�i �� fi��'�I 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 160,000 378,700 220,000(net) TOTAL + Rock/Aggregate Import for Froom Creek Reconstruction 2,300 Total Imported Material 222,300 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 2-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12891 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION along roadways fronting the Specific Plan area and within the proposed stormwater detention basin easement area.Adj acent 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 Specific Plan area based on Project phasing (Table 2-7). Building construction would involve foundation, framing, roofing, interior and exterior �nishes, 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 2-59 Final EIR 12892 2.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION that for purposes of this EIR analysis, Phase 4 is also expected to occur concurrent with Phase 3). 2-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12893 3.O 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 • Hydrology and Water Quality • Agricultural Resources • Land Use and Planning • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas • Noise Emissions • Population and Housing • Biological Resources . Public Services and Recreation • Cultural and Tribal Cultural . Transportation and Traffic Resources . Utilities and Energy Conservation • Geology and Soils . Mineral Resources • Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire 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 Final EIR 12894 3.O 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 Proj ect. 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 Final EIR 12895 3.O 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 proj ects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). • General Plan proj ection method - A summary of proj ections 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 Final EIR 12896 3.O ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List � CiTY PROJECTS 1. Perry Ford& Development of an addition to an existing commercial Approved VW Dealership building consisting of an additiona17,895 square feet(s�. 2. BMW Development of a car dealership consisting of Recently in Dealership approximately 23,945 sf of commercial space. operation 3. Town Place Development of a 4-story hotel consisting of 114 rooms. Under Suites construction 4. San Luis Ranch Development of up to 500 residential units,350,000 sf of Approved; Specific Plan commerciaUoffice space,200 hotel rooms,and portions under approximately 5.8 acres of parks,while preserving 50%of construction the site for agriculture and open space. 5. Long Bonetti Development of a public market consisting of eight separate Under Public Market buildings;approximately 47,000 sf of commercial space. construction; subject to phasing 6. Tribune Development of a 3-story project that includes 43 Building Review Work/Live Work/Live Units in conjunction with a remodel of the existing Tribune Production Building. 7. Tank Farm Development of three commercial warehouse buildings Approved Commerce totaling 29,000 sf. Park 8. Avila Ranch Development Plan consisting of 720 residential units and Approved Specific Plan approximately 20,000 sf of commercial space. This project additionally involves construction of a fifth Ciry fire station. In addition,the Buckley Road Extension would connect Buckley Road to South Higuera Street. 9. Water Expansion of the City's WRRF that includes approximately Building Review Resources 17,704 sf of office/industrial space. Recovery Facility � (WRRF) 10. Homeless Development of a homeless services facility consisting of In operation Service Center approximately 20,000 sf of commercial space. 1L Madonna Plaza Development of a commercial project consisting of Under approximately 56,257 sf. construction 12. Ellsworth Tract Subdivision and development of a property into 35 Approved commercial lots. 13. Victoria& Development of two 3-story structures consisting of three Approved Caudill Mixed Live/Wark Units and five residential units. Use 14. Broad St. Development of a mixed-use development consisting of 10 Building Review Collection Live/Work Units and a small bourique hotel with six rooms and a caretaker's quarter. 3-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12897 3.O ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 71 15. San Luis Mixed-use development with 48 housing units and 21,000 sf Approved Square of commercial space. 16. Monterey Place Mixed-use project with 23 housing units and 24,000 sf of Approved office and retail space. 17. Vesper Hotel at Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of a Approved the Creamery hotel with 47 rooms,and approximately 6,698 sf of commercial space. 18. Palm Parking Develop of a new public parking garage with approximately Planning Review Garage 5,000 sf of commercial space. 19. Twin Creeks Mixed-use project that includes 3-story structures with Approved approximately 4,100 sf of commercial space and 102 residential units. 20. Taylor Ranch Development of 53 residential units as phase 1 of an Building Review; approved subdivision,which in total has been approved for subject to phasing 142 residential units. 21. Los Padres Inn Development of a hotel consisting of 36 rooms. Approved 22. Fernwood Development of a 3-story structure consisting of five Under Apartments residential units. construction 23. Pratt Ranch Subdivision and development of a property to provide for 30 Approved Phase 1 residential units,four Live/Wark Units,and approximately 1,500 sf of commercial space. 24. 790 Foothill Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of 78 Building Review Mixed Use residential units and approximately 6,805 sf of commercial space. 25. 950 Orcutt Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of 75 Approved Mixed Use residential units and approximately 6,800 sf of commercial space. 26. Rockview Subdivision and development of eight residential units. Approved Moderns 27. 207 Higuera Development of a 2-story mixed-use project consisting of Approved Mixed Use six residential units and approximately 1,097 sf of commercial space. 28. Broad Street Mixed-use project that includes 40 residential units and Planning Review Place 1,250 sf of commercial space. 29. Marsh& Mixed-use project that consists of a 4-story structure with Approved Carmel Mixed approximately 1,100 sf of commercial space and eight Use residential units. 30. 1101 Monterey Mixed-use project that includes a 3-story structure with Approved approximately 27,079 sf of commercial/office space. 31. Bridge St. Development of a mixed-use project that consists of 18 Planning Review Project residential units and approximately 10,621 of commercial space. 32. 71 Palomar Development of a 33-unit multi-family residential project. Approved Avenue Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3-5 Final EIR 12898 3.O ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 33. West Creek Subdivision and development of aproperty to provide for Approved; subject Development 172 residential units. to phasing 34. Serra Meadows Development of 31 residential units as part of the Serra Building Review Prado Frontage Meadows Development. 35. Imel Ranch Subdivision and development of a property to provide for 18 Building Review Subdivision single-family residential units. 36. Olive Mixed Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of an Approved Use extended stay hotel with 17 rooms and approximately 3,500 sf of commercial space. 37. 1185 Monterey Mixed-use project that includes a 4-story structure with Planning Review approximately 2,558 sf of commercial space and 44 hotel rooms. 38. Righetti Ranch Development of 3041ots including 272 single-family units, Building Review 32 inclusionary units,a neighborhood park,and open space. 39. Digital West Development of a 77,500-sf storage building. Pending 40. French Development of the expansion of French Hospital in Portions under Hospital accordance with the Master Plan for the property. construction; major expansion in Planning Review 41. Motel Inn Development project consisting of 55 hotel rooms, 13 Building Review recreational vehicle spaces,and 10 airstream spaces. 42. The Junction Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 69 Approved residential units and approximately 3,000 sf of commercial space. 43. Jones Subdivision and development of a property to provide for 65 Phase 1 Approved; Subdivision residential units and approximately 15,000 sf of commercial Phase 2 in space. Planning Review 44. Granada Hotel Development of a 4-story addition to the existing hotel to Building Review Expansion provide an additiona122 rooms. 45. Aerovista Place Development of an office project consisting of Planning Review approximately 35,908 sf. 46. South Town 18 Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisring of 18 Planning Review residential units and approximately 70 sf of commercial space. 47. McCarthy Steel Development of an industrial/warehouse project totaling Pending approximately 9,840 sf. 48. The Yard Development of 43 residential units throughout eight new Approved; subject buildings,which includes the expansion of Victoria Avenue. to phasing 49. Victoria Mixed-use project that includes a 4-story structure with Building Review Crossing approximately 3,150 sf of retail space and 33 residential units. 50. Laurel Lane Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 18 Building Review Mixed Use residential units and approximately 2,300 sf of commercial 3-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12899 3.O ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES � � � . _ i space that also includes redevelopment of an existing parking lot. 51. Broad St. Development of a mixed-use project that consists of 12 Building Review Mixed Use residential units and approximately 2,788 sf of commercial space. 52. Shell Starion Development of two commercial buildings totaling 10,000 Pending Development sf. 53. The Courtyard Development of affordable housing project that includes 36 Approved of Serra residential units as part of the Serra Meadows Development Meadows Lot 108. 54. Bishop Street Development of 34 residential units. Under Studios Construction 55. Ferrini Development of five residential units. Under Apartments Construction 56. Poly Development of a 30,000-sf industrial building. Under Performance Construction 57. 22 North Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 27 In operation Chorro residential units and approximately 2,000 sf of commercial space. 58. Higuera Brew Reuse of an existing building for a brewery/restaurant use Under totaling 15,500 sf of commercial space. Construction 59. Iron Works Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 46 Under residential units and approximately 4,400 sf of commercial Construction space. 60. Monterey Development of a hotel consisring of 102 rooms. In operation Hotel 61. Toscano Subdivision and development of a property to provide for Under Moresco 161 residential units. Construcrion 62. 625 Toro Development of 14 attached residential units. Under Construction 63. Hotel Cerro Development of a 4-story mixed-use project consisting of Undcr (Garden Street eight residential units,a hotel of 64 rooms,and Construction Terraces) approximately 25,000 sf of commercial space. 64. Bullock Ranch Development of 192 single family residential units. Planning Review 65. NWC Broad Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 111 Approved Street Mixed residential units and approximately 45,269 sf of commercial Use space. 66. 650 Tank Farm Development of 249 residential units and approximately Approved 17,500 sf of commercial space. 67. Marsh& Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 50 Planning Review Chorro Mixed residential units and approximately 30,000 sf of commercial Use space. 68. Orcutt Road Development of approximately 15 residential units. Planning Review Apartments Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3-7 Final EIR 12900 3.O ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 69. Peach Street Development of approximately 5 single-family residential Planning Review units. 70. 956 Monterey Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 20 Planning Review Mixed Use residential units and approximately 4,000 sf of commercial space. 7L Mill Street Development of 5 residential units. Planning Review Commons 72. 545 Higuera Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 56 Planning Review Mixed Use residential units and approximately 5,000 sf of commercial space. 73. Lofts at the Development of 36 residential units and approximately 70 sf Planning Review Creamery of commercial space. 74. Mail Pouch Development of 10 residential units. Approved South 75. Montalban Development of a mixed-use project consisting of 15 Building Review Mixed Use residential units and approximately 430 sf of commercial space. 76. Fixlini Tract Development of 3 single-family residential units. Building Review 77. Bridge Street Development of 26 residenrial units. Approved; subject (Terraza) to phasing 78. Chinatown Development of a 78-room hotel with approximately 5,900 Under Hotel(Hotel sf of commercial space. construction SLO) 79. HASLO Development of approximately 13,ll 8 sf of commercial Planning Review Headquarters space. 80. 301 Prado Development of approximately 160,000 sf of Planning Review commerciaUindustrial space. 81. RTA Development of approximately 23,270 sf of Approved Maintenance commerciaUindustrial space. Facility 82. Airport Development of approximately 6,830 sf of commercial Approved Business space. Center 83. Madonna Plaza Remodel of approximately 12,508 sf of commercial space. Approved Remodel COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO(COUNTY)PROJECTS 84. Animal Shelter New animal shelter facility to be constructed at the County Tentative Facility Operations Center off Highway 1. 85. Avila Beach Reconfiguration of the U.S. 101 and Avila Beach Drive Planning Review Drive at U.S. Interchange in the community of Avila. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) Interchange 3-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12901 3.O ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES � 86. Avila Beach A Parking Management Plan for Port San Luis,which Tcntarive Parking includes the Harbor/Pier area,Avila Beach Drive,and the Management Town of Avila. 87. Los Osos Evaluation and development of a wastewater treatment Complete Wastewater system for Los Osos,California. Proj ect 88. Oak Shores Proposed upgrades and improvements to the County Service Approved Wastewater Area No.7A(CSA-7A)Wastewater Treatment Facility in Treatment the community of Oak Shores. Facility Upgrade 89. Price Canyon Widening of Price Canyon Road between Ormonde Road Tentative Road Widening and Highway 227 near Edna,California. 90. Tefft Street at Reconfiguration of the U.S. l O1 and Tefft Street interchange Planning Review U.S. 101 to reduce back up on the U.S. 101 off-ramps,improve Interchange capacity on Tefft Street,and improve intersection operations. 9L Templeton Reconfiguration of the U.S. 101 and Main Street Planning Review Main Street at Interchange in the community of Templeton. U.S. 101 Interchange STATE PROJECTS 92. Cal Poly Implementation of planned facilities and improvements Planning Review Master Plan phased over a timeline of 20 years. 93. Caltrans Construction of new Caltrans District 5 Headquarters Planning Review Headquarters building and yard along the Buckley Road Extension. Note: Cumulative projects 1-83 and 92-93 located within the City andlor the vicinity of the Project site are shown in Figure 3.0-1.While cumularive projects 84-91 are not located in the vicinity of the Project site, these projects are idenrified as having the potenrial to contribute towards cumulative effects. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3-9 Final EIR 12902 LEGEND � Project Site � ��' 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area � � Cumulative Project Location 4 0 California Polytechnic State University � r ? �},��— � Park/Open Space FOOTHILL BOULEVARD Q � � Incorporated City � I� San Luis Obispo County Y � � -� Note:Cumulative project numbers correspond � `�� to those presented in Table 3.0-1. �� 41 60 36 Q e ,� � � � � �69 �` � � � 0 �� 3 � �P V-9� 5 � C` 18 �CaJ�gP 44 59�9 � � 31 16`�63 � ,p0 46 � s � 40 �9 9`r�'� � 5 6 � 09� ��'� O � 9F�,T � � � Q _ _ f;o13 �- -- � � . � 227 �✓ 1 � � ; 31 49 48 LnAunQ Lake � OQ'� 58 13 �0 P � o��P San Luis �� P° 83 Obispo I n I I � !-�LJ__f�' �� 11 1 68� � Q 144 19 ORCUT�T ROAD 33 0 0 � 61 o,p p`f' 0 81 �� 43 �cG 9 O�G � � � �"9p �<<� � 80 �2� qo _�� g�56 64 9� O — � : 38 0 O �� 1Q � � � TANK FARM ROAD 39 66 � �� O � SUBURBAN ROAD _ a � 4Q 8Q � . a � z � � O � 101 193 BUCKLEYROAD ��0� 227 � SCALE IN FEET N 0 3,000� wOOd. Cumulative Projects FIGURE 3.0-1 3-10 12903 31 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 Proj ect. 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 � _ _ = ; u a..,�_._ _ _ ,.;,�, �- � . view corridors. The hills ridges and �� > ��"�`�'��+�� # -�� > > � �� •�� j �� u� h `v' a..'_ outcroppings, including the Irish ' F `� ;�� _�. �- <�� '{� � Hills, Cerro San Luis Obispo, and ,�,�w,�� .:��' �`' �� ` � �� ,,�� Bishop Peak, provide recognizable ��=�V - `�� '�� .��a ��%, �: ,w � physical landmarks within the City q��a`�'"; w� _, ,,,�; �;� •� �,, ` �� anCl V1Sually frame the C1ty 1ri 1ts Visuul r-esources in the City ar•e cler•ived fi-om its r�utcir-al setting against hillsides and open space areas, including natural COnteXt. The tOpOgl'aphy Of the Irish Hills along the southern edge of the City, as well the hlllsldes has als0 COnstralned as the City's rich history embodied in historic structures and settings.Source:hikespeak.com development to lower elevations, creating a defined edge to the City. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-1 Final EIR 12904 31 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 - . � �- ��: � `� � • r , ' [ � f ��':� . f _ -.r— ,�, ;,. r, . , -r�� '� � �l L � �L a ' M1� _r ��. � '� in •L a —. — �Sz�� y � M1 ' •. . . �. _ + - � � � �� ' #� t �aE �� '��"'� �Cy!+_.+�� _ _ �.�� ' �i�-�_�_I..a=!� r�- ' �- .i: � f � , ' _' . � -c--� � • � • .* �: � � ��r�i� _ , - " � . �;:�.�.' � � -� . � . _ � ` .. • �- 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. 31-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12905 31 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-storyz a�proximately 35-foot-tall 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. lOL 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 ��' ,:, fi �� - � � �loai�� ,� _ a ,� r - 9 .. ' " , �_ '... E1 �jy . ' � .�- ��~-._ ._,:... �r ��y, F�_3w:_y.�'::� a;"It�'?�� ,��i ��_ , v �.., -; _ � ' tt.�r - ..-.�. . Y�m . _ ... :. . � tn � . '� � � � ' � � � - p�`,� .'�,�� .. . � .. _ -, .::,. ..•-�. .. �'w, .. ' ��.. � - � .,.. .. �- _ __ . ,_�' �" z,... � -- . _.. .,.. _ r�+� �` _ _, _ �i�t��' .ey"', .�- : � Uiews of the Ir^ish Hills and the undeveloped areas of the P��oject site are available fi^om the LOUR Overpass, with foreground views of riparian wilZow 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 5pecific Plan 3.1-3 Final EIR 12906 31 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 � �-. . �,��ry�,: ��..:�''�i�"��-�.::�`-:r.+l�,�= .>, '-s»�,a�t" � n �* °�W' �t W' '�`'' �t v9 µ ; ... � �d.y._�Sms�.�.ti.:::� `�"�,'r"��''�',4�ww~'...*'� ,�. ��: ,_;� -� .. de° . �.��i�t =-r� M A.�� ' ��*-x�'� _ . .. . .. � .. . ,v. . � � � ��'4.. „ _� t �� `t, '��7� .. �'x�. t Yi$ .. ,a� � � S . I�� y�y�..Sa. ,°�i,��.�� ; , 'R � K � ,`�i � ..' 1.tik L � �.' \ i� ' � RF' .. n '� J s� - . ��`�` � ��# � ! . . �e F��',�, 4J 4 ` 1 � ,� ,." f q� K r �T '(1 � ��r,,� / �-'li.,`�. ��' ��,..:�L�;..t,�'N�.'`.+�.� �� ., ..�'�.u�sv..�l�kt.aw.�1t�.�� !'� . .s .. �_��,r,.. Froo�n 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. 31-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12907 31 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 adj acent 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 ��: � _ �_�,�e� -��$�.�, _ �, vegetation and development within —�- ,:. ,.�.- _ . �F:� „�`` "�� -�-�-�.� �-. the Irish Hills Plaza, and is also „�.,,,�,.. 4 a.�-z ��,, �� _ :-.�.� visible from atop the LOVR , „�� ; . - Overpass. Immediately behind the •� - - ' The northwestern area of the Project site is developed COmplex, the gY'aVel ext�'aCtlOn qual�'y with the Froom Ranch Dairy complex and existing quarry and equipment/materlals storage and constr�uction storage area, which is visible fi^om public trails in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. areas lie adjacent to Froom Creek at Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-5 Final EIR 12908 31 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. �,:,_ ,s�: � �; ` �: �" �:� F The Upper Terrace has varied topography and �`r, �;� � � f ..`�1�.` �3„��;�� > rock outcroppings that provide visual interest. ��- � �r� ��_ '��" � - Vegetation in the Upper Terrace is richer and - �F ._,� i�"".;1�''. � . � r �� ' �k; more varied, providing mature trees, riparian y.� ' � � . corridors, natural drainages, and often �. � �" `� �� `� `��' � ''� � wildflower-filled open grasslands. The Upper ? $ Y �t��» y �� '�� A� ` Terrace's visual qualities blend seamlessly with �, , `,. r '`�r, _` , �.��,'„ those of the Irish Hills. The Irish Hills r";a �`r`�'.`, �_�� r�,��'�� topographic forms are a dominant background The so�ilnvesiern area oJ� lhe Project site contains diverse natural communities within vlew to the west. The Uppel' TeI'Y'aCe ls 21s0 drainages and woodland areas in the Upper hlghly vlslble to tY211 uSeYs wlthln the IYlsh Hllls Terrace of the Projectsite. This area is highly visible to trail users within the Irish xills Natural Reserve trail system, including Neil lvatural Reserve. 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 � � � � ,��,�:,�,-,�.."�...�.�+ �:' � � �: x compositional values that can be seen from k �,,� � a-� s�-a-� � ��` � 4 x` �;W '-----. . public viewpoints. The term "vista" generally " '�'� �. �� - ' �� .�+. : + �t'"i.. implies an expansive view, usually from an ��r � �� 'a� �' . �r�� :�� ' elevated point or open area. The City General �•��_� � ��...:;�� '� � _, ��r�� Plan Conservation and Open Space Element The City's COSE of the General Plan (COSE) has deslgnated a SCen1C vlsta designates a scenic vista overlooking the Project site from the Filipponi Ranch and overlooking the Upper Terrace of the Project Johnson Ranch Trail in the Irish xills Natural � Reserve. Source:hikespeak.com site (City of San Luis Obispo 2006). This ' The COSE identifies cones of view in Figure 11: Scenic Roadways and Vistas. 31-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12909 31 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 `"�� $��`��'��`��'`"=�� -'..A� ;.y�rMs: Y.�,a.:....�'� �-- -�: vista is accessible from the Froom Ranch- '� � � '�"`` �`� .,z � ,�-t �� '��' •�,,, , __ . - 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, �a�, �,-��r ��.�: � � r -� the Upper Terrace is visible from this vista ��'�'`�'=-��' � � with mid-range views of the lower w �`�� °�'� �".'��"�� - - . � elevations of the site, including the � ,,;,��"''` �� " � �� '� .� � proposed stormwater detention basin area. :,� , # . � � � �y x ��, 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 ��, � � � '��'��.,.,� �� '�,�� J �'N�� Hills Natural Reserve. Over 10 miles of ��; �,�:� -��--,_-�'�� :�.` - _ public trails within the Irish Hills Natural - ` ' Y __ _: :�.. Reserve offer broad public views across the � +�. ��- ��,1., «.; ': Project site to the east. Existing foreground .�E � - ' 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, � � � - ��T, � Mountainbrook Church). Background � �� '��i�� .�_ - �..; - -_ views include the hills and mountain ran es ��"� �' �� -� - � g � �� y �� in the greater San Luis Obispo area. The � most clear and persistent views of the � ��•�`- Views from the trails in the Irish Hills Natural Proj ect site are available along nearly 2 Reserve provide sweeping views across the Project m11es of the following pub11C tralls; these site to the east.Pictured here,Neil Havlik Way and the Froom Creek Connector Ti^ail provide a public tralls Comprlse a popular 1nteYYnedlate scenic vista east toward mountains, hillsides, and open space intermittently interrupted by low density development. Source:hikespeak.com Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-7 Final EIR 12910 31 AESTHETICS hiking-only loop in the Irish Hills with a trailhead immediately adjacent to the existing onsite quarry: • Fr�oom 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, such as Irish Hills Plaza, against a background of distant mountains and open sky. Views include activities associated with Irish Hills Plaza at Costco, Home Depot, TJ Max, and Home Depot for loading dock activities, which include maneuvering, idlin�, and offloading of heavy commercial distribution trucks, trucks passin tg hrough the alle�peration of forklifts, parking for passenger vehicles, equipment stora�e, and trash stora_�e and icku . • 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, as described above. 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 31-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12911 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES region. Views of the Project site from identified key viewing areas are further described below in Section 3.1.3.2,Impact Assessment Methodology. Scenic Roadways and Highwa� 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. Driver views of the Proj ect site last a�roximatelv two seconds. 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 5pecific Plan 3.1-9 Final EIR 12912 31 AESTHETICS � �` �, �— _ - Ik ��'�.< Il.�� ,� '[ ��.�.,[[�� M -- _'_- � _ �. �y ��y,,- w!'Al-..'1-�-i�il�fa �i. 4 .,.. �.��1a. - .' �.b--Z"aJr__��`�+ T �Y . - � . � ' "o�' �.`t ""i+K' !'�� _ � ,e.�.,�� -�+�,_`-r`, '+it.�,. � � ;'�'i�'�'�. ��''�'+��^,�� . 'i - .. . a. � r+a-t:- .�y�, .. � ► . _ y��:�vFRr.ti-. Views along LOVR (southbound) afford a combinatior� of low-lying urban clevelopriient to the east ancl natural open views to the west across the Project site. Source: Google 2019. Approximately 300 feet south of the Project site, the LOVR Overpass (over U.S. 101) � provides elevated views over the Project site for a�roximatelv 2.2 seconds. 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 panaramic 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 far 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). 31-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12913 31 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 Proj ect. State and local regulations that are directly relevant to the Proj ect are summarized below. 3.1.2.1 State Caltrans Scenic Hi�hway Pro�r, am 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 5pecific Plan 3.1-11 Final EIR 12914 31 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: 31-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12915 31 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 5pecific Plan 3.1-13 Final EIR 12916 31 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 Proj ects,including signs,in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as "sensitive" and require architectural review. B Development proj ects 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. 31-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12917 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Consei^vation 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 5pecific Plan 3.1-15 Final EIR 12918 31 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 31-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12919 31 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 Desi�n 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 5pecific Plan 3.1-17 Final EIR 12920 31 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 Proj ect. 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 3.1.31 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; 31-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12921 31 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 Apri125, 2019. Field notes and photographs of existing visual resources of Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-19 Final EIR 12922 31 AESTHETICS 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. 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 31-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12923 p� . - �. . �C EL, _ �d . �F6�'. � `y�� . F�� .' � " ,.� �: �;� ��., � a \ iyl�, � . `�"�yy &�� ' ,' _ `��3" �`, � s s � �� \\�J��. � F�gt v ��H,tm � t�ti�- �`•,_ ,��,. ... '�v , . .�, l .��-. „� % siS' 3C ,,, .k�� ,r R. . '� �� t i� .�< ..C�.,�� . y�'\ s�.` `"o.�, '� �. �9:_ .. � :�r, � >� e . . �'J�� . t � {. �r' Y Y'` . 3�*A��. �� ` :.+�� '� KVA. �"�C J"�. ✓ .k ` �`�.�! f� _ ��wi�.+.i�..'N _.' � ��r�� •:� yY1�� I� � 2 �.y�&� .�`� / �Y � � . ' _ N P_. .� �� A., �'7 � � � ♦ � v��. �� . � �+.,} �. �"'F�`l'� d `f�'��y ��/" � A� : _ ��. ^ ��t+' t:c ��►� [l/t� �\. . �:� � ,1 t .:Gl / \�i�/ .e�T, �':�ef(,;. �!� s l.� ��0 �. �� q� .�, F . �'�y{ ��. �'e� -+q , �' . t , � ' k�' �G'. • ��,ty ��., s�"� :� - a c�. O�t ��.. � < �«`� �,. �� ,��sr��{� � ,. � • `�+..`� . . � _��. � ' � . ,p�� ,� • �,�Y �� ;� 4 � ``>> k 4,. ��/ . � � ^�, t � � Jy. � � � , ( v �.:�`,c• �e .a � a.Y ��i �:`�� w..wMdc� �. � � �M�:m �\r`,�` �„ v-��/ :.�.--'— � j� t�,.�• � � {� �� +• �' � � ', �� V�- -'Y � .. _- . . /E/F G• „"y �✓� . "�. . . , '�, �� •� a �' .. , , ./ �J ? ,� KVA �i .�"'- rt �i $�+► iJ� i„�yt � 1 /�i,, �x�. � � � '�� rY� '¢� � ��G �� +w t'",��,� sR t ��'}. , 3 �' �`=�4 : �,, ii o; - i >. .. . / _ .. . � i;, � .< �'�c. . , ---�... - � �t. -. i i Q� t.C; k'�'� ,,,�•b �-:+'i.: �1� �� O `.`, � (�rt 'J Pl��/ ��!`�, �sk F� ' _,. g „`� '�.�� ' �'' , { : � :/ "�5,. "�. • �� t� 'a ,�� I . r .� (` '�,{101 �� - . {' • �' s� � :��1 ;��'i ,��t _ - �r Ir ♦ / ff; � •''` � . S: : �� . 'i �. �"c� `�,. r. ' �` ' " �'-' �� *�'.+�Q� � ,• /� ' �+%'�� <_� ,`� � „� � ` � ��I�`�r1'."•' u�. � �; � ,:- �" � ,,,.� .�R �`� ,��sc_.% .ev„� � KVA ��;� r v�� ♦ ��,`' 3 //�c �. � s �t ��t; i�`�� ,�9 � t�`�. .�' ��,ka � h • '+ �,?�M��i i �f y t � i *�. '� •• ��i :4.....�� . • ��h� s�. �F��/:�`'+� / �// � ' -c ��: 4.�� y, �''".�' . i ' � . ��' �.�;b� �k K 3.. `�♦ �� ',�C"� ,�# y ��`��H, ,! �: �� ,� .i• ,. w ''�:e �,��. . � .�.. �_ _' �: a.� " ' • . e� � _s . � , - .. ,� >. �: �� r ,�;�;.{ . ,� < <. � � ,� . r •' '�a, ,o;`� s!.�►�� 1. : ;t�: . � y�..� i �. ./ «y �F .:� . c � •�?F f,?•'F '�r'� \ - , �:s < �• . � . . '�,y3" - . � '�� '�`' ':e �?� � :P �.�� .�•�'�� -- y,, ' ♦ .. � � ... � � . � .� � f •�+�_ .♦.� I � = a��. f�. � . � - �r'� .' � . �. . � ,+ .f �: s' .r �; r. � • �" ..�� ..i . �. .. .. F .. � . . ,� p +.` �� • '! i i1�� . . ,�. " y "� ��y��y� .w �� ♦�� `�i s.� {� 4��'' �� '*��`I��!�" , ��y �• �• ` . 3' ��: `� ; � �� •` �♦ �R'S.. •� �� 4 �F ��, �•• . �.d .. �� '� `�d. d 5� I �� .. w�y .�. . '�� $ � h }t'74�L\�r� q�:� k rY ,j I / $. �� 4 � � ,r y�� !�' � E` .�. a„< � �� '�� ry s$, °� ''nr ` ' i � ;� r;:,�i' � j � ��" �,`� �,t�`�.r '5..: -� / ' a,i+.,,,y�c.._. �� '. 1 1`' s�+� � . . �..+�y, � 4� t�,..� ` �, �:.� FV � _ A,✓�. �*4� t�"' . Sil ` • Jo..�yf ,.� � . . ��' " .�� . .� u . �, r� � . '�� ' r � � ' ., j_... � °1�'- \� � � .�� ,. r KVA � a ,�, �_,.�� ., � �.�� „� +� �� 5 ��rt� ," �,�tt t< � r� , , ,. � . , .,•. .ev, t - ..;: ,�� . , _ _ ,. .., �" LEGEND � Project Site Q Quarry KVA KVA Viewing Location # and Number � � Froom Ranch �2 Froom Ranch Dairy Complex Specific Plan Area 3.2-Acre Existing Detention SCALE IN FEET � Irish Hills Natural Reserve � Basin for Irish Hills Plaza Public Trail �4 Calle Joaquin Wetlands 0 600 Aerial Source:Google 2018. wOOd. KVA Locations FIGURE 3. 1-1 129�.1-21 31 AESTHETICS 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. 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. �;�, �.::,��,, r ,':p��, r.,g-� , ,.� ....�,.,,l-:'.:.:. � , x �� relYb'fY��_ � k+��.� '1.I-�•�:��a... � t"t�,f,.. 1.�,. �., � �w� '�- 'i� �_ � � . •� .�� . , � , .�i� � - a�, r � �; .,� <� ��;� .... _: „ �. �, � � __ _ `� �� - � ` � • -- '� - _ ,� --� — � -- . , ��_ � ��. _ . -°��„ , The Project site is generally not visible fi^om U.S. 101. lntervening 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. 31-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12925 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 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. 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 Proj ect 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 Proj ect 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 ConnectoN Trail looking east This KVA represents east-facing views of the Proj ect 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 S: 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-23 Final EIR 12926 31 AESTHETICS 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. 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 VIS-1.Project implementation would change views MM VIS-1 Less than Significant of scenic resources,including hillsides,rock with Mirigation outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings, � from an eli_ig ble State Scenic Highway or local scenic roadway. VIS-2. The Project would significantly impact the MM VIS-1 Significant and existing visual character of the site by changing a Unavoidable rural setting to a commercial and residential setting, particularly as viewed from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve trail system. VIS-3. The Project would introduce a new source of None Less than Significant nighttime light,impacting the quality of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light. Impact VIS-1 Project implementation would change views of scenic resources, including hillsides, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic Ibuildings, from an eligible 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, ar 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 31-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12927 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 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 direction, as described below. The Froom Ranch Dairy complex is not substantially visible from U.S. 101 (refer to KVA 1). T � ' -_ ` �i e�._. -�! �\�`� '° , _ --� — — � ` �� , i — t 'j .j I � � 7 . « � � s-}i �'Y`�.� . . {;� �: .s � .. �-. �. y+ . � XOTICE r � r - � "�''�J.��'r ._ '�I CLOSED ,�:� '.��k� ^ T- c � - ,�a "� l�il �s . � � ,�,�� ► i �_�« � � -� �: �� . F_ ��. n-xo niau�z� .—.� . .. . ..- � { 9PM-6AY �- � ~ 4 � `�� - ".. S�� i ,�.`� .,�� ,�. . ._ - , ��,�` - 'la-: '' �� - . _ ;; �' . _-.. ,��, �¢5 _.v .,:- �1r�.5ti�i . . ss.h i�, s��'• _ ._ �� \_ . m`-' , . _ _a:.<. - . `� - . . _ - ��y-'_- � . � - _—_-_ - _-- - � " �� KVA 1:Fleeting distant views of the Project site are available fi�oin 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 inid-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 fi^om U.S. 101. T � J� _ _ � ,.t.r _ . _ �� . _ � � �� '�' '� " 'r .:°` - . 1�'r Y' . " .o a _.— .. .: � f w� �.. r ana 4 f � � ,.- ,:% u.7 R �' ` ,�}' �31,v c,k ,�y uXy `—t i ,��7�,., �^r y-. b,��' t .$2 k . _�i°°A �I(1'�,1 4 ? � � ��'�� once �a�. sr� �� 'S � �'.�`��,�: _ ��.'Cti'« r ' �� ,,; ��'� _ . 'r��y_ I `CLOSED �� V ,µ. �.� l ...: i`r x ^�. � � � � �; ,.� ��.� .�°ir�� .,�'��:r ��, � � '.� , II-20 ihRU R� e x��v474� �� r�:��) i�� 9PM-64� . t' $ A� . ��. �. .,. . " . . � . T� ?..:�. ��.{,". .._. ' :.�a . . � _ _ .. ...<::_ � '� _� _ .: l . ..'� .j� _ = ya\4 � -`_ - - -°�� ` - 1 � — -- - — ` ' � — . _..^,y'�``;, '�a i._x` � ��°a Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-25 Final EIR 12928 31 AESTHETICS The Project site is not clearly visible for northbound drivers as U.S. 101 is angled eastward away from the Proj ect along this segment and northbound views toward the site are blocked by topography, vegetation, and existing commercial development (e.g., four multi-story 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. lOL KVA 1 models the potential change to a channelized view from U.S. lOL This KVA affords southbound drivers a momentary glimpse of the Upper Terrace of the Project site from southbound U.S. lOL 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 31-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12929 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES site would not substantially change visible scenic resources for southbound drivers on U.S. 101. 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 Ove�pass 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 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-27 Final EIR 12930 31 AESTHETICS . �,, , . - - . . . �� 3,� �. �: �.-.. . ._., ; - � -- -, ;. .„ ,. t., �• ��"`_�-�'_,�,:i=��i`� �� w�.,.� ,� _++�'a. - - � � . � i.' _ �'9f�.,_.y.,..J. .,..� .. _. �`:� :� .. ,., . .. �. 'd`_ - � __ : ..; � ` �,. �I; _._ ic i, ;�� f�LL� � � � �� -� ��k�`� �..` - KVA 2: The Project site is visually obscured behind dense willow riparian vegetation of I S 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 f'ollowing 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 rerreove the thick vegetation in the LOVR ditch currently providing visual screening of the Project site. :� �: , Jf! � •��,m rr� `'�: � � +� III�JI u r�f � ,� r� � ��..r�,._:_ ' �,.!s,`�f,�o _ , �� . --..+a$ ,��xwsa�,.,r�� s £,:� .. �� ,:��..f .:�.. - ' _ ._ - - - _ _ f -- - v � � =_-=— --- ' . �....�.„.�_ --_- � � . � .< •�-�;i.: .... ..<: .: ".- _ �w ��-� y�..� �-`�^-„� -. ��. -.. � . � . . . . . u .> 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.� 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 andrelocation ofFroom Creek, construction activities 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. 31-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12931 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES would be visible for the full construction duration from both LOVR and the LOVR Overpass. 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 '" F��?' ~`�`F�`+t, �� . ' • a(i�1 .. — �. � � � 1 ��971�] - � .,-�'• p_ �� 'aA -- ! -_�; � _ �_ - -- ,d,g$,��-�4� -Y�' � �� V�, _ - -9,"'-��in.Cr�__ �!�'a�- . ' • � + ..�- , ��,. � .- ' :.. .,• .. ��e ll- , ...� ._ r ,. . . � ._ p .,�,,�� _." �' � g_rr - 'tJ�'-�.` ;=��., ;; � ; , _ � _ � +�'u$� �::. �: ` �� r �,�~ I -- � `� _. _ - _ � �..,�;.�a$^~�`...�� : �,... . � : KVA 3: Views of the Project sile fi-om the LOUR Overpass are mostl�� blocked l�y vegetation and the existing multi-story hotels in the foreground. This KVA afford.s an open view of the Project, incZuding 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. _� � '�_`'"�'�_ `�. � A�x:� �_,_ �T � � 1 1 i]I 1] ,,dp� __ „� - - ��if`{ •q� � �� _�'�. r1 .r. . � .. �f ..=.� .,..:..r� •` � .. .. -� - �� J . . � �� .'1 .-'F'�R ' , . __" _ b .11 �f""i'''��.'V� �� '�_- I I . _ / i0 - _ � t/ t -k r � ` �.. .... �2..�:' . . 1D .% !�{ �r. .. � � � — '� �� 4 r.: . �. • � .i � �I r I .II— _...- � �+-' . __ "_ �;.��arl� .� . .. �=.f�� ... Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.1-29 Final EIR 12932 31 AESTHETICS 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[fJ). None of these 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 31-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12933 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 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. Calle.Ioaquin 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 str�uctural massing as experienced f�om 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 pNotection of existing vegetation along the Project site boundary to provide visual screening during Project construction and operation. �2.Retain existin��etation e rontin� the P�oiect site alon� LOVR to the ��eatest extent feasible to screen constr~uction activities. �3.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-. Robust ri�arian�lanting shall be included in landsca�e �lans to achieve visual screening alon� the pro�osed reali�ned Froom Creek. �4.Native tree specimens and shr~ubs capable of reaching or exceeding the heights of the adjacent p�oposed sti^uctures shall be planted along Project site bounda�ies visible from public views. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-31 Final EIR 12934 31 AESTHETICS �S.Screening planting specimen selection and location shall emphasize the ability to inte�rupt the contiguous massing of sti^uctures as experienced from a�ea roadways and scenic vistas. Spacing shall be sufficient to minimize views of structures within the Project site. �6.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 consideNed 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. �7.Native tree specimens capable of reaching or exceeding the heights of adjacent structures shall be planted adjacent to multi family and commercial str�uctures located within the interior of the Specific Plan area consistent with the specifications above. �8.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 Timin�. 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, outside of buildin� sites shall be in place prior to issuance of building permits for each phase of the Project. Landscape plantin�s, including irri,gation, within building sites shall be in place prior to occupancv for each phase. 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 31-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12935 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 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. 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 174 multi-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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-33 Final EIR 12936 31 AESTHETICS 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 Ihotels to the south, Mountainbrook Church to the southwest, 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 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 31-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12937 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 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 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 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 Proj ect,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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-35 Final EIR 12938 31 AESTHETICS 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 Proj ect site. While activities associated with Irish Hills Plaza such as fuel stations and loadin�docks are present, the existin,g character of the view faces urban development from a rural settin�. The Project site can be viewed as natural buffer between commercial and urban development within the City and the natural landscapes of the Irish Hills. 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 �-.-,-�__�_ _ _ ��.�'ye�--.,.� € �_.-,.,,,�,,.��'-='��. ��"'�� >� - �!'•' '�,w-�yi�fa}�;- �'!["�.'�7�..+lcr.�.�� K �.,b W ,�,.,��..,.��/11�-`t``��+��R� _ Y' �yv ��h. xJ9 �1 � 1 M �in��x � �� -�� :.� � y�,�:_ .:� 4� ,�aL{.°�'f!n ,x�."'��+r',�f�i.O� y3w�m �t� �..� a �1 � � �°�' �`� ��,�� '� . �- p�/�' ; .. �� Y .i.,n �'��'Y^J�s'��V ;� s�"� � r r :�,�.tA,�a� . ,i i� eih' AT "� _��k�' -C� 4� �:, x � �� p �� : -,�fo�,+ : y�x. .,, h t?��"@ � � �Y .��,�,t� � � r . _. . �.-4.�-?. 1-'.'i.�i°'�9". T��°:?�" i. . �, _ ' `:WWi?. `�� . .,�Y `"� . '�'.�d.'Y� KVA 4: T/iewa�of existing historic structur•es, business operationa�, ar�d open spczce withiri 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. �- , _ A � �,��.� �... ;. ,,;.. � �_ M Nt��'k.�-��Y��S��J�YLt'�� . .. ._ �.s,�`�=,:��._,�;� �.� � �a _■ "�'�*��_"'`ro� �� _.� � � � �(�,"","�"_,-,7 �• i ^' :� �. �'OT� � - � s„ �ti:. �_1'�.. - w.+r i . —r-;,�� . �."l� L t , " 'fi' .r '� �sK a, ��' �, ,�+ic�`_��,a �._. � ' y �'...f�' � s � ' , �� s. ,•�' � I'��. �y�'• � � � � �'_ �'�" - ' + � �� .�<,�" � "�m�x � , rl� m— ' - �� i � � t"` �x,, � >t � � K,n�� .�r�,-.,� �s1� 2a � � '��}�y'�;4r�`° ' .�b,��e. v� '�y�d,'�" '.� . �� N� 4��.. f�e��' . . .��.. �NY�> . . ....-:. �.. ;.�C.,, _.,.�.�_� 31-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12939 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES �.,., :,�� -- - "�-- --��•p��.',�. � ,,, t�+�^--°'ar�:. �.��.. �-;. � .�r►� :-��,� - - � .;�«w. ,,,. ��;' �� - , y � .:,�.:��;:� �,. .,� �� -:,� , - � '*M .a .. �+�.�,� .. �d. ...'��_. - '�A_. �� „ ' h,�.�''^�� ;q►�, �;,c•;"-- -'^�-`ui1� �I, Y . _— F Y.14 y _ �``.''�M�:,,$ �a� � �.� . +e'm"�� " -,.__. 1-a�! �!!!IIlICJ� _ k�Q*+.� ,�. ;'e'+ � � ��=x� •. �_w •E � '� '..��+�a+r.+�raa.>„o,".ti � ,�-�. ��. �` �. . � ' __ �r�- � �. ..,.. . �_. ,... . ._ � . . . � -._ . . .... . �... .,.. . �...�,,.s�u.: . . . _ —i KVA 5: Views of the open space currently existing onsite are provided fi^om 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 INish Hills Natural Reserve or surrounding hillsides fi^om this ti^ail. T . .�<��_ � ��-� y.:��;��`�� _ -� _� .� . � .� . ` � _ �� .�'.�� .-� !� I ,. _ ��• �� .�:.*-;.- � -� ��-��.��.�.�� .7t� � -.,`,'�. a�.�.s',, ' >.,_ , . �. �I!�it°�Ylrw�.�` _i`tiv'�-. �ca.�`i+�_.��T, .. � ` .\ \ � I� li -- r � � � , , ' .� - .�y .. :::...�,.a.r�'�e -�ul!.... r�ir.. -!1711�'�� 9� .. :p.r':'I'�. , 4.� I f r�r.D..rs `�} . . � W��ib1+�. �,.�� ` '��R��•,,_ � �� " I�� , ' � . � ��:;f�:. 'g� ��N..,}�k.y �. �� ,. . �� Yu �p e .�Y '99�' ��1t�.._ . ."��e�..'7CK�,��. .. . _ v g 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-37 Final EIR 12940 31 AESTHETICS 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. While the overall hei�ht of this Prolect component would be similar in scale to adjacent Mountainbrook Church, �development of the Upper Terrace would be highly visible and extensive 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. 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 Church.Further,analysis ofboth visual susceptibility and visual severity ofProject 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 wouldbe 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 31-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12941 31 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 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 Proj ect 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 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,P�oject 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.1-39 Final EIR 12942 31 AESTHETICS 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 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. 31-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12943 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes agricultural resources and evaluates the potential impacts of the Proj ect on site-specific and regional agricultural ` -�,.,,;r `�,�, �, resources. Agricultural resources consist of any _— . � �+a��,,�`ry q� r�► d�k farmland with potential for agricultural „. �y��-. � ' ��'° x�� -; °� � s`:- �. �� j � � .r productivity based on soil and farmland ��,��;� `�'�� °� �� .�,�" �-x�:� „�, ,� ..� characteristics. Prime soils are superior or �,`�`^ ��`�� s��:��4 �� . .� � �' � �, � unique soils as identified by the U.S. ' � � "�� <� " `��'. �� . �.a�',�a r1��4_'`,I� n4'_ �. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural z'1�� Pf-o/e�t s�z� �•oF�t��s u �.1-a�r�� op�� space and agricultural conservation Resources ConseYVation SeYVice (NRCS). As easement and supports soils classified as ldentlfied by the State Of CallfOrnla, ImpOrtant prime, if irrigated, by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). See page 3.2- Farmlands contain soils best suited for 12 for further discussion. 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.i 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 ' The FMMP also assesses the location,quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and monitors the conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.2-1 Final EIR 12944 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 '�-` ,�✓ �� : ,:�, a1�r.�"-,��;� with the former Froom Ranch Dairy since at least _;`� , ,�� __ �� ,,��`� ��,�, ,,,� 1844 (Appendix F). The proposed stormwater �""" ��'��'� ' � `�� y � � yo � -� �. ' detention basin area is undeveloped and there is no ��`�"�� `�� ` � �� t � � 4•�'� I 'r ' '�i record of agricultural operations on this portion of �� a�rr��` '��.�_� �o„m�:::�` .n., the Pro�eCt Slte. The Project site has historically been used for grazing, currently for horses. Portions of the site are also identified as Farmland According to the FMMP, the Project site contains of Local Potential by the F�1NtP. While approximately 67.6 aCres of Farmland of LoCal the site formerly served as grazing for the historic Froom Ranch Dairy, there is no Potential, which are lands having prime or reco�d o�cultivation on the site. 3.2-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12945 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. LEGEND �` .,�. :.yl'� \�'��8��. �,1� <.. '' a4� � , � � °e'`+r2�(1 � � 0 Project Site ti y/ � *,�� '�,, �� . a .�y� i�. �� .\ �,.6e�". � FMMP Designation �a a -'�� Grazing Land ,� � �` � �.��' . � , � � � Farmland of Local Potential ,� . ..�� ' �4�� , � . Urban and Built-Up Land : .. ; , .,7 . O�her Land :t� � R �� ' . '��J �V�Z �� • hs •' aF � t t''�� eE'.. �,� :�:i 4�� y1 � �� . . F, FV��X� , �� .�.�'�T`�� _ . . . . ..:.. 1� , ^� �f r :t� i Y` �� •�,% � � �,_. ,. .. i ..,... y� JkY�1i:.,/\ *'� I.• �•� �1 4 '� �� '�.�� ;�� ' �, ,� ,.. � �.,�..:` -,� : . < �a? ',,;; l: , t"<�p,. +�' . .R i ��.. � �°`� ,_l,$,�. � �.__ � i � �� r�,$�" ( � �-.� � 3 h LT �-" I .� ..; ,.�� ' . .��t'� w �;`.. SCALE IN FEET ,y�,; ' , ' ;�* � � ��9t� ��`. � I �•.�!r' �; w . T 0 1,000 � Lf�° � Q�� . Aerial Source:Google 2018. � � ,- �s.,, - WOO�. Agricultural Resources FIGURE within the Project Site 3 2-1 Table 3.2-1. Project Site FMMP Resources ' i � i •i � i ' � � � , , � � � , � � . , , , _ . � _ Farmland of Local Potential 62.4 5.2 67.6 58.3% Grazing 44.5 1 J 46.2 39.8% Urban/Built-Up and Other 2.2 0.1 2.3 2.0% 'Totals do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. A�ricultural Soils within the Proiect 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 5pecific Plan 3.2-3 Final EIR 12946 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 IL 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 Final EIR 12947 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Table 3.2-2. Specific Plan Area Soil Capabilities � � � . � - , � • , � - � � � • � � ii ' � • � �� ' _� , i ' i � 127 Cropley clay 43.8 (40.3°/o) IIs IIIs prime(if 0 to 2 Medium irrigated) 130 Diablo and Cibo 16A(14.7%) IIIe IIIe Non-prime 9 to 15 Very high clays 131 Diablo and Cibo �3 (6.7%) IVe IVe Non-prime 15 to 30 Very high clays 162 Los Osos—Diablo 1.8(1.6%) Ilie IIIe Non-prime 5 to 9 Very high complex 164 Los Osos—Diablo 14.5 (13.3%) VIe VIe Non-prime 15 to 30 Very high complex 183 Obispo—Rock 21.8 (20.0%) VIIe VIIe Non-prime 15 to 75 Very high outcrop complex Xerets—Xerolls— 221 Urban land 0.7(0.6%) VIII VIII Non-prime 0 to 15 Very high complex 300 Corducci—Typic 2 9(2.7%) N/A VIe Non-prime 0 to 5 Very low Xerofluvents Notes: IR=irrigated;1VI=non-irrigated. �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 ar II capabiliries as prime(NCRS 2016). Source:NRCS 2018. Table 3.2-3. Proposed Stormwater Detention Basin Area Soil Capabilities . � • � � � , , '�� • �� ., � . ,� � � • � � , �� 127 Cropley clay 01 (1.8%) IIs IIIs prime(if 0 to 2 Medium Water irrigated) availability 197 Salinas silty 3.7� I IIIc prime(if 0 to 2 Negligible Water clay loam (62.2/o) irrigated) availability Xerets— Water 221 Xerolls— ��o VIII VIII Non-prime 0 to 15 Very high availability/ Urban land (36.0/o) complex well drained Notes: IR=irrigated;�=non-irrigated. �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 5pecific Plan 3.2-5 Final EIR 12948 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 meet the definition of prime a�ricultural land under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzber� Local Government Reor�anization Act (CKH Act) and are conservatively considered to be prime soils. LEGEND y�.. 1,�+ -y`r \,{ .,� c�afw.'"�`S . �^�,�� '�.k 0 Project Site °1 f�.�.. \ t' ( '�"�'�� `�L�, �: I� 'K 1� i�, ""� 'F �"a � Soils - � �� e - y � �� Cropley Clay 2 5%Slopes �� '��,�_ . � �� .��" :�� -'�, „ �� ,. . � Diablo and Cibo Clays 9-75%Slopes � �� ,f�� DiabloandCiboClays-15-30%Slopes � �� , �� CLos Osos-Diablo Complex-5-9%Slopes � ,�-,� ` '�{ iei��e �� L LosOsos-DiabloComplex-15-30%Slopes ` � � �� ' �*�� .�.�� • � �� ' � � Obispo-Rock Outcrop Complex- � � �� 15-75%Slopes _ �,. �:v � � Salinas Silry Clay Loam-0-2%Slopes �� i� V�� ; k - Xerets-Xerolls-UrbanLandComplex- ��'�'� � �� 0-15%Slopes � ,f �� ' � Corduccl-TypicXeroflwents- _ � -�� C 0-5%Slopes � �� i' �- < � ��,�` .��'. '+�E�.� �• r .l A' ��:�� `r�' } � �.,.��. • .,..� ��-:y'`y� ;f . J•-f`a�l, : �`, 1�"`'x.� .` 1 �� i �...: � ,,.�.. `,i r- .r f /, �- � �n � .:�a� �,;.f ri�� .,r,P, � ,�' z.: � x SCALE IN FEET '�: -. y - '6�� . . I .� ��, .� �, � . fa alti. 3(s.,_ 0 1,000 + �� ,� -�S � Aerial Source.Google 2018. ;�'�$�,� L �' �� '' :,� " WOO�. Agricultural Soils FIGURE within the Project Site 3 2_2 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 Ma�ing and Monitoring Pro rg am(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 3.2-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12949 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES lands throughout California. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21060.1 defines agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts under the FMMP. 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; Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.2-7 Final EIR 12950 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 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. 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 Iagricultural or open space use. 3.2-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12951 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Cortese-Knox-Hertzber,g Act Local Government Reor�anization Act of 2000 (CKH Act� The CKH Act was adopted in 2000 and establishes procedures for local government changes of organization, including cit_ i�rporations, annexations to a cit.�pecial district, and cit.�pecial district consolidations. The CKH Act empowers local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) to act on local agency boundary changes and to ado�t spheres of influence for local agencies with the primary purpose of discouragin u� rban sprawl, preservin� open-space and prime agricultural lands, encoura_gin� the efficient provision of�overnment services, and encouragin_ o� rderly formation and development of local a�encies. Under the CKH Act Section 56064,prime a�ricultural land is defined as an area of land,whether a sin l�e parcel or conti ug ous parcels,that has not been developed for a use other than an a�ricultural use and that meets any of the followin��qualifications: a) Land that qualifies,if irri,�ated,for ratin,g as Class I or Class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use compatibilitv classification, whether or not land is actuall,y irri ag ted,provided that irri,�ation is feasible. b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Ratin� c) Land that su�orts livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual ca , irry n�pacit,y equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined bv the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Ran,ge and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003. d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearin�period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearin�period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed a�ricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400�per acre. �}e) Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed a,�ricultural plant products an annual �ross value of not less than four hundred dollars($400�er acre for three of the previous five calendar vears. 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.2-9 Final EIR 12952 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 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: 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. Conse�vation 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. 3.2-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12953 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 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. 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 agriculturalland base of the county by clearly defining and identifying productive agricultural lands for long-term protection. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.2-11 Final EIR 12954 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES b. Conserve the soil and water that are the vital components necessary for a successful agricultural industry in this county. 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 Count,v Local A�y Formation Commission (LAFCO) � The San Luis Obispo County LAFC03 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: 3.2-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12955 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a. Acquisition and dedication of farmland, development rights, and/or agricultural conservation easements to permanently protect farmlands within the annexation area or lands with similar characteristics within the County Planning Area. b. Payment of in-lieu fees to an established, qualified, mitigation/conservation program or organization sufficient to fully fund the acquisition and dedication activities stated above in 12a. c. Other measures agreed to by the applicant and the land use jurisdiction that meet the intent of replacing prime agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio. 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: Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.2-13 Final EIR 12956 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 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; 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-A�plicable 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 3.2-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12957 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 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 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 significant ce-a�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 andlor 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 Proj ect. 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.2-15 Final EIR 12958 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Table 3.2-4. Summary of Project Impacts � . , � � • � � . , , � - - , , AG-L The Project would convert onsite Farmland of None Required Less than Local Potential and prime soils if irrigated to non- Significant , agricultural uses. AG-2.Implementation of the Project would create None Required Less than potential conflicts with existing agricultural zoning. Significant AG-3. The Project would adjust the boundary of an None Required Less than existing open space and agricultural conservation Significant easement to a location that would reduce the viability of agricultural operations within the recorded easement. 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, P�ime 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 3.2-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12959 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 (Table 3.2-5�. 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.A final score of 44.26 with an SA score below 20 indicates the Project impacts to existin� a,gricultural soils would be less than si,�nificant. Table 3.2-54. Final LESA Score Sheet � � � � • � � " � Land Evaluation Factors Land Capabiliry Classification <1> 52.79 25 l 32 Storie Index <2> 51.22 25 12.81 Subtotal 50 26.07 Site Assessment Factors Project Size <3> 80 15 12 Water Resource Availabiliry <4> 25 15 3.75 Surrounding Agricultural Land <5> 0 15 0 Protected Resource Land <6> 50 5 2.5 Subtotal 50 � I8.25 Final Score 44.26 Significance Determination Less than Significant Source:Appendix L. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.2-17 Final EIR 12960 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The Project would also be required to comply with LAFCO Policy 2.9.12, Agricultural � Policies, which provides that*'�� '^��^rLAFCO 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 Prolect is sublect to the annexation a�roval jurisdiction of LAFCO and would be required to complv with LAFCO Policv 2.9.12 before LAFCO can a�rove annexation of the Project site into the City. In compliance with this policv, LAFCO will require the A�licant to provide a substitution ratio of at least 1:1 for the prime soils to be converted from a�ricultural under the Project. As described in Section 3.2.2,Re u� lator;v Settin�,the 1:1 substitution ma,y be met bv(1) acquisition and dedication of farmland, development ri�hts, and/or conservation easements to permanentiv protect farmlands within the annexation area or lands with similar characteristics within the Count,y Plannin,� Area; (2) payment of in-lieu fees to an established, c�ualified, miti,�ation/conservation pro�ram or or�anization sufficient to fullv fund the acquisition and dedication stated above (in item Ll); or (31 other measures a reg ed b,y the A�licant and the land use jurisdiction that meet the intent of replacin�prime a�ricultural land at a 1:1 ratio. Refer to EIR pa�es 3.2-12 and 3.2-13. Existin�re�ulations will require the Project to comply with these agricultural policies as a prerequisite to LAFCO's a�roval of the requested annexation. Therefore, affected onsite prime soils will be required to be miti�ated at a 1:1 ratio throu_h� one(or a combination of� the agricultural substitution requirements stated above. Further, a portion of the prime agricultural soils onsite(�proximately 7 acres)currently su�port established jurisdictional wetlands (e.g., in the 5.81-acre Calle Joaquin wetlands). Direct impacts to these areas would be avoided to the greatest extent feasible and these areas are proposed to be permanentl�protected for habitat/open space use through amendment of the onsite agriculture and open space easement. Impacts to these prime agricultural soils would be avoided and these areas would be permanentl�protected, consistent with LAFCO's olp icies• In addition, the Project includes a total of 59.0 acres of open space, includin,� 38.9 acres within Villaggio and 20.1 acres within Madonna Froom Ranch, the majoritv of which would be preserved within the U�er Terrace. The U�er Terrace area su�orts on1X ,.grazin,� land alon,� with a wide variet,y of sensitive biolo,�ical resources. The Lower Area of Villag�io and Madonna Froom Ranch contain the prime soils (if irri ag ted) that would be affected bv the Prolect, includin� both development and preservation with designated o�en space areas; however, the Project site does not currentiv (and has not historically) 3.2-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12961 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES su�orted irri,�ated row crops or other intensive a�ricultural uses and is not irri�ated. The site is currentiv used for horse r_� azin� and has not otherwise been used for a�ricultural production purposes. The preservation of onsite wetlands and the unique and hi�hly sensitive biological resources in the U�er Terrace as desi,gnated open space provide a substantial public benefit b�protecting and preserving�razin,�lands and the hi ng est quality natural resources within the Specific Plan area and ma,v, in part, meet the intent of LAFCO's a�ricultural policies. As the Project moves throu_h� the a�proval process, the City will be required to ensure the Project is consistent with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzber� Act, LAFCO policies, and CitX policies related to the protection of prime farmland. This will include ensuring conversion of agricultural soils has been achieved at a 1:1 ratio, either onsite, offsite, or through compensator_y mitigation, consistent with the LAFCO policy stated above and throu_�h the City annexation process. This could be achieved throu�h permanent protection of onsite resources described above and/or a combination of additional offsite agricultural lands at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. The Project would not convert Important Farmland (as defined by the FMMP of the California Resources Agency) and conversion of e�prime agricultural soils ( ep r the definition in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzber��) a��*^ '^^'� ^�'��*^r;^ ^ ��*; �-^*;^r' � �is not considered a significant conversion of land per the California Agricultural LESA Model. Nevertheless, pger LAFCO policv, loss of these prime a�ricultural soils� �would be required to be miti�ated at a 1:1 ratio throu�h the Project's annexation process. 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, commerciaUretail, 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.2-19 Final EIR 12962 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES development with a Specific Plan (SP-3) land use designation under the City's LUE and the Project would be consistent with Policy 1.73,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 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; 3.2-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12963 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 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 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.2-21 Final EIR 12964 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 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. 3.2-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12965 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 (CaIEPA) have established national and state criteria to protect public health and welfare for seven criteria pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOz), ozone (03), sulfur dioxide (SOz), 10-micron particulate matter (PM�o), 2.5-micron particulate matter(PMz.$) and lead(Pb). The CaIEPA has also established state criteria for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (HzS), 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 declines and the marine � Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-1 Final EIR 12966 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 (COz), methane (CH4), nitrogen oxides (NOX), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and 03. The largest anthropogenic source of emissions comes in the form of COz, 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 Final EIR 12967 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, industriaUmanufacturing, 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 COz 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 COae) emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Sector sources of these COz 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 COze), an approximately 10 percent reduction compared to the City's 2005 GHG inventory which amounted to 269,720 MT COze. 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 5pecific Plan 3.3-3 Final EIR 12968 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 03 (see Table 3.3-1). The national 8-hour 03 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). Os 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. 03 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). The County is in non-attainment for the state PMio standards;however,the County is within attainment of national PMio standards. PMio is comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Human activities that generate PMio include agricultural operations, industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, construction 3.3-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12969 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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). Table 3.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards and County Attainment Status (2019) , � � . � � � � , � � � - � � Ozone(03) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm(180µg/m3) Non- -- Non-Attainment 8 Hour 0.070 ppm(137 µg/m3) Attainment 0.070 ppm Eastern County (137 µg/m3) —Attainment Western County (Project site) Respirable 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 Non- 150µg/m3 Unclassified�/ Particulate Annual 20 µg/m3 Attainment Attainment Matter (PMia) �'ithmetic Mean Fine 24 Hour -- Attainment 35 µg/m3 Unclassified�/ Particulate Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Attainment Matter (PMz.$) �'ithmetic Mean Carbon 1 Hour 20 ppm(23 mg/m3) Attainment 35 ppm(40 Unclassified� Monoxide mg/m3) (CO) g Hour 9 ppm(l0 mg/m3) 9 ppm(10 mg/m3) Nitrogen 1 Hour 0.18 ppm(339 µg/m3) Attainment 100 ppb(188 Unclassified' Dioxide µg/m3) (NOz) Annual 0.030 ppm(57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm Arithmetic (100µg/m3) Mean Sulfur 1 Hour 025 ppm(655 µg/m3) Attainment 75 ppb(196 Unclassified� Dioxide mg/m3) (SOz) 3 Hour -- 0.5 ppm(1300 µg�m3) 24 Hour 0.04 ppm(105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm Annual -- 0.030 ppm Arithmetic Mean Lead(Pb) 30-Day 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment -- No Attainment Average Information Calendar -- 1.5 µg/m3 Quarter Rolling 3- -- 0.15 µg/m3 Month Average Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-5 Final EIR 12970 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards and County Attainment Status (2019) (Continued) I �� , . � �� Visibility 8 Hour Exrinction coefficient of Attainment No Federal Standards Reducing 0.23 per kilometer— Particulates visibility of 10 miles or more(0.07-30 miles or more far Lake Tahoe)due to particulates when relative humidiry is less than 70%. Method: Beta Attenuarion and Transmittance through Filter Tape. Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment Hydrogen 1 Hour 0.03 ppm(42 µg/m3) Attainment Sulfide (H2S) Vinyl 24 Hour 0.01 ppm(26µg/m3) No Chloride 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 de6nitions):Any area that does not meet,or contributes to an area that does not meet the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard far that pollutant.(CARB definitions): State standard was exceeded at least once during a three-year period. Source: SLO County APCD 2017b. 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, Cultu�al and T�ibal Cultural Resources), a construction storage yard, and quarry/aggregate mining pit and storage area. Ongoing construction storage yard activities 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 3.3-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12971 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 Proj ect 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 Os, PMzs, and PM�o (CARB 2018). Table 3.3-2 summarizes the annual air quality emissions data for the local airshed between the years 2016-2018, with values exceeding state emissions underlined(there were no federal exceedances at this monitoring station recorded during this period).i 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. 'A local airshed is defined as a geologic area that shares a common air flow or atmosphere that is exposed to the samc condition,such as source of pollutants or dispersion. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-7 Final EIR 12972 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-2. Ambient Air Quality Data at San Luis Obispo—Higuera Street Station � � � � , � �� ; ., . �� ., . � 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 most programs offered during evenings and weekends. Four hotels (Rose Garden Inn, Courtyard by Marriott, Hampton Inn& Suites, and Mote16) 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 Proj ect 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 3.3-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12973 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 HzS, 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. 3.3.21 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. U.S. Environmental Protection A'-�ency 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 03, CO,NOz, SOX, PM�o, PMz.s, and Pb, as shown in Table 3.3-1. The U.S. EPA also maintains jurisdiction over emissions sources outside state waters(outer continental shel�and establishes various emissions standards for vehicles sold in states other than California (as the CaIEPA has established more stringent emissions standards for vehicles sold in California). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-9 Final EIR 12974 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP� SLO County APCD is dele�ated authorit�y the U.S. EPA to implement the Federal Asbestos NESHAP re�ulations specified in the Code of Federal Re,gulations (CFR) (40 CFR 61, Subpart M). There are specific requirements and procedures delineated in this re�ulation which pertain to certain demolition and renovation projects. All non-residential demolitions of anv kind of structure or asbestos containin� material disturbance are required to be a�roved in advance bv SLO Countv APCD. Requirements for an owner/operator subject to this re�ulation include conductin� a thorough inspection for the presence of asbestos bv a Certified Asbestos Consultant and written notification to SLO Count,y APCD of the demolition or renovation at least 10 working davs prior to the start of the.j ob. 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, HzS,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. 3.3-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12975 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS California Air Resources Board CARB, a part of CaIEPA, 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 (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 Apri12005, 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 Bi1132� 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-11 Final EIR 12976 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 COze on December 6, 2007 (CARB 2007). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMT COze. Senate Bi1132 and Assemblv 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 5-13-08 Executive Order 5-13-08 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 19901evels by 2020,as established in AB 32. California's new emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 19901evels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent under 19901evels 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 3.3-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12977 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative targets of reducing GHG emissions. California Air Resources Board: Scopin_� 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 ineasure-specific regulations and to adjust projections in consideration ofthe economic recession(CARB 2014). In the update, CARB estimated the AB 32 Baseline 2020 to be 509 MMT COze. The Scoping Plan's current estimate of the necessary GHG emission reductions is 78 MMT COze (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 COze for energy, 23 MMT COze for transportation, 5 MMT COze for high-global warming potential(GWP) GHGs, and 2 MMT COze for waste. The remaining 23 MMT COze 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: Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-13 Final EIR 12978 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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. Senate Bi11375 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 Bi11743 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, Gradin�Quarr�g, and Surface Minin� 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 3.3-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12979 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 in serpentine, a geologic evaluation and Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan must be submitted to the SLO County APCD. 3.3.2.3 Local Cit,v 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-15 Final EIR 12980 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Clean Ener�y Choice Pro_�ram 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 free and avoid health and safety issues associated with fossil fuels and GHGs. At its � meeting on Tuesday, ��June 16,� 20�20, the City Council approved the Clean Energy Choice Program. The City anticipates the second reading of the ordinance and � subsequent implementation to occur in e�Summer of 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. Countv of San Luis Obispo Clean Air Plan and CEQA Air Qualitv 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 03 precursor 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 3.3-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12981 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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. 3.3.3 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 Proj ect 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-17 Final EIR 12982 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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: • 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 • Dailv: 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 • Quarterlv— 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 • Dailv: For projects expected to be completed in less than one quarter, exceedance of the 7 lbs/day threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures; 3.3-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12983 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS • Quarterlv — 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 • 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 (PMio), Dust Emissions • uarterl : Exceedance of the 2.5 ton/qtr threshold requires Fugitive PMio Mitigation Measures and may require the implementation of a CAMP. If construction-related emissions of the Proj ect 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 M �� ROG+NOX(combined) 2.5 6.3 137 Diesel Particulate Matter(DPM) 0.13 0.32 7 PM�o - 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-19 Final EIR 12984 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions • Projects that emit over 1.25 lbs/day of DPM require implementation of onsite BACT measures. Fugitive Particulate Matter (PMio) Dust Emissions • Projects that emit over 25 lbs/day or 25 tons/year ofPMio require implementation ofpermanent 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 '� � �� ROG+NOX(combined) 25 lbs/day 25 tons/year Diesel Particulate Matter(DPM) 1.25 lbs/day - PMio 25 lbs/day 25 tons/year Source: SLO County APCD 2012a. GHGs and Climate Chan�e 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 CriteNia 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. 3.3-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12985 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 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 COze or exceed an efficiency threshold of 4.9 MT COze/service population (SP). The Bright-Line numeric threshold of 1,150 MT COze/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 COze/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 49 MT COze/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 COze/yr Bright-Line Threshold or within the 4.9 MT COze/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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-21 Final EIR 12986 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS COze/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 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 COZe/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 COze and the efficiency threshold was reduced to 2.65 MT of COze/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 (CaIEEMod) runs completed for the Project(Appendix D). CaIEEMod was performed for each phase of proposed Project implementation, as described in Section 2.6,P�oject Construction. 3.3-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12987 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 emissions for ROG, NOX, DPM, and PM�o were estimated using CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2 computer model, and then compared to the thresholds of significance defined above. See Appendix D for CaIEEMod worksheet results. The air quality analysis and CaIEEMod 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 CaIEEMod 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. Constr�uction Air Quality Emissions Construction emissions are estimated using CaIEEMod 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-23 Final EIR 12988 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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. Operational Air Quality Emissions Operational emissions associated with the Project are estimated using CaIEEMod 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 Chan�e 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 z 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 Final EIR 12989 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS the GHG emissions targets established under SB 32 and requirements of Executive Order B-55-18. In addition, GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the Project were estimated using CaIEEMod (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 Proj ect- 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. OpeNational 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 tr�ips. 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, Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-25 Final EIR 12990 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 (single-family, multi-family, and retirement), commercial space, health care, hotel, and recreational uses applying the default/typical consumption rates as presented in the CaIEEMod modeling output. Electricity use. Electricity is generated by a combination of inethods, 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 CaIEEMod 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 CaIEEMod 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 CaIEEMod 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 Final EIR 12991 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-5. Summary of Project Impacts AQ-1. The Project would result in potentially MM AQ-1 Less than Significant significant construction-related emissions, MM AQ-2 with Mitigation including dust and air pollutant emissions. MM AQ-3 AQ-2. The Project would result in potentially MM AQ-4 Significant and significant long-term operational emissions. Unavoidable AQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions or No Mirigation Required Less than Significant naturally occurring asbestos during construction of the Project could expose sensitive receptors to emissions-related health risks. AQ-4. The Project would be consistent with MM AQ-4 Significant and the City's Climate Action Plan,but would MM AQ-5 Unavoidable result in potentially significant GHG MM AQ-6 emissions during construction and operation I which would be inconsistent with other state and local goals for reducing GHG emissions. AQ-5. The Project is potentially inconsistent MM AQ-2 Significant and with the SLO County APCD's Clean Air MM TRANS-5 Unavoidable Plan. MM TRANS-8 MM TRANS-9 MM TRANS-10 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(PMio and PMzs) 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 Proj ect 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 5pecific Plan 3.3-27 Final EIR 12992 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 PMio, 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 CaIEEMod emission factors. Each construction phase of the Project would last for more 3.3-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12993 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) Peak Daily Emissions 180.81 191.01 371.82 109.68 027 30.51 7.23 (lbs/day) Peak Quarterly 1.09 5.46 8.15� 3.16 0.07 0.91 02l Emissions(tons/qtr) i APCD Daily -- -- 137 -- -- -- 7 Thresholds(lbs/day) APCD Quarterly -- -- 2.5 -- -- 2.5 0.13 Thresholds—Tier 1 (tons/qtr) Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- NO YES APCD Quarterly -- -- 6.3 -- -- -- 0.32 Thresholds—Tier 2 (tons/qtr) Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- -- NO �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 CaIEEMod. See Appendix D for CaIEEMod warksheets. 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 MMAQ-1 A ConstNuction 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 5pecific Plan 3.3-29 Final EIR 12994 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1. A Dust Control Management Plan that encompasses the following dust cont�ol 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 1 S 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 rewo�ked 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 �evegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods appNoved 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 1 S mph on any unpaved surface at the constr�uction site; • All tr�ucks 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 ente� 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 Final EIR 12995 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS intersection of any unpaved area and a paved road. If utilized, i^umble strips or steel plate devices shall be cleaned periodically. If paved roadways accumulate tracked-out soils, the track-out p�evention 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 constr�uction 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 standa�d ai� quality measures to minimize diesel emissions: • Maintain all constr�uction equipment in proper tune according to manufacture�'s specifications; • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed veNsion suitable for use off-road). • Use on-road heavy-duty tr�ucks 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 o�trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measu�es (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-31 Final EIR 12996 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 fzve-minute idling limit; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive Neceptors 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 constr�uction equipment onsite where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG),propane oN biodiesel. 4. Tabulation of on- and off-road construction equipment (age, horse- power, and miles and/or hours of operation); S. Schedule construction tr~uck 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 Timin�. The CAMP shall be submitted to SLO � County APCD and to the City for review and C�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 Final EIR 12997 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Monitorin�. City staff shall ensure measures are depicted on the CAMP and all submitted grading and construction plans for each Proj ect 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. MMAQ-2 To reduce ROG and NOx levels during the architectuNal coating phase, low or no Volatile ONganic 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 Timin�. 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. MMAQ-3 I rec�uired, a�4n offsite mitigation strategy shall be developed and agreed � upon by the Applicant, City, and SLO County APCD at least three months p�ior 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 m��provide appropNiate funding necessary to offset the � Project's residual construction-related ROG+NOx emissions beyond SLO County APCD's daily threshold; in the event fundin�is rec�uired, it shall be provided at least two months prior to the start of construction to help facilitate emission offsets that are as real-time as possible. I rec�uired, c�ash payment of offsite mitigation fees shall be calculated based on the most curNent ARB-approved Carl Moyer Guidelines at the time of Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-33 Final EIR 12998 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS commencement of each P�oject 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; • Retrofzt or repower heavy-duty constr�uction 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 T�erified 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 �e�ec�reviewed by the City and SLO County APCD and a�proved by the Cit�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 3.3-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 12999 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 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) i � � � � � �_ � � � � . � . Peak Daily Emissions 59.96 120.79 180.75 129.09 0.27 17.74 4.35 (lbs/day) Peak Quarterly 0.38 3.43 5.00� 3.71 <0.01 0.51 0.13 Emissions(tons/qtr)' APCD Daily -- -- 137 -- -- -- 7 Thresholds(lbs/day) APCD Quarterly -- -- 2.5 2.5 0.13 Thresholds—Tier 1 (tons/qtr) Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- NO NO APCD Quarterly -- -- 6.3 -- -- -- 0.32 Thresholds—Tier 2 (tons/qtr) Above Threshold? -- -- NO -- -- NO NO �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 CaIEEMod. See Appendix D for CaIEEMod warksheets. 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 CaIEEMod. 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-35 Final EIR 13000 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS operational emissions of ROG +NOX (see Table 3.3-8). Project operational emissions are therefore considered potentially significant. Table 3.3-8. Long-Term Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) � � • �� . � � ' � i ' Total Daily Operational Emissions Area(lbs/day) 2427 0.60 24.87 51.96 <0.01 0.28 028 Energy(lbs/day) 038 335 3.73 2.16 0.02 0.26 0.26 Mobile(Ibs/day) 6.70 23.85 29.80 67.42 021 20.47 0.17 Total(lbs/day) 3135 27.80 58.4 121.54 0.23 21.01 0.72 Threshold(lbs/day) - - 25 550 - 25 125 Above Threshold? - - YES NO - NO NO Total Annual Operational Emissions Area(tons/year) 4.40 010 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 0.03 335 0.03 Total (tons/year) 5.52 4.70 1022 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 CaIEEMod worksheets. Mitigation Measures MMAQ-4 Consistent with standard mitigation ineasures set forth by SLO County APCD, Projects generating more than 50 lbs/day of coinbined 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). 3.3-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13001 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 4 I 1 R SD Install gas or GHG,O,P D The Project does not elecri-ic fireplace in propose any wood place ofU.S. EPA- burning appliances.If certified Tier 2 fireplaces are proposed, residential wood thev shall be electric. burning appliances. 2 C,R SD,T Design and build GHG,O,P D The Project would high-density, include residential and compact commercial development within development within the the urban core or URL and would URL to encourage provide access to transit alternative and non-vehicular transportation(walk, transportation; bike,bus,etc.). however,the Project site lies on the southern edge of the City and is not located within an urban core area. To encourage alternative transportarion,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, SD,T Provide a GHG,O,P D The Draft FRSP R pedestrian-friendly includes guidelines far and interconnected incorporating streetscape with pedestrian walkways, good access to/from outdoor seating, and the development far landscape areas where pedestrians, possible.Public bicyclists,and commercial collector transit users to make roads shall be alternative connected to adjacent transportation more development to allow convenient, pedestrian and bicyclist comfortable and access,and public safe(may include: pedestrian trails will appropriate connect public roads to signalization and the existing trail system signage; safe routes in the Irish Hills to school; linking Natural Reserve. cul-de-sacs and dead ends; orienting Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-37 Final EIR 13002 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) I 4 � � buildings towards streets with � automobile parking in the rear,etc.). � 4 C,I, SD,T Provide shade over O D Shade trees in surface R 50%of parking parkin_ ag reas are to be spaces to reduce provided as part of the evaporative Project per City emissions from requirement. The parked vehicles. Applicant shall amend the Draft FRSP to I require shade� �ec�seover a minimum of 50%of proposed parking Ispaces-�. 5 C,I, SD,T Reduce fugitive dust P D No unpaved roads, R from roads and driveways,or parking parking areas with areas are proposed as the use of paving or part of the Project. other materials. 6 C,I, SD,T Implement driveway P D The Ciry has a R design standards requirement that the (e.g., speed bumps, design speeds in local curved driveway) and collector roads not for self-enforcement exceed 25 mph. Bulb- of reduced speed outs,traffic circles, limits on unpaved chicanes,and other driveways. features are also included in the Project. There are no unpaved roads or driveways in the development. 7 C,I, SD,T Use an APCD- P O No unpaved roads, R approved driveways,or parking suppressant on areas are proposed as private unpaved part of the Project. roads leading to the site,unpaved driveways and parking areas, applied at a rate and frequency that ensure compliance with APCD Ru1e 401: Visible 3.3-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13003 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) a � � I Emissions,and ensures offsite � nuisance impacts do not occur. 8 C,I, SD,T Incorporate traffic GHG,O,P D City has a requirement R calming that the design speeds modifications to in local and collector Project roads to roads not exceed 25 reduce vehicle mph.Bulb-outs,traffic speeds and increase circles, chicanes,and pedestrian and other features are bicycle usage and included. '',�ro safety. �a r^^�^ ^ �..:.,o..,....� :,, .�,e a o o�� 9 C,I, SD,T Work with GHG,O,P D In coordination with the R SLOCOG to create, City and SLOCOG, improve,or expand t�he Project Applicant a nearby`Park-and- shall fund and install an Ride'lot with car EV charein�station at parking and bike the nearb,� lockers in Joaquin Park&Ride proportion to the Lot.If station has not size of the Project. been installed prior to Project occupancv, and if approved by the Citv Community Development Director, the A�plicant my provide a fair share miti atg ion pavment to the City not to exceed $75,000 for installation of the EV charging station by the City or others.� ^r�n cr nrnr_�„: ..,a.. ,...�.. �n,,,-v a� n�av� i,...,. .;.�.;� ��,,7 ',�` D•,,-z[rii-tttriY-n��IV L i,,,....oa ,...�o r.,iio r,..,,,,,;�t,,,�oi �� ae oi� �� • 10 C SD,T Implement onsite GHG,O,P D The Applicant shall circulation design amend the Draft FRSP elements in parking to require onsite Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-39 Final EIR 13004 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) I � � a lots to reduce circulation design in vehicle queuing and parking lots to reduce improve the vehicle queueing and pedestrian improve the pedestrian environment. environment. ll C,I SD,T Provide employee GHG,O,P D The City's Zoning lockers and showers Ordinance requires to promote bicycle showers and lockers and pedestrian use. based on the square- One shower and five footage of each land lockers for every 25 use. The Project would employees is be consistent with the recommended. intent of this measure throu,�h consistency with''''�� ,,.n „ o�a.�,e T,.-,.�. ,,..v,.i,,,.o�� ;ao ,.i,..,eo i,,,.ve,.� .,�a �i.,. �.o�.. ,:.w *'�;�m� � �a the City's Zoning Regulations. 12 C,I, SD,T Increase bicycle GHG,O,P D The Project includes a R accessibility and number of safety in the vicinity improvements to of the Project;for pedestrian and bicyclist I example:provide environment,including interconnected those required in-MM bicycle routes/lanes TRANS-5,-8,-9,and- or construction of 10 r� ��*�"�'�� bikeways. „r�..,,.v,..oa,.:>>o�..�o� „�,.�,.-r,.�>>�,,...,,n,,,.a ra r n��n ,.�a. „ia II ��o,,,... .:�t, rt.; �. 13 C,I, SD,T Exceed Cal Green GHG,O,P D The Applicant shall R standards by 25 % amend the Draft FRSP for providing onsite to require onsite bicycle bicycle parking: parking consistente3F both short-term with 2019 Cal Green racks and long-term Section 5.106.4,A4 lockers,or a locked 106.9,AS 106.4.3m and room with standard Table AS 106.4.3 (or racks and access the Cal Green standards limited to bicyclists in effect at the time of only. adoption of the Specific 3.3-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13005 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) � � � , I , . - . ., ., - � � � P1an *��and the City Zoning Regulations. 14 C,I, SD,T Develop recreational GHG,O,P D The Project includes R facility(e.g.,parks, development of various trails,gym,pool, facilities to meet the etc.)within 0.25 recreational needs of mile from site. the residents of Villaggio. The Project also includes the � � development of a 2.9- acre neighborhood park within the Project site. 15 C,I, SD,T If the project is GHG,O,P D The Project site is R located on an located along LOVR established transit and residential route,provide development is less improved public than 0.25 mile from bus transit amenities stops far Transit Line (e.g.,covered transit 2A and the Laguna turnouts,direct Tripper. The Project pedestrian access, would include bicycle racks, installation of a new covered bench, transit stop for these smart signage,route routes to improve information public transit amenities displays,lighting, and access. etc.). 16 C,I, T provide bicycle- GHG,O,P O The Applicant shall R share program for work with Public development. Works to amend the Draft FRSP to identi � the location of�a hub/node of the City's bicycle share network at the Project site. The location ..t�,,.,....,,..,,.-v i,...o.....:,,� of the hub/node site shall be developed/preserved to allow the development of such a hub/node in the futuret� �;l.:l:�..„F�l.o ��• Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-41 Final EIR 13006 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) a 17 C,I T Require 15 %of DPM, O The Project proposes fleet vehicles to be GHG,O uses that could include zero emission the use of dee�e� vehicles. �� r „a„�....,� , v�,,. ..�,:,.�,. .,�a,..;�;,o fleet vehicles and/or; �,,. �:,*, e o� o 0 ,.�„ao.�.o, ,.� shuttles(i.e. hoteUairport shuttle). The Applicant shall amend the Draft FRSP to require the use of zero emission vehicles I for '�all proposed fleet,shuttle, or group-transport vehicles for the Villa,ggio Life Plan Community and to provide the sufficient electric vehicle charging infrastructure to su�port it, in addition to the char ers required for private vehicles. The Applicant shall amend the Draft FRSP to require the provision of electric vehicle chargine infrastructure for fleet,shuttle,or group-transport vehicles within the commercially zoned areas of the Specific Plan. 18 C,I T Project includes DPM, O The Project proposes alternative fuel fleet GHG,O uses that could include vehicle(s). the use of�ee�e� i�� r �a, �...„� o...� ..�,:,.�.. .,�a .,.;�;.,o fleet vehicles and/or; 1.,, F„r„ 0 or o 0 3.3-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13007 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) � � � , I , . - . ., ., - ,.,,,ao.,,o, „� shuttles(i.e. hotel/airport shuttle). The Applicant shall amend the Draft FRSP to require the use of alternative fuel fleet, shuttle,or group- transport vehicles for the Villag�io Life Plan Communitv and to provide the sufficient electric vehicle char�ing infrastructure to su�port it,in addition to the chargers required for private vehicles. The A�plicant shall amend the Draft FRSP to require the provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure for fleet,shuttle,or group-transport vehicles within the commercially zoned areas of the Specific Plan. 19 C,I, T Provide GHG,O O The City has consulted R neighborhood with car share programs EV/car-share in other areas and program for the researched the development. requirements of such a pro,gram,and have determined that a car share pro�,ram is not feasible for this Proj ect'r'�� t,,.n „ „a.�,e r,.-,.�. „F P�� ,.L,1.,,,.1�,.,,,7 ote,.�,-;,. ,ol.;,.lo�/...,,- �1..,,-o F,-�l.o ,70 0l„ «.♦ ��o,�r 0 .,;.� n,rn,r n n c Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-43 Final EIR 13008 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) I 4 �� 20 C,I, T provide dedicated GHG,O,P O The Applicant shall R parking for carpools, amend the Draft FRSP vanpools, and/or to require the provision high-efficiency of dedicated parking for vehicles to meet or carpools,vanpools,and exceed Cal Green high-efficiency vehicles � Tier 2. that meet�'��a e�Cal Green Tier 2 standards. 21 C,I T Provide vanpool, GHG,O,P O T''v�DCD �''�"''o shuttle,mini bus ��a*^�^^'�� service(alternative � fueled preferred). ��' �.:. ;ao...� �a o ��,,,.oe ,.�.�,e oa ao, o�,.�..,o�� ..,.r:,.:,�..�o;..rt,e c.... T, �lll.;�.,...D o..;......1 n:ao��..,-o� . The Applicant or developer of the FRSP shall�se ;ao �,�„ ,,,�,,,,;��v „a promote carpool, � vanpool, shuttle,and EV vehicles. See also MM AQ-6. 22 C,I, T Work with SLO GHG,O,P O The FRSP shall be R Regional Rideshare amended to include to educate occupants measures for with alternative encouraging and transportation and incentivizing residents smart commute and employees of the information(e.g., proposed development I transportation board, to participate in the San electronic kiosk, Luis Obispo Regional new hire packets, Rideshare program. See web portal, also MM AQ-6. newsletters, social media,etc.). 23 C,I T Provide child care GHG,O,P O The Applicant shall facility onsite. amend the Draft FRSP � to include policies that allow for the provision of child care facilities I onsite. 3.3-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13009 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) a I � 24 C,I T Implement programs GHG,O,P O The Project is required to reduce employee to implement mitigation vehicle miles programs and strategies traveled(e.g. to reduce employee incentives, SLO VMT and mobile- Regional Rideshare source emissions at I trip reduction commercial uses.Refer program,vanpools, to MM TRANS-5,-8,- onsite employee 9 10 MM AQ-6. ,- , housing,alternative schedules(e.g., 9— 80,4-10, telecommuting, � satellite work sites etc.). 25 C,I T Provide a lunchtime GHG,O,P O The Applicant shall shuttle to reduce amend the Draft FRSP single occupant to include policies for vehicle trips and/or provision of lunchrime coordinate regular shuttles � I food truck visits. F�++,�.,��-• �;+�to the Project site to reduce � � I I I trips associated with onsite commercial businesses, as feasible. 26 C T Provide delivery GHG,O,P O The A�plicant shall service in clean amend the Draft FRSP fueled vehicles. to provide the electric vehicle char�in� infrastructure to su�port clean fueled vehicles for commercial uses,in addition to the char e�rs required for private vehicles. T'�� ,.,n ., o�a.�,o r,,-..�. aoi;.,o,..,i.,,�oa � .,i , ��ti„� .,i.o,�o.,vi,,,.o,a.,, ,,.;i;,o,.io.,,, a,oio,a ,o�.:,.io� ��.,�:i,io 27 C T At community event GHG,O,P O The Project does not centers(i.e., propose development of amphitheaters, any community event theaters,and centers or other stadiums),provide Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-45 Final EIR 13010 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) I 4 free valet bicycle communal gathering parking. areas. 28 C,I T Implement a"No DPM, O The Applicant shall Idling"vehicle GHG,O amend the Draft FRSP program which to include programs and includes signage, policies requiring enforcement,etc. implementation of a "No Idling"vehicle program for commercial development which shall include standards I for signage-a� ^��. 29 R T Provide free-access GHG,O,P O The Applicant shall telework terminals amend the Draft FRSP and/or wi-fi access to include programs and in multi-family policies requiring projects. provision of free-access telework terminals and/or wi-fi access in multi-family developments where an indoor common area is proposed. 30 C,I T Meet or exceed Cal GHG,O,P D The FSRP includes Green Tier 2 Program 4.7.2f,which standards for states that individual providing EV garages are to be I charging "electric vehicle(EV�- infrastructure. ready"and shared parking areas for apartments shall incorporate EV charging stations.In addition, compliance with City Zoning I Regulations or Cal Green Tier 2 standards regarding EV parking spaces�whichever is greater at the time of buildin�permit submittal shall be required. 3.3-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13011 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) a I 31 C,I T Install 1 or mare GHG,O,P D The Draft FRSP level 2 or better EV includes Program charging stations. 4.7.2f,which states that individual garages are to be"EV�is � ..��-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.All electric vehicle char,gers shall be,at a minimum,level 2 char_� 32 C,I, EE Meet or exceed Cal GHG,O D The Applicant shall R Green Tier 1 amend the Draft FRSP standards for to include programs and building energy policies for ensuring efficiency. new development,at a minimum,meets or exceeds Cal Green Tier � I 1�standards for building efficiency. 33 C,I, EE Meet or exceed Cal GHG,O D The Applicant shall R Green Tier 2 amend the Draft FRSP standards for to include programs and building energy policies for ensuring efficiency. new development,at a minimum,meets or � I I I I exceeds Cal Green Tier 1�standards for building efficiency. 34 C,I, EE Meet or exceed Cal GHG D The Applicant shall R Green Tier 2 amend the Draft FRSP standards for Program 4.7.4a to utilizing recycled encourage��,at a � content materials. minimum,use of recycled content materials consistent with Cal Green Tier 2 standards. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-47 Final EIR 13012 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) I 4 35 C,I, EE Meet or exceed Cal GHG D The Applicant shall R Green Tier 2 amend the Draft FRSP standards for to include a policy for � reducing cement use encoura�s��ing in concrete mix as construction of the allowed by local Project,at a minimum, ordinance and meets Cal Green Tier 2 conditions. standards for reducing cement use in concrete mix, as allowed bv local ordinance and conditions. 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, EE All built-in GHG D The Draft FRSP R appliances shall be includes Program I Energy Star certified 4.7.4�a,which requires or equivalent. that all new residential units shall incorporate high-efficiency Energy � � Star compliant appliances. 37 C,I, EE Utilize onsite GHG D The Project is required R renewable energy to comply with MM systems(e.g., solar, AQ-5,requiring the wind,geothermal, Draft FRSP be biomass and/or bio- amended to include gas)to offset at least measures necessary to 10%of energy use. reduce Project operational stationary- source emissions, I I I I I including utilization of 100%carbon-free energy. 38 C,I, EE Meet or exceed Cal GHG D The Project includes the R Green Tier 2 use of recvcled water standards for the use for public landscap� of greywater, in parks,landscaped rainwater or buffers,the commercial recycled water. mixed-use area,and common outdoor areas in multi-familv 3.3-48 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13013 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) � � � , I , . - . ., ., - residential projects. Commercial mixed-use and multi-family development projects will include reclaimed water irri ate ion s, s� in their landscaping plans.An.�� ag tion needed to establish or maintain ve,getation in the stormwater detention and riparian enhancement areas would also be required to use recvcled water, consistent with the intent of this �p I1Cx n�� o,�..]�l.o Tl,-.,Fr T�'D CD ♦„ ,.1,,,]0 „1: ..rL.o ,.F,. .,�o .,�o �,.1v,J ,.,�or 1...., ..♦ ..1,:,.1, ..t., > �"> oet., /''.,1 !`_,-vo.. T;o.-7 �E�S. 39 C,I, EE Provide and require GHG,O D The Applicant shall R the use of battery amend the Draft FRSP powered or electric to include requirements landscape for outdoorplu_,�sfor maintenance electric powered equipment for new landscape equipment development. and programs or policies requiring contracted landscaping � companies to t�use e€ battery powered or electric landscape maintenance equipment. 40 C,I, EE Meet or exceed Cal GHG D The Applicant shall R Green Tier 2 amend the Draft FRSP standards for using to include programs or shading,trees, policies requiring the plants,cool roofs, use of shading,trees, etc.to reduce"heat plants,cool roofs, island"effect. and/or other measures � Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-49 Final EIR 13014 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-9. Mitigation Measures from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Continued) I I I � I � � 4 , . . ., ., to reduce"heat island" � effect,which at a minimum,meets Cal � Green Tier 1� standards. 41 C,I, EE Design roof trusses GHG,O D The Applicant shall R to handle dead amend the Draft FRSP weight loads of to include programs and standard solar- policies requiring the heated water and design of roof trusses to photovoltaic panels. handle dead weight loads of standard solar- heated water and photovoltaic panels. This requirement shall not a�ply to historic structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex to be relocated to the proposed trailhead park. ' Land Use: C=Commercial; I=Industrial;R=Residential �Measure Type: SD=site desi�n;T=transportation; EE=energy efficiency 3 Pollutant Reduced:DPM=diesel particulate matter; GHG=Qreenhouse gas;O=ozone;P=particulate 4 Phase: D=design; O=operational EV—Electric Vehicle SLOCOG- San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Requirements and Timin�. 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. Monitorin�. 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 3.3-50 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13015 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 ineasures 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 to�ric diesel emissions or naturally occurring asbestos which could expose sensitive receptors to emissions-related health risks (Less than Significant). 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-51 Final EIR 13016 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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. Proj ect 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 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). 3.3-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13017 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 Proj ect site,would occur prior to occupancy of any units within the Specific Plan area. Once occupancy begins,the Proj ect 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. Dis�osal ofHazardous Materials The Project would result in the demolition of historic structures which have potential to contain asbestos-containin,� materials (ACMsI and lead-based paints (LBPs). These materials can be harmful to construction works or other persons which directly handle these materials, particularly durin,� demolition activities where the materials ma,y become pulverized and released into the air as fu,�itive dust. Existin� structures within the Froom Ranch Dai ,i ��plex have the potential to contain ACMs and LBPs.However,the Proj ect has a low likelihood of exposing�ersons to these materials due to historical site use, as well as the largelv undeveloped de�ree of land onsite. The Project would be required to complv with all a�licable federal and state re,�ulations for anv required disposal or handlin,� of such waste to prevent contamination or exposure to the air, includin� SLO County APCD's NESHAP requirements and CCR Title 8, Industrial Relations. Refer also to discussion of Impact HAZ-2 in Section 3.7, Hazards, Haza�dous Materials, and Wild are. Naturally Occurring Asbestos The Proj ect 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-53 Final EIR 13018 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 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 Proj ect 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 signi�cant 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 (Si�nificant and Unavoidable� .� 3.3-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13019 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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. Constr�uction GHG Emissions Construction activities for the Proj ect are assumed to occur over a period of approximately five years for the purposes of this analysis. Based on CaIEEMod estimates, construction activities for the Project would generate an estimated 7,684.95 MT of COze (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 COZe per year. Table 3.3-10. Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated) � 2020 2,733.52 2021 1,44427 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 COze/yr (see Table 3.3-11). Combined with construction emissions amortized over a 25- year period (307.40 MT COze), total GHG emissions for the Project would be approximately 6,080.90 MT COze/yr. Based on a new resident population of 1,231, the Project is estimated to result in 4.9 MT COze/SP/yr. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-55 Final EIR 13020 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 3.3-11. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Unmitigated) ywiniu��rK• _�niu, � • 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 GAG 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. 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 3.3-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13021 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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. 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-57 Final EIR 13022 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 COze, or an efficiency threshold of 2.65 MT of COze/SP/yr,the Project's estimated 6,0809 MT COze total and 4.9 MT COze/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. Mitigation Measures MMAQ-4 shall apply. MMAQ-S The Applicant shall revise the D�aft FRSP to include measures necessary to �educe Project operational stationary-source GHG emissions to achieve net ze�o 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 foZroWing. • Electricitv shall be the onlv ener�y souNce for the entiretv of Pro�� operations includin� but not limited to s�ace conditioning, wateN heatin�, illumination, cookin�a�pliances, and�lug loads (exem�tions to this rec�uirement shall be limited to a�pliances in commercial kitchens, emer�encv backu��enerators, and medical end-uses that have no viable electric alternative). • Electrical powe�for the entirety of Project operations including but not limited to illumination, heating, cooling, and ventilation shall be 3.3-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13023 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 ze�o net electrical energy usage, or 3)purchase of carbon offsets of any portion of power not from renewable or carbon free sources. As a fi�st priority, carbon- free sou�ced energy shall be purchased from Monterey Bay Community Powe�. • 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. At a minimum, for nonresidential, mixed-use, and mid-rise residential buildin�s, a solar�hotovoltaic svstem shall fill the entiretX of the Solar Zone (as de�ned in Section 110.10 and s�ecifzed in .Ioint �pendix JA1 of the 2019 California Ener�y Code). This requirement shall not a�plv to historic structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy Com�lex to be relocated to the�ro�osed trailhead�ark. • All proposed commercial and health care facilities shall exceed the minimum standards of Title 24, Part 11 (Cal G�een) by adopting all or some elements of Cal Green Tier 1 and/or 2 voluntary elective measures � to increase energy efficiency in new buildings, remodels and additions. These measures shall prio�itize upgrading lighting (e.g., using light- emitting diode [LEDJ lights), heating and cooling systems, appliances, equipment and control systems to be more ene�gy efficient. This rec�uirement shall not a�plv to historic structu�es within the Froom Ranch Dair;v Complex to be relocated to the proposed trailhead park. 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-59 Final EIR 13024 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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. MMAQ-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. • Senio� Shuttle Service: Villaggio shall provide clean fuel shuttle services and shall p�ovide su�'f cient onsite electric vehicle char�ing infrastructure to su�ort the services. Electric vehicle char�ing infrastructure included to meet rec�uirementse or personal vehicles may not be used toe�lfll this requirement�� '��'�� t' � '�*��- �'°•'}'� r,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;fi, n7,.,,. • All Electric Small Vehicles: The FRSP shall require all personal small vehicles (e.g., golf carts) be 100 percent electric powered. !'',,,..,..,,,,.;r., D7,.,,. ,,,,,.,] n�f,,,,]�,,,.,,.,,, �',.,,,,,,,,. A,.,,.�7 ,. • Promote Carpools, Vanpools, and Electric Vehicle (EV) Vehicles: Provide dedicated parking for caNpools, vanpools, and high-efficiency vehicles in exceedance of Cal GNeen Tier 2 standaNds. • j�j�c�n"cp;�v�v'cY�"�,,.f.,. rdr,,.7, ,;r7��n� ,,.., A D!�rl t„ .�� 3.3-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13025 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Requirements and Timin�. The Applicant shall include all feasible Best Management Strategies as part of the final FRSP ^ra �'r^' �''',"'�. 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 as vehicles are the lar�est source of operational emissions, notin� vehicle emissions are re,gulated on a state and federal level._ City and SLO County APCD staff shall ensure the above measures are incorporated into the FRSP ^ra �r^' �''T'"'�prior to recordation. Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are listed on the final �'� FRSP 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 COze/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 I reduced to 0 MT COze/yr.Nevertheless,impacts would be signifzcant 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). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-61 Final EIR 13026 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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 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 Proj ect 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. However, the Project's proposed commercial use of a�proximatelv 100,000 sf is below the allowed 350,000 commercial sf under the LUE. 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 3.3-62 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13027 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS LUCE Update EIR,population estimates cannot be directly compared as the Clean Air Plan only projects population estimates unti12015. 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 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? ��g�o��'�a��t�e�e�}�e�ett�e�E�e�t�e��,,,�� As described in Section 3.13, T�ansportation and Traffic, the City's model forecast for the Project is 4F�9416,362 daily VMT, an increase of approximately ��e�ce�t��t�ri�t�e �'��e�e ��Re��N�T0.1 percent within the County r�e ion.3 The VMT generated per � erp son for the Project is forecasted at �9-13.3 daily VMT ��r '��'��'a, well below the countywide avera�e of 30.6 miles per capita. �"�'t�g�i t�e��t��^•�'��e� �"`�e��t�e��g��e�g�t�e��e�ie�t�e��c�s' , �se�e ^�ae�c�The rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled would not exceed the Clean Air Plan projections for the Project site; therefore, the Project would be r^+�„+�^"�� r^^r��+�r+consistent with the Clean Air Plan. 3) Have all applicable land use and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) and Land Use�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 five Land Use Strate,gies and nine TCMs located in the Clean Air Plan� � which include the following: • L-1 Planning Compact Communities • L-2 Providing for Mixed Land Use • L-3 Balancing Jobs and Housing 'Project VMT has been recalculated as part of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Supplemental Traffic Operations Analvsis for LOVR/U.S. 101 (Appendix M).These revised calculations include post-processin�justments to morc accurately reflect thc anticipated trip-making characteristics unique to senior housing components of the Project. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-63 Final EIR 13028 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS • L-4 Circulation Mana e� • L-5 Communication, Coordination and Monitorin� • 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. Re ag rding L-1 and L-2, the Project involves a mix of compact, residential, commercial, and open space land uses within the Madonna Froom Ranch portion of the site within the URL. Though not within the URL, the FRSP also proposes a variety of uses, amenities, and ancillar_y services within Villa�io to reduce automobile trips. Development under the Project would be connected to and provide access to transit and non-vehicular transportation, includin t� he re ig onal bicycle networlc and network of pedestrian pathways and sidewalks connectin�to other residential and commercial uses within the immediate vicinity. The compact and mixed-use nature of the Project would help to reduce travel distances between home,work, school, and sho�ing b�providing services and o�ortunities near one another and by locating development proximate to transit and non-vehicular transportation. Implementation of the Project would be consistent with measures L- 1 and L-2. With re�ard to L-3, the Project's proposed construction of 174 units within Madonna Froom Ranch would provide additional housin� for the existing and �rowin� labor force. Since the units proposed within Villa�gio would provide s�ecialized housin� for seniors, the 404 units and 51 beds within Villag�io would not be utilized by the Citv's labor force, and therefore are not counted as part of the Citv's housing su�lv. Further, the Project would also add jobs within the Citv by facilitatin�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 su�ly and an increase in jobs and result in consistency with measure L-3. Refer also to discussion of Project impacts on the City's;o� bs_ to-housin,�balance presented in Section 3.1 l,Population and Housing_ 3.3-64 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13029 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS L-4 relates to the desi�proposed circulation svstems and plannin o_� f the transportation system to su�ort alternative travel modes and reduce sin�le occupant motor vehicle trips. As below for TCM T-1C and T-3, the Prolect would include a new bus stop frontin� the Project site and roadways would be built with pedestrian and bicvcle facilities to promote alternative modes of transportation and reduce sin l�pant motor vehicle trips. However, �iven the site is currentlX located on the southern ed�e of the City with limited surroundin�development, the o�portunitv and abilitv to develop an interconnected street svstem within the site and to ad'ol ining_properties is limited. It should be noted that throu�h�planning process for this Project, the A�licant has tried to provide access to Irish Hills Plaza. While this was explored, a reciprocal vehicular access a,�reement was not a�proved bv the Irish Hills Plaza propertv owner. Access to Calle Joaquin was also evaluated, but the feasibilitv of such a connection was determined infeasible due to natural constraints bv intervenin,g wetlands and Froom Creek. As such, the Project mav be potentiall,y inconsistent with measure L-4. L-5 involves the coordination of transportation improvements and overall changes to the regional transportation system by local governments, the APCD, and SLOCOG. Changes in the transportation system as a result of implementation of the Project would be coordinated between the Cit_y and these a eg ncies• 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-1 C 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. Construction of this transit improvement� would occur durin� construction of the proposed LOVR improvements in Phase I of the proposed construction schedule and would be o�erational well in advance of occupancv of the first units of the proposed Project �see Section 2.6, Proiect Construction). The new bus stop would be within a walkable distance to residents of Madonna Froom Ranch and Villag�io and would be accessible b�pedestrians via the proposed internal pedestrian circulation svstem, which would include construction of separated sidewalks and Class II and Class III bike lanes alon� roadways from residences of Madonna Froom Ranch to LOVR. Provision of a new bus stop frontin� the Prolect site that would be accessible to residents of Madonna Froom Ranch and Villaggio via the proposed internal circulation svstem would ensure consistenc�, ��'��^'� �_��" '�� ^^r��*�r* with L-4, T-2Az and T-2B�€��e�}�E ; e�=e��,��,,.i., �i,,,�o� „� n,.,.;�� Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-65 Final EIR 13030 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS �e�=�e��t�a��t�e�� * '�� "�� '�e� (see Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic, for further analysis of this issue). T-3 is included in the Project and supports L-4 and T-1C. For instance, with the exception of the LOVR and Auto Park Way intersection access point(the Project's main entrance�, none of these emergenc_y access points are proposed as secondarX access roadways due to the infeasibility of securing or permitting such access throu_�h adjacent properties of the Irish Hills Plaza and Mountainbrook Church. The proposed Villaggio would be a secure facility with a gated entrance to ensure controlled access for residents and visitors. Further, providin� secondary access roadways through these locations would be dependent upon negotiation and approval with the respective property owners, which cannot be assured. However, throu�h these emergency access routes are not proposed as secondary access roadways, pedestrian and bicycle access would be available at these access points. Gated pedestrian access is proposed at the emer�ency access point at Mountainbroolc Church, while removable bollards at the Project site's boundarX with Irish Hills Plaza would prohibit access by vehicles, but allow free access bX pedestrians and cyclists. T-6 is also included in the Project. With re,�ard to T-8, as a land use and development project, -the Prolect does not propose, require, or promote telecommute, telework, or telelearning o�ortunities for future commercial uses as a means of reducin� VMT. Providin tg hese o�portunities would be at the option of future commercial businesses. Throu�h compliance with APCD required Measure No. 24, the A�licant shall amend the Draft FRSP to include pro�rams and policies requirin�provision of free-access telework terminals and/or wi-fi access in multi-familv developments where an indoor common area is proposed; however, as the proposed commercial uses include retail and hotel uses, the o�ortunitv for telecommutin� to these service- based jobs would not be �uaranteed. Therefore, implementation of the Project has the potential to be inconsistent with this TCM. 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. _ .As described above, the Project would be substantially consistent with these land use strategies. 3.3-66 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13031 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The Project could hinder the County's ability to maintain attainment of the state Os standard,because the emissions reductions projected in the Clean Air Plan may not be met. The anticipated population growth and potential inconsistencv with TCM L-4 and T-8� �c�e�e��Ele t�p�is potentially inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan; therefore, impacts are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures MMAQ-2 shall apply. MMAQ-4 shall a��lv. MM TRANS-S 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, .�� . MM AQ-4 identifies a set of ineasures required for projects that exceed ROG and NOx emissions thresholds to implement to reduce such emissions. Many of these measures align with the various a�licable TMCs of the Clean Air Plan and are either alread. i�rporated under the Project,while others will require amendments to the Draft FRSP. For example,throu� compliance with APCD required Measure No. 24, the A�licant shall amend the Draft FRSP to include pro�rams and policies requiring provision of free-access telework terminals and/or wi-fi access in multi-family developments where an indoor common area is proposed. In addition,per Measure No. 23, the A�plicant shall amend the Draft FRSP to include policies that allow for the provision of childcare facilities onsite. Further, as required under MM AQ-4 and Measure No. 3 of the Air Quality Handbook, public commercial collector roads shall be connected to adjacent development to the extent feasible to allow pedestrian and bicyclist access, and public pedestrian trails will connect public roads to the existin tg rail system in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Implementation of this measure would ensure thee proposed circulation system is desi�ned to reduce the number of cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets to the extent feasible. Thus, implementation of Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-67 Final EIR 13032 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MM AQ-4 would ensure consistency with the TCMs of the Clean Air Plan, includin� and T-8. 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�TCM 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 of population growth, � , projections for the region. Therefore, residual impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 3.3.3.4 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 PMio and 03, for which NOX and ROGs are a precursor.As the Proj ect 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 signifzcant 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 3.3-68 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13033 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS stationary-source emissions would be reduced to as close to 0 MT COZe/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 considerable and cumulative impacts from GHG emissions and climate change would be significant and unavoidable. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.3-69 Final EIR 13034 13035 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 5pecific Plan 3.4-1 Final EIR 13036 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. ��-�� ,� �.� � �� :� ; ��,:.. � -�� ' —- __ �� -�-..�.�..,.�i�.. .' ,.^?�`.�d".: ,: �-' r � �. -�� sR.� � r�f; A � � �� """t�� i. w�'q.rtl�i�» :s;..ia .�.,�: �,. . '"' ... . . i'9`��``� «:. "' � +� �""''' �, �„�,, " _ �,'' ��~ T�� '� "'. � .,��" �•- -`` ..RaM�ei- °4`�'•f -�._ a r' ` ,', � "`� �'�` .a. ,�'� ., � �At.�� ' � w^g��.� ,,�`� �X �� rP �`� �� &,=„ 2, .'£ Y °v�';� _ �C.,r 'st W a � , �� :A'. � - �� w.>.'�1 L '.; � i .., �.�`-e'. � .� '�.w.� �+a��cnx'�� a��t �` ,. � �oa ,s�,,s,� y�'�' t'; a��u `��y. �,'� ,�i - 5.,.:v:�.�R..�;: �` e�': .,u.��.. _ '.�,z3 . _., �_�� .,'�ia�af;a��sa�ivp�� . �_�_�� 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. 3.4.1.2 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. 3.4-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13037 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES : r,- � .� ' ,,��s�_ ' , .� " .��s' . � "��.�:��.��. .�%'-�:.:; . _ "'�-��. �,� # ; �,.. �, _ - _ - � t"�",�`�� a ; � e y��: =� i � , > ; _ „ s �4, :�s. , r; x�tc-. 0. �' y. � .. y �ht�+r ,�4 ��• ��+3 �p�z t� . �� „�i� - 5,��,�,1 . - ��' '"� 't^,�`��a... � � � �.�'�y.°`c�1'�c.� _, �"' _ �`�� E ��'1:"�*"+i�`.,1�,��` " �_ +�� i � � �'�� -- ��°' S aif:r � . 3� +��7� �f'�'.h,�^� -..�� +f., y� �;'A d �gr� ,.w ..e.- ,�'"s- , . r'� .�,� `1�L"R �'" ' "ct�`�-�--�.,a. '+�.�w .� � � "�+e�; .n.� ' ' _ "T k d��'4`4a��`i.. � �� i �,. . �� ^ � �-`'♦��l,�.�i'" .�< G a � • .�,"I f# � �° . yb._�.7� ��y 1.y3�.E � ;�,�a,..� '� _ y�� , t".��.,' i �., ^ly... y+�s 1� �� , y � ' 'C.y� � /� t� �'��i�lY, �{� �,:�'g. a� �^br. .�{E �. ��K��.° �s,p �� 'e rF ➢- , _ ' ^ �lc�.._i 4z�csr, _� ,..Q� '��-..:!R�_�.�s�l..:.� eir..+-;.. .�•-.-a�'� ,� � _., , . . . . . .. , , ,#' 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. 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 �� D� � � ��` : 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 `"` ��h* .�,..f..... ��, ��`�.��..,�.,;,,�., located in the southeast corner of the . ��.� '��:.�� "� Project site extending along more n k � �:�� _ •�e,. '.� ..^ � � � � � � �� " �' - than 500 feet of Calle Joaquin west of " �' � � �' its intersection with LOVR. This c, , . '�" � <� , � ' °�'� ,, � , �� a � includes approximately 1-acre of 3 vy• k� ,� ' .� f 4'. �yr �., �,�R , y .- -� � Sc+`f �,: „ ,,��9r r° , �. ' , � � �,�;,, "� wetland separated by the Calle Wetlands are present adjacent to Calle Joaguin on the 7oaCluln rOaC�way anCl near the southeastern edge of the Project site, in Drainages 1, 2, and 3 of the Upper Terrace, in the LOVR ditch, and existing hotel development to the within the Irish Hills stormwater detention basin during east. The 1 aCre Of Wetlands SOutheast periods of non-disturbance between permitted maintenance events. of Calle Joaquln 1s 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. ' 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. 3.4-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13039 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 5pecific Plan 3.4-5 Final EIR 13040 W � � t ' LEGEND �� r� � ' �X ��i". Q ProjectSite ��E° "� Habitats ;-, ��, Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub �� Wetland � ; , - Creek/Stream ' 't - Serpentine Rock Outcrop , • 0 Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland i - Coast Live Oak/California Bay Woodland � 0 Coastal Scrub/Chaparral 0 Annual Grassland �� ' 0 Developed/Disturbed nI Tree Stands lv � F � Sycamore Trees ! . f � Eucalyptus Trees x!f - Monterey Cypress 1 � � � Other � r••� 'k� \ \� �' � 13rish Hills Plaza'g Detention Basin for • �' � � � •��r • w � � Approximate 1.6-Acre Former �� '� i ;� Infiltration Basin � ' � "'�• � �r ! 'May support wetland habitat. ' ,r , �� + Sources: ESRI 2018;San Luis Obispo Parcel Information "�� '� KMA 2018(Appendlx E). ' �r � . .... � J ��M��1 . . -.��.. , � . . � ��. %�- , � �� . P, �- � ; �_ �.,t. • � �`�. ..�;, �. '�r y� '�' �` !- ti � �� iu - �� '`• �,' � ,;> r� L � � _ 'I��, i y�� . ,� .�, } \b� �, � �� +� �� •f '��X " w� �- YJ , ~\ , � O i r' • _ ', 'f�� ` , � �� ' . t� � ��'�, , � �' _. �'',:�� . � . � `� � I ° Q�'` �,., =�` `'~� �I � � �� ; �' � � � j� � � � � �� - �� _ �j�� '�� - "' �� ``�l�_ , 1_i ( �� 1 � t �� , —- - � ,1�01, � :y� ..� �• �� \ �ill I � SCALE IN FEET N �, � �i . _ ,�"_ 0 600 � :� w A Existing Biological Setting FIGURE W0O • 3.4-1 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 l, 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 5pecific Plan 3.4-7 Final EIR 13042 \ SCALE IN FEET � � � ii '- .``�`�� f � � � ' � �.�; � *.�' s � �\��'�,��•°� `� } '" .�^� �`" �Ju 4 �. � ' -s ,y � p4 g�� ri u �, . � 0 500 � �� .� c�� I� rt e. �/.�`/� �-� �,��af ``��,�� C�� Gea4y�c,�a�` i t�if i 3 � �`� � �•. &d�' -� �� !�' a ^ � x�`c�`��C'�`" ,, f� L ` �� ,��o4 r�F � Y �. Aenal Source:Google 2018. � ��;, i�'�'` i*�,y$:,, '�,«: , ��r�X j�ir=� l�t ` '`' � h.. �.�4 . . �� .�' \ � �� j�� fi� . �'� � � r� � b '� �"`� �4 ^ e � ,� '�.f ';4f �� r�-` �y� {'.T ,� ��'� �'t n ��o-�c ,Y �f�� : �� m:��.��;,:* s f"�� h � ,�'', :v ��` � fi �< a � � . *' . . � "f �r ,b ,3�° .a�� `�'�`��r '��; 1Q . -. .... .. . l t; .. �� Y� '� '.r � ` A n,Ae. .5g, v; .. 2�ii+ . �`� �''l f"K � �r�F� �, ,x,+��'.. �� *,�s� � � � � . �^V •�� _ �^1�``._ s � �� . � .E� � q � -.5t ��ro�•w y ��: � c C" ; 4� `ti; 't� � �� 5� � ' ��. � i H�t,� .�`�?�� cS :. �� .;�U �' � � � �� ,,, x�''�, ,: ', �' ,y e'�2�� ''� y � � �. - � :� %" ``''4' �,/ � � ,.?�'�l�+6�� t�' `'��r�. . . — �.�.` . .. �� ^u t �� .. �. �� " ::.� � L H�.l'� � 4 't� t�t�� wr,yft� yf i . � �,,�,' `, �+�r.�.., � . , . �.'� '�ir' .0�� e ;�. � \ ��'•, � � �r ��'� a� wiwW. `��.g -. . . - /- �*� c`��.�, �.�, �� .a . ; . � , . . �'�.,*.'� rt t` � ��, a� �+ �, i`.��} � ' _ e t � ;_ ,. . • _:. ;.,, , _ ,�, .. = � �� ` "�;G . . ` . : . . � - r� ��y �- � - ��4.y 4 yTy�Cdc '.� - _ - . � +Lw.�i'.w ' r- :�: a �. + � L� ` — � .� .� ' �� .�. � �� i� z,��7� � �� +=��, q� � �1 ��. � � y�4� _. � �� . _ ��` 5 �� , �"�'° i (�`y � �� • ; ti �� Ci �� "w.y � ��. ' ��;�� . . �; �3 �4 i �� ' � �,"Y'. . Y.. - d ��I .,'�. ,,� � " F ,� � � ,��.'�+ �`'� , �,� �! �+�• ��'�t� ,� �: ' , . e �_' ,�. �, � r �� '� »,t�a. � �� .°��"x-��: ,J - s�:e+��$t�� `, � ' " �,r ,� , .. ��.- t...�> : ;`f.. � e r �- � �� ,��., �� ;t. E �x,. �� a"� ��t ,� � ,� �_ �� .:t a � ��• ( � ,�'� � t,: K i� � h 1 a j�-.` � �r �� ` �y � . . , '�.e �1 .��'� �!� /. ��i'�"1�� ✓ = ._- � " Y w „ ��`��! �., .�:� r�, �"a' ` ' � � ( �. ""-' ,�W, ,� ' �1 a:�`��,. ��„�� ,� � � � 9 Rx�w�_ �f r9 : '�'' �°,.. .:� �!y°•'�i`".,,A€l. �^'- y. .� .;�. �W k� '� *�'�' "1�r�� '�. ( Rw � �.��,� .�YL �. �'� � . � L � ._ '��C``1e �t� ; ��• � . ,.f�' ,� r 101 " , m . . ' ' }n-, �� 1.y`� /�;. =�-� . �- a ��: f ;�� t � � ' ( � PS.- . �ya�'_�"� C: 1 jJ �•' +.' `� ��.� ° - �: ,�� ¢ � '� ;i� '��,; \ ` �� . I f `£��,. � �� '� �f. ~ �'�� ` �' ;. ,, : :. a, . , . ..., �a�� „�� . � , � q,..� f� � � �� . . �.a� P � C � I �e t ` �':a ' - _ � � � s.l�' �i'a�d'e � . f �a�V� �� r f �. ~ � p y #�� '�� ' ;S� � � � - �.��:� • � " LEGEND Design Constraints Trees(approximate location) � CDFW 1 B Rare Plants Serpentine Bunchgrass Arroyo Willow • Eucalyptus Peruvian Pepper Tree � Grassland CDFW Jurisdiction California Bay Freemont Western Sycamore x , y � :-� USACE Other Waters Cottonwood Chorro Creek Bog • Coast Live Oak � Other Unidentified Trees � `,` p�` '�� Thistle Setback � USACE Wetlands • Hollyleaf Cherry '.�, � ` Riparian Scrub wOOd. Project Site Biological Constraints FIGURE 3.4-2 3.4-8 13043 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 3.4-1. Habitat Types Located within the Project Site �I Annual Grassland 68.65 53.3 Developed/Disturbed(Ruderal)' 14.52 ll.3 Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland 13.46 10.5 Coastal Scrub/Chaparral 9.26 72 Wetland 8.27 6.4 Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub 4.82 3.7 Coast Live OaWCalifornia 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 Trees� 0.03 0.02 Tota13�' 128.76 100 �Developed/disturbed(ruderal)areas include existing disturbed surfaces(e.g.,within the Froom Ranch Dairy complex, graded roadways,the onsite quarry,and stormwater detenrion 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. �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. 4Initial habitat mapping was conducted by KMA in 2015 far 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 � � f ��' -�� x ',�.,yxy , ��r... '�� occurrences of nine special-status :;�r * � � .�, , � ° � , � ; �. ��"�';,, � . , '��:`�""'°' `� natural plant communities near the "�'-`�'�`�' '�� " �� W M:� Project site. Within the habitats � �� .; , '�;� �..� � - d�_� «� .� �• _ � �_.� �„ ��,_' mapped within the Proj ect site, field "` � ��f,�� 3� . _. � � , surve s identified three natural `� °� � �� . �,� '�� , �s��' ` �� Y , .r:. � �`� t �` ' �,��'�'« ��`R'�,� communities meeting the state's `� � � _ `� � ,� ' �`��a'� •� � _ � . � � �, � definition of special-status natural �= , ',�r ��-'�� ,,'4� r; � �r f � � ,�.� �a.r ,. � Y�-. communities pursuant to the � ��j�, �=�� °�� r �� ` �� , �a � '� `�� ry k� ��' 1 '�. .M . ,..A'� d, . ..41� CallfOrnla Depal'tment Of FlSh anCl Froom Creek looking north towards the Upper Terrace. Wildlife (CDFW�, including Coastal The Project site provides rich natural communities and habitats, including wetlands and serpentine bunchgrass and Valley Freshwater Marsh grassland, as well as California bay woodland. The Upper Terrace is particularly rich in these biological resources. (wetland), riparian, and serpentine bunchgrass grassland. Special-status plants also occur in certain features within the Project site, including serpentine rock outcrops or in areas of annual and perennial grasslands. Where these features support Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-9 Final EIR 13044 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 ,,.��,,.; � �f � s�� approximately 8.27 acres of G'��'�� ` '��`��' � � y� ,,� " jurisdictional wetland areas and/or �. . �,�f ; f, � y , ��; �` �;��`'� s ,��.� `,t2 • � �`�,'�,�� s�'. �� '�f�` � sa� �� a+��F,"�� l��i 1 t, Other Waters subject to the ��{` �, ��, ��r'_ ' , ,a'�r , '�� '�° t�� i''.s �:. �r� -r , !6' . �' .�, �� 4�#� .� r^zr. +at �y. u �a � , r �� li... jurisdiction of the U.S.Army Corps of ��ia�� „j��I'l '` � .�,.- r ,.'��;��s ;h + #y�� +r�Y��•S.�'i�f'� � "'�`�'�� i � �, Engineers (USACE) and/or the +��'��j k' , ,,.�. `� ��t, �,�,e!F��*�� t �us'�,�,, �. �„� ,�. � � �� :.. Regional Water Quality Control �,ti�t �� '�,�� '��: ',• " �� ,� w ��a � �_ �t.. �� Board (RWQCB). The Project site � � ��,_ d��,.��,�i��, ��k,� � ` � - r '� ,.,� . also supports approximately 5.41 ��,��;; � � �`f ' e � r � ' 4� ' ' 4y � �f , ; l�,i�� acres of CDFW state urisdictional � �t �� ` ��ti� `�� ` ��,'��' � �` `i ,'•'� J �s`�,� � ' �;��,•' �, , � i .ti �t,� n ��a k �i �ilk�1 '��1��1:'b�� :. . '�i�� F c�-� features along Froom Creek, the The Calle Joaquin wetlands support significant amounts of ponded water that provide high-guality habitat for L�VR d1tC�1, DTalnageS 1, 2, 3, and 4, several plant and animal species(Appendix E). and associated riparian habitat (Appendix E).� 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 mammals such as deer,bobcats, coyotes, and mountain lions,may rely on water from these 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. 3.4-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13045 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES seeps and springs, particularly during dry periods. Durin� the onsite Biolo�ical Survey conducted bv KMA in 2018, invasive species, including cravfish and reed fescue were also identified in these areas, which have the potential to limit habitat suitabilit,v for some s�ecial status species.,.To.,o,��,o�o�� ,o,.,,�o„�;,,� �,.r-�,.,,��.,� .,ra v„��o:,�,.v��,..,,,�o,.n�r.,,.� � ao�,.,.;�.,oa .,�.,,,.,o ,. � �,; �, a„v�,. o.,�or�;.,o �,,,�.;�„� � ,;�.,�.,;�;�., Calle.Ioaquin Wetlands Adj acent 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 5.81- acre Calle Joaquin wetlands are predominantly supported by groundwater, as well as an artesian s�well, 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 � � � �� - -� � � �� , ,f _,.� , . . . approximately 13 years ago between � � . mid-2006 and mid-2007 and includes ��, �� ',�� _''-��'"';�""��# � both a main detention basin and its � ' ��`��' � - � ��t : ,a �� ;�;f��. � � � ¢� � �- ��; forebay. The basin is fed through �-�� u�}�� A �uf � ��,,�,�� w _� 4 b �� f-�' approximately 1,160 linear feet of .� , ��, �� ,e _ � ,: �. . , -� �. �-� pipeline that conveys surface flows from view of�the maif� bczsin of�the 3.2-ac�e sto�mwate� detention basin in September 2017. Cattails and tules Irish Hills Plaza to this basin. During are present in areas of prolonged saturation, along large StOIm events Or ln wet yeaTs, the with herbaceous wetland species (Appendix E). Wetlands have regenerated in this basin between basin is designed to overtop and permitted maintenance clearing, but are not � discharge water into the Calle Joaquin iurtsdtcttonal per USACE. wetlands via a concrete spillway. During lower rainfall years or events, stormwater in this Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-11 Final EIR 13046 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES basin evaporates or percolates into the ground. The basin is subj ect 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 consultant team (e.g., 2-3 times over 13 years). The stormwater basin is man-made and located entirel,y in upland habitat; therefore, it would not su�ort wetland ve,�etation if not for the Irish Hills Plaza stormwater it retains and treats. The basin is e�rnot �� ^�* ^�*'�� r^;�^*'� «'�*'^�a r'�';r�^*;^r ��r^�* ^r identified as a jurisdictional feature in the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination approved by the USACE on September 24, I2015;however, 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. Per the A�plicant, the stormwater basin had not been functionin�(drainin�) properl� which allowed water to sta,v in the basin for lon e�r periods of time, thus facilitating development of the wetland habitat. Throu�h the public review process for the Draft EIR, City staff consulted with re u� latorv a�encv staff from USACE and RWQCB, who confirmed that the onsite stormwater detention basin is not considered a jurisdictional wetland throu�h personal communication with Jerrv Hidalgo, Project Mana,�er of the USACE North Coast Branch Re_u� latorv Division in Februar,v 2020. In March 2020, the Citv consulted further with Kathleen Hicks,Environmental Scientist with the Central Coast Re�ional Water Qualitv Control Board, who was e� n�v supportive of the approach su.11,.�ested bv USACE. z��z—z'kE�e�ii3n u;��" D� �6i'�crcc�R��i�i6"rr azriii�r$ .,��l,v �'TD ., .,1.,�;� 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 3.4-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13047 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 �"" �� t�� Shrubland Alliance and forms a ��a, ��. �'� forested wetland that corresponds to �;��.`�� - � �- v ti � �� ' the Central Coast Arroyo Willow �. , �,�� -� �� ; ,, Riparian Scrub community. The � -.., Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub is a form of forested wetland that �� =�,� _ ``, u� � ' ;;.� .� is considered a sensitive natural � � � community by the CDFW. This natural _ COmmunity and Othei' Ylpai'lan h2blt2t The largest stand of�riparian habitat extends over 1,300 feet along the LOVR ditch and supports both mature and oCCupy approxlmately 4.82 aCres of the juvenile willow trees, with stands up to 90 feet in width. Project site. The habitat is mostly 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). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-13 Final EIR 13048 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Serpentine Bunch�rass Grassland Native grassland comprised of purple t� ;�>A �• v��;'� .. ' ��. needlegrass(Stipa pulchra)along with �� 4�� r•��: � � ,� ,, a mix of native and non-native species `�`x'""'"� ' "' ' ��•� �� , #� ' '�M occurs within 13.46 acres of the Upper ,, Terrace and hillsides of the Pro'ect site � ``` •�� `; '� d � �- � ,;�' , � ` �:x., �a : • � J `�'�`y f+�i � , � ^Y'� T' � R? , .�`'' �y,,' o E � �.16 WI10Y0 S0Yp0ritlri8 SO11S 1riflU8riC0 p12rit �� ;,} r� �r. � �g � � � � � ��'� ''k ''' :� � ;, � x�t,� a��' '�`�'�' distribution. These native grasslands �` �' '� , � �� ,��. � �� S . ` � ".� a,„ '�� t exist primarily in the Upper Terrace , *�� : "� ,: "�""' � ' � �„�r�u� r�� '��1 f� ; � '��r +; �. adjacent to Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and �' '�� :..� „ r�,E' '� ��F'�'�� ?��; ��' � �,:+` i.?c A ��'_„I�� .�s_ �',�r, . ,� .., �a tOgethel' wlth Sevel'al Stands Of COast The native se�pentiy7e�bccrzchgr-ass grassland r-epresents one of the most significant biological resources on the live oak/Callfornla bay woodland and site, supporting a suite of special-status plant species, Coastal sage SCriib habltat foYm the many of which are endemic to the San Luis Obispo area. 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 natural community. Onsite, these grasslands are dominated by purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchNa), 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(T�erbena 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 3.4-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13049 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 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 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. 4 Refer to Section 3.43, 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 5pecific Plan 3.4-15 Final EIR 13050 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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. Table 3.4-2. Special-Status Plants with High Potential to Occur in the Project Site Adobe yampah --/--/43 Observed onsite. California native PeYideridia pringlei endemic often found on grassy slopes and serpentine soils. Blochman's dudleya --/--/1B.1 Observed onsite. Often found on Dudleya blochmaniae rocky,often clay or serpentine soils in coastal bluff scrub,chaparral, coastal scrub,and valley and foothill grasslands. Brewer's spineflower --/--/1B.3 Observed onsite. Occurs in closed- Chorizanthe ssp.breweri cone coniferous forests,chaparral, cismontane woodland,and coastal scrub habitats on serpentine derived soils and rock outcrops. Cambria morning-glory --/--/4.2 Observed onsite. Occurs in chaparral, Calystegia subacaulis ssp. cismontane woodland,and sparse to episcopalis dense grassland covering sloped or flat areas in clay-rich soils. Chaparral(rayless)ragwort --/--/2B2 Observed onsite. Typically found in Senecio aphanactis drying alkaline flats,serpentine soils and barren gravelly or sandy slopes in chaparral,cismontane woodland,and coastal scrub habitats. Chorro Creek bog thistle E/E/1B.2 Observed onsite. Occurs in chaparral Cirsiurr�fontinale var. and cismontane woodland habitats, obispoense often in serpentine seeps. Club hair mariposa lily --/--/43 Observed onsite. Species is known to Calochortus clavatus ssp. occur on serpentine rock outcrops, clavatus valley grassland(i.e.,perennial bunchgrass),chaparral,and foothill woodland. 3.4-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13051 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 3.4-2. Special-Status Plants with High Potential to Occur in the Project Site (Continued) Congdon's tarplant --/--/l B.1 Observed onsite. Occurs in moist Centromadia parryi ssp. alkaline conditions in marshes, congdonii swamps,vernal pools,and valley and foothill grassland habitats. Eastwood's larkspur --/--/1B.2 Observed onsite. Known to occur on Delphinium parryi ssp. serpenrine based soils(clays)and east►voodiae outcrops in the general San Luis Obispo arca with collection madc on Camp San Luis Obispo. Jones'layia --/--/1B.2 Observed onsite. Occurs on clay soils �jonesii and serpentine outcrops in chaparral I and valley and foothill grassland. Most Beautiful Jewel-flower --/--/1B.2 Observed onsite.A rare California Streptanthus albidus ssp. native annual herb found in chaparral, Peramoenus valley grassland,and foothill woodlands on serpentine soils in arid climates. Mouse-gray dudleya --/--/1B.3 u:^'��+��+:�, +� ��„�-Observed Dudleya abramsii ssp.murina onsite. Occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland,usually on serpentine outcrops. Palmer's spineflower --/--/4.2 Observed onsite. Occurs on Chorizanthe palmeri 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 --/--/1B.2 Observed onsite. Occurs on Calochortus obispoensis 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 --/--/1B.2 Observed onsite. Occurs in meadows, Castilleja densiflora ssp. seeps,and valley and foothill obispoensis grassland. This species was observed onsite. Bold text denotes species observed onsite during biological surveys. � Source:Appendix E. z 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 LisY' 01 ="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 5pecific Plan 3.4-17 Final EIR 13052 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 3.4-3. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Site American badger --/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable Taxidea taxus 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 --/WL/-- Moderate potenrial to occur. Grasslands Eremophila alpestris actia provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat onsite. California red-legged frog T/SSC/-- Moderate potenrial to occur.Limited Rana draytonii suitable habitat exists;however,potenrial for suitable movement,dispersal, and foraging habitat in onsite wetlands increases outside of drought conditions. Cooper's hawk --/WL/-- High potential to occur.Potentially Accipiter cooperii suitable nesting habitat is present in oak/bay woodlands and eucalyptus/ sycamore trees onsite. Could also forage across the site. Hoary bat --/SA/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable Lasiurus cinereus 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 --/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable Lanius ludovicianus woodland,grassland,and scrub habitat present for foraging and nesting exists onsite. Pallid bat --/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur.Potentially Antrozous pallidus suitable roosting habitat present in oak/bay woodland. Suitable foraging habitat in grasslands and coastal scrub onsite. San Diego woodrat --/SSC/-- High potential to occur. Suitable habitat Neotoma lepida intermedia 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 potenrially occur in woodlands. South-central California coast T/SSC/-- High potential to occur. Suitable habitat steelhead DPS present upstream in Froom Creek. Oncorhynchus mykiss 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 Final EIR 13053 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 3.4-3. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Site (Continued) Townsend's western big-eared --/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable bat foraging habitat present throughout the Corynorhinus townsendii site. Potential roosting habitat located at existing buildings. Tri-colored blackbird T/SSC/-- Moderate potenrial to occur. Could occur Agelaius tricolor (Nesting) 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 T/SA/-- Low potential to occur. The Project site Branchinecta lynchi does not support suitable habitat and is not hydrologically connected to known vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. Western mastiff bat --/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable Eumops perotis californicus foraging habitat in grasslands onsite. Potenrially suitable roosring habitat present in oak woodland and large eucalyptus and sycamore trees. Western red bat --/SSC/-- Moderate potential to occur. Potentially Lasiurus blossevilli suitable roosting habitat present in oak/bay woodlands and foraging habitat consists of onsite grasslands. White-tailed kite --/FP/-- Moderate potential to occur. Suitable Elanus leucurus (Nesting) nesting habitat in oak,bay,eucalyptus and sycamore trees on-site,with good quality foraging habitat in grasslands throughout the site. Yuma myotis --/SA/-- Moderate potential to occur.Potentially Myotis yumanensis 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. � Source:Appendix E. �Federal Status/State Status/Other Status SSC=California Species of Special Concern E=Endangered T=Threatened C=Candidate far Lisring FP=Federally Protected SA=Special Animal WL=CDFW Watch List Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-19 Final EIR 13054 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.s Table 3.4-4. Species of Local Concern Within Vicinity of the Project a� ��niKhi�.y�r.�nr �R:�e��.� Plants 4 Blochman's dudleya Dudleya blochrr�aniae ssp. __�__�1B.1 blochmaniae 5 Brewer's spineflower Chorizanthe bNeweri --/--/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- Streptanthus albidus ssp. __/__/1B.2 flower Peramoenus 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. � Refer to City General Plan COSE Figure 2 for corresponding species identification �Federal Status/State Status/California Rare Plant Rank CRPR 1B="Plants Rare,Threatened,or Endangered in California and Elsewhere"by the CNPS O.l ="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) 03="Not ver�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, andlor their observed presence on the site. s The COSE identifies species of local concern in Figure 2: Species of Local Concern. 3.4-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13055 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES S�ecial-Status Plant Species Blochman's Dudleya. This species is .� �• � � an endemic coastal sage scrub perennial �' +�y�, � r +„ , �1 � herb native to Southern California and � - _ ��' ��',.,�- ;��.�- � northwestern Baja California that �, �� ..�,;r; - ��a �>:.;� flowers from mid to late s rin While �� ` � P g• � � ,��' *'�.��, Blochman's dudleya has not been � �` ' � ' � assigned federal or state status it is � � ,� ' .�� / �,-J considered by the CNPS to be seriously Bloc{�naan's dudleya, a perennial herb thczt is endangeYed wlthln lts d1StYlbutlOn aCYOss considered seriously endangered by CNPS, was observed in small patches distributed in rocky the state. The SpeCles typlCally oCCurs on outcrop areas of the Upper Terrace area of the rocky, often clay or serpentine soils, in P'"oject site. (Photo: CalPhotos,photograph by xeir Morse 2016) 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 � � ,*.� � �t . � Obispo fountain thistle). This species ��, � _ , �` .�` is an endemic California perennial herb ;�' ��" �� + � f��:. � r' that flowers from February to July and � � .��, �:,� ,�� . �; occurs only in San Luis Obispo County. � � * ' �,� ��` Chorro Creek bog thistle is designated _ �' '� ��` { '�"-� �l � � � rs.-� ► ... � �*�':#�� - as both a state and federal endangered � ,�:�;,�� •,;. ��f� �r� � ,; species and designated as an imperiled • �+ ' .. � . - � .�. � F species by CNDDB at the state and �� f� �� global level. The species typically � r �, � �� . OCCUTS lri C11apaI1'al ariCl C1SmOritarie Chorro C�eek hog thistle, a perennial herb that is federally endangered, was observed in wetland WOOCllariCl IlabltatS, Ofteri lri SelpOritlriO habitat along the seep-/spring fed Drainages 1 and 2 seeps ranging from approximately 105 in the Upper Terrace. (Photo: CDFW,Jeb Bjerke) 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). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-21 Final EIR 13056 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Congdon's Tarplant. This species is an y� ��. , ..:�- „�;_,� ��;:��-':`�+�; r s N�:,:�,�..._. . �,.. '�:.. �. . '. . .,., :: endemic Californian annual herb that �� - -:::,;. �=_.. Y� r'�. K = �N �.� �,�a;- .. . ,� - ._'�r.:�.- _„�x.- '� ,,, , �,� i � ;�;;; .� flowers in late spring through fall. While �:�� = ��': '�� :� * � `' '^'"�:."'- �=°' '-`� �,� -,,�:� �".�9 . A. : ... .-,�� • � ;'� ,,:'n� .,� :'��i•::. Congdon's tarplant does not have federal � _ �', �,r� �,;:� _,ti�'• ��+� § _;�:�'_ �A� }� :s; �... or state status, it is considered by the �b;, ,"��= ` ;"`::.��,'_ CNPS to be rare or endangered within its `�'�' y+�, ,�`~ :� ~�''� ' s �� ;' ,k s ,;�''-':�;�-,,- �•. _ _ � �;.'•.f.,. �•...� _r r,,r. �. _ ., T� distribution across the state. The species �'y��' _ �<�"� •� _ ,.� � . ;-- ,� �•.��.�,y �,'-�:� { �' "'¢''�`.w^�;: �. �,=. � .� � .�r;. typically occurs in moist alkaline '�� ,�., ;, ��i� � �- . � �,.�'�`r:'� � '��`� � ,�._ ," 1 . ,;.y-�� r�: conditions in marshes, swamps, vernal ,; :.�,'�=y- . � �` �� .� *,. �-` �'�,!� pools, and valley and footh111 grassland Congdon's tarplant, an annual herb that is endemic to California and rare, was observed in the habitats at an elevation ranging from constructed Home Depot detention basin in the approximately 1 to 700 feet. A no�theastern part o�the site. 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 3.4-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13057 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES scrub habitat. At the Proj ect 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 5pecific Plan 3.4-23 Final EIR 13058 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 (ma�ed a�roximatelv 2.1 miles north of the Pro'ecl t site�, 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 Final EIR 13059 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES considerations,potential for California red-legged frog to occur onsite during non-drought periods is conservatively considered to be moderate. Southern Pacific(Western) Pond Turtle. The western pond turtle is a Species of Special Concern in California; however, no suitable habitat was determined present onsite b.�� 2018 site-specific Biological Resources Inventor�y JM Development Group, Inc., nor through peer review of the study conducted by Wood, which included a su�lemental survey of the Project site on January 18, 2018. Western pond turtle occurs in both permanent and intermittent waters, includin�marshes, streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes. It favors habitats with large numbers of emer_e� nt logs or boulders, where individuals a��regate to bask. They also bask on top of aquatic ve�etation. Only mar ig nal species habitat is present seasonally in the Calle Joaquin wetland. The species is known to occur in San Luis Obispo Creek; however, U.S. 101 and LOVR barriers make the occurrence of the species on site unlikel� 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). Burrowing Owl. Burrowing owl is a Species of Special Concern in California; however, no suitable habitat was determined present onsite by the 2018 site-specific Biological Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-25 Final EIR 13060 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Resources Inventorv provided bv JM Development Group, Inc., nor throu�h peer review of the studv conducted bv Wood, which included a su�lemental survev of the Proj ect site on January 18, 2018. Burrowin� owl habitat includes grasslands. Burrowin� mammal activitv was not observed , -a �'. � durin,g field visits conducted by - � '., � both KMA and Wood and the � - ,. � � • `�r Biolo�ical Resources Inventory, as ' .-=i - �, '�� . ., :�,s:r- . well as Wood's peer review, -.�. �.�. �=� A female mountain lion and her three cubs(two pictured COnClucled bull'OWln� Owl aI'e nOt above) were caught on trail cameras approximately 1 anticipated to breed or occur onsite mile fi�om the Project site within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. due to lack of suitable habitat. 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 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 3.4-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13061 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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. Table 3.4-5. Inventory of Mature Trees within the Project Site .- . �- - I Native Species Coast live oak Quercus agrif'olia 4l 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. �The City General Plan COSE identifies wildlife corridors and wildlife zones in Figure 3:Wildlife Corridors. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-27 Final EIR 13062 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 Endan_er� ed 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 de�ned 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. Mi r_� atory Bird Treat,v 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 3.4-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13063 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 adj acent 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. 3.4.2.2 State California Endan erg ed 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 proposedprojects 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-29 Final EIR 13064 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 Cit,v 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. 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. Conse�vation and Open Space Element Policy COSE 7.31 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. 3.4-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13065 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 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 7.51 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-31 Final EIR 13066 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 Ilrban Landscaping. Landscaping should incorporate native plant species, with selection appropriate for location. Policy COSE 7.5.4 Prese�^vation 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. 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 Cr�eek 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. 3.4-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13067 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 creelc 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 Zlrban 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 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-33 Final EIR 13068 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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). Policv COSE 8.6.3:Repuired mitigation. Loss or harm shall be miti�ated to the maximum extent feasible. Miti�ation must at least complv with Federal and State requirements. Miti�ation shall be implemented and monitored in compliance with State and Federal requirements, by qualified professionals, and shall be funded b.��project a�licant. A. For natural habitat that is relatively limited in extent (such as ri�arian or wetland habitat) miti�ation shall consist of creatin� twice the area of habitat lost, of ec�ual qualitv, in the followin� order of�reference: 1. The same kind on the same site. 2. The same kind on a different site (the site shall be within the San Luis Obispo plannin_ a�rea). 3. A similar kind (such as seasonal wetland in place of freshwater marsh) on the same site. 4. A similar kind on a different site (the site shall be within the San Luis Obispo Plannin_�Area). B. Habitat created as miti�ation should be located and designed to minimize the need for long-term artificial su�ort (such as su�lying wetlands from a well requiring energ�y and maintenance). C. For a widespread habitat ty�e or for farmland, miti�ation shall consist of permanentl�protectin_�an equal area of equal c�uality, which does not alread.��have permanent�rotection, within the San Luis Obis�o Plannin�;Area. D. Far projects involving enlargement of the urban reserve, mitigation shall consist of permanentl�protectin�an area not previousl�protected,that is located and that has 3.4-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13069 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES sufficient size( eg nerally four times the area to be developed)to secure a permanent ed�e to the cit� E. Individual small �rojects, each with an incremental im�act on an extensive resource, ma��rovide miti�ation throu_gh pavment of a fee, to be used for protecting that resource within the San Luis Obis�o plannin_ a� rea• F. The City may establish or participate in a "mitigation bank," throu�h which resources are protected in a consolidated location ahead of the need to mitigate impacts of individual, small projects. The City will work with other a�encies to assure successful operation of any miti�ation bank that is established. G. Anv develo�ment that is allowed on a site designated as Open Space or A�riculture, or containing open s�ace resources, shall be designed to minimize its im�acts on open space values on the site and on nei h� borin l� and• 1. Hillside development shall complv with the standards of the Land Use Element, including minimization of rg ading far structures and access, and use of building forms,colors,and landscaping that are not visually intrusive. �See also Chapter 9.2.1� 2. Creek corridors, wetlands, �rassland communities, other valuable habitat areas, archaeological resources, a�ricultural land, and necessary buffers should be within their own�arcel,rather than divided amon.,. n�ewly created parcels (Fi.u.� re g). Where creation of a separate �arcel 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 encoura�e the County not to create new parcels within the greenbelt, with the exception of those permitted under the Count� aQriculture 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�reater than as designated in the September 2002 San Luis Obispo Area Plan and related County codes. The Citv will encoura�e the Countv to adopt and implement a mandatory cluster district for a�ropriate areas of the Greenbelt under County jurisdiction to preserve open space qualities, consistent with this Element. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-35 Final EIR 13070 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES � The City will encoura�e other agencies to follow these policies. 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. Citv 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. Cit,v of San Luis Obispo Zonin,� 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 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: 3.4-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13071 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) A substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modi�cations, 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, � 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 ThNeshold(s) • Threshold(� (Conflict with an adopted conservation plan): The Project site is not located within the management area of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, 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 Wood, 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). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-37 Final EIR 13072 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES •> > .,�;.,o � ,;�1,;,, �l,o ,Y, „ 1,.,�;,, � 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, 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. � . . . , , ,,,.;,.,o.' ��.oh.,ov„... �..v. ,,.o„�.,,.o o ,,.� 3.4-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13073 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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. 3.4.3.3 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-39 Final EIR 13074 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 3.4-6. Summary of Project Impacts B10-1.Project implementation MM HAZ-2 Significant and Unavoidable would impact sensitive riparian, MM BIO-1 wetland, and native grassland MM BIO-2 habitats idenrified as sensitive natural communities under state MM BIO-3 and City policy. MM BIO-4 MM BIO-5 MM BIO-6 MM BIO-7 MM BIO-8 BIO-2. Project implementation MM HAZ-2 would have substanrial direct and MM BIO-1 Significant and Unavoidable indirect adverse impacts on MM BIO-9 candidate, sensitive,or special- MM BIO-10 status species that are known to MM BIO-11 or may occur on the Project site. MM BIO-12 BIO-3.Project implementation MM BIO-1 Significant and Unavoidable would have a substantial adverse MM BIO-2 impact on state and federally MM BIO-4 protected wetlands. MM BIO-5 MM BIO-6 MM Bi0-7 MM BIO-8 BIO-4.Project construction and MM BIO-1 Significant and Unavoidable operation would have a MM BIO-2 substantial adverse impact on the MM BIO-3 movement of resident or MM BIO-4 migratory fish or wildlife species MM BIO-5 or resident and migratory MM BIO-6 wildlife corridors along Froom MM BIO-9 Creek,Drainages 1,2,and 3 and MM BIO-11 across open grasslands on the MM BIO-12 Upper Terrace of the Project site. MM BIO-13 MM BIO-14 BIO-5.Project construction MM BIO-15 Less than Significant with would result in the potential Mitigation disturbance,trimming, or removal of up to 75 mature trees. 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 3.4-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13075 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES within the Upper Terrace,in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve bordering the site,and wetlands in the rr;�'� u;"� �+^rm.•,^+�r a�+�N+;^r '�^�;„, LOVR ditch; and Calle Joaquin wetlands. A I 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, 0_5� acre�of wetlands,and 1.139:5 acres 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. Direct Impacts to Sensitive Habitat Types Located within the Project � Site , � � � , � � � � � � . „ , , � ,�.� � f�� Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland 13.46 4.74 (Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance) � Coastal Scrub/Chaparral 9.26 0 �--) Wetland ".�° � (Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh) g�� 0.5 Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub (Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian 4.82 1.13 Scrub) Total 35.81 8.37 � �nr�:�o:�a:ro�*;m��FF��'�;-�:~�+:-��Note:Acrea e derived from GIS-based analvsis of Pro ect land uses �n��-.�-�� g J overlain ma�ped biological resources.Indirect impacts addressed separately below. 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 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 8.37 acres of sensitive � Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-41 Final EIR 13076 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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, HazaNdous 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 with vegetation mana�ement strate_�ies.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 through fuel management techniques a�roved by the City to minimize wildfire risk. Buffer management would entail strate ic vegetation mana�ement to balance sensitive habitats with wildfire fuel reduction. 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 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 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. 3.4-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13077 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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. While buffer mana�ement would entail strate i�c ve,�etation mana,�ement to balance sensitive habitats with wildfire fuel reduction,�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 Proj ect 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-43 Final EIR 13078 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 maj or 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, ��^'��'�� '�^+'� sensitive natural communities in the U�er Terrace,alon,�the LOVR ditch,and in the Calle y Fire return frequencies are uncertain.However,there are no records of fires having occurred within the Irish Hills in recent history.While wildfire retum 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 po�ential for increases in scouring and sedimentation until watershed vegetation recovers. 3.4-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13079 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Joaquin wetlands^ra ^^„�+��^+��' ��+'^ra�. Direct adverse impacts could affect up to 0.5- I 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. •� , �ut��c�e�it�ri�t�e�x��The loss of these sensitive wetland habitats would be substantial, and the Applicant's preliminary plans do not account for restoration of this habitat, thou�h detailed plans will be required during re�ul�r,y permittin og f the Proj ect. Based on preliminary designs,the Project would include installation of at least three utility lines underlying the realigned Froom Creek and existing riparian areas adjacent to LOVR to connect with existing infrastructure along LOVR(see Figure 2- 13 and Figure 2-14). It is unknown at this time how much 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-45 Final EIR 13080 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 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 signifzcant. 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 3.4-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13081 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES sf (0.57 acre). Refer also to Impact TRANS-2 for discussion of secondary impacts associated with these required improvements. 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 pulchNa, 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 as 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. 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 restaration of such grasslands with a full complement of species that currently occur can therefore not be assured. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-47 Final EIR 13082 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 ��'�� 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 3.4-48 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13083 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-49 Final EIR 13084 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Section 3.7,Haza�ds, 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 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 MMHAZ-2 shall apply. MMBIO-1 The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that identifies both construction and operational related avoidance, reduction, and mitigation measuNes for impacts to sensitive natural communities. The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid oN 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 consti^uction-related measu�es and BMPs: a) Construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored at least 100 feet away from existing and proposed dNainage 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 3.4-50 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13085 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 SO feet of the existing Froom CNeek 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 constr�uction materials (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building materials) shall be stored at designated const�uction staging areas, which shall be located outside of designated sensitive areas. Should spills occur, or if anv unanticipated hazardous materials are discovered, materials and/or contaminants shall be cleaned immediately and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the RWQCB, Department ofToxic Substances Control, and/or San Luis Obispo Countv Public Health Environmental Services, as �plicable. 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. � 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 e�osion control devices. Such measures shall be installed along the perimeter of disturbed areas and along the top of the bank of the existing and p�oposed F�oom 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-51 Final EIR 13086 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES g) Concrete truck and tool washout shall occur in a designated location such that no runoff will reach the creek, onsite drainages, or othe�sensitive areas. h) All open trenches shall be constr�ucted 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 other�wise trained and City-appNoved peNsonnel. 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 fi^agmentation. 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, 3.4-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13087 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 EnviNonmental 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 monito� all construction activities, conduct a biological �esources education program for all construction workers prior to the initiation of any clearing or construction activities, and provide quarterly reports to the City rega�ding 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 exposu�e risk is identified, the Environmental Coordinator shall implement measu�es 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 monitoN and regulate all construction occurring within 50 feet of the existing and proposed Froom Creek channel, otheN existing or proposed drainage features, -riparian habitat, Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4, and seasonal or � peNmanent wetlands. During appropriate flowering, nesting, breeding, migration, and dispersal seasons, the Environmental Coordinator shall also conduct sensitive species surveys immediately prior to constr�uction Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-53 Final EIR 13088 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES activities and shall monito�constr�uction activities in the vicinity of habitats to be avoided. The work area boundaries and other off-limit areas shall be identifzed by the biologist and/or Environmental Coordinator on a daily basis. The biologist and/or Environmental Coordinator shall inspect constNuction and sediment control fencing each work day during constNuction 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. 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 3.4-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13089 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES minimum, the following components (or as other�wise modified by regulatory agency permitting conditions): a) Pre-constr�uction suNveys and delineation of vegetation communities, habitat, and wetland features, including clear maps and a summa�y 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 ineasures to be undertaken to enhance the mitigation site for the target species and to protect sensitive resources. d) Record necessa�y replacement of disturbed, altered, and/or lost area of habitat. e) A binding long-term agNeement with the Applicant to implement and maintain protected and restored sensitive habitats, including native bunch grassland, wetlands, springs, seeps, tNibutary drainages, and otheN 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. � A description of habitat and species restoration and monitoring measures, including specific and objective pe�formance 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 p�ovides ecological functions and values for the focal species equal to or exceeding the impacted habitat.) Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-55 Final EIR 13090 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES g) Plan requirements that ensu�e mitigation elements that do not meet performance o�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 requiNements prior to the HMMP end date. h) Monitoring of the mitigation and maintenance areas shall occur for the peNiod established in the HMMP, or until success cNiteria are met; an endowment may be Nequired 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 Nestoration, 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 ofsensitive plants and habitat. The qualified biologist shall conduct annual monito�ing of vegetation sur�ounding 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 perfo�mance, monitoring, and success identified in subitems b through h, above. The report shall be submitted to the City annually for�eview and approval. j) A plan for fencing and/or signage around the Upper Terrace of the Villaggio development,pNohibiting 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 Nequirements. 3.4-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13091 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Plan Repuirements 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�equire avoidance of sensitive natural communities outside app�oved development footprints such as the Nassella pulchra Herbaceous Alliance, Central Coast Arroyo Willow Scr~ub Community, Coastal and Central Tlalley 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 MMBIO-5; b) Offsite restoration or creation of suitable habitat for the impacted species at the minimum replacement ratio of 2:1 for sensitive natu�al communities, native gr�asslands, 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 c�edits at a ZISFWS- 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-57 Final EIR 13092 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 Iand review of monitoring reports, -and site inspections. MM BIO-S The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require all temporary � and permanent direct and indirect impacts to wetlands, grasslands, and riparian habitat be mitigated, as follows: a) Temporary direct im�acts to wetland, native grassland, and riparian habitat ��shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 mitigation Natio (area of Nestored habitat to impacted habitat). � b) Permanent direct impacts to sensitive natural communities, such as native grasslands, and riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (area of�estored and enhanced habitat to impacted habitat). c) Permanent direct impacts to wetlands shall be mitigated at a minimum 3:1 ratio unless othenvise directed by state and federal agencies, including but not limited to the CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, � and IISFWS(as a�pro�riate�. d�Potential indirect impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetlands affected by the Froom Creek realignment and changes to site hydrology shall be initigated as follows. As a pa�t of the HMMP prepared e or the Pro7ect, the A�licant shall prepare and implement a Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin� Plan that is desi�ned to c�uantitativelv and gualitativelv assess the e�'fectiveness of the HMMP over time to ensure its obiectives a�e achieved. The Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin� Plan shall be su�o�ted bv a Baseline Conditions Assessment that identifies the pre-construction condition of the 3.4-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13093 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Calle .Ioac�uin wetlands and establishes success criteria for sustained wetland conditions. The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall provide c�ualitative and c�uantitative information that will be used in comparin� data obtained durin� subsec�uent monitoring vears to determine i a si�nif cant deviance f�'om baseline conditions has occurred at the site. The Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin P�lan will establish the parameters o a si�nif cant deviance from baseline conditions. A si�nifcant deviance f�'om baseline may be de ined as a "chan�e in wetland area �reate� than 10%". The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall be updated prior to the start of construction to su�port a�v permittin� and �uide implementation of the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin� Plan. This �dated baseline shall be considered in combination with existing and past baseline documentation to provide an expanded baseline re ective o a �an�o acceptable conditions to compare post Proiect conditions. The Baseline Conditions Assessment shall include a focused description of the site's hvdrolo�ic settingz ve�etative cover and composition, quantifed wetland areas and classifcations, and shall establish the threshold for a si�nifcant deviance from wetland area based on the presence o{'hvdrophvtic plant species, hvd�ic soil indicators, and wetland hvdrolo� At minimum, the condition of the wetland shall be evaluated on an annual basis throu�h com�letion of a wetland assessrnent usin�a re ug latorv a�encv a�proved model (such as, but not limited to, the California Ra�id Assessment Method [CRAMJ) to document and facilitate lon�-term monitorin�of chan�es to the wetland. The annual evaluation shall determine and document anv de r� ee of chan�e to the wetland as a result of the�ro�osed chan�es to site hvdNolo�y and develo�ment throu�hout build-out under the S�ecific Plan. Re�orts documentin�the annual wetland assessment shall be provided to the Citv and relevant re u� lato�v a e� ncies• Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�for the Calle .Ioaquin wetlands shall occur continuouslv fo� a period of no less than 7 vears ollowin�Phase I build-out of the Froom Ranch Specif c Plan area. After the initial 7-vears of minimum annual monitorin�, the Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-59 Final EIR 13094 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES rec�uencv of lon�-term evaluations shall be determined in coordination with re u�r;v a�encies and per the rec�uirements o{' the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan. The Lon�-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan shall include (at minimum theefollowin� rec�uirements. Additional detailed criteria and �erformance standards will be established in the HMMP pre�ared for the�ro�ect and a�proved bv �'e ug latorv a�encies, but thev shall not be anv less strin�ent than theefollowin� criteria and performance standards: i. At minimum, annual monitorin� shall evaluate and track the wetland health and biolo�ical inte�tv of the Calle .Ioac�uin wetlands. ii. Annual or semi-annual(twice annuallx) evaluations shall utilize intensive site assessments to �rovide a more thorou�h and detailed measure of wetland condition bv gatherin� direct measurements of biolo�ical taxa and hvdro e� omor�hic unctions. iii. Ty�ical industr;v standards for the quantitative evaluation o� plant cover will be used (e.�., Bonham 1989) to evaluate plant composition and structure as well as direct inspections of soil conditions and hvdrolo�functions. iv. Annual or semi-annual evaluations shall observe and document theefollowin�, at a minimum: ■ whether�roundwater rechar�e fr'om Froom Creek to the shallow aquifer is bein�sustained, ■ whether the onsite artesian well has been dischar�� the wetland, ■ evidence o overflows enterin� the Calle .Ioaquin wetland f�'om the reali�ned F�oom Creek, ■ excessive �ondin�, as evidenced bv chan eg s in vegetation related to increased duration o�pondin� 3.4-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13095 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ■ measured depth to �roundwater in the onsite artesian well and the �elationship of these conditions with conditions in the wetland, ■ s�ecif c conductance and tem�erature in the wetland and other surface souNces, ■ the presence or absence o salt e�'{lorescences in the wetland, ■ anv persistent �reen vegetation �atches or chan e� s in willow/grass ecotone, and ■ representative photo points. v. Monitorin�of the reali�ned creek's hvdrolo,�y would be rec�uired efollowing laN�e storm events durin� the �rainx season that are su�fzcient to initiateaflowin� water throu�h the site. If after the 3`"d vear of monitorin�, ve�etation has successfullv established along the creek corridor and sedimentation and erosion are not observed bevond what is determined to be a normal level, then the rainy season monitorin�could be scaled back to occur on a c�uarterlv or as- needed basis for the Nemainder of the monitorin�schedule, u�on review and a�proval of the Citv's Natural Resources Mana� and a�plicable re u� lator:v a�encies and consistent with the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan• vi. Success criteria to determine whether the Calle Joac�uin wetland functions are sustained shall include the e ollowin�, at a minimum: ■ The constr�ucted bank between the reali�ned Froom Creek channel and the Calle Joac�uin wetlands remains functional and does not recurrentiv scour oN fzll to a de�ree that im�airs its o�eration oN im�edes circulation throu�h the wetland, ■ Excessive surface water does not pond e o� periods o�' lon�duration, Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-61 Final EIR 13096 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ■ Salts do not accumulate such that discernible increases in salt e�'florescences at the �round surface are not visible, ■ Evidence of de�osition bv hi�h flows is not found within the wetland(e.g., silt, or�anics, or othereflood de�osits� vii. If success criteria are not achieved within the 7-vea� initial monitoring�eriod, a hvdrolo�ic assessment will be conducted bv a LISACE-a�proved specialist in �roundwater su�ported wetlands to establish whether non-attainment is attributable to onsite conditions or actions bevond the e�'fective control of the Proiect A�plicant. The specialist shall be a re ist�ered hydrolo�ist or certi ied hydro�eolo�ist with statewide expertise, amiliaritv with ��oundwater su�orted wetlands in central coastal California and veri aable experience conducting functional analvses of such wetlands. Recommendations e� remedial actions will be submitted bv the�roundwater specialist to the ZTSACE for �eview and written a�proval prior to implementation.Ifwetland failures are dete�mined to be directly related to the reali�nment of F�oom Creek and development within the Froom Creek Specific Plan area, possible remedial actions would include, at minimum, thee ollowin� ■ Engineerin� controls include biotechnical erosion contNols such as the installation of willow wattles and brush mattressin� and addition of native cobble to reinforce the lowaflow berm se�aratin�the creek channel from the wetland area to hel� contain flows into the wetland area. ■ I�getation establishment is takin� lon�e� than expected, remedial measu�es such as re-seedin� bare soils, replantin� areas o{' mortalitv, and increased maintenance and monitorin�mav be prescribed. ■ If there is si�nif cant evidence of scourin ,� colla�se, or alling of the overflow bank between the reali�ned low- 3.4-62 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13097 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES flow F�oom Creek channel and the Calle Joaquin wetlands, a re�istered professional en�inee� shall re- evaluate bank type, size, and slope and �ecommend a solution, such as au�mentation or replacement. ■ If there is excessive �ondin� (spatial or tem�oral� re�istered�rofessional en�ineer shall assess access to and ca�acitv of existing drainage outlets and recommend a solution, such as au�mentation or replacement if necessar� ■ I salt e�'florescence is observed and speci ac conductance in the wetland is �reater than baseline conditions, a re�istered p�ofessional en�ineer shall �e- evaluate the bank tXpe, slope, size, and convevance between the reali�ned Froom Creek low eflow channel and the Calle.Ioac�uin wetlands to increase thee requency o salte ushin�, such as alterin� sur ace flows to more requentiv over{low to the wetland area. viii. C��tea- �;^,�' ,�'�_,;'" b�r� I� through monitoring it is determined that the Pro�ect does not adverselv im�act the Calle Joac�uin wetland areas (as defined�t �e�i-e�—�=above), the A�licant shall �rovide documentation annuallv (at minimum) to the Citv, afor review and a�proval bv the Citv's Natural Resources Mana�er, that no si,�nifcantsi�ns ofhvdrolo�ical interru�tion, e�osion (including bank failuNe), or sedimentation have occurNed, that the wetland is sustained in biolo�ical inte�tv and health with existing hvdrolo ig c in�uts, and that channel mi�ration has not adverselX affected existing wetland features adiacent to Calle�Ioac�uin. ix. I throu�h monitorin�it is determined that the Proiect adverselX impacts the Calle Joac�uin wetland a�ea, recommendations shall be made,for modifcations to the Proiect desi�n in consultation with the Citv and a�ropriate re�ulatorv a e� ncies for review Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-63 Final EIR 13098 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES and concurrence, as described in subsection viii above. ,-The annual reports would detail the issue o� problem area and proposed remedial actions. x. If throu�h monitorin� it is determined that the Calle Joac�uin wetland condition and function cannot be remediated with im�lementation of all feasible remedial actions and recommendations identified throu�h long-term monitorin� and as described in subsection vii above and the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin�Plan, then adveNselv a�'f'ected wetland areas shall be delineated and miti�ated on- or offsite at a minimum 3:1 ratio unless othenvise directed bv state and federal a eg ncies, includin� but not limited to the CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and tISFWS(as a�pro�riate), consistent with subsection �) above. xi. Fundin�for lon�-term wetland monitorin�, adaptive mana�ement, and anv recommended contin�v measures shall be the responsibilitv o the A�plicant. Pavment o a bond bv the A�licant would be rec�uired to ensure the availabilitv o{' adequate funds to ensure success ul implementation and completion of the Lon�-Term Wetland Monitorin� Plan throu�hout build-out under the Specific Plan. ��i'"�irt2-2t'Ei`t�2�9`t2{�Ef��i-vii--E�61.3�"iv�i—i"r"crci'r"ciccir�ircc��cc� 7. 1 r,+; ,a� ,.* �. � ,.t;� ,,.,a , .;f;,.�f;,,,,. �� ,.f ��,.�t �n �� aci"-c�-��i"--c�cc�ici��c�•� "!' r7;� ,,•,•l-�l-�can--iT" !' rl„ �',,,1� ,,.,] � ,.tl,,,..,s „�'tl� ,� �,7 �',„ ,. !',.��1 7,,,., l7,,,. �7,.,,.,,.�1 e) Habitat revegetation or creation shall occuN 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 3.4-64 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13099 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES provided during this pe�iod or until other�wise determined necessary by the Applicant's Envi�onmental Coordinator. � 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 (including the Long-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan) 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 and Long-Term Wetland Monitoring Plan through receipt of monitoring reports and site inspections. MMBIO-6 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall detail timing and implementation of requi�ed habitat resto�ation and shall be submitted to the City's Natural ResouNces Manager for review and approval, including requirements for consultation with CDFW, NMFS, and ZISACE as needed. A copy of the final plan shall be submitted to the City for �eview and app�oval. The plan shall be implemented by the P�oject Applicant, under super-vision by the City and the Applicant's Environmental Coordinato�; and shall: a) Describe replacement of sensitive natural community habitats removed, lost, or adversely impacted by the PNoject, including a list Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-65 Final EIR 13100 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES of the soil, plants, and othe� materials that will be necessary for successful habitat resto�ation/ replacement, and a desc�iption 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 �estoration or enhancement areas shall be designed to facilitate establishment of app�opriate 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 l 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 Monito�ing Plan. � 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. 3.4-66 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13101 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES g) Qua�terly and annual repo�ts documenting site inspections and site recovery status shall be prepared and sent to the City and app�opriate 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. Monitorin�. 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 Utility line installation shall be timed so that sensitive habitat areas are not disturbed(e.��rioN to the develo�ment and restoNation of the new Froom Creek ali�nment, after removal of ri�arian areas alon�the LOVR Ditch due to LOVR widenin�). In the event a�utility line�i�roposed to be installed acNoss the existin� or realigned Froom Creek, or the sensitive ri�arian areas alon� the LOVR Ditch, while these efeatures are in their natural or restored condition, installation �� rnr"� '� *'� ",��;��' �;'� shall be ��via horizontal directional drilling (HDD) to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats. Prior to installation of utility lines, a site-specifzc geotechnical investigation and frac-out clean-up plan shall be completed in areas proposed for HDD. The geotechnical investigation shall provide recommendations foN avoidance of frac-outs and/or other HDD related impacts and to determine appropriate HDD methods (i.e., appNopriate drilling mud mixtures for specifzc 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 foN minimizing potential for fNac-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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-67 Final EIR 13102 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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. Monitorin�. The City shall review the findings of the geotechnical investigations and final Utilities Plan and confirm compliance through review of grading and improvement plans. MMBIO-8 The Applicant shall submit a Froom Creek restoration plan that identifies measures for securing the proposed low flow channel beNm along the stretch of Froom Creek proposed adjacent to the Calle Joaquin wetlands to protect the bank from eNosion 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 3.4-68 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13103 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 l, 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. 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_ Wildfire fuel mana�ement and defensible space requirements would be balanced with biolo�ical resource protection in mandatory buffer zones, as further analyzed in Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wild�re. The City retains the ability to adjust wildfire buffer requirements to implement a�propriate fuel modification methods as new information is learned, as well as seasonally-timed rg azing and mowin�in grasslands and selective thinnin�of tree/shrub habitats to meet 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, it may not be feasible to completely avoid disturbance of natural and open space areas desi�nated under the Project that contain sensitive biological resources due to mandatory fire clearance requirements. �Pe�Ze�The proximity of new development, particularly within the Upper Terracez ma limit the effectiveness of any proposed measures for mitigating impacts to sensitive upland habitats, particularly the Nassella pulchNa 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-69 Final EIR 13104 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES or through removal of vegetation as a result of implementation of defensible space requirements. The dif�culty 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. 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 3.4-70 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13105 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-71 Final EIR 13106 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 adj acent to known populations of this species would lead to both direct and indirect impacts 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 signifzcant. 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 Ispecies1 ��'� �� *'�� m�„�� -r��, a„a'��,� 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 3.4-72 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13107 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 signifzcant. 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 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. CalifoNnia Horned Lark. Potential direct impacts to California horned lark within the Proj ect 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-73 Final EIR 13108 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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. 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 3.4-74 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13109 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 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 subj ect to Proj ect-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, Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-75 Final EIR 13110 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 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. � Even if the realignment of Froom Creek does not successfully improve ��-� *^ �^�' �r 3.4-76 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13111 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES �the Froom Creek corridor as a fishery or mi,�ration corridor, the Prolect would not result in adverse impacts to steelhead habitat when compared to the baseline conditions for Froom Creek. 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 MMHAZ-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 �emoval 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 du�ing construction. P�oject 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. Monitorin�. 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 and S�ecial-Status Plant Management. Prior to � issuance ofgrading and buildingpeNmits, the Applicant shall submit oNfund a site survey for special-status�lants, includin�Chorro Creek bog thistle, � and: 1. All individual locations of special-status species, includin� Chorro Creek bog thistle, and suitable habitat areas shall be mapped using GPS coordinates. No construction activities or disturbance shall occur Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-77 Final EIR 13112 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES within SO feet of mapped special-status species, includin�Chorro Creek bog thistle, or suitable habitat areas. This setback shall be delineated and maintained with construction fencing and clear signage for the duration of grading and construction. 2. Development adjacent to Drainages 1, 2, and 3 shall be set back a minimum of SO 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 SO feet from the top of the bank or edge of delineated � wetland durin� construction. 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 to the extent feasible. �4.If the site survev results identi�pecial-status plant species, including Chorro Creek bo� thistle, or suitable habitat that mav be disturbed or loste rom P�oiect construction, the Proiect shall be redesi�ned to ensure a minimum SO e oot bu�'fer e rom ma�ed individual occurrences and suitable habitat areas. If bu�'fers cannot be maintained, then consultation with CDFW shall occur to determine a�ropriate minimization and miti�ation measures e or impacts to special-status plant species, o�in the case of�lant species listed pursuant to CESA or the Native Plant Protection Act, to determine if take can be avoided. I�' take cannot be avoided, take autho�ization prio� to anv r� ound- disturbin�activities mav be warranted. Take authorization would occur throu�h issuance ofan ITP bv CDFW,pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081(b). Plan Requirements and Timing.All requirements shall be included on the Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City for 3.4-78 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13113 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 I S to April 1 S) to the extent practicable,particula�ly within SO 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- app�oved biologist. Inju�y, 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 a�eas if individuals are identified; relocation (if necessary) of frogs and steelhead from the work area by a professional biologist autho�ized by the ZISFWS 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 (ZISACE and ZISFWS) regulatory agencies with jurisdiction and/or permitting authority over a portion of the Project. Any other sensitive species obse�ved during the pre-constr�uction 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 5pecific Plan 3.4-79 Final EIR 13114 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Monitorin�. 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 andlor restoration activities. MM BIO-12 The Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address the habitation and movement of special-status wildlife�species, as follows: 1. Migratory and Nesting/BuNrowing Bird Management. Grading and construction activities shall avoid the breeding season (typically from February 1 S to August 1 S) to the extent practicable,particularly within SO feet of�iparian or wetland habitat and mature trees and within onsite �rasslands. If Project activities must be conducted during this period and within the vicinity of riparian or wetland habitat, �rasslands, and/or mature trees, pre-construction nesting/burrowin� bird surveys shall take place no more than one week prior to habitat disturbance � associated with each phase; if active nests or burrows 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 or burrowing owl, in which case a minimum 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 buffeN zone and make recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map of the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the repoNt. � If any sensitive or s�ecial-status species aNe observed during pre- construction surveys, the PNoject biologist shall coordinate with appropriate Nesource agencies to deteNmine appropriate procedure for handling or avoidance of the specimen. 3.4-80 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13115 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES d. The Project biologist conducting the nesting su�vey shall have the authority to reduce o� increase the recommended buffer depending upon site conditions and the species involved. A repo�t of findings and recommendations fo� bird protection shall be submitted to the City prior to vegetation removal. If sensitive species are observed du�ing pre-construction surveys, the Project biologist shall coordinate with appropriate resource agencies to determine app�opriate procedures for handling or avoidance of the specimen. a�e.If bur�owin� owls are efound onsite and avoidance is not�ossible, burrow exclusion shall be conducted bv Citv-a�proved qualifzed biolo�ists and onlv durin�the non-breedin�season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed em�� throu�h non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. CDFW recommends re�lacement of occu�ied burrows with arti�cial burrows at a ratio of one burrow colla�sed to one artifzcial burrow constructed (1:1) To avoid recolonization, ongoin� surveillance shall be �rovided bv the Citv-a�proved Proiect biolo�ists throughout PNoject construction at a rate that is su�cient to detect burrowin�owls if thev Neturn. 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- app�oved biologist to determine if any tree or str�ucture 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 �e-enter the structure. For each occupied roost Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-81 Final EIR 13116 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 fi^om 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. Monitorin�. 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 3.4-82 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13117 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES all damage to these resources would be avoided or reduced to less than significant during Proj ect 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- 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). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-83 Final EIR 13118 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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, 0.3�8 acre of USACE jurisdictional wetlands, and 0.79 acre of USACE Other Waters (2.76 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�eapproximately 0.5 acre of wetlands. Based on preliminary site design, much of the wetland area along Calle Joaquin would be preserved; however, �„ ��r'rr��T.N �m�„r* �� wetland along the outside bank of the realigned creek channel may be directiv 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.ii Based on preliminar,v desi�n plans, a�proximatel,y 0.06 acre of the Calle Joaquin wetland would be directiv impacted. �e��=��t�ie�z—uc�e��er��e�*�� 'a�-�r�e�'��e�.?9-z�c�e��*'�„�t�aAs discussed in Impact BIO-1 and Impact TRANS-2, widening of LOVR would also result in secondary impacts to wetlands through disturbance or removal of up to 0.57 acre of wetlands located along LOVR In total, implementation of the Project has potential to result in the direct loss of � up to�3.33 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. " 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 far consideration of associated impacts. 3.4-84 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13119 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Froom Creek would be realigned to connect hydrologically with the LOVR - ditch and the Calle Joaquin wetlands and � ' =a,� l� would result in the construction of a � �, �� ,, � gi�� a �� • 1� � � ,r� �. �� ., � � restored and widened creek channel � ` ^�� °� �r � �� °� � � , " y,�,,: Based on preliminary designs it is �' �' ��'� �� `� "' �� ;.' � , � � ' �"'`�`� �� "�',�,- '��.r��x �, �r� #f "�+t� � . estimated that the realigned Froom �� :.;;�� , � ��i� �� '�° � �,�,,,,,� � �,� Creek could support up to 2.81 acres of _ �' �� :� _.� �"' Lr- - �� restored wetlands. However, future ;.° � � �� . �4 � " , - wetlands within the realigned Froom " �� `-`� '�'� �.,�, �'�`�� „�� ".` ` - F�'�a' �� . I Creek ma�, �not sufficiently ��` � "� "� �� » f� � � � +` � �� ,. ;- '�� '��. replace the total acreage of wetlands lost �,�� = r �` '� �- �: ..= , b - � , ,� `, 4 - during Project implementation. Under �+�` '�-�� =�r ��-�=Y ' �;�t ��'� �' ,�.,."� ` ��_a�. �� CDFW, USFWS, and RWQCB ,� - ,�`,�� zk�� ;q} k �rv�:e�l'�-� 4"a..'��"„$°�`...z�.c �:r . `�N standards, adequate mitigation for direct � Froom Creek is�e��-connected to the Calle lOSS ^" a"'+""�'^"^� Of wetlancl features, ,Ioaquin wetlands during 10-to 25.vear storm events. e�t�e��3e�i�'�i}e�i�e��'��t�ie The Project would relocate Froom Creek to flow and flood into the Calle Joaquin wetlands. ��„^r� a�st�r�c�commonly requires replacement by a ratio of 3:1, which would mean the Project's loss of�3.33 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would be mitigated by a minimum of��9.99 acres of restoration, as determined throu,gh the re�ulatorv permitting process. 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 �6.24 acres of additional restoration to meet the 3:1 ratio (see Table 3.4-8). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-85 Final EIR 13120 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 3.4-8. Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Features �I Wetlands Waters of the U.S. � Wetland within OHWM 1.43 9�z'z0.38 Calle Joaquin wetlands' S.81 Intermittent Streambed within OHWM 2.66 0.79 CDFW Jurisdictional Areas Froom Creek and Tributary Channels; 5.41 1.59 LOVR ditch; sensitive riparian habitat Additional Aquatic Resources I �x�o.i,,,,a�x�:*i.:� � � ., o c.,,...�,..,.,.o.. �gg I �89 � a o*o�� Secondary Impacts to Wetlands Along z 0.57 LOVR Total 9.913 �3.33 Total Necessary Restoration of Direct Impacts(3:1) �S-��9.99 -r,...,i�ro,.o��., ,no�.,..-.,�:,,.. „�r�.,iio r,,,, .o.i.,�a� i;�w..,ra.,.o,a �4 ♦o.-.ti.,v. ..:�..,-;.�,.1/'l 1.114 Maxiinum Potential Area of Restoration with Realigned Froom Creek 2.81 � Affected Wetland Area Restored at LOVR ditch ��:' ��'��' 0.94 Total Potential Restoration Onsite 3.75 � Necessary Remaining Restoration �.?36.24 OHWM=ordinary high-water mark '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.See Tmpact BTO-l. �Secondary impacts to wetlands as a result of implementation of transportarion 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. � 'Total acreage of onsite wetland includes some overlap of USACE,RWQCB,and CDFW jurisdictional features. 4 Refer to Impact BIO-1 for discussion of potential indirect impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetlands. 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 � �3.33 acres of jurisdictional 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 subj ect 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. 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 3.4-86 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13121 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 5.81-acre 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 ofpotential 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-S shall apply. MMBIO-6shall apply. MM BIO-7 shall apply. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-87 Final EIR 13122 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 Imaximum extent feasible, long-term monitoring of wetlands onsite, 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 3.4-88 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13123 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 traf�c 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-89 Final EIR 13124 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 l, 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 3.4-90 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13125 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. Tempo�ary Disturbance to Wildlife Cor�idors 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-91 Final EIR 13126 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-S shall apply. MM BIO-6 shall apply. MM BIO-9 shall apply. MM BIO-11 shall apply. MM BIO-12 shall apply. MMBIO-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, hydNologic, and wildlife connectivity between the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and the Froom Creek corNidor. The required buffer shall extend from the point at which the proposed realigned Froom Creek exits the Specifzc Plan area, upstream along the centerlines ofDrainages 1, 2, and 3 3.4-92 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13127 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. Monitorin�. 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 ensuNe adequate passage for wildlife, consistent with the design standaNds 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-ll 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 Proj ect 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-93 Final EIR 13128 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 Proj ect site, within the elevated hillsides near the Proj ect site boundary. Development under the Specific Plan, as well as the 100-foot wildfire buffer area, would avoid 3.4-94 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13129 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES disturbance of this oak woodland community and any mature native oak trees, consistent with COSE Policy 7.5.L 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-1 S Native Tree P�otection. To ensure protection of native pNotected trees with respect to the tree trunk, canopy, and�oot zone, the Applicant shall hire a City-approved arborist o� qualified biologist to conduct a daily, pre- construction survey of all activities occurring within the protected root zones of protected t�ees, and shall make recommendations for avoidance, and for any necessary remedial wo�k to ensure the health and safety of trees that are enc�oached, and any measures necessary to reduce and/or remove potential safety hazards posed by any of these trees. Following construction, the health of affected t�ees shall be monito�ed by the arborist or qualified biologist for up to S 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 �atio of 3:1 (replaced: removed). Trees 24 inches orgreater inches DBHshall be replaced in-kind at a minimum ratio of I0:1. Willows and cottonwoods may be planted from live stakes following Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-95 Final EIR 13130 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 appNoved 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. Monitorin�. 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. 3.4-96 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13131 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 signifzcant 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 Proj ect 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.4-97 Final EIR 13132 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. 3.4-98 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13133 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.S 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 Obispeno Chumash for at least 10,000 years. The Obispeno were the northernmost Chumash group, occupying much of the County, including the Project vicinity. Obispeno Chumash neighbors were the Southern(Miguelino) Salinan,also known as Te po'ta'ahl, who lived along the upper course of the Salinas River. Obispeno 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 Obispeno Chumash and the Miguelino 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. 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) Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-1 Final EIR 13134 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 de�ned 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 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 Obispeno village of Sepjato. In 1769, Gaspar de Portola and Father Junipero Serra departed the newly established San Diego settlement and marched northward toward Monterey with the objective to secure the port 3.5-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13135 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES and establish five missions along the route. The Portola 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 Obispeno villages have been identified from mission records and informant interviews. The Obispeno 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 Obispeno 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 Obispeno 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 Proj ect 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. 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 Resou�ces) (Appendix F). Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-3 Final EIR 13136 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 lnventory 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 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 Historio- 1998 B.Bertando Froom Ranch Dairy complex Period P-40-001780/CA-SLO-1780 Historic- 1996 J.Parker Building foundations/structure Period 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). Table 3.5-2. Cultural Resources Recorded within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site P-40-001365/CA-SLO-]365 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- 1989 C.E.Dills Farm/ranch barn Period Source:Appendix F(note:confidential information has been excluded from the publicly-published appendix). 3.5-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13137 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-5 Final EIR 13138 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 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). 3.5-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13139 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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.i 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 Contributing Features to the Potential Historic District Main 1915 Individually Eligible. Character defining � Residence features of this one-story Craftsman-style structure include its horizontal massing, low- • ��'' � pitched gable roof,wood exterior wall cladding,projected frontporch, and sash - _ windows that exemplify Craftsman , — �� architecture in the San Luis Obispo area.The � �� i structure served as the primary residence for -- � the Froom family unril 1998. The interior has '�� been altered extensively over time and now . .�I� ..��."�-_:... r � serves as a commercial office. n . ' 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 Final EIR 13140 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Table 3.5-3. Structures Associated with the Historic Froom Ranch Dairy (Continued) Creamery Before Individually Eligible.The creamery is a ��- '". 1915 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 1 j.� � I I �, i � ' ":. - �, dairy production area and the original �'�I` �,' � �� , ' ' ;_�_ residence on the site prior to 1915.The � � ��± ':� �� ,�'� ._�- creamery has experienced heavy 9'r• _ -" �..;,`�i; damage and partial collapse as a result ' • - . '"'--' , ' of heavy rains in 2018-2019. �' y F •- �' ' ' Dairy Barn 19l 3 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 fa�ade,which - - _ was designed to facilitate the milking ��, � � � rocess and move cows throu h the '""�- P g - - _� .�� ; � 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 i , � ----� to prevent damage from rodents and � �I animals. � � . i y r-� .i �., - ��.�; I ��r • - .�A� i � '�� rt,,,�t r� Shed/Storage 1913 Not Individually Eligible.A one-story, Building irregularly shaped vemacular-style storage building with a steeply slanted roo£Built as part of the early Froom �( Ranch development and has served as a -- _____ ��'�� ,�' , storage shed for the dairy complex. � �ryf�' �'�,�� ` 1 f I �; � il�� I ; �� ',� � �. .� }�'_ �� ,� , � I ��, '�' �.�� ' : �� 6 S � ' ' �,��,� 5s } � .�9 ...,}� .:�}� .�y' ��,.� ' � � 3.5-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13141 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Table 3.5-3. Structures Associated with the Historic Froom Ranch Dairy (Continued) , , . Bunkhouse 1915 Not Individually Eligible. Craftsman- � !� style one-stary building has a concrete !' _ �� '~_--- foundarion,wood horizontal shiplap ,l�,, siding, and shingled roo£ 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. ,�.� � -- "� . - _ ,Y^ _ . �Vx -:� 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 20t�century and has been � ,� � � ;; „ 1 � renovated extensively as a result of its �'�"�� .; � "�� ^ �I'` `' deteriorating condition. ` ��:�� '�' �� '�� \� ,.,;,�;,�� `';�� '�: `�.. Non-Contributing Structures Outhouse Modern Not Eligible. This small asymmetrical parking kiosk structure was relocated r_��,�_ I, ��. and repurposed as an outhouse for the ,'� �` �. � John Madonna Construction Company " � � • , � staff. � � �- �� _ �'�1 � �.'� � , � ; � _ _ �� __ - - � ��- � �� _� v� :5. - �� Storage Modern Not Eligible.Mobile storage unit Building moved to the site for use by the John Madonna Construction Company. `�F�.� 3�-'`�...:.>�' .��,-t - �� " �� _ � � i J� - i Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-9 Final EIR 13142 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Table 3.5-3. Structures Associated with the Historic Froom Ranch Dairy (Continued) , Water Tower Modern Not Eligible.Modern-style Verizon stealth cell tower is shaped like a water � tower to appear comparible with the � ranch landscape. '� F� : � �-t., "'`: 'a >� ��'t i�. ,.� .�, l►�` � l, .� �;��:;�t:, i ' • # . ' __ ,.., . k•i P-40-001780: Building Foundations/Structure ��r �g�� °:;�'�a��-�-� ,�� a��x�`��`;��"�y t.;�'� �Y`a ... ,y.,�" e .iN a. �1,., ".�+,a.iY�S�"4'�� :41 Pads. The historic building foundations/structure �� .�� +; �'��F� , �� ..' ' � � Fh �{�� rf�54� . ' ✓�� ., pads located within the proposed stormwater �Q�� ,�� ,; ^ �` '`,��, o , , � �_ �� '>' �.� ' ,,�',�� ,° t � ��' detention basin area were a part of Francisco � ��w,,�� ;;:r p �� `�� ,�` � �#�,� } . � Antonio Lima's (Frank Lima) farm established in ��'t'F � � �i�` - ��,-� � � ��`�"`� � ��F,g� ;� the latter half of the 19th century. The farm passed �;' �� _ �� ,?? t s��,_,..-�ws.. Ara;'!�'��Z�i�'�: ��` �� +�� ,iL"'�'�`, _'.r,�7,��`*.' _ P " q�f,• ��? : • hands through a variety of families through the �+�,,w � �,��, ,� a � :� ' th t�,'�'� ;4�.. L ��,,./lg�:` ,��t�a � ��t9„'"��c�! early 20 century, with the buildings operating as � ��. .�, .,v�� _,,. ,��,;;�, �..• .�`._ - �"�-� ..,. �,�_ '7%;i.��'k��y��w"! a homestead until all but one of the structures were ��' �'�.y.�-- ',� �� `� � �a <��-�� fi ti._ � N.�. �.i; � � demolished sometime between 1959 and 1965. By Foundation remains from a historic homestead site within the proposed stormwater detention basin 1987, no structures remained onsite; however, the area. 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 chert in the area, and the proximity of the creelc and seasonal ephemeral drainages are indicators that subsurface Native 3.5-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13143 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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). Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-11 Final EIR 13144 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES � In addition to the linear rock wall features, a •°- • ' _ "�'�" stone revetment/retaining wall feature was , F,. � .� . . � �� '�� '� o�� .'_�, _-�,,,,.�.' identified adjacent to the bedrock mortar � ?. �..� �� s ; y;� ��_�' . � prehistoric site(P-40-000783). This is likely a �� , �� ,�,w ,� � � ��. `� � � "��;�," '�'�`�' '�=��` �� e recent feature as the boards associated with it . � p�� f �t��F�� e d� � � � ��1' y � �". � �� y, �,d;��;��,�,,� � ,� • ' are painted. A recent rock fire pit located west ';�f % �`. �a��+�� t 3 r va�; ��"�� '✓��`` �{ ;'.' � t9 ,��'. � �� , � 4 � ��, �? ,_, �� '� of the prehistoric lithic site P-40-001195 was ^" :��, `��"�- � �,' ��i'��, °n� �"f,`'��'�,�-��"' also identified, with modern trash discovered 1 . � � k 01µ x� 1 e.�'� S � f 3 ' '� �� .� ' ,,,a�i �x >: ad,� '�t�'x �? alld UT1I'elatP�d t0 the I1tI11C S1tP�. I.aStly� a ?i } � ;�° g _ ,.t • °� � �'�`` �"'� ` �� ''- "'��"� �� boulder containing a blasting hole was located Onc of six l�neur s ock ivall f'eatui Es located along the PYo�e�t s�te's WesteYn bou�da�y. 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. 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 3.5-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13145 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 archaeological consultants contact tribal representatives prior to conducting surveys and assessment. • Ms. Mona Olivas Tucker of the yak tityu tityu yak tikhini (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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-13 Final EIR 13146 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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. 3.5.21 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: L 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. 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; 3.5-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13147 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-15 Final EIR 13148 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 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 Cit,v of San Luis Obispo Archaeolo,�ical Resource Preservation Pro,gram 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). 3.5-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13149 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Cit,v 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 Herita,�e 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. Cit,v 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 far historic and architectural resource preservation to ensure long-term protection of cultural resources. Policy COS 3.31 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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-17 Final EIR 13150 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures,prior to a determination of the potential environmental impacts of the proj ect. Policy COS 3.5.5 Archaeological Resour�ces Presen� 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 Participan� 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 3.5-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13151 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 3.5.31 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; 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-19 Final EIR 13152 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 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, 3.5-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13153 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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: 1. Preservation involves the application of ineasures 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-21 Final EIR 13154 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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. 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. 3.5-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13155 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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. 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 Proj ect 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-23 Final EIR 13156 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Table 3.5-4. Summary of Project Impacts CR-1.Project grading and construction would MM CR-1 Less than Significant with occur within areas of prehistoric archaeological MM CR-2 Mitigation sensitiviry with the potential to impact MM CR-3 subsurface cultural or tribal cultural resources. MM CR-4 MM CR-5 MM CR-6 MM CR-7 CR-2.Future resident recreational activities MM CR-8 Less than Significant with could impact archaeological resources located Mitigation within proposed open space. CR-3. The Project would result in relocation, MM CR-9 Significant and demolition,disturbance,and/or removal of MM CR-10 Unavoidable historic resources onsite, including individually MM CR-11 eligible historic resources and a historic district. MM CR-12 MM CR-13 MM CR-14 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.� 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 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 furkher evaluated due to their removal from the proposed area of development. 3.5-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13157 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 Obispeno 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. The recorded prehistoric sites P-40-000783 and P-40-O011 95, 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-O01195, 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. 3 Refer to Impact CR-2 far discussion of impacts to site P-40-040991 and other recorded historic resources potentially affected by the Project. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-25 Final EIR 13158 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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. The Project includes construction of a stormwater detention basin within the southeastern region of the Proj ect 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 identi�ed 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. 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. 3.5-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13159 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL 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 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 subj ect 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 signifzcant. 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, oN historic dumpsites, consistent with City Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. If discovery of unknown buried archaeological resources occurs through the SARE, a City- Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-27 Final EIR 13160 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES app�oved archaeologist shall evaluate the significance of the discovery pursuant to City A�chaeological Resource P�eservation Program Guidelines and CEQA. If the discovery is found to be a significant cultural �esource, Project design shall be modified to avoid modification, disturbance, o� destr�uction 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 DiNecto� shall require that the Applicant retain a City-app�oved archaeologist and local Native American observer to monitor constr~uction activities to identify and protect archaeological resources in accordance with the Archaeological Monitoring Plan described in MM CR-3. Plan Requirements and Timin�.Any required Phase 2 SARE investigations shall be conducted by a City-approved archaeologist prior to approval of the VTM or Project entitlements. Monitorin�. 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 unNecorded site comprising three mapped stone isolates, on preparation of constNuction plans, the plans shall delineate a 50- foot buffer surrounding the boundaries of the recorded sites. The aNea shall be labeled as an "Environmentally Sensitive Area". Highly visible temporary constr uction fencing shall be installed along the boundary of the 50 foot buffer and shall rernain in place until the aNchaeological monitor recommends removal. If feasible, no ground disturbance, construction worker foot traffic, storage of mateNials, or stoNage or use of equipment shall occur within the "Environmentally Sensitive Area". Archaeological monitoring shall occuN during all constr�uction 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. 3.5-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13161 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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 occuN; 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 encounteNed; 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 repo�ting 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 3.5-29 Final EIR 13162 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 distu�b 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. Monitorin�. 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 aNchaeological resources, including but not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceNamics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or historic period archaeological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall immediately cease (or gNeater or lesser distance as needed to protect the discovery and determined in the fzeld 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 signifzcance of the discovery pursuant to City Archaeological ResouNce Preservation Program Guidelines prior to resuming any activities that could impact the site/discovery. If the City-approved aNchaeologist 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 ResouNce 3.5-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13163 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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. Monitorin�. 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 constr�uction of each phase, workers shall receive education Negarding the recognition of possible buried cultural remains and protection of all cultural resources, including prehistoric and histoNic resources, during constr�uction. Such training shall provide constr�uction peNsonnel with direction regarding the procedures to be followed in the unlikely event that pNeviously unidentifzed archaeological materials, including Native American burials, are discovered during construction. Training shall also inform constr�uction 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 pNovide a description of the cultural resources that may be encounteNed 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 instr�uctor 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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-31 Final EIR 13164 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 constr�uction, 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 discove�y 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. Monitorin�. 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. 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-O011 95, 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. 3.5-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13165 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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�ecreational areas,facilities,pedestrian paths, or roadways shall be located with SO feet of a known prehistoric or t�ibal cultural resource site. All archaeological site soils within 100 feet of a known prehistoric or tribal cultural site shall be seeded with shallow rooted native 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. Monitorin�. 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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-33 Final EIR 13166 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 Reconstr�uction 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. The proposed relocation and reconstruction of four of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex buildings would maintain the character-de�ning 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 Interio�'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 3.5-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13167 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 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). Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-35 Final EIR 13168 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 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 a�chitect meeting the Secretary of the Interior's P�ofessional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Pa�t 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 exterio� and interior alterations, and monitoring of construction activities. The historic 3.5-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13169 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES architect and Applicant shall resolve any unforeseen circumstance in a manne�that conforms with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The qualifzed 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-defzning features are retained. c) Physical treatments to historic material would use the gentlest means possible and would not damage material. d) Reconstr�uction would be clearly identifzed 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 Necovered through this pNocess shall be described, illustrated, and analyzed fully in a technical report of fzndings; the analysis shall include comparative reseaNch with other sites of similar age. In addition to the technical Neport, 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 Timin�. 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 submitted^"''�to�an appropriate scientific j ournal. 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-37 Final EIR 13170 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Monitorin�. 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 qualifzed professional photographer to prepaNe Historic American Building Survey(HABS)Level II documentation and investigate additional a�plicable survevs (e.g. oral histories,LIDAR, and/or�hotogrammet�Z. This documentation shall record the existing appearance of all seven contributing buildings in large and medium format HABS photogNaphs. HABS Level II documentation shall�ertain� to the entiNe Froom Ranch Dairv com�lex so that functional relationshi�s between the buildings can be documented. 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 foNmat, 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 fzber-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 distNibuted as follows: (1) the Libra�y of Congress in Washington, DC thNough the National Park Service (one set Iof negatives and contact prints). Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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 architectu�al heritage by means of a pamphlet and/or additional means (e.�., sib�na�e, interpretive plan, mobile e riendlv content), subiect to a�roval bv the CitX. This��interpretive rp oject 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 p�operty relates to the larger dairy farm context in San Luis Obispo, the Central 3.5-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13171 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 pa�k. After the initial dist�ibution of p�inted 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. Monitorin�. 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/oN reconstructed within the proposed public park(main residence, dai�y barn, creame�y/house, and granary). The Applicant and historic aNchitect shall work with the City to prepare a marketing plan to offer to the public any salvaged historic materials not used during rehabilitation and Neconstr�uction of the primary contributors, and demolition of the secondary contributoNs. As appropriate, unused or unNetained historic materials will be offered to local historical societies and museums, then offered to architectural recycling before being disposed. Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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 �eview process for new const�uction proximate to the main residence. New construction shall be unde�taken 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 ensu�e new construction is Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-39 Final EIR 13172 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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. Monitorin�. 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 constr�uction, a City-approved qualified str�uctural 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 str�uctural engineer shall identify any necessary tempo�ary sti^uctural bracing for the historic str~uctures to avoid damage to these resources during the du�ation of construction. The qualified structu�al enginee� shall prepare a temporary historic st�ucture 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. Monitorin�. 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. 3.5-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13173 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 signifzcant 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 Obispeno 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 development such as that anticipated under the projects listed within Table 3.0-1 may uncover previously undisturbed archeological resources and Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.5-41 Final EIR 13174 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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. 3.5-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13175 3.G 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 ar regional tectonic features that may create seismic hazards (i.e., earthquake faults). These resources can present hazards ar 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. 3.61 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 majar 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 5pecific Plan 3.6-1 Final EIR 13176 3.G 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 -�-- � �- ��`_��F� � rise to the steep, rocky Irish Hills in the :�-- � � - _- � �,.-� -- ,�k�-. :.=� -n�;� ,�: southwestern portion of the site. The site = -� � _ �� -_ -- « » A�.,,c'�, } ��, �m."&° ac -°��'��°"-:`�� ""` ^y�w,. �ry6;�, is U shaped and generally aligned in an � � � - �,. , H�.�� ; �. �,w ;_ ,.�'��''�',. , '�'��" �,��.. .. �, ��, ,� east-west orientation. Onsite topography � �� `, � ,��,�. ��,, rises gently from an average surface � � � .-: '"� --"�`' � ` � �� - �� : ,��;�. �..w�.¢� �. _ 'v,� ,�#�-�",rvx af'u+ elevation of approximately 110 feet above � .��:��A��. � ,� �,_� =��-� �'� .�� , mean sea level (msl) in the east to over The Project site consists of level topography in the 300 feet abOve msl ln the SOuthwest. The lower elevations which gradually rises up to the base of the Irish Hills. Slopes generally range between 0 SOutheTn pOitlOn Of the Slte COnslsts Of a and 30 percent, while some steeper areas contain up relatively level terrace with a surface to 75 percent slopes. 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 3.6-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13177 3.G 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 , , . . , � - _ � � , . � , � , 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 29(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(622%) 0 to 2 Negligible 221 Xerets—Xerolls—Urban land complex 22(36.0%) 0 to 15 Very high Source:NRCS 2018. 3.6.1.4 Geologic Hazards Regional Faultin�, Seismicitv, 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- Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-3 Final EIR 13178 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS magnitude San Simeon Earthquake in December 2003 and the 6.0-magnitude Parkfield 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 I � � ' ' Los Osos 1.5 7.0 Hosgri 8 7.5 San Andreas 38 8.0 �Maximum Probable Earthquake=the maximum earthquake likely to occur over a 100-year period. �The 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 Final EIR 13179 3.G 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. LEGEND , g;i, 0 ProjectSite � .�•y ' �� . ' �>` ��.. � .r��r . �,'�"c r��' Los Osos FaWt Line �� _ � �� . " �� °'�4� �� e� � . - ' � i . .� �' G ��`7`p�;,� .;_ ..��, - �.,r�h.3, \ �.. ��.."' r�' _'yA �� ,Y`�. _�. � '�. ` �e ��k�� l � r�al��!�� r�- ` !`r . � y � � "� � , ��,� 4� �. , �' ��: l p� s � �a'�� L ~ � � �;,� x S� S' ��}'�' # �._ ' " 2' ^ E '�t,(�� :hr�r<. il�`E� . .. . - _.'4 _ �� x ..._ ��. y,".'. ��'-, � . _ . �' �, ,:S'.�'" p . . .. - . . �� ..��`w .. � f.. • � , ..�. 1.. ��3' y.1K -Y� �f. � � . � �o� '(_�, ' . !R�' ; . ' . =t� O �='� � � �µ a • ^� � � � t. � � ,r � - -< � �t_;- ,� o ;'' �$;�� "' , :n�� ,' : �� o �;'`+� �� `¢- �' ;� �'� � �r. , � �. , o �F F� F . r -�`ir�' -- �, ti ry�, ' . _ a ��} .�•.sy . , . . ��: . � �: -p��'�� . . . p � � '-`,�'""`�` y '.' ��9 ��" �t �W . .R� . � a '��.� �� . SCALE IN FEET � f '��'�� r�� `��` �N �8 � '?� �:�� ,, o soo - � ,� c,�'e'�,�y�,��',, Aena!Source:Google 2018. ��"'*_. �, .�` �,,�y.-„ �`+';!!'. wood. Active Fault Lines at the Project Site FIGURE 3.s-� 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-5 Final EIR 13180 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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 Ru�ture 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 Final EIR 13181 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS Liquefaction Liquefaction is a form of earthquake- induced ground failure that occurs � � � �� '�� ° � '�' 4��;�J �; «;1 ".x �� y,1 ��¢�� ii;�f��f ��1�� primarily in relatively shallow, loose, - � , � s, 3r14�4��,,1��,,,,� 7 } } } 7 �y, �.�� ti �� Fi;�e s�1°kl�r��` � gI�aT1AlC�LI�� WC�LLeiT-S!'�LL1T!'�6Pid SO11S •l�X� a� �� ,�p��t��i��V t . r fL P( �az �; _�, ;�,af�Ip�� `�' � �� 1� ;;ia;,r��,,•; Liquefaction is defined as the � �� t, �� t �.4 transformation of a granular material � � �>, ��_��- r�" �,� �� _ from a solid state into a liquefied state '�� `�� '�� ' ��`' � ��° '� ` , � x�.>. a�.w� _., . ��.f,; �.. -. as a consequence of increased pore The Project site has high groundwater in the pressure, which results in the loss of southeastern corner which contributes to known graln-to-graln ContaCt. UnConsolldated liquefaction potential, though the potential to result in liquefaction is low with implementation of silts, sands, and silty sands are most geotechntcal Ye�ommendattons. 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-7 Final EIR 13182 3.G 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). Ex�ansive 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 Final EIR 13183 3.G 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) 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-9 Final EIR 13184 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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 � � � 1� � • - �� .�: < r�, <;�� resources to be located in the Pro ect site .--� �� - � ��` (Table 3.6-3). The Project site is located in ��a�� , ` �`�'- �� CJ�� the vicinity of the San Luis Range of the Coast Range Geomolphlc Province of Geologic units that have low potential to contain significantpaleontological resources underlie the California (Appendix G). The Coast Ranges Project site. While they have a low potential, similar geologic units within the County have lle between the PaC1f1C OCean and the pYoduced fossils including those of an extinct Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley and trend camel (Camelops hesternus) found in Quaternary-aged sediments in the County. While northwesterly along the California Coast for y�are, such resources may be present within the approximately 600 miles between Santa Project site. 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). 3.6-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13185 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS Table 3.6-3. Geologic Units and Paleontological Potential Within Project Vicinity � � 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— Jurassic-Cretaceous Low Metavolcanics KJfs Franciscan Complex- Jurassic-Cretaceous Low Serpentinite 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,ll 4 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 Plesiosaur�us 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 5pecific Plan 3.6-11 Final EIR 13186 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS Table 3.6-4. Non-UCMP Pleistocene Localities of San Luis Obispo County � 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 I 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 3.6-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13187 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) 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. Department of Toxic Substances Control (Information Advisorv Clean Imported Fill Material The Information Advisory Clean Im�orted Fill Material�rovides guidance for prevention of ina�ro�riate fill materials use in sensitive land use�ro�erties, which include hos�itals, homes, dav care centers, and schools. DTSC provides �uidelines for a�ropriate ty�e of soil analyses for relative former land use as well as the number of sam�les that are required for collection and analysis. 3.6.2.2 State California Buildin_� 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-13 Final EIR 13188 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS Alc�uist-Priolo Earthc�uake Fault Zonin_�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 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 Ma�in�Act & Ma�in�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 Citv 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 3.6-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13189 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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 4.7Avoiding 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. 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-15 Final EIR 13190 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS archaeological or paleontological resources, mitigation shall be required pursuant to the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Citv 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. San Luis Obispo Countv General Plan Safetv 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; 3.6-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13191 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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- ar 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. 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. � Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Non-A�licable 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 Proj ect 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 Geolog�y 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-17 Final EIR 13192 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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. 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 Final EIR 13193 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS Table 3.6-5. Summary of Project Impacts GEO-1. The Project would expose None required Less than Significant people or structures to adverse effects from earthquakes and seismically induced hazards. GEO-2.The Proj ect has the potential None required Less than Significant to exacerbate potential soils hazards, including expansive soils,differential settlement, and subsidence. GEO-3. The Project would potentially None required Less than Significant cause erosion,landslides,and rockfall. GEO-4. The Project would include None required Less than Significant subterranean parking in Villaggio and may require groundwater dewatering in areas with high groundwater. GEO-5.Project construction could MM GEO-1 Less than Significant with uncover paleontological resources in Mitigarion geologic deposits during earthwork activities.If improperly handled,such resources could be adversely impacted. 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 5pecific Plan 3.6-19 Final EIR 13194 3.G 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). LEGEND � " �a � ,� r ;�.��" � ProJactsae � - �'� y��"s -�� : LosOsosFault - � , ��.�� f ��`��'��d��g; _........-+ with Setbacks � L 1.; 'k � �, ,,� i Proposed Specific Plan �.�`°,_ \ �<" � R E+ .'r '�-- �`��'' Land CJse �� =�� ` � .� � � . f� t, � �., e ,.. � � � �.:Ai��4 � Si�eAccessRoadway - . �-_�jT� :\ j� J/ ,._��.y �� Easement ior Relocated �� 2 �; -� ` 5lormwater Basin � � � �-� C-R-SP-Ftetail �� - __ �__ �� _ CommerciallGeneral ''-�- ' ��J-� �� \,.-"� _ ' � Commerclal . - _ � - - GlOS-SP-Conservation( ' � - - — � � o � Open Space �, o � PFSP-Pu61ic Facilities - - /1 � � , � �� 1 ; °�" � -- PF-SP-R-3-SP-Medium-High ` � I� � , ?� ,I;I 11 4 .4,.�2 �ensity Residentia , �;;� � R-4-SP-High�ensityResfden�ial �� ---_�� - s, `Na�es-FmomCreekwouldbereafigned-ProposedLantlUse I I '�" antl Clralation sources tlo nol match alignments. � sv. ..;. �� ,: � � ,a �-y' 4. � �' � i��o. i � �'�// y / �� ,_� . S � �/ �i, �� '/ I'�''� � I��_ � � ._ .� �. 1. .�. SCALE IN FEET � �:, -�� r� /� �-��" . �"� iV %�l � �lJ '•. � ,�� 0 500 �/ � • l s Aeriaf Source:Google 2018. �� '�' �•` wood. Active Faults and Recammended FIGURE Setback at the Project 5ite 3 s-2 3.6-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13195 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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, backf"ill, 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. 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 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-21 Final EIR 13196 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS � Fault Zone and is not subject to � ��a�r�*� �r 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. 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 andproximity 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 flatwark, 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, 3.6-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13197 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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. Im�orted soil for backfill would be sam�led to ensure no soil contamination is present in accordance with DTSC requirements for Clean Im�orted Fill Material. 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 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-23 Final EIR 13198 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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 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 3.6-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13199 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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 Proj ect'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 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 Soils En ing eering Report recommends that as a Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-25 Final EIR 13200 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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 Complex, have a low potential far 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 ar 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. 3.6-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13201 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS Miti�ation Measures MM GEO-1 Prior to construction of each phase, workers shall receive education regarding the recognition of possible paleontological resou�ces, during grading and excavation. Such training shall provide construction personnel with direction regarding the procedures to be followed in the unlikely event that p�eviously unidentified paleontological materials a�e discovered during construction. Training shall also inform construction personnel that unautho�ized collection or disturbance of paleontological resources is not allowed. The training shall be p�epared 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 info�mation for the Project paleontologist and approp�iate City personnel. The training shall be conducted concu�rent with other environmental or safety awareness and education p�ograms for the Project, provided that the program elements pe�taining to paleontological resources is provided by a qualified inst�uctor meeting applicable professional qualifications standa�ds. In o�de� 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 discove�ed, the City- approved paleontologist shall be notified to assess the significance of the find and provide recommendations as necessary for its proper disposition. Requirements and Timin�. 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: Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-27 Final EIR 13202 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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. Monitorin�. 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. 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 3.6-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13203 3.G GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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 proj ect-by-proj ect 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,Environmentallmpact 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 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.6-29 Final EIR 13204 13205 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 adj acent 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 Proj ect 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 Schoollocated 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 5pecific Plan 3.7-1 Final EIR 13206 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 ; ��„ -�� ,,� ,�w � through October.' The duration of the fire r` ��- � ��;„�,�.K � ;�� - ��; �"�..-" . �.. season is influenced by a combination of -�" , climatic, vegetative, and physiographic ,�,� � -��a.� „�'� �' �! .w„ �r�;;;, conditions, including rainfall totals, , - :,� � �;,�,` ��;;'�,�-��: . y Y. `r . ,.. _ '. �. . distribution, and/or drought conditions �� _�=� Y ' , �� - The Pro�ect site is within Mode�ate and Very High that may affeCt the duratlOn Of thls peI'lOCI. Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) and contains open grasslands, tree canopy,and riparian StrilCtural lOsses oI' clamage ft'Om vegetation that include biofuels for wildfires. 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 ' 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 Iinpacts. 3.7-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13207 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).� �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 5pecific Plan 3.7-3 Final EIR 13208 P� P��P�G�Po � <O� �� `Po IRISH HILLS � `nG NATURAL RESERVE 9<�� 90 90 IRISH HILLS PLAZA � � . � , � , — _ �� / � �-� ---- —� _-_ -d ^ — _, -.� - -- � ,- `, -. o " � � F. °m Creek �� ' II i i 101 ) i / I� � � i! �/ � � � � i \ � / i � / Drainage 3 4 ,_ , ! � , ii ' J ��I �i �Drainage 2 // � —;i`, I� ;i ��' � � � Drainage 1 Drainage 4 � 0 � LEGEND �o� � Project Site � Irish Hills Natural Reserve Q City of San Luis Obispo Threat of Fire Q �� Moderate �p� � High V SCALE IN FEET V� 0 Very High N 0 750 wOOd. Fire Hazard Severity Zones FIGURE 3.7-1 3.7-4 13209 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE Slope and Topog�aphy 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 5pecific Plan 3.7-5 Final EIR 13210 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE Table 3.7-1. Potential for Firefighting Success and Tactics on Steep Slopes � <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 operaring 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°/o 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. 3J-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13211 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE Historic Wildland Fires and Return Inte�val 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 Proj ect 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, �re-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 5pecific Plan 3.7-7 Final EIR 13212 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 Pro�ecl t 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. 3J-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13213 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE Hazardous Materials Site Listin�s 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. Table 3.7-2. USTs and Cleanup Sites within a 0.5 mile-Radius of the Project Site Laguna Lake Shell LUST Madonna Road and LOVR Very Low—An inactive cleanup site Inactive Cleanup Site intersection,0.5 mile north associated with gasoline and other of Project site fuel oxygenate contaminants which was completed and closed in 2013. Perry Ford,Lincoln LUST LOVR,0.1 mile northeast Very Low—An inactive cleanup site Inactive Cleanup Site of Project site associated with waste,motor, hydraulic,and lubricating oil contaminants which was completed and closed in 2008. Sunset Honda LUST Inactive LOVR,0.1 mile northeast Very Low—An inactive cleanup site Cleanup Site of Project site associated with waste,motor, hydraulic,and lubricating oil contaminants which was completed and closed in 2000. Kimball Motors LUST LOVR,0.2 mile nartheast Very Low—An inactive cleanup site Inactive Cleanup Site of Project site associated with benzene,gasoline, and tetrachloroethylene contaminants which was completed and closed in 2012. Shell(former Texaco)LUST LOVR,0.1 mile east of Very Low—An inactive cleanup site Inactive Cleanup Site Project site associated with gasoline and other fuel oxygenate contaminants which was completed and closed in 2009. ARCO#6038 LUST Inactive LOVR,0.1 mile east of Very Low—An inactive cleanup site Cleanup Site(A) Project site associated with diesel contaminants which was completed and closed in 1993. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-9 Final EIR 13214 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) ARCO#6038 LUST Inactive LOVR,0.1 mile east of Very Low—An inactive cleanup site Cleanup Site(B) Project site associated with gasoline and other fuel oxygenate contaminants which was completed and closed in 2010. Chevron USA LUST Inactive Calle Joaquin,0.1 mile east Very Low—An inactive cleanup site Cleanup Site of Project site associated with gasoline contaminants which was completed and closed in 1996. San Luis Obispo LOVR,02 mile east of Low—Active cleanup site since 2010. Tetrachloroethylene(PCE) Project site Groundwater was potentially Plume State Response Cleanup impacted by PCE from the site's Site 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. Conoco Phillips Site#5143 LOVR,0.2 mile east of Low—Acrive cleanup site and initial Cleanup Program Site Project site assessment initiated in 2010. Soils were contaminated with crude oil, diesel and gasoline.Due to the separation by U.S. 101 and the potenrial for soil to migrate,potential for contaminate migration to the Project site is low. Source: SWRCB 2018;DTSC 2018. 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 takeof£ Aircraft flight operations are determined largely by the physical layout of the Airport and rules of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (City of San 3J-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13215 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE 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 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-lc (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. 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 5pecific Plan 3.7-11 Final EIR 13216 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE Aviation Accidents at San Luis Obispo County Regional AirpoNt 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 9/24/1990 S-2 8/7/1994 S-1B 1/16/2001 S-1 C 8/1/2005 S-2 6/24/2013 S-1 B Source:Johnson Aviation 2014. Note:Accident site placement far the ALUP Safety Areas were based on visual determination of Figure 4-3 from the 7ohnson 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 SafetX 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 3J-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13217 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals. Some of the requirements 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. California Health and Safetv Code, Section 1596.695 The California Health and Safet_y Code Section 1569.695 of Chapter 3.2 lists specific requirements for residential care facilities for the elderly to prepare emergency and disaster plans. These plans must include,but not be limited to, evacuation procedures,plans for the facility to be self-reliant for prolonged periods, transportation needs, communication procedures, and faculty trainin�plans. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-13 Final EIR 13218 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE California Code of Re�ulations Title 22, Section 87212 The California Code of Re ulations CCR) Title 22 Section 87212, Emer_�ency Disaster Plan, a�plies to residential care facilities for the elderly. This section of the CCR requires that each facility have a disaster and mass casualty plan of action that includes, but is not limited to, a plan for evacuation, fire safet�plan, predetermined evacuation areas, transportation arrangements, emergencv exitin�,�plans, and contacts lists with telephone numbers. 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: (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 3J-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13219 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE 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. California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM for Construction, Gradin�Quarr�g, and Surface Minin� 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, Quartying, 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 {CCR�Title 17, Section 93105. Refer also to Section 3.3,Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-15 Final EIR 13220 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE 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 DTSGlisted 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 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. DTSC maintains several advisory and �uidance documents, including Interim Guidance for Sampling A�ricultural Fields, which defines agricultural lands that may have pesticide contamination are those under cultivation with row, fiber or food crops, orchards, or pastures where agricultural chemicals were a�plied uniformly consistent with normal application practices. DTSC �uidance provides that residences, barns, animal facilities, ditches, and other areas that may have been treated differently from an agricultural field are not considered a�ricultural lands that ma_�pesticide impacts. Further, disturbed urban land does not have potential for substantial exposure to pesticides because disturbance redistributes potential contaminants on the surface into the soils. Surface Minin,g and Reclamation Act (SMARA� SMARA is the primary regulator of onshore surface mining in the state. It dele ates specific re ug latory authority to local jurisdictions. The Act requires the State Geologist (California Geolo�ical Survex) to identify and classif_y 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 mana eg ment policies into their eg neral plans, as well as address mine waste mana�ement, closure, site cleanup, and restoration requirements. Specifically, Section 3712 of the State's Mine Reclamation Statutes and Re�ulations require that all mine waste be handled and disposed of consistent with the State Water 3J-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13221 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE Resources Control Board mine waste disposal re,�ulations in Article 1, Subchapter 1, Chapter 7 of Title 27 of the California Code of Re�ulations. 3.7.2.3 Local Cit,v 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 Str�uctures 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-17 Final EIR 13222 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 Air�port 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 Movin,g of Buildin,gs Section 115 Public Safetv 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. Citv 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 -FiNe 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 3.7-t8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13223 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 Count,y Re,�ional 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: Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-19 Final EIR 13224 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-L 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-lA 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: 3.7-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13225 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 Strate�ic 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. Cit,v of San Luis Obispo Emer�encv 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 3.7.31 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; Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-21 Final EIR 13226 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; � 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: h) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; i) 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; j) 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 k) 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. 3.7-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13227 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE Non-A�plicable 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-23 Final EIR 13228 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 HAZ-1. The Project would exacerbate wildfire MM HAZ-1 Significant and risks,thereby exposing occupants to wildfire MM HAZ-2 Unavoidable hazards,and impair emergency response,and would require wildfire fuel management in the Irish Hills MM HAZ-3 Natural Reserve. MM HAZ-4 MM HAZ-5 HAZ-2. The Project would potentially expose None required Less than Significant persons to toxic,hazardous,or otherwise harmful chemicals through accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the � � environment. HAZ-3. The Project site is located within the None required Less than Significant ALUP Safety Areas and would potentially result in an airport-related safety hazard for people residing or warking in the Project site. 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 3.7-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13229 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE (Western Regional Climate Center 2018). In addition, grasslands and vegetation along slopes and within drainage channels within the Project site serve as fuels that contribute to potential �re 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-25 Final EIR 13230 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 Proj ect 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 3.7-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13231 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 inedium-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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-27 Final EIR 13232 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. 3.7-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13233 ' a '� ':'�, a� S � G.`c n �. P '7.,. r` . a .� • f � r �� :.� �.r`'. 3� .¢. ` �t .. " �� s:r/ c�i; �t- .p• �4 �£ - t 'i # W ��yl� 9 .� �h ��"�i7.ii�"�a � (� Y 1{�. �p S�\ 1�.� Y ( (� � ... L�1'OF�' �� C f �� C �1 � �,;.. � 36� e � C �� F *� � �� 4 A�� `� Y � . �' � r� � t� ;q��w � �� .� '.�" i 5 .. `' �` .� � � � � � � �§ �'�, ';� � ��,��,e- ��Y� � �.�«� ,� . .«� ��" .;��-� � �q� �r %y, . . z,� -i„ra ,' _ a '� ., . .,?I�" � �ufJJF'� .� < ` �.A}�-e� i�i��.1 .. ,. i -. . . ;4 �,,,�. '°� _ �� ' �w� / �� ,aP� � k � � �7 y . . _," .:' . ' �l� _ �,� Q,�' �� _ ..� �. . _ � .�,�� \� : t, .�peP F �� 5 .. b ��. � �.� . i -.� _ ' _ PJ � `: `f� hp� . . r �y � �, � ` � .. - � . . � . �+'' '�' \�`"�e�'� � �e' � E� '� Rr �.,» � � • '� y .� s� < , - ,� �,. ;�,,..«. ,•'� . � , � � �� ,-/ _ `�''+�4a*G� �� :r �° � "''� .: • � � �' � � � .. , , . - . . • .� y \� -µ� . . . �• w . ,� ; � . � ,,,, .. `y£� :.VT.W��W� .� . �. w�J� �`� ,� / \ d �fi.1r �5. ��_ ._. . . ,�� '�....1 - � •-� � � � � �em�'��`�Y�� '�' 4 ,. �"9r � „`��. � � `� � � � . ,, �' e � _ - � .� _. �, � �� 3 �y �.4 a��h, ti. 1 :.� J 1 � '�'��, �� 0ee0�� oo �/ � � � �� J -- � �' � ,.�� p � � � �� ., .� �� .. . lr� �0 � j'. �4f'9 . � � �� q ,�: � .. .�. i y0�0m , ,,�� :��-�` . �� .� < ��hl�ir��v�0�0of��lj'' ---' _� � � � �J� ) �a , �� o . w ,� ' � �� . �-� r F�..� i'�... � ` 'I . �: �LO E E \ � ,e-t* e+ Relationshi Between Pro'ect Site antl �"� � � � � `'� �� p 1 �, �: r � •/ b < � .��`,,�, Irish Hills Natural Reserve � —� -� _. ,., b � ��-�„ 100'Defensible Beginningof � � � � ti a � �'. Space Irish Hills Natural Reserve ,�,��3 ; �� . � Setback (30'-75') 5-Foot A ,�..,, �",� � ��>�� r �� ` h Set Yard , ' .�,-, o �� +� � .�•� � ; � ,. -,K I back � � ' , , . . Rear '+Q?. �._,,: � • � f I Residence `�o�/�,, � +� . � �� o �� y � ff � 's +' �� `�� . o �'� �� ? :.� �' � i o , 3, � o� �� '�+�' ,�e �� h1,e�. � , �,�. .� o � ��C oe ��i�� y-�' �. m . y x .a� "'�P i5 t.. � - / W m ,� .a .,,� . ,� _ . . 00m �tiQ� ^'w� � ° r,�,�� ° 0m �\� �� . .�7Rg ti"* O • '0 0 �� T`�� '�' /'��7.'�,' c t � . . b a � ��._i. .✓� ��.� (1 �� /� �•. � �• .r u 's ��!'�'(� ,�,f'� � ,�' � " � ,�� .� ��.� . � �� >��,� .� � �, � � � ;r .,-�, � � /�, i ;. ��f� ��*� `1' � . � . �� '�".-' � '��• J. � �,V ,� � 1�' $a ,'>> �! `4 . .4,,, �"�t�� UPP�ER � � `�J' e""�.,�b�?�,.��`� 101, � r�\ � T�RRd��EJ ...f � s ,.�tF: .e�.,� � p, /.� � ,'� � � �5��./�;.� � ;��f�;` �1�,e �`�'��` / �'�4"� �G � �S w. � �;�,J`l1 .�,��k. ��r_'�� ,/� . r , �� -�• � ; ',r' � - i�' ,�a-�.^�'�'': � ,�� .�..�.J''r � � .�'",� o' :�. � � `,. "�� , o� :�: � � ,w� � �� w, . _ t - Q � '."`s. . ,� ; - . � � � i . � �,,.� RELOCATED �. .� � -f ` r.y�:,". BASIN � ;R ,�MOUNTAIN - '�I� _ � : ` ��/ CHWR�H�`� �� :1 ]:� � �;; � A: � ��I I i � v��e v� �.r _" f M1 �;,:-�"w' f ''�" �� '"izt ,� � � *y�s.. ��3� �=� ,�.,�' '�"..�� y`��,, ' � . � 2� .� " .y' � ,: � :.;� ,r3�E� t.t ;�' � � ,. - . � L y� 4£d� � A� ..'� r . rSc(9'M4<i'� � .,t A � ' f °'�� '�,u. �.,� .._ . �, � � I; �a a �' �'. 'r�" � }< .' ` ``��. �'�, � :'� LEGEND Proposed Building Heights � Project Site � 100-Foot Buffer � 1 Story-18'-20'High --:-.`-- 1-to 2-Foot Berm -- Cross Section Location � 2 Story-24'-30'High � SCALE IN FEET � � � �� (refer to Figure 3.7-3) �" Madonna Froom Ranch - 3 Story-36'-45'High N 0 550 � � � v �� Villaggio - Tower-45'-55'High Aeria/Source:Google 2018. wOOd. Minimum Defensible Space Area FIGURE 3.7-2 13234�-29 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE LEGEND Zone 1 Cleared Vegetation Zone(0-30 feet from shuctures):Veqetation is limited to groundcovers,lawns,and a limited number of ornamental plants and single specimen trees,if any. Zone 2 Reduced Fuel Zone(30—70 feet from structures):Vegetation is thinned to create space between clusters,dried grasses and weeds are mowed,and low tree limbs are removed to reduce Ihe potential for ground fires to climb. � Zone 3 Constrained Site Zone(70—100+feet trom structures):Vegetation is selectively thinned and trees are spaced apart so that fires burned in the area would be less intense and spread at a slower rate. 100'+ 70' 30' � '.. .� c,;: Required 5-Foot Rear Yartl Setback 1-Story Residential ;. � t, _ Zone 3 ZOf12 2 General Beginning of ZOIlB 1 Irish Hills Natural Reserve WOO�. Illustrative Defensible Space Setback FIGURE Cross Section 3.7-3 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 7.4.1 a, 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. 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 3J-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13235 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE 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 Tra�c regarding emergency access. 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 MMHAZ-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.• Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-31 Final EIR 13236 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE • All equipment with the potential to work off-�oad shall be equipped with app�opriate mufflers and have extinguishers mounted on each vehicle; • In coordination with SLOFD,personnel shall be briefed on the dangers of wildfzre and be able to respond accoNdingly 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 consti^uction 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. 3J-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13237 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE MMHAZ-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 prepaNe 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 fi^om 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: • T�egetation 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 shr�ubs, 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 requiNed fuel management and vegetation clearance, shall be designed and implemented to provide adequate Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-33 Final EIR 13238 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE 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. MMHAZ-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. Othenvise, smoking shall be prohibited onsite. The Applicant shall amend the FRSP to include policies to requiring the allowed use of fire resistant landscaping and ha�dscaping 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 Idesignated 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. 3J-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13239 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE MMHAZ-4 The Applicant shall pNepare and implement an Evacuation Plan, which shall address both Villaggio and Madonna F�oom 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; • Specifzed 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 othe��oadway 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-35 Final EIR 13240 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE MMHAZ-S The F�oom Ranch Specific Plan (FRSP) shall designate fire access routes in at least two locations fi^om the P�oject 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 �outes shall be designed to allow emergency �esponse 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 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 3J-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13241 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE 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 Proj ect 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 ResouNces), and emergency response to wildfire in the Irish Hills would continue to be impaired by the Project as currently designed—. Therefore, with I implementation of the above mitigation, impacts related to wildland fires with associated threat of damage to structures and loss of life, would be signifzcant 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). 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-37 Final EIR 13242 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE 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 of residential and commercial uses, 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, CaIEPA,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. Disposal of Hazardous Mate�ials 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 construction/demolition and hazardous wastes. The Project would result in the demolition of historic structures which have potential to contain asbestos-containin� materials (ACMs) and lead-based paints (LBPs). These materials can be harmful to construction works or other persons which directly handle these materials, particularly during 3J-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13243 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE demolition activities where the materials mav become pulverized and released into the air as fu,gitive dust. Existin,� structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex have the potential to contain some ACMs and LBPs. However, the Prolect has a low likelihood of exposing,�persons to these materials due to historical site use, as well as the lar�elX undeveloped de�ree of land onsite. Additionally, ��'��*�� r*��r�- ��*�r;�' �ACM3, '�^a '�^��a „^�r* �LBP�, or other hazardous materials (e.�., mercurv, pol,vchlorinated biphenyl caulk) 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. Per DTSC guidance, agricultural lands that may have pesticide contamination are those under cultivation with row, fiber or food crops, orchards, or pastures where a�ricultural chemicals were a�plied uniformly consistent with normal a�plication practices. A�riculturalland within the Project site has historically been utilized for dairy operations and is currently used for rg azing activities. As described in Section 3.2, A�ricultural Resources,the Project site has never been cultivated with crops and,therefore,the potential for past pesticide or herbicide a�lications is negli�ible. No weed abatement using pesticides or herbicides currently occurs at the site. Further, DTSC �uidance provides that residences, barns, animal facilities, ditches, and other areas that may have been treated differently from an agricultural field are not considered a�ricultural lands that ma.� pesticide impacts. Aside from the rg azing land onsite, which has not been formerlX cultivated, other uses onsite are former dairy buildings, including barns and a residence, and a construction materials storage yard, which do not have potential for pesticide release per DTSC. Lastly, DTSC guidance notes that disturbed urban land does not have potential for substantial exposure to pesticides because disturbance redistributes potential contaminants on the surface into the soils. The Project site has been subject to rg ading over much of the non-wetland areas and non-waterways onsite, resultin� in substantial disturbance to topsoil and eliminating the potential for substantial pesticides on the surface. Operation of the Project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials if released accidentally, including vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. In the event of a hazardous materials spill durin� Pro'el ct operation, the City Fire Department maintains the hazardous materials response and miti,gation services within the Citv (see also, Section 3.12,Public Services and Recreation). 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, Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-39 Final EIR 13244 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE � sealers, paints, fuels/lubricants and pesticides/herbicides�. 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, includin� U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Hazardous Materials Safetv requirements. As discussed in detail in Section 3.15, Minerals, the Project would reclaim the existing quarry site consistent with the SMARA permit reclamation plan and in compliance with the California Department of Conservation Mine Reclamation Statutes and Regulations. Section 3712 of the State's Mine Reclamation Statutes and Regulations require that all mine waste be handled and disposed of consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board mine waste disposal regulations in Article 1, Subchapter 1, Chapter 7 of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations. Compliance with the existing SMARA permit for the red rock quarrY, and by extension the SWRCB re�ulations �overning disposal of mine waste, would ensure the existing red quarry is closed and maintained in a manner such that there would be no significant increase in the concentration of waste constituents in the ground or surface water prior to construction of the Project. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the release or exposure of humans or the environment to hazardous mine wastes. 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). 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 3J-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13245 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE 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 airport-related safety hazard is expected to occur as result of Project implementation. Further, the Proj ect would be subj ect 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-41 Final EIR 13246 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE 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 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, 3J-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13247 3.7 HAZARDS�HAZARDOUS MATERIALS�AND WILDFIRE 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.7-43 Final EIR 13248 13249 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.g HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section of the EIR describes the potential impacts of the Proj ect — �' �_�-��°-- � �� '�� . _ ��:�"-. .. � includin the reali nment of Froom �"� � � g g � '��':, `�-� �"4 Creek within the Project site — on �� '-� � � �� ,,- � y • �...�-`� F�.-. . °'� �p,�,: flooding, water quality, and other �"��- �-,.�� '"�- �' � � � � '� � =�'��`�v';;�' �._ � "`�' ��° hydrologic conditions in the Froom ��►�;��'�'�� `�,; �`� � �R.�,,,['.x � r'.�*��'..�, �;�,.�k�-'�. ,��r,�r� Creek watershed. The information and �►�'� �`.�-�'�:��,��: �„�� . �� . �� x A�� y CY-ji��u�'D'k�'A �$��w1�� y `�GL^ 1ri�1lyS1S pY0S0ritP�Cl lri t111S SOCtlOri 1S .t � ��- ,��„�„ � �' �b �a� y ��',a`�. ��,.. '�. � 3�e r�"�'�l��''T�,� 'H�� fi ��. ��` � based largely upon Applicant-prepared �k � = � �� 1��` ,�"�� '��y�, � � a b `=e' �*� .�Y, r. �e,� , �e` � technical studies,particularly for onsite � �� -�n�"� �- �'•�=��-'� 9.Y�.. Froom Creek, an approximate 3.5-mile-long stream, flOOding, wh1Ch were SubjeCt to lnitlal bisects the 116.8-acre Project site and is a tributary to peer review by EIR consultant San Luis Obispo Creek. 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 ResouNces. 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 Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-1 Final EIR 13250 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 Proj ect 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 �r� , ,,.�°� _ _� that extends from the confluence of , �� , � � �� Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo ::�� '�`, , , '�� '�'�w,�.��a �b�,�E�,� ._ , _ , � �� °�� Creek, immediately downstream of the , � �x� :� ��r� � ,� � �' � �` �� .� � � Pro ect site at U.S. 101 and north and f'� �^��'' a iwk . �—,�� 5��` � �� '�� "� � °��`�'� :� ��'��:�� west to the Irish Hills. The Froom Froom Creek drains a 1,162-acre i-rutersl�ed tii�it{�iri tfie Irish xil�s. 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 H). 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 3.8-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13251 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 runof£ 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 Final EIR 13252 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, andlor 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 EneNgy Conservation, for more discussion on groundwater supply. 3.8-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13253 ' 4 � R�.r� �F ,L „e S, �'e✓'r '�` _.�''- _ � izr �. R ,ti t +. 'C�' . J� �f� K 2 ��4 �, � ,ZL«�} \�r �y��+ �� `�� r�P. � < r 9 �! � � � �../� R .� c�A Xt� �n„_� c`, .._ � � . � �� 'L� �`r � ..e� � � 1D� ,. a'��y��w�c�,,+�F �r�,.� �I�, � ' e r a �+i ,Q�( �� F\ .� � � '`�� ,.:� � ,\ . � �� y � , h A �y' . . �v �, �� `1, � -x � �� ' y ��r�, �' �. �� £y�t� Q �� i� :4 i�i,ri:.-. •.0�, ' .."}� �� / y��`�`• 'i��3 "�5�.ik.a s.��:,t4�� , � I'a6 jt,♦" �r A'j�`�.J\\:e�.� .,��`'l ' e.�� r .F+ � �I l ♦ (��l.0`d ( 4 ��AY . P,� .� �� ♦ y4� `� '� � \�� t ..! ��.. � L�G l ..'r,r+r, _ ..�� \ �f `Z . �..4�,� f l -1�� ; Vc . " ,�� L �J.�"'\♦ (�'Yy/ : • - � S . '� � & . ..,. . � � w _ �p , � �',�.'_�� l�� ` �+�L ,4� ``, � • .: _ �R • ' �� f � x? ..:oqr4 ( ( ,:� �t "� _ �:,' . � . . .' '^� i�•� .�r 7 h< �h�� 4 .. ;�� E � ,+,. .. . � � , 3 .. � ��;� �N �, . �, ,., 1„= � yy �`" i' �' �� .- '�R�' .4 �": ... . ss�b, . •y�� '" \ ��r�,;� � �... � ;w �� . � , i, V/1 �kl;�b . �9' .- �� -. . � , `.� � �}'�,`l� /t,_� � `� ,`/i � ^ � � y�..a , .. .� .- � ::� . �`3- � `M1Y,i� ��`.�� ,� ,�,.dty�� . ��,:.��'. � . � � "�"t d" �Pc. . s . •. 1- ,�i "� ��f'�^` � `k.. ;/ ,�i x <;� ' ,� �r , , , , a .: . . , , �:. , � � :`� ,�, � ; d� -.� �t . ; ��.? r�F��, w ; � �'' � lr X �� . � � , ��. °` ��`'�e"� � �'� �� '� Sf�.(101� . �� .• ' r r�. �y,� >� '�_ s �� ` , ,�* ' , ... � j � � ,,��, "�;; p�ff y k� f �♦ .._I� �,�� Y'xt-z��` 'X'�,:4^j�€°� �•'� ... � 1r��''� � � ` /. .�y��,~f.�. lS � , �� !,�'�fi.{3'"�,�� 8 �,'r�'� �� ♦ } -�V y I� � ��rM ��.r ;e ��y �� s'� /� �:� �7,.p;, { � rytt�'4a,�r x �...�� .- • w � f�I�i.-�� .,� y �C�!,�!•,:. . �N� ��aFs..G�s�� a�� .�t • � -c«�.,. �� .a �y1 1�'� �t�.�.'.. �-, A. +t �+ .. �','�: ?r .�.a+. I`� �,�" �� `\ �� ,�1 . . � c '.� f, ,_...';� ` �� ... � �i. . "�r.,.� - ` � ../; :f ,� . �.-qti��`Y ; ' �`. �;c "'��"'' fi �"! � ! � +e.�� ' * � . � 4 '�`,1, . � � 'y� v'. •� � . ,�., � . a��4 ' St �• ' �� in? � -�:^�s�,�x '�' �.�a� .♦� *e . � "�� :,�.,;� t: s . w `�'��"+ � rr�'E'"�� f � '� �` .,� a� ' ,, � � s `� ' � �� ,' � � �� - ; t,.. �i :�M � ��. �-^ �s..�� f� � �`', �.� .'� / :.w �71 N'� .♦ � .{ � �" . p�3� �r� s i ;� . . ♦ . �a�. .. ?�,� . . {' f T J�. �' � . ♦� .��tg*"�4',� � f)� ` €� :$,. � �k�� ' _ .. .�♦ .r� __� ��\ - ' , ,�l"''`�'i ' Ir � 'f�`, .:�,. �`,"�� . ',�;>_ I i "r��r4i w.,-.a 0�� . ��,;� » "S. . / 6.. p �,z ' • � .�,% ,�i�.:,� . � - . fT 5'�� k!� � � �'♦♦ t.�f.�=� �.P.. �� . ... �*��.,�. � ' � �' . �� '��'. �� ,.^ ,��,a y�... � lq.%� ♦.. ... .. � r rt ' �5.. . � '- � f F y h , .'• e - s • S��T�.r+i -y.�, � � �, .�,,��'�' . , ..�F � r-a+f� � d �.. ��• � , � � r4.�, h \\ �� S � ` s i a r�.��'� i..r ��: . � �� 11 1 F,•: 7�4:,,� . � ` �` r i. �F c � ' `��.-+' � i,;„ �� . . "�,��,f'�°��,�'y� ' � � a.. — , �; XY,� � > :: t,�`' ;;;" - �� ,� �� `•�"�c;��"% � q��wf 1 ��t ,,:. . �,; �'. T f�-.- 1 G. �, *` , ��• �:.�....:�.� � �,.*�_., �� d� � �:�t� �k .� �� LEGEND � Project Site City of San Luis Obispo LOVR Ditch Isolated 1.77-Acres of the Project Site Supporting a � Froom Ranch Specific �' 32-Acre Existing Detention Approximate Location of 1-Acre Wetland Plan Area Basin for Irish Hills Plaza Froom Creek SCALE IN FEET � U.S.101 Culverts � 100-Year Floodplain Calle Joaquin Wetlands ]v (approximate) 0 600 Aerial Source:Google 2018. WOO� Existing Drainage Conditions FIGURE . on the Project Site 3.8-1 132543.8-5 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 Proj ect 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 Final EIR 13255 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. �-.a� r. � �-,�„ 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 f � . j �S,j� /'Bh'�'^ ,�,� ._ � _ k , �v � ,� �s;f� �„- � ; �� ,.� � � alignment of all historic tributaries .,;,,,v, , � ,. ��t�`:;��>�'� �`� �� `` and drainages is unknown, based � �"�� .r-..� '��' ..t F �� „�,,�-'� ��,�`"�- �,� �- �'� � : on historic USGS topographic �,.� -�-r..'�� $ � .� :.; �' :� ,,, - ��,: �� .�� ,` .��`,,� - , maps prior to 1940, Froom Creek �, �` �; .� �--�,,:,� , r�.� �<,� " a; was aligned along the north and Froom Creek traverses the Project site within a narrow channel composed of rock, gravel, and sand. Evidence of eastern bOund2x'les Of the Slte neaY eroded, undercut banks from high-velocity flows was obseYved ons�te(January 2018) 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 H�. I Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-7 Final EIR 13256 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Another key onsite drainage feature is the LOVR � ditch, a roadside ditch adjacent to LOVR that �._ �;, ,..,,� ,,�� F� �F - � conveys surface runoff from the roadway and the e� p '�; ,� ,# � Irish Hills Plaza to the north. This ditch conveys ��'�" "� � these flows to the southeast toward the Calle � � � �� '�� . *�. E� �" �'�a� J'�5 ` '��" � „ Joaquin wetlands where they commingle with �' ,� ,�� a '�4'. yxI,�jY �� :F' w q�� '{�'�. high groundwater to help sustain sensitive � �,�� /;-��; ,,_,;��=�''�__ �,� ,. �� ...:.�{�-�:��i.'�':�� wetland and riparian scrub habitats (see Section T/�� r��rz-�nu�t� dr�u�rz�,;� �t�t�•�z ud�u�•�t�t to LOVR conveys stormwater runoff' from 3.4, Biological Resou�'ces�. These waters adjacent development to the north and east. eventually flow south to a 3 6-inch storm drain I'�'olonged ponding of runoff has resulted in the establishment of high-quality wetland that conveys water under Calle Joaquin and and riparian habitats. 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 � �;i,��',,, ,d„ 'p� , ;%,��e . i;,;,,''�r' > runoff from undeveloped upper elevations of a�,l. !4 S� �'�j'��01� r��Y l,�fiy°Ir '%'. �, �;�� ,� ,�, <��,n� , ;,,�� -�,� the site and the Irish Hills. These three ��;,,,,- �� ,��, � �"� drainages—designated Drainage l,Drainage 2, h ` " �� and Draina e 3 — enerall flow downslo e " �,�"�'� �� , ��, �� E�., g g Y p Y �� T�7 '�f�c '�"�� 4 ., '�ie , i Y " �` �� ' � Y from northwest to southeast(Figure 3.8-1).The r Tt� ��f i �?.�y!'r�""�i � ,i '4N ,n� � .,_. ��. The calle Jo�qu�n wetland� ar� �f�� three drainages are approximately 3,200 feet, primarily by surface flows across the site 1,400 feet, and 1,100 feet 1n length, and from the LOVR ditch, runoff from Irish xills Plaza, and high groundwater levels. 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. 3.8-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13257 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Offsite Draina�e 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 IY1Sh Hllls Plaz2. Th1S detentlOn featuYe Runoff fi�oin adjacent Irish Hills Plaza flows to onsite COnSlsts Of a deSlltatlOn fOYebay, a maln detention features on the Project site, including a 3.2- acre basin, and creates pooling in a former infiltration basln, and ConCrete sp111way which, area adjacent to the existing driveway(pictured). 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-9 Final EIR 13258 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Peak Flows and Overto�in� of Froom Creek Banks An important component of Table 3.8-1. Existing Peak Flows in Froom Creek the hydrologic analysis of a watershed is the timing of the � � •� ' ' ' � � '' _ � . . peak flows that result from a 2-year 2533(0) rainfall-runoff event. As io-year s21.s�s9.4� precipitation in a given storm 2s-year �i4.3 (2g2.2� __� rises and falls in intensity over so-year sd�.d�43ss) � time, the resulting runoff, or loo-year 9ao.4(s4s.3) � Source: �3Appendix H; Existing Froom Creek Hydrologic discharge, also rises and falls A„a��s;s. 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. 1 O 1. 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 H�. Flood Hazards Given peak flows and capacity of the existing channel, Froom Creek has a �� '�.°�� , �� ` history of periodic flooding with �"� � �% �.,�v. '--�'`� �;��r ` , < estimated overbank flows occurring /� � ��i�,�,� '`��' '"�� every five to six years (Balance ��i'�� I �:� � � Hydrologics, Inc. 2005; Appendix �H). � � � �.�, - �� '.�� ;: �x . .� � ' � The potential for overtopping and %a �,� �` flooding of the Lower Area has been � ,�:�� _ � O . reduced since the 2013 installation of an ��-�,�� .. ,;.,, ,��, al't1flClal 0aYt110ri b0Yri1 t�lat COrif1ri0S An existing double box culvert under U.S. 101 conveys FrOOm CYeek to lts peYChed lOCatlOn On water from Froom Creek to San Luis Creek. This box culvert is inadequately sized to convey flows from the eastern edge of the slte (Appendlx storm events larger than 10-year storms. � �H). However, the existing Froom Creek 3.8-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13259 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).i 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 �H). 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 '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 Final EIR 13260 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 H). Groundwater has not been observed in the western upper-elevations of the Proj ect site,though several springs have been mapped in this area,including the confluence � of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 in the Upper Terrace (��A�pendix H). 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 H). 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 Final EIR 13261 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 H). 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 Final EIR 13262 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 Final EIR 13263 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 locallevels. State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB) & Central Coast Re�ional 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 Final EIR 13264 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 Final EIR 13265 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 o£ 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 inethods 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. Conse�vation 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 Final EIR 13266 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 Pro� 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 Final EIR 13267 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY San Luis Obispo Waterwa,v Mana�ement 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 C�iteria) 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 Final EIR 13268 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 En 'n� eerin,� 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 ar 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 Final EIR 13269 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 proj ect 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,riskrelease ofpollutants 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 Final EIR 13270 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 IProject applicant(��Appendix H). These include: • Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. in Apri12017; • 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 Final EIR 13271 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 H). 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 Final EIR 13272 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 HYD-1.Project construction activities would MM HYD-1 Less than Significant result in impacts to water qualiry due to MM HYD-2 with Mitigation polluted runofF and increased erosion or siltation. MM HYD-3 HYD-2. The Project would potentially MM HYD-4 Less than Significant exacerbate flooding and erosion hazards onsite with Mitigarion and in areas downstream,particularly related to the proposed realignment and design of Froom Creek and developed areas of the site. HYD-3.Operation of the Project would No Mirigation Required Less than Significant potentially impact water quality of Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek due to polluted urban runoff and sedimentation. HYD-4.The Project would involve No Mitigation Required Less than Significant development of new impervious surfaces and potentially interfere with groundwater � � recharge. 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 Final EIR 13273 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 Final EIR 13274 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 runof£ 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 MMHYD-1 Prio� 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. Monitorin�. 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. MMHYD-2 For each phase of construction, the Applicant shall Nequire 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 constr�uction. A SWPPP for site constr�uction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the PNoject 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 Final EIR 13275 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY development that in total disturbs 1 0� 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, stNaw bales, sand bagging, mulching, eNosion control blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers shall be used. • Sufficient physical protection and pollution prevention measures to p�event sedimentation, siltation, and/or debris from entering the Calle .Ioaquin wetlands. • Soil stockpiles and graded slopes shall be covered after 14 days of inactivity and 24 hours pNior 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 p�event spills and discharges of pollutants onsite (material and container sto�age, proper trash disposal, construction entrances, etc.). • Sandbags, or other equivalent techniques, shall be utilized alonggraded areas to pNevent 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 Final EIR 13276 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY controlled during the constr~uction 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. Monitorin�. 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 occuN during the dry season (May through October), including realignment and restoration of Froom Creek, installation of hydNological connections foN 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 restoNed to ensure soil stabilization and adequate stormwater conveyance capacity prior to the storm season (OctobeN 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 Final EIR 13277 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Monitorin�. 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 DNainage 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 Final EIR 13278 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY both the total volume of stormwater runoff and the peak flow of runof£ 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 Final EIR 13279 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(��A�pendix H). I 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 H). � Table 3.8-3. Projected Peak Flow in Realigned Froom Creek . , .. .... � ... . .... . - .. 2-year 2533 (0) 518.7(0) 265.4(0) io-year sz�.s �g9.4� �0�.3 ��sg.d� �ss.s �99.z� 25-year 714.3 (282.2) 877.2 (358.5) 1629(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:�3Appendix H;Existing Froom Creek Hydrologic Analysis. I Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-31 Final EIR 13280 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Creek Bank Stability and Erosion As discussed in Section 3.1 Environmental Setting above, the Froom Creek watershed � i� �`�'\�, ; .� 4 � I can experience high intensity rainfall events i • � � ` ��' ' • � � i that can result in short duration high intensity i4'� � �°""Fl°�" RestAreaswith �(�� I I hannel ben<hesand �`I 'l C' terpretive sign I (�T fIOWS OfU t0 1 241 CfS UI1C10T' IOO— 02P StOYYYl u��v��no�� I � H� , I � App�xrmare � � '.' l I highwaterline Y � 1. .: conditions, with potential for scouring of the i � � ��:�v �� I � channel bottom and erosion along the banks � � ��' �', � � ' ;r; /� I of the newly realigned creek (�� °eCOm°°Se°��°"=r� , , � �� Tral�6wde) �� I �Appendix H). Similar conditions are ��,�e„ �� E�na��eme��= frequently experienced within the existing , , � � �. i � � Froom Creek, which demonstrated deep � ��; '�� %�� incising and scouring of creek banks. To � z � , ��\ _ � ; address this concern for the proposed a�� '�^d00e1 'CM1dOOe1 �^�°°�� ,��, ry9uXer Bank BORom Bank BuHcr alignment, the Project includes use of 2,300 7'he proposed Froom Creek channel would include 2,300 cy of rock and boulders to create Cy Of lmpOrted YOCk t0 Create a SeYleS of pools and slow flows, as well as some toe rocks channel bottom pools along upper reaches of to help stabilize banks during sto�n events. 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.�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 H; 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 H). 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. 3.8-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13281 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Where the realigned Froom Creek bends to the south and runs adj acent 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 Final EIR 13282 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Table 3.8-4. Required Onsite Runoff Retention � � Onsite Madonna-Froom(Residential/ 12J 0.9 Park) 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 H;Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations. Table 3.8-5. Required Offsite Runoff Retention � - - - � �� I Offsite Home Depot 10.1 1.3 Irish Hills 15.2 23 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 H 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:�3Appendix H.;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 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 3.8-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13283 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 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 H). 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 ll 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 H). 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-35 Final EIR 13284 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Considering proposed stormwater management systems improvement and the Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations prepared by RRM Design Group, stormwater 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 far 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 signifzcant. Mitigation Measures MMHYD-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 Neduction of further erosion. Final creek design plans and a supporting engineering study shall address appNopriate bouldeN sizes and bank protection measuNes necessary to pNevent dislodgement or Nemobilization of in-channel or toe-slope protection rock. Natural methods (e.g., additional rock) shall be employed as needed to maintain the proposed 3.8-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13285 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 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 fi^om erosion from flood flows and aid in maintenance of riparian vegetation. Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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. Monitorin�. 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 runof£ 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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-37 Final EIR 13286 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 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 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 runof£ 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 3.8-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13287 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 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 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 H). Therefore,the Proj ect would not adversely � affect groundwater levels, even though the Project would increase impervious surfaces within the Specific Plan area. Potential to Encounte�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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.8-39 Final EIR 13288 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY � levels were observed at depths of 23 to 10 feet bgs(��3Appendix H). Investigation of groundwater levels using soil borings and existing onsite groundwater wells did not 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 Proj ect 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). 3.8.3.4 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 runof£ 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 3.8-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13289 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY from new development. Therefore, the proposed Project, in conjunction with pending cumulative development, would not significantly increase the concentration of urban 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 Proj ect-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 Final EIR 13290 13291 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,i 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 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. ' The County's General Plan is adopted as the County's Zoning Ordinance. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-1 Final EIR 13292 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-2. Existing City and County Zoning Districts within Project Vicinity 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 recrearion faciliries,entertainment,hotels,churches, restaurants,mixed-use developments Commercial-Service-Special Limited retail, storage,automobile and vehicle Considerarions sales and services,wholesaling,warehousing, (C-S-S)&Commercial-Service-Planned light manufacturing uses Development(C-S-PD) Commercial-Tourist(GT) 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 * � ,._ . . � , ` �.� .�T.,. y': .4 . C,�'.I"y.n4�' . -.�� i.M � �' . f" f �I'%'. �''�7 � �,.- _ � ..' �� r + � � . ` �.` � .. �� I ��'v rSs� i,�'� I� '�T.a«�� `,."�� "'��. . '?�' r�< +�"y�-� . ..� _ � > �� ' _ , � .._'—" " . 'i : J . . 3 : '__ ' - � ...� _..- _ _.... �[ ... ,,�r�� .. � ... I �h'bK` 'wN'P'.b" �6 �'§ y,�'r'p,' R . .�r<s;i,�`�'. ,.,7..��`> � .� � 3 `��e;a+ •.. _._� .� n ."�� ' . �� „„ .. ��.� The P��ojecl site is surrounded on th��ee sides by u��ban development in the City and ha�dered to the west hy the Irish Hills Natural Reserve(left).Irish Hills Plaza(right) located north of the Specific Plan area contains retail and commercial businesses. 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, 3.9-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13293 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING commercial-service (C-S) land uses support primarily automobile dealerships, such as BMW, Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota, and Honda, where structural development is generally modern one-story offices and showrooms. To the southeast adjacent to U.S. 101 and Calle Joaquin,commercial-tourist(GT)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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-3 Final EIR 13294 � � ,� �_ t,��> �� •�; � � .�� • +z � C� fr'. �`t�, �: 0�44��PO'S'�-�Ffrr '��:. � � , ��` � � �� :- � ��s ��y�� }'^. F L x s� {y F�it.�,,,. C : �. •, � �s�� 1 '��.� . , �i � ''�'(A�:. ��4 .J> 6�. F� ��k � � a��`,X Fp�� d . � �:� ��;� � �, , ��. • ,��`��'; `��, EY� .� . �.k��( ..:. e � �f � zm} ♦ \ , �� a ..�. e£f �:: __ . 3�...' . , /r�..�,. ��:� � --_-- — _'.: f� . 2. _ —'� � / �. � . . ��,-e ��.�e:�`. ,k_ 4 - ' . , ` � ,�''-,� ,�', C- r � ��!'`'� � 4 �� , ,w'�' a '� a c � p �t ��+ � ` `s � �. .#;..��r,,. - � � ,�� ;- ;�� ..� .��/)� /: 4 ,�`Rt i �:1- Y ' :d , t!�_� 1�� _�, �� s � � 'n`?= - �., � � � ' ♦ ` i _,, � � ;� I '� I ;, I r :f, l �". I I �� ,: 'J r; . .'' ,.�..,��,�%. � ,;.! '�� i` -v:.,' � -i`, I / ,:. I LEGEND � Project Site City General Plan Land Use County General Plan Land Use --� San Luis Obispo 0 General Retail 0 Agriculture �——� City/County Boundary � Open Space 0 Rural Land ----- Urban-Rural Line 0 Services and Manufacturing � Onsite Agricultural 0 Tourist Commercial SCALE IN FEET Easement Madonna at LOVR-SP N (Froom Ranch Specific Plan) 0 500 wOOd. Existing Land Use FIGURE 3.9-1 3.9-4 13295 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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, PNoject 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 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 �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 Ciry limit(City of San Luis Obispo and County of San Luis Obispo 2013). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-5 Final EIR 13296 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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 Residential(Mixed-Use) Medium Density Residential 200 units 350 units Medium-High Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Neighborhood Commercial 50,000 sf 350,000 sf Commercial Parks Park Open Space/Agriculture Open Space 50%site Agriculture coverage Public N/A Infrastructure N/A N/A—Not Applicable ' There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/ar 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. 2010 Open Space & Agricultural Conservation Easement In 2010, a 7.1-acre agricultural easement was dedicated within the Proj ect 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. 3.9-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13297 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 2018 Memorandum of Option and Easement Ri h�ts 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 Mote16 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 In,�ress and E�ress 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 Proj ect site, southwest 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-7 Final EIR 13298 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 3.9.2.1 State Government Code Section 63450 (�ecific 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. 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 G�eenhouse Gas Emissions). 3.9-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13299 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 3.9.2.2 Regional Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strate�y 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 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-9 Final EIR 13300 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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 ll 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. Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo Count,y Re,�ional 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 3.9-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13301 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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-lA, 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 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-lA 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-11 Final EIR 13302 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING during instrument flight rules operations (due to pilot error or equipment malfunction), stalUspin 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: 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 Proj ect 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 3.9-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13303 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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. The 2014 LUE identifies the Specific Plan area as Special Focus Area, SP-3, with the following requirements: Policy 8.I.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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-13 Final EIR 13304 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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. £ Address neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhood. g. Provide connectivity to adjacent development. L UE Chapter 7, Ai�port 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. AL UP 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 City overrides a determination,allland 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 3.9-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13305 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-15 Final EIR 13306 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City shall be consistent with these development standards. City of San Luis Obispo Zonin�gulations 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, histaric, mixed-use, and special considerations. City of San Luis Obispo Community Desi�n 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 Proj ect'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 Proj ect 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. 3.9-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13307 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis � � � . Land Use Element(LUE) 1.1.1—Growth The City shall manage its growth so that Potentially Consistent As discussed in Section 33,Air Quality and Management A. The natural environment and air quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.4,Biological will be protected. Resources, Section 3.7,Hazards, Hazardous B. The relatively high level of services Materials, and Wildfire, Section 3.11,Population enjoyed by Ciry residents is maintained or and Housing, Section 3.]2,Public Services and enhanced. Recreation, Section 3.13, Transportation,and Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation, C. The demand for municipal services does development of the Project would ensure the City not outpace their availability. continues to provide essential municipal services to D.New residents can be assimilated without all residents in a manner that ensures the protection disrupting the community's social fabric, of the natural environment to the maximum extent safety, or established neighborhoods. feasible while resulting in consistency and fluidity with surrounding community development. 1.1.2— The City shall not designate more land for Potentially Consistent As discussed in Section 33,Air Qualiry and Development urban uses than its resources can be expected Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.4,Biological Capacity and to support. Resources, Section 3.7,Hazards,Hazardous Services 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 The City shall maintain a clear boundary Potentially Inconsistent The Project would include development of inedium Edges Character between San Luis Obispo's urban and higher density residential uses immediately development and surrounding open land. adjacent to the open land within the Irish Hills Development just inside the boundary shall Natural Reserve above the 150-foot elevation line, provide measures to avoid a stark-appearing creating a stark edge between new buildings and w w 0 � Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-17 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . ' � � edge between buildings in the City and the adjacent open lands. The Project would be adjacent open land. Such measures may potentially inconsistent with this policy. 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. 1.5— The gap between housing demand(due to Potentially Consistent The Project would include construction of 174 Jobs/Housing more jobs and college enrollment)and supply multi-family residential dwelling units and 404 Relationship should not increase. 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 Expansion areas should be kept in Potentially Consistent The Project is proposed on land designated for a Uses agriculture,compatible with agricultural specific plan(SP-3)which would provide for urban support services,or open space uses until development and open space preservation to urban development occurs,unless a City- implement the City's General Plan. approved specific plan provides for other interim uses. 1.8.1 —Open Within the City's planning area and outside Potentially Inconsistent The Project site is located within the City's SOI, is Space Protection the urban reserve line,undeveloped land planned for growth under SP-3,and would be should be kept open.Prime agricultural land, annexed to the City consistent with adopted policy productive agricultural land,and potentially and LAFCO review. In accordance with the LUCE productive agricultural land should be Update EIR,the Applicant must dedicate open protected for farming. Scenic lands, sensitive space land or in-lieu fees for newly annexed land at wildlife habitat,and undeveloped prime a ratio of no less than 1:L The Project would also agricultural land should be permanently be required to provide for permanent conservation protected as open space. of approximately 7.1 acres of land to maintain the acreage of an existing open space and agricultural conservation easement that would be partially w w 0 � 3.9-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . ' � � � 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. 1.8.3— The City shall not allow commercial Potentially Consistent The Project site is located within the City's SOI, Commercial development within the greenbelt area unless within the greenbelt boundary,is planned for urban U�ses in the it is clearly incidental to and supportive of growth under the LUCE Update,and � Greenbelt agriculture or other open space uses. implementation of the Project would result in annexarion of the Project site to the Ciry.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 All new buildings and structures should be Potentially Inconsistent The FRSP design provides for larger buildings and Design and subordinate to and in harmony with the structures within the Lower Area of Villaggio and Siting surrounding landscape. The City should Madonna Froom Ranch,adjacent to already encourage Counry adoption of regulations developed areas along LOVR such as the Irish prohibiting new structures on ridge lines or in Hills Plaza,and in conformance with the other visually prominent or environmentally surrounding development and landscape,consistent sensitive locations,and allowing transfer of with the intent of this policy.However, development rights from one parcel to development of the Upper Terrace would place another in order to facilitate this policy. 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. w w 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-19 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � 1.8.6—Wildlife The City shall ensure that continuous wildlife Consistent Project development would result in disruption of Habitat habitat-including corridors free of human wildlife movement,particularly to and across the disruption are preserved,and,where Upper Terrace through development in close necessary,created. 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 wildlife. Refer also to Section 3.4,Biological Resources. 1.9.1 — The City shall support preservation of Potentially Consistent The City has considered the viability of agricultural Agricultural economically viable agricultural operations operations on the Specific Plan area through past Protection and land within the URL and city limits. The planning efforts such as the LUCE Update and the City should provide for the continuation of identification of the Project site as SP-3. The farming through steps such as provision of Project site does not support any prime soils or appropriate general plan designations and economically viable agricultural operations. The zoning. 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 32, Agricultural Resources, far additional information regarding the viability of agriculture onsite. 1.9.2—Prime The City may allow development on prime Potentially Consistent The City has considered the protection of Agricultural agricultural land if the development agricultural resources on the Specific Plan area Land contributes to the protection of agricultural through past planning efforts, such as the LUCE land in the urban reserve or greenbelt by one Update and through the measures detailed for SP-3. or more of the following methods,or an Therefore,although Project implementation would equally effective method: acting as a receiver result in loss of agricultural soils,which are site for transfer of development credit from considered prime when irrigated, the site is not prime agricultural land of equal quanrity; currently irrigated,and has not been irrigated in the securing far the City or for a suitable land past. The existing open space and agricultural w w 3.9-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � � � conservarion organization open space or easement would be reconfigured.As discussed in agricultural easements or fee ownership with Section 3.2,Agricultural Resources, there is no deed resh-ictions;helping to directly fund the prime farmland or farmland of state or local acquisirion of fee ownership or open space importance identified within the Project site. easements by the City or a suitable land Development of the Project would not result in the conservation organization. Development of loss of prime agricultural land. small parcels which are essentially surrounded by urbanization need not contribute to agricultural land protection. 1.103—Public Areas preserved for open space should Potentially Consistent The Project's proposed land use plan and Access include public trail access,controlled to conceptual site plan includes a trailhead park in protect the natural resources,to assure Madonna Froom Ranch providing improved public reasonable securiry and privacy of dwellings, access to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve's trail and to allow continuing agricultural network and a new trail access point associated operations. with the Lower Area of Villaggio.Exisring trails, proposed public streets,and parking areas would connect to a mulri-use trail that would provide public access along the 3,000-foot-long reach of relocated Froom Creek onsite. 1.11.1 —Overall The City shall manage the city's growth rate Potenrially Consistent As discussed in Section 3.7,Hazards, Hazardous Intent to provide for the balanced evolution of the Materials, and Wildfire, Section 3.11,Population community and the gradual assimilation of and Housing, Section 3.12,Public Services and new residents. Growth must be consistent Recreation, Section 3.13, Transportation,and with the City's ability to provide resources Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation, and services and with State and Ciry Project design and mitigation measures would requirements for protecting the environment, ensure that resources and services provided by the the economy,and open space. City would be sufficient to address growth as a result of the Project. 1.112— The City shall manage the growth of the Potentially Consistent As discussed in Secrion 3.11, Population and Residenrial Ciry's housing supply so that it does not Housing, buildout of the FRSP,excluding Growth Rate exceed one percent per year,on average, inclusionary units,would contribute to an average based on thresholds established by LUE 0.35 percent annual increase to the City's total Table 3, excluding dwellings affordable to housing supply. The average annual growth rate residents with extremely low,very low or w w N Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-21 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) I ' � � . � � low incomes as defined by the HE. This rate would be below,and consistent with,the l percent of growth may continue so long as the City's annual average increase allowed by this policy. 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 report to ensure consistency with the Ciry's gradual assimilarion policy. 1.13.1—Water The City shall not provide nor permit Potentially Consistent The Project site is located within the City's SOI and Sewer delivery of City potable water or sewer and implementation of the Project would result in Service services to the following areas. However,the annexation of the Project site to the City. City will serve those parties having valid Development under the FRSP would not occur previous connections or contracts with the above or below elevation reliably served by City. gravity-flow or pumps in the City's water or sewer A. Outside the Ciry limits; system. The site is a designated expansion area that B. Outside the urban reserve line; would be entitled to both City water and sewer services. C.Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the City water system; D. Below elevarions reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the City sewer system. 1.13.2— Provision of recycled water outside of City Potentially Consistent The Project site is located within the Ciry's SOI Recycled Water limits may only be considered in compliance and implementation of the Project would result in with WWME Policy A 7.3.4 and the annexation of the Project site to the City. following findings: Development under the FRSP would utilize w w w 3.9-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � A.Non-potable/recycled water is necessary recycled water in a manner consistent with this to support continued agricultural operations. policy. 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 properiy 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. 1.13.8—Open The City shall require that each annexation Potentially Inconsistent 'The Proj ect would involve annexation of the site to Space help secure permanent protection for areas the City,with dedication of approximately 54 designated open space,and for the habitat percent of the Specific Plan area(59 acres)as open types and wildlife corridors within the space. This area would include some but not all of annexation area that are identified in the the sensitive habitats(e.g.,wetlands, serpentine COSE. 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 Secrion 3.4,Biological Resources). w w A Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-23 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � 1.13.10—Solid In addition to other requirements for Potentially Consistent As discussed in Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Waste Capacity adequate resources and services prior to Conservation,waste produced by the Project would development,the City shall require that not substantially affect the landfill's capacity or adequate solid waste disposal capacity exists ability to comply with federal, state,or local before granting any discretionary land use regulations. There is adequate capacity at the Cold approval which would increase solid waste Canyon Landfill to support the Project. generation. 1.14.7 The City shall maintain a development fee Potentially Consistent The City actively maintains and updates its Development Fee program that covers the costs associated with development fee programs and the Project would Programs serving projects with City services and be subject to City development fees to covers the facilities. This maintenance will include costs associated with serving the Project with City periodic review of the fees collected to services and faciliries. ensure they are adequate to cover City costs. 2.3.1 —Mixed The City shall promote a mix of compatible Potentially Consistent The Project would be located adjacent to the Irish Uses and uses in neighborhoods to serve the daily Hills Plaza Shopping Center,providing immediate Convenience needs of nearby residents,including schools, access to convenience retail stores for food, parks,churches,and convenience retail clothing, and other necessary goods.Following stores.Neighborhood shopping and services mitigation discussed in Section 3.12,Public should be available within about one mile of Services and Recreation,sufficient access to all dwellings.When nonresidential, schools and parks would be available to Project neighborhood serving uses are developed, residents. Several churches exist within the Project existing housing shall be preserved and new vicinity,including the immediately adjacent housing added where possible.If exisring Mountainbrook Church as well as several churches dwellings are removed for such uses,the in residential areas to the north of the Project site. development shall include replacement No existing housing would be removed. dwellings(no net loss of residential units). 2.3.7—Natural The City shall require residential Potentially Inconsistent Proj ect development would result in substantial Features developments to preserve and incorporate as changes to onsite natural features through mass amenities natural site features,such as land grading,changes in topography and alteration or forms,views,creeks,wetlands,wildlife elimination of substantial areas of sensitive habitats,wildlife corridors,and plants. habitats,including development in close proximity to 12 rare plant species;loss and disruption of sensitive habitats such as serpentine native w w � 3.9-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) I ' � � . ' � � grassland, springs,and seeps;and loss or disruption of wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors with potenrial significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore,the Project would be potentially inconsistent with this policy. 6.4.1—Hillside The City shall maintain comprehensive Potentially Inconsistent The Project would include development above the Policies standards and policies for hillside 150-foot elevation, subject to a General Plan development for the following reasons: Amendment,that would result in significant, A. To protect and preserve scenic hillside unavoidable impacts to aesthetics including views areas and natural features such as the from trails within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve volcanic Morros,ridge lines,plant and views from public roads towards the Irish communities,rock outcroppings and steep Hills. Scenic hillside areas and natural features slope areas that function as landscape within the Upper Terrace that serve as landscape backdrops for the community. backdrops along the edge of the City would be B. To set the limits of commercial and fragmented by proposed development. The Project residential development in hillside areas by would also impact and disrupt natural features such establishing a permanent open space green as rare plant communities,including serpentine belt at the edge of the community. native bunch grassland and wetlands and up to 12 special status plant species would also be subject to C. To protect the health, safety and welfare direct and indirect impacts.Project development of community residents by directing would also impinge directly on the border of the development away from areas with hazards Irish Hills Natural Reserve,disrupting the such as landslides,wildland fires,flooding continuity of open space greenbelt along the edge and erosion. of the City. Finally,Project development would 6.4.2- The City shall establish and maintain clear expose new residences to significant wildland fire Development development limit lines for hillside planning hazards. Because many of these impacts would be Limits areas,and special design standards for the significant and unavoidable,the Project would be hillside areas. The location of the potentially inconsistent with this policy. See development limit and the standards should Sections,3.4,Biological Resources,3.7 Hazards, cause development to avoid encroachment Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire, and 3.1, into sensitive habitats or unique resources as Aesthetics. 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 w w rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-25 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . � � � 1 � hazards. Also,the development limit]ine and the standards should help protect the city's scenic setring. 6.4.7—Hillside The City shall urge the Counry to implement Planning Areas the following hillside policies. Specific policies to address particular concerns far 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 Maintain and restore natural conditions and Potentially Inconsistent Project development would result in large-scale Wetlands habitats;minimize flooding damage; planned restaration of Froom Creek and Management recognize sections of creeks which are in improvements to flood control and public access, Objectives largely natural areas and manage for consistent with the intent of this policy. However, maximum ecological value. The City shall proposed substantial changes to onsite natural manage its lake,creeks,wetlands, drainage patterns,elimination of some wetland and floodplains,and associated wetlands to riparian features and impacts to the ecological achieve the multiple objectives o£ value of Drainages, 1,2,and 3 would cause A. Maintaining and restoring natural potential inconsistencies as discussed below: conditions and fish and wildlife habitat; A. Project improvements to Froom Creek would B.Preventing loss of life and minimizing restore or create riparian habitat along the creek property damage from flooding; channel as well as potentially improve passage for C.Providing recreational opportunities which steelhead trout and other wildlife species along the are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, realigned Froom Creek channeL However, flood protection,and use of adjacent private development within the Upper Terrace in close proximity to segments of Drainages 1,2,and 3,as properties. well as construction of roads across and culverts within these tributary drainages could substantially w w V 3.9-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . ' � � 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. 6.63— New development adjacent to creeks must Potentially Inconsistent The Project would include restaration and Amenities and respect the natural environment and enhancement of both natural resources(e.g., Access incorporate the natural features as project riparian habitat)and public access along Froom amenities,providing doing so does not Creek Amenities including a 6-foot-wide trail, diminish natural values.Developments along picnic benches, and trash facilities would be creeks should include public access across located adjacent to the creek and would be the development site to the creek and along accessible to the public from public streets.Further, the creek,provided that wildlife habitat, implementation of MM BIO-1 through-8 would public safety, and reasonable privacy and ensure appropriate replacement of adversely security of the development can be affected wetland and riparian habitat.However, maintained,consistent with the COSE. development of the Upper Terrace with units,roads and driveways located proximate to Froom Creek tributary and Drainages 1,2,and 3 would disrupt the natural environment and values of these ri-ibutary drainages and their abiliry 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 w w � Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-27 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � � would increase tbe Project's consistency with this policy. 6.6.5—Runoff The City shall require the use of inethods to Potentially Consistent The Proj ect includes BMPs,including use of Reduction and facilitate rainwater percolation for roof areas bioswales,rain gardens,and detention basins to Groundwater and outdoor hardscaped areas where practical facilitate rainwater percolarion,aid in groundwater Recharge to reduce surface water runoff and aid in recharge,and reduce surface water runoff, groundwater recharge. consistent with this policy. 6.6.6— The City shall require project designs that Potentially Consistent Project development would preserve approximately Development minimize drainage concentrations and 54 percent of the site in open space,minimizing Requirements impervious coverage. Floodplain areas impervious surfaces, and include rain gardens and should be avoided and,where feasible,any bioswales. Much of the area of proposed channelization shall be designed to provide development is currently located within a the appearance of a natural water course. 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 The City shall require appropriate runoff Potentially Consistent The Project identifies runoff control measures and of Urban control measures as part of future water quality treatment components that would Pollutants development proposals to minimize minimize or eliminate discharge of pollutants, discharge of urban pollutants(such as oil and including oils,grease,erosion, and sedimentation. grease)into area drainages. In addition,all future development under the Draft FRSP would be required to comply with the 6.6.8—Erosion The City shall require adequate provision of Central Coast RWQCB's Post Construction Control erosion control measures as part of new Stormwater Requirements. Measures development to minimize sedimentation of streams and drainage channels. 8.1.5—SP-3, The purpose of the specific plan is to provide Potentially Inconsistent The Project would contain compact mixed-use Madonna on design flexibiliry that will secure the workforce housing and commercial development appropriate development of the site while within Madonna Froom Ranch. Senior housing and w w � 3.9-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) r � � LOVR Specific protecting sensitive environmental resources support facilities and private neighborhood Plan Area on the site. Development on the site should commercial would be more dispersed within the be a compact,mixed-use project that Lower Area and Upper Terrace of Villaggio. provides warkforce housing options and Conceptual circularion plans are also designed to neighborhood commercial uses that support support pedestrian and bicycle access within,to, pedestrian and bicycle access. 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 serpenrine bunchgrass and wetland habitats, serpentine rock outcroppings that support special status plant species,and springs and seeps that support wildlife movement. Therefare,the Project would be potentially inconsistent with this policy. See Section 3.4,Biological Resources. 9.7—Sustainable The City shall promote,and where Potentially Consistent The Project would provide passive heating Design appropriate,require sustainable building utilization of renewable energy sources(e.g.,wind, practices that consume less energy,water and solar),and incorporation of native and non-invasive other resources,facilitate natural ventilation, drought tolerant plant materials that would promote use daylight effectively,and are healthy, safe, and require implementation of sustainable design. comfortable,and durable. These actions would implement City sustainable 9.13—Incenrive The City shall consider the feasibility of Potentially Consistent design policies and would comply with green building certification on the City's General Plan Program providing incentives for new and renovate COSE and Climate Action Plan. projects that incorparate sustainable design features such as constructing new buildings that are solar ready,or off-setting significant operational energy use through use of solar w w N O Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-29 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . ' � � � 1 � water heating,photovoltaic systems, I geothermal or wind energy systems. Conservation and Open Space Element(COSE) 2.2.1— Ciry actions shall seek to minimize Potentially Consistent Buildout of the Draft FRSP would result in Atmospheric undesirable climate changes and substantial GHG generation during construction Change deterioration of the atmosphere's protective and operation.Although bicycle and pedestrian functions that result from the release of amenities and local-serving commercial uses would carbon dioxide and other substances. 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 City actions shall seek to reduce dependency Potentially Consistent The Project is designed to enhance and provide far walking,biking, on gasoline-or diesel-powered motor mulri-modal access within,to,and from the site. and use of public vehicles and to encourage walking,biking, The Project would facilitate the development of transit use to and public transit use. new residences and mixed-use development reduce adjacent to existing developed commercial and dependency on residential areas,supporting walkability and motor vehicles reducing vehicle trip lengths to and from the home and workplace. 3.2—Historic The City will expand community Potentially Consistent The Project would preserve historic buildings and Architectural understanding,appreciation,and support for within the Froom Ranch Histaric District. Resources historic and architectural resource Consistent with MM CR-8,the Project would preservation to ensure long-term protection develop and distribute an informational pamphlet of cultural resources. that documents the potential historic district and its cultural and architectural heritage. The pamphlet would highlight social(Froom family)and industrial(dairy indusriy)factors relevant to the property and region,and 500 free copies would be distributed in local museums,heritage w w N 3.9-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . ' � � organizations,and the trailhead park. After distribution of physical copies, a digital copy of the pamphlet would remain available. 3.3.1—Historic Significant historic and architectural Potentially Inconsistent Implementation of MM CR-9 through-13 would Preservation resources should be identified,preserved, ensure relocation and restoration and/or and rehabilitated. reconstruction of the four individually eligible 3.3.3—Historical Buildings and other cultural features that are historical resources would conform with the Secretary's Standards,and MM CR-14 would Documentation not historically significant but which have address potential for construction vibration to historical or architectural value should be disturb these buildings.Additionally,these preserved or relocated where feasible.Where measures would lessen impacts to the potential preservation or relocation is not feasible,the historic district by ensuring that relocation and resources shall be documented and the reconstruction of the main residence,dairy barn, information retained in a secure but publicly accessible location.An acknowledgement of creamery,and granary would retain character- defining features that convey the district's the resources should be incorporated within historical significance,and that demolished historic the site through historic signage and the structures would be thoroughly documented and reuse or display of historic material and curated.However,because the demolition of arrifacts. portion of a historical resource represents an 3.3.4—Changes Changes or additions to historically or irreversible change to the historical resource,the to Historic architecturally significant buildings should Project may be inconsistent with these policies. Buildings 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— The City shall provide for the protection of Potentially Consistent The Specific Plan includes policies far the Archaeological both known and potential archaeological protection of known and unknown pre-historic Resource resources.To avoid significant damage to cultural and archaeological resources.Policy 3.3.4 Protection important archaeological sites,all available of the Specific Plan,once adopted,would measures,including purchase of the property incorparate Section 4.30 of the City's w w N N Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-31 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � ' � � . � � in fee or easement, shall be explored at the Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, time of a development proposal.Where such Mitigation Measures,and Avoidance by reference measures are not feasible and development to ensure the identification,protection,and would adversely affect identified mitigation of archaeological resources occurs archaeological or paleontological resources, consistent with adopted City standards.With mitigation shall be required pursuant to the mitigation included in Section 3.4, Cultural and Archaeological Resource Preservation Tribal Cultural Resources,the Project would have Program Guidelines. less than significant effects on cultural resources 3.5.2—Native All Native American cultural and and the Proj ect would be consistent with these American Sites archaeological sites shall be protected as policies. open space wherever possible. 3.5.4— Development within an archaeologically Archaeological sensitive area shall require a preliminary site Sensitive Areas 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— Where a preliminary site survey finds Archaeological substantial archaeological resources,before Resources permitting construction,the City shall Present 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 curarion in an appropriate facility under the direction of a qualified professional. 3.5.6—Qualified Where substantial archaeological resources Archaeologist are discovered during construction or Present grading activities,all such activities in the immediate area of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in w w N W 3.9-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . � � � 1 � Native American cultures can determine the significance of the resource and recommend alternative mitigation measures. 3.5.7—Native Native American participation shall be Potentially Consistent The Ciry iniriated consultarion with the NAHC and American included in the City's Guidelines for local interested Tribal agencies and representatives Participant resource assessment and impact mitigarion. on the presence of sensitive archaeological sites Native American representatives should be and resources pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52. The present during archaeological excavation and results of this consultation process have been during construction in an area likely to incorporated into the design of this Project,and contain cultural resources. The Native potential impacts to these sensitive sites and American community shall be consulted as resources would be avoided or mitigated through knowledge of cultural resources expands and implementation of MM CR-1 through--7,that as the City considered updates or significant provide for monitoring during Project construction changes to its General Plan. and requirements for incidental discovery of 3.5.8— The City will ensure the protection of resources onsite,consistent with these policies. Protection of archaeological sites that may be culturally Native American significant to Native Americans,even if they Cultural Sites 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. 43.4—Use of The City will promote the use of cost Potentially Consistent The Draft FRSP provides policies promoting and Energy-Efficient, effective,renewable,non-depleting energy requiring implementation of sustainable design Renewable sources wherever possible,both in new including resource conservation and energy Energy construction projects and in existing efficiency requirements,photovoltaic systems,EV Resources buildings and facilities. charging stations, 100 percent use of carbon-free energy supplies,and reductions in VMT to the 4.3.6—Energy- The City shall encourage energy-efficient maximum extent feasible. These policies are Efficient and "green buildings"as certified by the U.S. intended to align with City policies for sustainable Green Building Green Building Council's Leadership in design and compliance with green building certification,including the City's goal for w w N A Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-33 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � � in New Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) achieving carbon neutraliry by 2035,promoting Development Program or equivalent cerrification. energy efficiency,and the use of renewable energy supplies. 4.4.1— Residences,work places and facilities for all Potentially Consistent The Draft FRSP would facilitate mixed-use Pedestrian-and other activities will be located and designed development adjacent to the Irish Hills Plaza and Bicycle-friendly to promote travel by pedestrians and other existing urban development. The Draft FRSP Design bicyclists. land use and circulation plan promotes travel by 4.4.2— The City's transportation and circulation pedestrians and bicyclists both onsite and offsite by Alternative systems shall foster travel by modes other providing a new sidewalk and bike lane along Transportation than motor vehicles,including walking, LOVR,pedestrian connections to Irish Hills Plaza, bicycles and public transit. a new transit stop,and a new multi-use trail along Froom Creek. 4.5.1—Solar To encourage use of solar energy,reasonable Potentially Consistent Section 4.7 Energy Conservation&Sustainability Access solar access shall be provided and protected. of the Draft FRSP provides site design and Standards The City will protect reasonable solar development practices to maximize solar exposure exposure for existing collectars and likely and opportunities for passive heating,cooling,and locations of future collectars,both active and lighring. Unwanted heat gain would be minimized passive. Standards for the subdivision and through implementation of FRSP policies, development of property should assure encouraging the use of exterior shading devices, desirable solar access. skylights,daylighting controls,thermal mass building components,natural ventilation,and 4.5.2— In subdivisions,the layout of streets and lots installation of high-performance glazing. FRSP Subdivision shall provide and protect solar exposure. To goals,policies,and regulations developed based on Design for Solar assure the maximum control over potential the City's COSE and Climate Action Plan would Access shading features,the longest dimension of require the use of photovoltaic solar collectars each lot should be oriented within 30 where feasible to offset new energy demand. degrees of south,unless the subdivider Vegetation and topography onsite would permit demonstrates that for certain lots any of the siting and development of solar collectors.No solar following applies: collectors on adjacent properties would be shaded The lots are large enough to allow desirable as a result of Project implementation. solar access,regardless of lot orientation. See Secrion 2.4.2,Project Design for a complete Buildings will be constructed as part of the list of Project sustainability features. tract development,and the buildings will be w w N � 3.9-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . ' � � � 1 � 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 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— Sites and buildings should be designed to Unwanted Solar avoid unwanted heat gain from solar Heat Gain exposure. Features that provide shading at suitable times of the day and year and generally should be"passive"ar automatic, avoiding the need for occupants to regularly monitor or adjust them. 4.6.8—Energy Encourage energy-efficient project design by Efficient Project emphasizing use of daylight and solar Design 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. w w N � Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-35 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � ' � � � 1 � 4.69—Solar Address solar access in all plans needing Access far New City discretionary approval,considering Development 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. 4.6.17—Require Within new single-family residential projects Solar Power for of 20 or more dwelling units,5 percent of New Dwellings the total number of dwellings shall be built with photovoltaic solar collectors beginning in 2008;this percentage shall increase 4 percent each year unti12020.Multi-family residential developments shall be exempt from this requirement,except for common- use faciliries such as recreation rooms,spas, or swimming pools.In these cases,the common facilities shall be built with photovoltaic solar collectors. 5.5.8— Requires facilities in new developments to Potentially Consistent The Draft FRSP would designate communal Recycling accommodate and encourage recycling. collection areas for trash,recycling,and food waste Facilities in New material that would be accessible to municipal solid Development waste collectors. 73.1—Protect City will comply with state and Federal Potentially Inconsistent The Project would potentially impact two listed Listed Species requirements for listed species; City will species,the state and federally-listed endangered protect listed species through its actions Chorro Creek bog thistle and the federally- on...development applications. threatened southern steelhead trout. Development within the Upper Terrace would be located in close w w N V 3.9-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � � 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 in Drainage L Mitigarion 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 The City will: Potentially Inconsistent The Project site supports habitat for several listed Local Concern Maintain healthy populations of narive species of local concem,other special-status plants species in the long term,even though they and wildlife,as well as sensitive riparian,native are not listed for protection under State or bunchgrass,and freshwater marsh habitats.A total Federal laws.These"species of local of seven plant species of local concern are known w w N � Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-37 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � concern"are at the limit of their range in San to occur within the Upper Terrace generally above Luis Obispo,or threats to their habitat are the 150-foot elevation.Project development has the increasing. potential to directly or indirectly adversely affect Identify the location,habitat and buffer these species,their range,and/or their habitat. needs of species of local concern.This Although the conceptual land use plan attempts to information will be developed by qualified avoid direct removal of known locations of such people early in the planning and species,large-scale mass grading of the Upper development review process. Terraces could lead to accidental or inadvertent Protect species of local concern through: its loss of such species while Project operation and actions on land use designations, occupancy could lead to indirect losses as development standards,development residences,roads,parking areas,trails and other applications;the location,design, uses areas would be interspersed among known construction,and maintenance of City locations of such species,leading to potential facilities;land that the City owns or indirect impacts to such species through fire buffer and landscape management and human activiries. manages. Further,while Froom Creek would be restored and Encourage individuals,organizations,and enhanced,development of the Upper Terrace other agencies to protect species of local would directly and indirectly impact sensitive concern within their areas of responsibility creek, seep and spring habitats in Drainage 1,2, and jurisdiction. and 3,as well as native grassland habitats and Protect sensitive habitat,including creeks, wetlands leading to long-term degradation of these from encroachment by livestock and human sensitive habitats.While FRSP policies and activities. mirigation 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 Continuous wildlife habitat,including Potentially Inconsistent The Project would include development of housing, Habitat and corridors free of human disruption, shall be roads,driveways,parking areas and walkways Corridors preserved and where necessary,created by within the Upper Terrace above the 150-foot interconnecting open spaces,wildlife habitat, elevation. The Upper Terrace development would and corridars. 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 w w N � 3.9-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � � 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 inedium 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 would severely disrupt existing continuous wildlife habitat. This development would introduce high levels of human disruption in the middle of an environmentally sensirive 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. w w w 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-39 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � 7.5.1 — Significant trees,as determined by the City Potentially Consistent Mature native and non-native trees would be Protection of Council upon the recommendation of the potentially removed,trimmed,limbed,or otherwise Significant Trees Tree Committee,Planning or Architectural adversely affected through Project development. Review Committee,are those making Implementation of MM BIO-15 requiring daily substantial contributions to natural habitat or surveys during construction by a City-approved to the urban landscape due to their species, arborist or qualified biologist would protect size,or rarity. Significant trees,particularly remaining native trees by ensuring avoidance and native species,shall be protected. Removal proper protection. Loss of native or riparian trees of significant trees shall be subject to the would require replacement,and would ensure criteria and mitigation requirements in individual discretionary actions mitigate for Chapter 8.6.3 [COSE Policy]. Oak impacts to significant trees.Refer to Section 3.4, Woodland communities in the Greenbelt and Biological Resources. in open space areas shall be protected. 7.5.2 Use of Landscaping should incorporate native plant Potentially Consistent Draft FRSP policies would require that landscape Native California species,with selection appropriate for plans use native and non-invasive drought-tolerant Plants in Urban location. plant materials. These policies would require that Landscaping park landscaping consist primarily of drought- tolerant trees, shrubs,and native grasses. 7.5.4— Grassland communities and other habitat Potentially Inconsistent The majority of the serpentine bunchgrass Preservation of types in the Greenbelt and in designated grassland onsite would be preserved within the Grassland open space areas shall be preserved. designated 59 acres of open space.MM BIO-1 Communities through-8 would minimize disturbance of onsite and Other grassland habitats,but full replacement of 4.74 Habitat Types 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 Public and private development projects Potentially Inconsistent The Project would involve significant landform Conservation shall be designed to prevent soil erosion, modification,including major grading on slopes minimize landform modifications to avoid within the Upper Terrace above the 150-foot w w w 3.9-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � and Landform habitat disturbance,and conserve and reuse elevation and realignment of 3,000 feet of Froom Modification onsite soils. 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,ar 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 mirigated.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 elevarion would require both substantial landform alteration and disturbance of sensitive habitats.Therefore,the Project would be inconsistent with this policy. 7.7.6—Replace The City and private development will Potentially Consistent The Project would include habitat restoration, Invasive,Non- protect and enhance habitat by removing designation of open space,and realignment of Native invasive,non-native vegetation and by Froom Creek that would involve removal of non- Vegetation with replanting it with native California plant native species and replanting with native Native species. vegetation.Draft FRSP policies would require Vegetation existing invasive plants and noxious weeds removal priar to landscape installation. See Section 3.4,Biological Resources. 7.7.7—Preserve Condition or modify development approvals Potentially Inconsistent Project implementation would preserve ecotones Ecotones to ensure that"ecotones,"or natural and/or natural transitions between the realigned transitions along the edges of different Froom Creek and the Calle Joaquin wetlands,as habitat types,are preserved and enhanced well as portions of ecotones between Drainages 1, w w w N Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-41 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . ' � � because of their impartance to wildlife. 2, and 3 and surrounding grasslands and between Natural ecotones of particular concem oak woodlands and surrounding grasslands. include those along the margins of riparian However, ecotones between the riparian woodlands corridors,marshlands,vernal pools,and oak along the LOVR ditch,Calle Joaquin wetlands and woodlands,where they transition to adjacent grasslands,between Drainage 2 and grasslands and other habitat types 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 Condition development permits in Potentially Inconsistent The Project would include development of housing, Wildlife accordance with applicable mitigation roads,driveways,parking areas and walkways Corridors measures to ensure that important corridors within the Upper Terrace above the 150-foot for wildlife movement and dispersal are elevation contour. The Upper Terrace development protected.Features of particular importance would be clustered between Drainages 1 and 3, to wildlife include riparian corridors, closely bracketing both sides of Drainage 2. This wetlands,lake shorelines,and protected clustered development would be linked to the natural areas with cover and water.Linkages Lower Area by an approximately 1,000-foot-long and corridors shall be provided to maintain private access road and lighted walkways that connections between habitat areas. 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 w w w w 3.9-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) I ' � � . ' � � 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. 7.79—Creek As further described in the Zoning Potentially Consistent The Project would establish and maintain a Setbacks Regulations [Section 17.16.025],the City minimum 35-foot setback from the realigned will maintain creek setbacks to include: an Froom Creek top of bank as set forth in City policy. appropriate separation from the physical top Planned 20-foot setbacks from Drainages 1,2, and of bank,the appropriate floodway as 3,which are tributaries to Froom Creek,pursuant identified in the Flood Management Policy, to Policy 3.2.2 of the proposed FRSP,would be native riparian plants or wildlife habitat,and insufficient to protect wildlife and endangered space for paths called for by any city- plant habitat or long-term habitat viability, adopted plan. In addition,creek setbacks particularly within Drainage 2. However,because should be consistent with the following: these tributary drainages are not flood hazards or The following items should be no closer to specifically identified in Ciry Flood Management the wetland or creek than the setback line: Policy,the Project would be consistent within this buildings, streets,driveways,parking lots, policy. aboveground utilities,and outdoor commercial storage or work areas. w w w A Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-43 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) I ' � � . � ' � � � 1 � 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. 82.2—Open Within the urban area,the City will secure Potentially Inconsistent The Project would dedicate 59 acres as open space, Space within the and maintain a diverse netwark of open land including the realigned Froom Creek corridor, Urban Area encompassing particularly valuable natural Calle Joaquin wetlands and grassland and other and agricultural resources,connected with habitats above the 150-foot elevation adjacent to the landscape around the urban area. the Irish Hills Natural Reserve,which would Particularly valuable resources include: support diverse open space with valuable habitats. A. Creek corridors,including open channels However,while the Project would be consistent with natural banks and vegetation. with the majoriry of items listed in A-M,it would C.Wetlands and vernal pools. diminish the value to onsite wildlife corridors(F) as discussed under Policy 7.3.3 Wildlife Corridors D.Undeveloped land within the Urban and Habitats,above,and result in significant and Reserve not intended for urban uses. unavoidable impacts to the serpentine bunchgrass E. Grassland communities and woodlands. grasslands which correspond to the Nassella F.Wildlife habitat and corridors for the pulchra Herbaceous Alliance,a unique plant health and mobility of individuals and of the community, as well as impacting several species of species. local concern as discussed under Policy 73.2 G. The habitat of species listed as threatened Species of Local Concern(M). Therefore, or endangered by the State or Federal development of the Project is potentially governments. inconsistent with this policy. 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." w w w � 3.9-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � 8.3.1 Open The City will preserve the areas listed in Potentially Inconsistent As discussed above,although consistent with the Space within an Goa18.2.2(creek corridors,including open intent of many factors listed in Policy 8.2.2,the Urban Area channel with natural banks and vegetation, Project would diminish the value of wildlife wetlands and vernal pools,grassland corridors and habitat onsite,impact six plant communities and woodlands,wildlife habitat species of local concern,and eliminate 4.7 acres of corridors,habitat of listed species,and the unique serpentine native bunchgrass habitat unique plant and animal communities community. Therefore,the Project would be including"species of local concern")and potentially inconsistent with this policy.Refer to will encourage individuals,organizarions, discussion of consistency with General Plan COSE and other agencies to do likewise. The City Policies 7.3.2,733,and 7.5.4, above.Refer also to will designate these areas as Open Space or Section 3.4,Biological Resources. Agriculture in the General Plan. 8.3.2—Open When activities close to open space Potentially Inconsistent The City's 1,ll0-acre Irish Hills Natural Reserve is Space Buffers resources within or outside the urban area adjacent to the north and west of the Project site, could harm them,the City will require and supports a wide variety of sensitive plant and buffers between the activities and the animal species,including large predators such as resources. Buffers associated with new mountain lions,coyotes and bobcats. Though the development shall be on the site of the Project would incorporate a buffer between development,rather than on neighboring development in much of the areas adjacent to the land containing the open space resource. Irish Hills Natural Reserve in the Upper Terrace Buffers shall be adequate for the most through the designation of open space,the Project sensitive species in the protected area,as could impact open space resources within the Irish determined by a qualified professional and Hills Natural Reserve through crearion of shall complement the protected area's vegetation management fire buffers within the habitat values. Reserve and disruption of or impacts to sensitive wildlife movement. The City has found that management of vegetation to reduce fire hazards 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 w w w rn Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-45 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . ' � � 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 The City may permit loss of an open space Consistent The Project site is not currently designated as open Open Space resource as described in Goals 8.2.1 and space.Implementation of the Project would not 8.2.2 only when: result in the direct loss of City open space; Preserving the resource would permanently however,as described in Section 3.7,Hazards, deprive the landowner of all reasonable use, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire, and acquisition by the City or a conservation implementation of the Project has the potential to organization is not feasible,or result in the disturbance of habitat and vegetation There is a demonstrated need,based on within designated open space areas of the Irish public health,safety,or welfare,and there is Hills Natural Reserve through compliance with no practical alternative to loss of the state-mandated defensible space requirements. Impacts associated with the disturbance of these resource. 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— Any development that is allowed on a site Potentially Consistent Although the Project site is not currently � Required designated as Open Space ar Agriculture,or designated as open space,the Project site su�orts Mitigation containing open-space resources, shall be open space resources.EThe LUCE Special Focus designed to minimize its impacts on open Area SP-3 requires preservation of a minimum of space values on the site and on neighboring 50 percent of the site as open space and notes the land. one purpose of FRSP is to provide flexibiliry that Hillside development shall comply with the will secure the appropriate development of the site standards of the LUE,including while protecting sensitive environmental resources. minimization of grading for structures and Based on Ciry policy,sensitive resources on the access,and use of building forms,colors, Project site include sensitive habitats and plant and landscaping that are not visually species,wildlife corridors, slopes,historic intrusive(See also Chapter[COSE Policy] structures,and open space resources.Proposed 9.21.1). housing development would minimize aesthetic Creek corridors,wetlands,grassland impacts to existing open space or agriculture communities,other valuable habitat areas, through compliance with the LUE, including use of w w w V 3.9-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � � � archaeological resources,agricultural land, landscaping,building forms,and colors that are not and necessary buffers should be within their visually intrusive. The Project would not include own parcel,rather than divided among subdivisions on the underlying parcel,and the newly created parcels.Where creation of a existing 7.1-acre agricultural easement would be separate parcel is not practical,the resources reconfigured��a��:��*'�,,T,;*'�;� +'��:'��a shall be within an easement.The easement r+��a+'�r��rt'� a�a;��*;�r �F'��a � ��* must clearly establish allowed uses and ^F��o��. maintenance responsibilities in furtherance of resource protection. 8.7.2.0— Remove invasive,non-native species in Potentially Consistent The Project would include habitat restoration Enhance and natural habitat areas,and prevent the efforts through designation of open space and Restore Open introduction or spread of invasive,non- realignment of Froom Creek that would involve Space native species and pathogens. 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. 92.1—Views to Preserve and improve views of important Potentially Inconsistent Proposed development would impact scenic public and from public scenic resources from public views and community character,particularly as places,including places...including streets and roads. experienced from highly scenic public trails within scenic roadways 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 ar 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 down on the Upper Terrace and adjacent areas of Madonna Froom Ranch would be significantly impacted as a result of the Project.Therefore,the w w w � Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-47 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � � Project would be potentially inconsistent with this policy. 9.3.6—View Determine that view blockage along scenic Potentially Consistent The section of LOVR adjacent to the Project site is blockage along roadways is a significant impact. designated as having a moderate scenic value and scenic highways the LOVR Overpass is designated as having high scenic value. U.S. 10] 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 Proj ect would be consistent with this policy. 10.1.3—Water Protect and maintain water quality in Potentially Consistent The Draft FRSP includes BMP strategies and Quality aquifers,Laguna Lake,streams,and policies including the use of bioswales,rain wetlands that supports all beneficial uses, gardens,and detention basins to facilitate rainwater agriculture,and wildlife habitat. percolation and reduce surface water runoff to 10.2.1—Water The City will employ the best available manage stormwater and runoff onsite.the Project Quality practices for pollution avoidance and would be subject to RWQCB regulations and control,and will encourage others to do permitting requiring implementation of BMPs for likewise. `Best available practices"means erosion control during and following site behavior and technologies that result in the construction. highest water quality,considering available equipment, life-cycle costs, social and environmental side effects,and the regulations of other agencies. 10.2.2— In planning for its water operations, Potentially Consistent The Project would generate additional long-term Ahwahnee Water programs and services,the Ciry will be demands on City water supplies,but the Draft Principles guided by the Ahwahnee Water Principles FRSP contains goals,policies,and regulations and will encourage individuals, derived from the City's COSE and Climate Action organizarions,and other agencies to follow Plan that would ensure consistency with this these policies: policy. These policies include the use of natural features(e.g.,bioswales,retention basins)to w w w � 3.9-48 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � � � A. Communiry design should be compact, manage stormwater onsite,native and non-invasive mixed-use,walkable and transit-oriented so drought tolerant landscaping,high-efficiency that automobile generated urban runoff appliances,and use of recycled water in irrigated pollutants are minimized and the open lands areas within the residential and commercial zones. that absorb water are preserved to the Project construction would entail expansion of maximum extent possible. onsite natural water retention features.Froom B.Natural resources such as wetlands,flood Creek and associated riparian would be realigned plains,recharge zones,riparian areas,open and expanded along the eastern border of the space,and native habitats should be Project site,and would direct stormwater flows to a identified,preserved and restored as valued 4.5-acre stormwater detention basin located offsite assets for flood protection,water quality within the Mountainbrook Church easement.This improvement,groundwater recharge,habitat, proposed stormwater detention basin would include and overall long-term water resource storage capacity for up to 22 acre-feet of sustainability. stormwater and would allow for percolation and C.Water holding areas such as creekbeds, recharge of underlying groundwater. 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. w w A O Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-49 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . � ' � � ! 1 � 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 applicarions including outdoor irrigarion, 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 conservarion 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 Potentially Consistent While final details would be determined through the provisions of this Element,guarantees Project permitting,the FRSP includes policies that must be presented that ownership or rental require the Applicant to provide for deed-restricted housing units will remain affordable for the housing for low and moderate-income households, longest period allowed by State law,or for a consistent with the General Plan. shorter period under an equity-sharing or housing rehabilitation agreement with the Ciry. W w A 3.9-50 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � . � 2.4 Encourage housing production for all Potentially Consistent The Project proposes development of a variety of financial strata of the City's population,in residential housing with a minimum of 5 percent the proportions shown in the Regional low-and 10 percent moderate-income affordable Housing Needs Allocation,for the 2014- dwelling units in accordance with the Expansion 2019 planning period. These proportions are: Area Inclusionary Housing Requirements. In other extremely low income, 12 percent,very 1ow words, 15 percent of the total units would be income, 12 percent;low income, 16 percent; subject to resale and rental restrictions to address moderate income, 18 percent; and above low-and moderate-income household needs within moderate income,42 percent. the City. The Project would also develop 404 units of senior housing meeting key General Plan HE objectives. 42 Include both market-rate and affordable Potentially Consistent The FRSP includes policies that require the units in apartment and residential Applicant to provide for deed-restricted housing for condominium projects and intermix the low and moderate-income households,consistent types of units.Affordable units should be with the General Plan.The Proj ect The FRSP states comparable in size,appearance and basic that an affordable housing project is proposed on a quality to market-rate units. portion of the proposed R-4 site near Los Osos Valley Road. Noise Element(NE) 1.3—New New noise-sensitive development shall be Potentially Consistent Implementarion of mitigation measures would Development located and designed to meet the maximum reduce exterior and interior noise levels for Design and outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of residential uses resulting from noise sources to Transportation Table 2. acceptable levels defined by the General Plan NE Noise Sources Table 2(See Section 3.10,Noise). 1.4—New Noise created by new transportation noise Potentially Consistent Implementation of mirigation measures would Transportation sources shall be mitigated to not exceed reduce exterior and interior noise levels far Noise Sources City-specified indoor and outdoor maximum residential uses resulting from noise sources to noise exposure levels. acceptable levels defined by the General Plan NE Table 2(See Section 3.10,Noise). 1.6—New New development of noise-sensitive land Potentially Consistent Implementation of mitigation measures would Development uses may be permitted only where location reduce exterior and interior noise levels for or design allow the development to meet the residential uses resulting from noise sources to w w A N Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-51 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � � and Stationary standards of Table 2 for existing stationary acceptable levels defined by the General Plan NE Noise Sources noise sources. Table 2(See Secrion 3.10,Noise). 1.7—New or Noise generated by new stationary sources, Potentially Consistent Implementation of mitigation measures would Modified or by exisring stationary noise sources which reduce exterior and interior noise levels for Starionary Noise undergo modifications that may increase residential uses resulring from noise sources to Sources noise levels,shall be mitigated so as not to acceptable levels defined by the General Plan NE exceed the exposure standards for lands Table 2(See Section 3.10,Noise). 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. 1.10—Existing The City shall consider mitigation where Potentially Consistent The Project would result in short-term construction and Cumulative existing or cumulative increases in noise noise impacts but would not significantly Impacts levels significantly impact noise-sensitive contribute to existing surrounding noise levels. land uses,including rerouting traffic,noise Long-term FRSP residential buildout would not barriers,reducing traffic speed,retrofitting result in a considerable contribution to cumulative buildings,and exaction of fees. 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 C.No new building or fill should encroach Potentially Consistent The Project would include a major realignment of Hazard beyond,or extend over,the top-of-bank of Froom Creek through the Specific Plan area and Avoidance and any creek. the confinement of the flood waters to the newly Reduction E.Within new development areas,such as widened channel of Froom Creek,the Calle the potential expansion areas shown in Joaquin wetlands,and the proposed Mountainbrook Figure 2 of the LUE, substantial Church flood detention basin.Currently flood- w w A W 3.9-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � � � displacement of flood waters should be prone lands would be removed from the floodplain avoided by: and become available for development.New L Keeping a substantial amount of flood- buildings would be sited a minimum of 35 feet prone land in the vicinity as open space; from the top of the bank of Froom Creek and 2. Enlarging man-made bottlenecks, such as located above the 100-year flood level; creek culverts,which contribute to flood waters channelization and realignment are necessary to backing up from them; accommodate development of the site as proposed in the Draft FRSP and alleviate the bottleneck and 3.Accommodating in such places uses capacity constraints at the U.S. 101 box-culvert. which have relatively low rarios of building The Project would be consistent with the intent of coverage to site area,for which shallow this policy to minimize or avoid flood hazards. flooding of parking and landscape areas Refer to Section 3.4,Biological Resources,and would cause minimum damage. Section 3.8,Hydrology and Water Quality. 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. 3.0—Adequate Development shall be approved only when Potentially Consistent The Specific Plan area is within the acceptable 4- Fire Service adequate fire suppression services and minute response time for fire protection services. facilities are available or will be made The SLOFD has reviewed the Project has and available concurrent with development, determined that adequate fire suppression services considering the setting,type,intensity,and and facilities are available to serve the Project. See form of the proposed development. Section 3.12,Public Services and Recreation. 3.1 —Wildland F.Wildland fire hazard severity zones shall Consistent The Lower Area and Upper Terrace(a total of Fire Safety be classified as prescribed by CAL FIRE. approximately 97 acres)are designated as a Areas within the City,including"Very Moderate FHSZ,and the highest elevation area(of High"Fire Hazard Severity Zones,if any, approximately 13 acres)is located within a Very w w A A Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-53 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � � � shall be classified by the City's Fire Code High FHSZ.No development would be constructed Official based on findings supported by within the Very High FHSZ(refer to Figure 3.7-1). substantial evidence in the record as required The Project does not propose a new subdivision by Government Code Section 51179 and within areas of Very High FHSZ.The Very High considered by City Council at a public FHSZ would be designated and preserved for open hearing.Meaningful,early notification and space.As discussed in Section 3.7,Hazards, input shall be obtained from nearby Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire,a 100-foot- neighborhoods which may be affected. wide vegetation and fuel management buffer would G.New subdivisions shall be prohibited in be required around all new development and areas of"Very High"wildland fire hazard implementation of mitigation requiring fire unless part of conservation or open space reduction practices and management strategies acquisition program. Development of would reduce fire hazards to a less than significant existing parcels shall require a development level. 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 Ciry 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 far 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. 4.5—Avoiding Development shall not be located atop Potentially Consistent A section of the Los Osos Fault runs through both Faults known faults.Applications for the following the Madonna Froom Ranch and Villaggio portions w w A � 3.9-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � types of discretionary approvals within 100 of the site. Based on the proposed land use plan, meters(330 feet)of any fault that is the fault lines would cross residential(R-3-SP), previously known ar discovered during site open space(C/OS-SP),and public faciliry(PF-SP) evaluation shall be subject to review and land uses. The Draft FRSP and land use plan would recommendation by a State-registered incorporate recommendations of the site-specific engineering geologist: change to a more subsurface fault investigation.FRSP buildout intensive land-use designation; subdivision would incorporate required setbacks of buildings into five or more parcels;development of from faults identified in the subsurface multifamily, commercial,industrial,or investigation and outlined in Section 3.2.3,Fault institutional buildings. Lines,of the Draft FRSP.No development would be located atop any known faults. See Section 3.6, Geology and Soils. 4.6—Avoiding Development shall not be located on or Consistent The non-seismic landslide potential at the Proj ect Slope Instabiliry immediately below unstable slopes,or site is considered to be low based on site-specific contribute to slope instability. Any geological investigations prepared for the Project. development proposed in an area of The Draft FRSP incorporates site-specific geologic moderate or high landslide potential shall be investigation recommendations regarding slope subject to review and recommendation by a stability and liquefaction. Incorporation of these State-registered engineering geologist. recommendations would reduce potential for 4.7—Avoiding Development may be located in areas of structural damage and risk from slope instability or Liquefaction high liquefaction potential only if a site- liquefaction to a less than significant level. See Hazards specific investigation by a qualified Section 3.6, Geology and Soils. 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— The City will evaluate fire-flow capacities Potentially Consistent The Project would provide adequate water flow per Response and identify deficiencies through testing and adopted City standards. See Section 3.14, Utilities Performance modeling of the water system.For identified and Energy Conservation. Standards deficiencies,the Utilities Department will propose remedies to meet recommended w w A � Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-55 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . J ' � � ! 1 � service levels based on Insurance Service Organization ratings and other objective criteria. Water and Wastewater Management Element(WWME) 2.1.7— Allows annexation of areas outside City Potentially Consistent Following annexation to the Ciry,the Project Annexation limits if they are infill areas with access to would be located within City limits and the Ciry's Criteria existing City wastewater service. URL;access to existing City services including water and wastewater would be available. See Section 3.14, Utilities and Energy Conservation. B 2.2.2—Service The City's wastewater collection system and Potentially Consistent The City's WRRF has adequate capacity to Capacity Water Reclamation Facility shall support accommodate dry-weather wastewater flows population and related service demands generated by the Project;however,peak consistent with the General Plan. wastewater flows may exceed the WRRF capacity B 2.23— New development shall pay its proportionate under wet-weather conditions. The Project would also contribute to cumulative capacity constraints Wastewater or"fair share"of expanded treatment and experienced at the Laguna lift station.However,the Service for New collection system capacity and upgrades. Project,like similar cumulative development Development New development will only be permitted if within the City and serviced by these facilities, adequate capacity is available within the would be required to pay fair share fees towards the wastewater collection system and/or Water improvement of these facilities. See Secrion 3.14, Reclamation Facility. Utilities and Energy Conservation Circulation Element(CE) 1.7.2—Promote Complete a network of bicycle lanes and Potentially Consistent The proposed circulation system provides for Alternative paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within development of pedestrian,bicycle,and transit Forms of existing developed parts of the City and facilities and the connection to existing facilities. Transportation extend the system to serve new growth See Section 3.13, Transportation. areas;and complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed areas and provide service to new growth areas. 3.1.7—Transit New development should be designed to Potentially Consistent The Project would include installation of a bus stop Service Access facilitate access to transit service. and facilitation of the extension of bus service to w w A V 3.9-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) � � � . � � � 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 The City shall require that new development Potentially Consistent The Project would provide dedicated bikeways and Development provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage, would be required to provide bicycle parking per parking faciliries and showers consistent the City Municipal Code Section 17.16.060,which with City plans and development standards. mandates that bicycle parking equal to 15 percent When evaluating transportation impacts,the of vehicle parking be provided. The Project would City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service complete an important gap in the planned regional analysis. Class II bicycle lane along LOVR. See Secrion 3.13, Transportation. 5.1.2— The City should complete a continuous Consistent The Project would include fully developed Sidewalks and pedestrian network connecting residential pedestrian facilities within the Specific Plan area Paths areas with major activity centers as well as and connections to adjacent development, trails leading into City and County open including Irish Hills Plaza though the proposed spaces. emergency access connection to Irish Hills Plaza, LOVR frontage improvements,and mitigation requiring improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities See Section 3.13, Ti^ansportation. 5.1.4— New or renovated commercial and Potentially Consistent Sidewalks and pedestrian pathways separate from Pedestrian government public buildings shall provide driveways and/or vehicle entrances are proposed to Access convenient pedestrian access from nearby connect residential and commercial development of sidewalks and pedestrian paths,separate the Specific Plan area to the Irish Hills Plaza,along from driveways and vehicle entrances. 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 w w A � Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-57 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-4. City General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis (Continued) ' � � . ' � � site and to adjacent development. See Section 3.13, Transportation. 15.1.2— The City will preserve and improve views of Potentially Consistent Development of the Project would change the Development important scenic resources from streets and visual character of the area as viewed from the Irish along Scenic roads. Development along scenic roadways Hills Natural Reserve.However,important public Routes should not block views or detract from the views from proximate streets and roads across the quality of views. 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. Parks and Recreation Element(PRE) 3.13.1—Parks The City shall develop and maintain a park Potentially Consistent Implementation of mitigation providing for and System system at a rate of 10 acres of parkland per maintaining 12.31 acres of parkland, including 6.16 1,000 residents. Five acres shall be dedicated acres developed as a neighborhood park,would as a neighborhood park. The remaining five ensure consistency with this policy. acres required under the 10 acres per 1,000 The Project would provide a 2.9-acre trailhead park residents in the residential annexation policy including benches,picnic tables,and a playground may be located anywhere within the City's that are characteristic of a neighborhood park as park system as deemed appropriate. defined by the City's PRE and are within a 0.5-to 3.15— - San Luis Obispo residents shall have 1.0-mile walking distance from all new residences. Neighborhood access to a neighborhood park within 0.5 to Parks 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. w w A � 3.9-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-5. County General Plan Policy Consistency Summary �� Goal BRS Wetlands will be preserved, enhanced,and Potentially Consistent The Project proposes to relocate an existing 3.2- restored. acre detention basin to an approximately 4.5-acre proposed stormwater detention basin within the Policy BR 1.1- Protect sensitive biological resources such as, Mountainbrook Church easement outside of the Protect Sensitive wetlands,migratory species of the Pacific Specific Plan area.This area would remain under Biological flyway,and wildlife movement corridors the jurisdiction of the County following Resources through: annexation of the Specific Plan area to the City as 1. environmental review of proposed part of the Project. Development of the proposed development applications,including stormwater detention basin has potential to affect consideration of cumulative wetlands,riparian,and grassland habitats.Impact impacts, associated with this aspect of the Project could be 2. participation in comprehensive reduced through protection,avoidance,or habitat management programs with restorarion of habitat. Once constructed,the other local and resource agencies, proposed stormwater detention basin would not and inhibit wildlife movement through this portion of 3. acquisition and management of the site.Development of the proposed stormwater open space lands that provide for detention basin in this area would not significantly permanent protection of important adversely affect views of the natural landscape natural habitats. from rural areas of the County. See Section 3.4, Biological Resources. Policy BR 1.15 Avoid impacts to sensitive riparian corridors, Restrict wetlands,and coastal areas to protect bird- Disturbance in nesting activities. Sensitive Habitat during Nesting Season Policy BR 1.10- Protect and enable management of Identify and ecologically sensitive areas to the maximum Protect extentfeasible. Ecologically Sensitive Areas w w � 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.9-59 Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 3.9-5. County General Plan Policy Consistency Summary (Continued) Policy BR 1.l 1 Identify,protect,and enable the management Protect Wildlife of connected habitat areas for wildlife Nursery Areas movement. Features of particular importance and Movement to wildlife for movement may include,but Corridors are not limited to,riparian corridors, 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 Protect the clarity and visibility of the night Potentially Consistent Exterior lighring would not be erected within the Nighttime Light sky within communities and rural areas,by proposed stormwater detention basin area. Pollution ensuring that exterior lighting,including Therefore,the Project would be consistent with streetlight projects,is designed to minimize this policy. nighttime light pollution. w w � 3.9-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 3.9.4 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.9.41 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 ThNeshold(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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-61 Final EIR 13352 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 LU-1. The Project would allow urban development MM BIO-1 Significant and above the 150-foot elevation and would relocate MM BIO-2 Unavoidable portions of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex,which MM BIO-3 would potentially conflict with City General Plan policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding impacts MM BIO-4 to visual,biological,and cultural resources and MM BIO-5 wildfire hazards. 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-�19 MM TRANS-21� MM TRANS-22� LU-2. The Project would potentially be inconsistent None Required Less than Significant with existing easements and setback requirements onsite. 3.9-62 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13353 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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, 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 PlanningANeas, 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-63 Final EIR 13354 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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. Biological Resources Proposed development within the ��- - ��;�, _ Upper Terrace would impact �`� , ' j�; �;.�-;� sensitive native grassland ::�` .� `�;� � �; �� '`.` � `'�� , � .. �,�t � �_ � �- '�S�4V_�:�, 9t I f'.x� x,3� ., d. a�,�.. `d�3^� communities, seven rare plant ¢ ��, ,�,,� . species of local concern (including � -�� -� ;�:` � � �r. � '� °-� �� . A �� ,.�,� - populations of a federal endangered `" �, �� _ ��'� "`' �.�;, '� � plant), sensitive wetland habitats -� .�. � - �;;�" ``� `�� ,�.� h��:� N�,� �, � . �'', �_. �. • r � ��.tt � 4 a along Drainages 1, 2, and 3, and ` �` e � `"�` ,�� -�`�� r�r;� ;x � �.� wildlife corridors and passage �`� �� r''`' �' ' � ,� �,. , ' �:� �,� � yE�. ��.:, =� � :�+a.�*� e� r .<..�+' i �;. �,�r a�., `��,�1; . through this area. Such development �'" , � �� . ;�� _., ��e�� .. woulCl C�1reCtly 1mpaCt ariCl ClegraCle The Project site provides rich natural communities and habitats, including wetlands and serpentine bunchgrass SpeClal StatUS SpeC10S ariC� SOriSltlVO gYassland, as well as California bay woodland. The Upper IlabltatS pOtOritlally lri COrifI1Ct Wltll Terrace is particularly rich in these biological resources and development in this area is potentially inconsistent multlple adopted City po11C1es SUCh with City policies for resource protection. 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 U�ban 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 T�ibal 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, 3.9-64 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13355 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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 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-S 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-65 Final EIR 13356 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING MM BIO-13 shall apply. MM BIO-14 shall apply. 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. MMHAZ-2 shall apply. MM HAZ-3 shall apply MMHAZ-4 shall apply. MM HAZ-S shall apply. MM TRANS-19�shall apply. MM TRANS-20�shall apply. MM TRANS-21�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). 3.9-66 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13357 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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 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 Proj ect 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, Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-67 Final EIR 13358 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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. 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. 3.9-68 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13359 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 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 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). The Project area is currentl.��ject to the requirements of the ALUP. Fi�ure 3, Aviation Safety Areas, of the current ALUP shows that portions of Airport Safety Areas S-lb and S-lc are in the northeastern portion of the Project area. However, with the San Luis Ranch and Avila Ranch Specific Plans, a corrected version of the analog map used in ALUP Figure 3 has been utilized in review of these projects for consistenc_y with the ALUP. The new map has corrected the locations of the safety areas to the true GIS bearings of Runways 7-25 and 11-29. When the Project site is overlain on the corrected safety areas map, it is located outside of both Safety Areas S-lb and S-lc, but the northeastern corner is included in Safety Area S-2. The ALUC conceptually reviewed the Project on April 19, 2017 and determined that the use of the corrected map was a�propriate. The ALUP is currently being updated. A draft Safety Areas map has a compressed S-2 boundary. On this map (thou�h not yet adopted), the Project site is entirely outside of the S-2 safety area. 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.9-69 Final EIR 13360 13361 310 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 3.10.11 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 ineasurement 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 5pecific Plan 3.10-1 Final EIR 13362 310 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 Lan 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 Lan. The City noise thresholds utilize the CNEL and Lan metric. • L,,,,,,(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.i Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or shielding by buildings ar 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 receptar,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). ' 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). 310-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13363 310 NoisE Table 3.10-1. Representative Noise Levels � � � � 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 Normal Speech at 3 feet Area 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. 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.10-3 Final EIR 13364 310 NoisE The exterior-to-interior noise reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more (FHWA 2014). 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 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 inechanical 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). 310-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13365 310 NoisE Table 3.10-2. Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration 'iy� � 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. 3.10.1.2 Existing Noise Environment The Project site is bordered by the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to the west, retail and commercial businesses within the ' � �=�� ,� ;' �..ar��'_ + �,��,�;,I(;�.l � F�,t�� _ Irish Hills Plaza to the north, LOVR and automobile dealerships to the northeast, hotels along Calle Joaquin to the , ��'��;c`�;��r,� ,� , 1 � y`.�i Al _, - _ .._._. SOuthOaSt, a11C1 MOu11ta111bPOOk ChUYCh t0 Noise generated fr-ona vehicatlar-traffic along area roadways,such as LOVR are substantial contributors to th0 SOuth. Th2Pe aY0 thY00 pT'1m2Ty existing noise levels on the Project site. 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�e � most recent sources for noise levels on the Project site and vicinity include the 2014 LUCE Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.10-5 Final EIR 13366 310 NoisE Update EIR and two�Applicant-prepared Acoustics Assessments, completed in 2017 for roadwav noise and 2020 for noise �enerated by the adlacent commercial uses in the Irish Hills Plaza (A�endix I). These�e 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 Assessments. The findings of the LUCE Update EIR and the Acoustics Assessments 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). 310-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13367 LEGEND � Project Site � 60 CNEL(dBA)Level Roadway � Noise Contour(approximate) �65� 65 CNEL(dBA)Level Roadway ` Noise Contour(approximate) � 70� 70 CNEL(dBA)Level Roadway �� Noise Contour(approximate) cP� �G � Noise Sensitive Receptor 9 e l Truck Delivery and Loading Area <F�- � 9 Loudspeaker 6,� �-y� Approximate Noise Monitoring ' o Station Location and Number WHOLE AUTO Q ## with dBA Level Indicated(Station ` DEALERSHIPS numbers correspond to those T�, FOODS — n presented in Table 3.10-1) MAXX e 5 61 �� 0 Irish Hills Natural Reserve HOME �� DEPOT , 03 �� O Q City of San Luis Obispo � �� County of San Luis Obispo .; � Roadway Noise Distances `,,;w�" � j� � ��j\ (feet from roadway centerline) � �"'�i '`�_ � -� � � :+.• 60 65 70 ' f�•�;j i,� ,' a.�•�•�'; � �-1054� U.S.101 7,140 2,258 714 f•'". `��`J�'' �.,r�/ , \ L.O.V.R. 239 75 24 ��, � � Source:City of San Luis Obispo,LUCE •r N � j` � J � / Update EIR Table 4.11-1,2014. � �' `. ' �� j � I .� _ I ....J .�� 101 I � �j � % \J�. \� .�.^ � � '�5� f ,.; �� IRISH HILLS --;:, �� '�✓; � �r � NATURAL RESERVE �" � , s�` � - � I � �55 ♦ � � � �►\ , �� ' ,�� HAMPTONINN i .�,s _ � t � I' // �� \'� � , �ROSE GARDEN INN 1 55� `��r� �� MARRIOTT ��..J� � , I _ -., � � � _= ,`fs �� MOTEL6 � r �'/�.� �,��'� � MOUNiAINBR00K i j ��.f;J.i+'f CHURCHHILL 1 ' � � 1 1 � � MOUNTAINBROOK 1 � CHURCH � ' �,� ; � 1 ^ 1 � 1 � ,oPpS� i oi j � �� U I � .6�� .' .' i SCALE IN FEET N � o �oo � wOOd. Noise Environment FIGURE 3. 10-1 3.10-7 13368 310 NoisE Table 3.10-3. LUCE Update EIR Projected Roadway Noise Levels within Project Site Description U.S. 101 LOVR Distance to Project site' (ft) 700- 1,100 40 Distance of 65 dBA CNEL noise contour 1,260- 1,560 75 from roadway centerline�(ft) Distance of 60 dBA CNEL noise contour 7,140 239 from roadway centerline(ft) �As measured from roadway centerline. �As projected in the LUCE Update EIR. Source:City of San Luis Obispo 2014. Roadway traf6c 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 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 310-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13369 310 NoisE 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). 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 2017 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 2017 Acoustics Assessment briefly mentions other noise sources in the I 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 Site' � 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 Nartheastern 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: Lard and Taubitz 2017. 'Roadway noise measurements conducted on Saturday,Apri122,2017,between 10:00 AM and 12:00 PM. �See Figure 3.10-1 for precise locarions. As part of the 2017 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.10-9 Final EIR 13370 310 NoisE 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 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 L,,,aX at 50 feet) and associated backup alarms, parking lot sweeping(82 dBA L�„aX at 50 feet),landscape maintenance,rooftop heating and cooling equipment, and loudspeakers from automobile dealerships(89 dBA L,,,aX 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 L,,,aX 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 9:00 310-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13371 310 NoisE 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. 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. The 2020 Acoustics Assessment used the SoundPLANO noise model to estimate CNEL at the northern border of the Project site with Irish Hills Plaza. This assessment utilized ADT traffic volume and the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model(TNM)to calculate day, evenin ,g and nighttime, and composite day-evenin�-night levels. The assessment modeled CNEL including�potential noise sources from rooftop and mechanical equipment, parkin� lot vehicle and sweepin� noise, delivery truck noise, and loading dock noise such as backu� beepers. Modeling concluded that existing CNEL levels of a�proximately 70 dBA maX occur at the northern boundary of the Project site during a 24-hour scenario with a maximum amount of activity and noise from adjacent businesses such as Costco, Home Depot, TJ Maxx, and Whole Foods. These levels would decrease to 60 dBA a�proximately 150 feet into the Project site from its northern border with Irish Hills Plaza (A�pendix I� 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.10-11 Final EIR 13372 310 NoisE 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 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. 310-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13373 310 NoisE 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 Lap or CNEL are determined to be normally acceptable for single-family residential land uses. Noise levels up to 65 Lap 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. The California Administrative Code Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards These standards regulate interior noise levels for all new residences to 45 Lap or below. If exterior noise levels exceed 60 Lan, 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 Lan requirement. 3.10.2.3 Local Cit,v 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.10-13 Final EIR 13374 310 NoisE 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. Table 3.10-5. City Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas Due to Transportation Noise Sources � � � � _ � , � • � ,: • Residences,hotels,motels,hospitals,nursing 60 45 -- 60 homes Theaters,auditoriums,music halls -- -- � 35 60 Churches,meeting halls,office building, 60 -- 45 -- mortuaries Schools,libraries,museums -- -- 45 60 Neighborhood parks I 65 -- -- -- Playgrounds 70 -- -- -- � �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. �Ld„(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 occwring 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 activiry 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, ar 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. 310-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13375 310 NoisE 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; 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; Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.10-15 Final EIR 13376 310 NoisE 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. Table 3.10-6. City Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas Due to Stationary Noise Sources ii � i � ii � Hourly Leq in dB�°� 50 45 Maximum level in dB�°� 70 65 Maximum impulsive noise in dB'�3 65 60 �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 measwes. �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. 310-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13377 310 NoisE Table 3.10-7. City of San Luis Obispo Exterior Noise Limits Low-and Medium-Density Residential(R-1 and R- 10:00 PM—7:00 AM 50 2); Conservation/Open Space(C/OS) 7:00 AM—10:00 PM 55 Medium-and High-Density Residential(R-3 and R- 10:00 PM—7:00 AM 50 4) 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 10:00 PM—7:00 AM 60 Tourist Commercial(C-N,C-R, C-C,C-D,GT) 7:00 AM—10:00 PM 65 Service Commercial(C-S) Any Time 70 Manufacturing(M) Any Time 75 �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 310-8. Maximum Time Periods for Increased Noise Levels � I +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 310-9. Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-Term Operation (Less than 10 Days) of Mobile Equipment at Residential Properties Single-Family Residential Daily 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,except 75 Multi-Family Residential Sundays and legal holidays g� Mixed Residential/Commercial 85 � Single-Family Residential 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM, all day Sunday 50 Multi-Family Residential and legal holidays 55 Mixed Residential/Commercial 60 Source:City of San Luis Obispo 2008. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.10-17 Final EIR 13378 310 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 Single-Family Residential Daily 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,except 60 Multi-Family Residential Sundays and legal holidays 65 Mixed Residential/Commercial 70 Single-Family Residential Daily 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM, including all 50 day Sunday and legal holidays 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 ar noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; b) Result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; and c) Far 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 310-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13379 310 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 Proj ect 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 Proj ect development could require up to 22,000 heavy haul truck trips.�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 �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 lrnown and will be based on economics,availability, and access routes,making precise numbers difficult to farecast. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.10-19 Final EIR 13380 310 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 offLOVR. 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: L,,,aX at sensitive use=L,,,aX at 50 feet—20 Log(D/50) Where: Lr„aX = noise level of noise source, D = distance from the noise source to the receiver, and Lr„aX at 50 feet = noise level of source at 50 feet (U.S. Department of Transportation 2012). 310-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13381 310 NoisE Table 3.10-11. Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment i�"i iLu��unuu�an ►inaaRa� i 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) 8Cr89 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 far 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 5pecific Plan 3.10-21 Final EIR 13382 310 NoisE Vibration Levels Associated with Construction Ec�uipment 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: pPUProjected — PPURef�ZS��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 . . � � � � � � � � , . . . . . , . ., , Barely perceptible 0.04 O.OI Distinctly perceptible 025 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Severe 2.0 0.4 � Transit sources are defined as temporary sustained vibration of a mechanical system. Source:Cakrans 2013. Table 3.10-13. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment � � Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 O.011 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.035 0.017 (e.g., cement truck) Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.008 � Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0004 Source:Caltrans 2013. 310-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13383 310 NoisE O�erational Roadwa,y 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 ofpotential 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). This anal,ysis also considers the 2020 Acoustic Assessment prepared bv the A�plicant to model CNEL noise levels alon,g the northern border of the Project site with Irish Hills Plaza. 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 5pecific Plan 3.10-23 Final EIR 13384 310 NoisE Table 3.10-14. Noise Ranges of Typical Commercial Equipment �.ui�u��unuu�an ►inaaRa� _+�.iu��a�i Backup Alarm 88' 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. 'While this represents typical backup alarm levels,alarms are required by law to be audible above ambient noise levels. zThis 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 201 1. 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. 310-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13385 310 NoisE Table 3.10-15. Summary of Project Impacts NO-1. Project construction,including site grading and MM NO-1 Less than Significant heavy truck ri-ips,would generate noise levels that MM NO-2 with Mitigation exceed thresholds established in the City's General MM NO-3 Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook resulting in potentially significant impacts to proximate sensitive receptors. NO-2. Project construction activiries(e.g.,excavation, None Required Less than Significant transportation of heavy equipment)could result in exposure of sensitive receptors and buildings to excessive groundborne vibration. NO-3. Long-term operational noise impacts would None Required Less than Significant 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. NO-4. Future residents and occupants of the Project MM NO-4 Less than Significant could be exposed to periodic high noise levels from with Mitigation nearby commercial uses(e.g.,delivery trucks,farklifts, backup alarms)that would exceed City thresholds for residential land uses. 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 5pecific Plan 3.10-25 Final EIR 13386 310 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 receptar (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 fmal mix of truck sizes cannot be known as it will be based on economics, availability,and access routes,making precise numbers difficult to forecast. 310-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13387 310 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 5pecific Plan 3.10-27 Final EIR 13388 310 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) � � � � � � i : � � ' ii Minimum distance from construction 60 100 140 70 activity(feet) Construction Noise 91 92 89 90 (dBA L,,,aX) Note:Noise levels at sensitive uses were determined with the following equation from the High-Speed Ground Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,Final Report:L,,,ax=L,,,ax at 50 feet.—20 Log(D/50),where L�„ax=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 Transpartation 2012. Mitigation Measures MMNO-1 Except for emergency repair of public se�vice utilities, or where an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in constr�uction, d�illing, repai�; alteration, o� demolition work shall occur between the hours of 7.•00 PM and 7.•00 AM, or any time on Sundays, holidays, o� afte�sunset, such that the sound creates a noise distu�bance 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 310-9 and Table 3.10-10, across a residential or comme�cial property line. IPlan Requirements and Timin�. 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 Proj ect 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 310-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13389 310 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 const�uction 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 912 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include: ■ Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment. ■ Stationary construction equipment thatgenerates 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 facto�y-recommended mufflers. ■ Temporary sound bar�iers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses. Plan Requirements and Timin�. 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 5pecific Plan 3.10-29 Final EIR 13390 310 NoisE Monitorin�. 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. MMNO-3 The Applicant shall inform landowners and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the Project site of proposed constr�uction timelines and noise complaint pNocedures to minimize potential annoyance or nuisance complaints related to constr�uction 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 constr�uction manager and contact information for the City's Community Development Department. IPlan 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 signifzcant. 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). 310-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13391 310 NoisE 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 Proj ect. 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. 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.10-31 Final EIR 13392 310 NoisE 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 LOVR 31,000 5,183 (16.7°/a) < 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=10Logio(Projected ADT/Existing ADT). Source:Caltrans 2017;City of San Luis Obispo 2016. Exposu�e 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 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 300 310-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13393 310 NoisE 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 signifzcant. Operational Activities Under the Proj ect,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, 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.10-33 Final EIR 13394 310 NoisE 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. The 2020 Acoustic Assessment concluded that existin,g CNEL levels of a�roximately 70 dBA may occur at the northern boundar,y of the Project site durin� a 24-hour scenario with a maximum amount of activity and noise from adj acent businesses such as Costco,Home Depot,TJ Maxx,and Whole Foods. These levels would decrease to 60 dBA further into the Project site as distance from these ad'al cent businesses increases. The 60-dBA contour was determined to extend a�roximatel,� feet from the Prolect site's northern border with Irish Hills Plaza(A�endix I�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 310-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13395 310 NoisE 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. 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, retaiUoffice 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 5pecific Plan 3.10-35 Final EIR 13396 310 NoisE Table 3.10-18. Maximum Noise Level Estimates and Thresholds Resulting from Nearby Commercial Activities � , �, � , , , . . , _ . � Maximum Noise Level g5 77 76 72 68 74 ��) City Exteriar Noise Limit—30 minutes or 60 65 60 55 55 60 more'(dBA) Ciry Exteriar Noise �5 80 75 70 70 75 Limit— 1 minute�(dBA) �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. �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 Miti�ation Measures MMNO-4. Prio�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 fo� 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 necessa�y to reduce noise within acceptable levels, noise reduction measures�nay 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. Monitorin�. 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 310-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13397 310 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 signifzcant. 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 5pecific Plan 3.10-37 Final EIR 13398 310 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. 310-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13399 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 proj ected 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. Existin� 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 City of San Luis Obispo 41,958 44,148 45,119 46,548 Average Annual Growth (%) -- 0.5 02 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. 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) ' 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 5pecific Plan 3.11-1 Final EIR 13400 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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.� 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 � 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 1,264(0.5%) 1,387(0.6%) 2,504(0.3%) 567(0.1%) (%Annual Growth) Increase in County 10,282(0.7%) 10,438(0.7%) 18,857(0.4%) 4,560(0.1%) Population(%Annual Growth) Source: SLOCOG 2017.Figure ll 6. 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 Z 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 Final EIR 13401 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 � � � � � . . . . . . � � � . . . . . . � � � . . . , . ' � 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 -03 265,786 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 -029 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 46,802 013 280,393 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 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 3 The number of jobs refers to the number of employed persons over the age of 16 within the City. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.11-3 Final EIR 13402 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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) � � � �- . �- �- . �- Agriculture,forestry,fishing and 269 1.11% 4,480 3.47% hunting,and mining 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% Transportarion and warehousing,and o 0 urilities 731 3.02/0 5,845 4.52/o Information 457 1.89% 2,012 1.56% Finance and insurance,and real estate g46 3.49% 5,845 4.52% and rental and leasing Professional, scientific,and management,and administrative and 2,879 11.89% 13,821 10.69% waste management services Educational services,and health care 6,486 26.79% 30,501 23.59% and social assistance Arts,entertainment, andrecreation,and 4,292 17.73% 16,229 12.55% accommodation,and food services Other services,except public 1,281 5.29% 6,676 5.16% administration Public administration 948 3.92% 7,124 5.51% Total 24,213 100.00% 129,280 100.00% Source:U.S.Census Bureau 2017. 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 311-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13403 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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.s 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 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 52 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 63 2009 24,800 2,700 27,500 9.9 2010 24,900 3,000 27,900 10.9 2011 25,200 2,900 28,100 103 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 32 Source:California Employment Development Department 2018b. 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 4 Unemployment rate is unemployed labor force divided by total size of the labor force. s 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 5pecific Plan 3.11-5 Final EIR 13404 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 City 33,686 37,536 37,798 39,353 40,804 41,933 42,691 43,238 43,846 County 99,964 ll4,304 115,842 120,605 125,054 128,512 130,837 132,511 134,375 Source: SLOCOG 2017. 3.11.1.3 Housing Housing Su�lv 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).� 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). Table 3.11-7. 1.0 Percent City Population Growth Projection � � � � •� � • 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 Capaciry 57,200 Source:City of San Luis Obispo 2014a;Table 3.. 6 By definition,a household consists of all persons occupying a dwelling unit,whether or not they are related. �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 Final EIR 13405 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING Housin� 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 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. 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 5pecific Plan 3.11-7 Final EIR 13406 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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. Table 3.11-8. Affordable Rent and Purchase Prices for All Income Categories �h � 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 �Annual incomes are based on median income of four-person households which is$87,500 for the City. ZAffordable 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. y 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 Califomia 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). 311-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13407 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 Housin�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.lo 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, 20194. � 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). 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 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.11-9 Final EIR 13408 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING Table 3.11-9. Remaining RHNA Need Based on Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction, or Built, 2014 to 2019 ' - ' . . � • � •� � � � � � •� � • - . , � � � , 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 obj ective 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 affardable housing. It should be noted, however, that market conditions and the financing environment are the primary drivers that determine the production of affordable housing. Jobs-to-Housin_�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 warkers 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. Accarding 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). 311-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13409 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 � � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � - � - - � � � � � � • � � � � � , City 54,132 21,416 2.5:1 4,660 2.7:1 County 103,584 119,697 0.87:1 - - Source:City of San Luis Obispo 2018;SLOCOG 2017. 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(s� 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 Gene�al 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-ll; City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). However, the Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.11-11 Final EIR 13410 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 � � i � Popularion 50,656 57,200 Housing Units 20,771 25,762 Employment 41,933 44,346 New Non-Residential Square 4,535,850 5,081,708 Footage from 2010 to 20353 � See Table 2.3-4 of LUCE Update EIR. �See Table 3 of LUE 3 Estimated using 550 commercial sf per job estimated in the LUCE Update E�R. Sources: SLOCOG 2017;City of San Luis Obispo 2014b. 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 Housin�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 311-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13411 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING growth projections for the area. The State of California determines the number of total housing units needed for each region.The allocation comes after proj ection 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. 3.11.2.2 Local Cit,v of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element Policy L U 1.S Jobs/Housing Relationship. The gap between housing demand(due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply should not increase. Policy L U 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.11-13 Final EIR 13412 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING conjunction with the General Plan annual report to ensure consistency with the City's gradual assimilation policy. Housing Element The City's Sth 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. 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 3.11-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13413 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 proj ects 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. 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 6rh 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.11-15 Final EIR 13414 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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. Table 3.11-12a. Inclusionary Housing Requirements � Residential—Adjust base requirement per Table 2A below In City Limits Build 3%low4 or 5%moderate income AfFordable Dwelling Units�, (applies to Project) but not less than 1 Affordable Dwelling Unit per project; or Pay in-lieu fee equal to 5%of building valuation.3 Location In Expansion Area Build 5%low4—and 10%moderate income Affordable Dwelling Units�,but not less than 1 Affordable Dwelling Unit per project; or Pay in-lieu fee equal to 15%of building valuation. �Residenrial developments of foar ar 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 � � � Project z Density Average Unit Size(sf and associated Adjustment Factor (du/ac)' 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 �Including allowed density bonus,where applicable. �Multiply the total base �nclusionary 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 flve or more units. 311-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13415 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 ar 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. 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-A�plicable 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.11-17 Final EIR 13416 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 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. 311-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13417 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING Table 3.11-13. Summary of Project Impacts PH-1.Residential and commercial development None required Less than Significant associated with the Project would induce population growth. PH-2. The Project would provide additional None required Less than Significant housing for the City,assisting the jobs-to-housing ratio. PH-3. The Project would provide additional None required Less than Significant affordable housing for the City 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.11-19 Final EIR 13418 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING Table 3.11-14. Summary of Estimated Population Generated by the Project � � � � - � . ' � ii •� i i � i ' i � i _ i � � • 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 40 people units would have double occupancy) Health Care Units (Skilled Nursing& 51 beds 1 A(and two 53 people Memory Care) units would have double occupancy) Health Care Administi^ation Building 85,670 sf Supplied by 150 jobs Ancillary Uses(wellness center, 84,078 sf Applicant restaurants, theater etc.) Total(Villaggio) 825 people 150jobs MADONNA FROOM RANCH � R-3-SP Medium-High Density Residential 130 multi-family 233' 303 people units R-4-SP High Density Residential 44 multi-family units 2.33' 103 people C-R-SP Retail-Commercial 100,000 sf 1 job per 182 jobs SSOsf Total (Madonna Froom Ranch) 406 people 182 jobs TOTAL(TOTAL) 1,231 people 332 jobs �SLO County 2050 regional growth factor �LUCE Update EIR job factor 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 3.11-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13419 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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. 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 550 s£ii 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); �� LUCE Update EIR job factar. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.11-21 Final EIR 13420 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING • 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, 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 far the existing and growing labor force. Since the units proposed within Villaggio would provide specialized housing for seniars,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. IThe Project would Nr�� a� � ��'��*�„*��' increase�rthe 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. 3.11-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13421 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 Proj ect 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 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 signifzcant. 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.11-23 Final EIR 13422 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 � 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 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.ll.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. 3.11-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13423 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.12 PusLic S�RvicEs aNn REcxEaTioN This section describes existing and .,�..-.. t� > planned public services and evaluates • ,,; � the operation and capacity of these '�`�"�'� w services with the development of the Project.Public services provided within � :,� ��"� the Project vicinity would include �� _ ec�, `�` � d �. `--- ,�.�, r z;., � �� .a:��w�a`'-. police, fire protection services, schools, ; , � `� '�� ,� �� and public libraries. Recreation and - � �� ' r �At,ny y'l�Ynf+i�'b�"- � �� parks facilities in the area include �;�a �-� �h �`fi� � �_ :�� surrounding neighborhood parks, as �` t �%�� i,s��ti� t . �.Y,..�::a,�;,o� Ad�acent to the Project site in unincorporated San well 2S Clty Owned arid malntalned Luis Obispo County are trails and open space within the Ciry owned and maintained Irish Hills Natural open space areas, such as the adjacent ReseYve. Photo:sanlutsobispo.com 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 Fire Protection SLOFD, San Luis Obispo Counry Fire Department(CALFiRE through a contract with the County) Law City of San Luis Obispo Police Department(SLOPD), San Luis Obispo County Enforcement Sheriff's Offiee(County Sherif� Public Schools San Luis Coastal Unified School District Public San Luis Obispo County Library Libraries Public Parks City of San Luis Obispo Department of Parks and Recreation Far 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 Conser-vation. 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.12-1 Final EIR 13424 N� � � '� �� LEGEND �. `�� , Q Project Site �`♦ .� i ` , A;�`�_�-�' i - P��Y � � Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area e � '� J San Luis Obispo City Fire Station Bishop:�� `� O O PeaA�� I y� � CalFire Station : �i � 0 San Luis Obispo City Police Station � r � � � California Highway Patrol Office t , � � San Luis Obispo Library O �`�� School x� '�� o� 0 Park/OpenSpace p � ---- Regional Trail n �2� � �___� Irish Hills Natural Reseroe �c` ` O � �� Incorporated City v � 1p�'� ` �� , � San Luis Obispo County � ��r� —. ` i� �� -' � � �San Luis ��_� � �—,/s �r�, �� - � HighSch�al�' i�_`��'.�� `�� .�� „�._� `� �, # �� ♦OJ, � 1 ♦ ,,��OS �4 ,,� . � ��y� �� _i-k - � � ��F`� _ - i � ��i �9 _ � � � � .�a \ , , ��p i � �� i � � �� ♦ 1 ♦ -V C � � ! ♦ 1 227 � � ♦ �� ,� ♦ � i , _�Lng�u�u -�'!__Y : � '��'S� � � � Lak� ��.��` � � � _Laguna ' � La una Lake Park Il LIU�'' �z�_>t MiddleS9hool � �PSace "�I�� ♦ i :e� _ � � p� �� `� � � � `��`A�;� .�ry C.LSmith �� !� ♦ �� , ` Elementary + �� ♦ ��_`, . - ' <�I v� �� I �� O Fire Station �� ,---:�. ��. � `__+�` No.4 �.� f :St.�� ; �� . �'�� I �, ��_ � �.-.� � , T �_.¢c_� . �t�,y,_�'�` '� �� Pacific Beach �i � � .�f .��y.� 1.�,fi��i HighSCh001 � �• � �, ♦ � i � „ � �� . i � � � � � � � ♦+t�":� j � - 227 ' e r,� 4 �'�� .� ��`Q� TANK FARM ROAD �`�i� ��: . i '� '�,�•`'� !�'t)�, r: i J�QP ,� ^ '� i< �� a�� i L��'°\� W � � SUBURBAN � • •�► .�. � ♦ r :� v� � ROAD �� -.•+-� "' . � i. �� _�. ��'} �. ` . �' ` ` ' � ---- � . -..• .a ,. -- .,-' , ., . � �' , / 0 , ` � � . � �__�__, � � �ooa ,� `�, BUCKLEY ROAD SAN LUIS OBISPO w„'. �'�, COUNTYREGIONALO �� ' �� AIRPORT � ? i i „�� o +�Johnsop R�r�eh � ¢ r'•�Qpe�SQ�ce � � � 0 � ' .1��+ i o zz� � �� ioi� ' Q . • i a �— SCALE IN FEET M � � � _ _ _ 0 3,500 i _ wOOd. Public Services within the Region FIGURE 3. 12-1 3.12-2 13425 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 Sherif�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 5pecific Plan 3.12-3 Final EIR 13426 312 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).' 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).� 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 ' 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. � 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. 312-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13427 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 5pecific Plan 3.12-5 Final EIR 13428 312 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. Existin� 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 �' ��:�.�i r�r :... , Information System (GIS) analysis and � �:. confirmation with SLOFD, the response time � ` � '�� ,�3a - for emergencies to the Project site would be ��. -�F�r approximately 3 minutes, within the General � ��, � � _ . r,. . ,. - � Plan SE minimum travel time goal of 4 minutes or less of travel time(Personal Communication Fire Station Fou�- is located at 1395 Madonna wltll SL�FD F1Te C�llef 2�1 g�. Road and is the closest station to the Projectsite. Mutual Aid A�reements 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 2 L• 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 Company(non-full time)to service the Heavy Rescue and Water Tender(water truck) (CALFIRE 2016b). 312-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13429 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 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) , � , � � , � . � ' � i � . Elementary Baywood Elementary 432 305 � 71 127 (29%) Bellevue-Santa Fe Charter 154 160 104 -6(-4%) Bishop's Peak/Teach 542 468 � 86 74(14%) Elementary 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 l,l 18 817 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 2,034 1,526 75 508 (25%) School 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 5pecific Plan 3.12-7 Final EIR 13430 312 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 � -a- �,� _ J �, :.�� north), and De Vaul Park (0.4 mile !�"';.� �''' � �`"� ��,.� y �.�+� ' '!Si a'��F -1,".�i+"' �- U y�p'ei� � ^1„ �� - �: northwest). Hiking and walking trails are z' � ' � � � � �;� , located within the Laguna Lake Park '�� '�� ,�'�°�� ' ,.�� "�' �� ''� t i . �� .3t"".�f4� 5�Y � �.' P P � Y - ' �:;. �k r : _,�..�'� �_ O en S ace located in the Cit 0.7 mile �'��. �.;;� �� . '��, -+�' The Irish Hills Natur•al Reserve is located north), Johnson RanCh C1ty Open SpaCe immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the (lOCateCl 1n the COunty 0.4 m11e South�, Project site, offering miles of hiking and biking trails. 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. 312-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13431 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 Re,gulations (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 5pecific Plan 3.12-9 Final EIR 13432 312 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. Quimb�(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. 312-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13433 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 3.131 The Par�ks 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 5pecific Plan 3.12-11 Final EIR 13434 312 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 Centen 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 3.12.31 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; 312-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13435 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION C� SCIlOO1S; 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 Proj ect-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 5pecific Plan 3.12-13 Final EIR 13436 312 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 312-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13437 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 PS-1.The Project would increase demand on None required Less than Significant the SLOPD for police protection services. PS-2.The Project would increase the demand None required Less than Significant 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 PS-3.The Project would generate increases None required Less than Significant in enrollment at public schools(especially C.L. Elementary and Laguna Middle Schools). PS-4.The Project would increase the demand MM PS-1 Less than Significant with for public parkland and neighborhood parks MM PS-2 Mitigation from increased residential population. 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 5pecific Plan 3.12-15 Final EIR 13438 312 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION area.New residential and non-residential development as part of the Proj ect 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 312-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13439 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 5pecific Plan 3.12-17 Final EIR 13440 312 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 312-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13441 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 � � � � � � • � � � � � � , ,_ 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. � 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 far 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 5pecific Plan 3.12-19 Final EIR 13442 312 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Table 3.12-5. Student Accommodation by Nearest Schools . . � � . � . - � � . � . � 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. �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 312-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13443 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION per 1,000 residents and at least ten acres of developed parkland for each 1,000 new 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.12-21 Final EIR 13444 312 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 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 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 additiona17.32 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 312-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13445 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Froom Ranch residents would contribute to increased rates of physical deterioration of 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 signifzcant 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 F�oom 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(in addition to the 2.9 acres o�public parkland �ro�osed bv the Pro�ect), 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.12-23 Final EIR 13446 312 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION neighborhood park space should be identified within interior areas of the City Sphere oflnfluence 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 116 acNes of public parkland into the Froom Ranch Specific Plan to be operational at the time of buildout of the Project, in addition to parkland rec�uired under MM PS-1. 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 ofproviding parkland, within the Specifzc Plan area, consistent with City General Plan PRE Policies 3.13.1, 3.IS.I, S.O.I, and5.0.2, 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, Nestricted solely for parkland acquisition and impNovement. 312-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13447 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 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. 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 Proj ect 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 signifzcant 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.12-25 Final EIR 13448 312 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 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. 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 its 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 312-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13449 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 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 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.12-27 Final EIR 13450 312 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 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. 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 signifzcant. 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 (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 312-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13451 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 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 existing facilities or service levels and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.12-29 Final EIR 13452 13453 313 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 Proj ect 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, r►. ''��:�t-_— Irish Hills Plaza to the north, and Irish Hills ��. � Natural Reserve to the west. The Project %�� -__ ,� �` ��'��' ,,A�a� site's location at the urban edge and the �V� ��,��. __� y� configuration of existing development and � �� - °� open space provides relatively little „ � �� ` _ - The Project's main entrance would be installed ConneCtivlty wlth the surrounding roadway on LOVR at Auto Park Way and LOVR SyStOm. GlVOri 0xlStlrig CleV010pm0rit improvements would include sidewalks, a new signalized intersection, and a new transit stop. 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 Proj ect site. Bicycle facilities provide routes for recreational, commuter, and in some cases school children cyclists. Class I bic.�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 si�nage. Class III bicycle routes are eg nerally Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-1 Final EIR 13454 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC located on low-traffic-volume streets. These facilities are desi�ned for bicvcle use,but have no separated bicvcle ri,�ht-of-wav or lane stripin,g, but mav in some instances be signed or have "sharrow"markin�s on the roadwa,y. A Class IV separated bikeway, often referred to as a cvcle track or protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bic, c�phvsicallX separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. 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 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 i 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 � � ,.�,-.� � _� � . I �- � - site. Regional motor vehicle access to the ��`�' �`��--�-`-_'�� ._,� Y Project site is provided via U.S. 101 at an �,,,� - `��.-:;� interchange with LOVR. Local access to the The exislrna d�i��e,��ay io ihe Pyo�ecr sire ,��oz��d v1C1n1ty 1s provlded v1a LOVR, South be improved to provide access to both Madonna Froom Ranch and Villaggio. 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 3.13-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13455 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 study area, although sidewalks are lacking along the Project site frontage. Since 2014,improvements associated with the LOVR/U.S. 101 Interchange Traffic Relief Proj ect 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 �"�.,'` � ��-- '. �-¢w r -�;,� a�..�- ` _ �'.�Y�.; connect LOVR with the four hotels adj acent to the site and " ��" � ��- _� ,. , ��,� "` � '`.�' .� Mountainbrook Church u hill from �'��`` ��'� �� '��f�,""� p �'��' f"'' rP t�ykS�� 7 f�l�� vt�,w ��1 tlle Slte t0 t�le WeSt. Ca110 JOaC1Ulri ��.b� tt ��e'�F�� ,a a„p:�PwJ��% ''�� has sidewalks on the westbound ��*�°''� s �.�� `�:�y,�, : (WB) side between LOVR and the ��== � �`*�'�� '��- '� '� - Calle .Ioaquin presents a frontage to the exlsting hOtels, but Sldewalks pYoposed stormwater detention basin area, with ternllnate West of the eXlsting hotels. Potential secondary access alongside Froom Creek. 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 5pecific Plan 3.13-3 Final EIR 13456 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 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 RoadlSouth Higuera Street intersection; • Construction of a grade-separated interchange across U.S. 101; I • Extension of Prado Road as a four-lane roadway located 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, 3.13-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13457 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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. 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 Mote16, 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-5 Final EIR 13458 3�PpP� � �v � ' SCALE IN FEET ��C� 101 � - � - �� 0 2,500 � DOO 3 000 d�2 0�0 1 °o - o _ . ___�� - o - . _ - o000000 3 --�� _-�--; �: 00 � , ��,�- 3 . T � o ��, y � �+ � � - a. o _ �- _ ❑ 1 � DO �� y� �+ �+- . . _. _ .. . � \ � },' l.Cl°117i(1 .2 i� �� (I��(' ❑ ; ... O � � ..'�-___." � 2 .. . . O�O 101 � . _ � v� � a � D 0� �-- 2 3 �v �� oQ� �� o _ _� MPO � 2 0 _ � � 2 � �p - GJ � ,��_� � G PRADO RO D 9 !�� _ 90 � � _ 90 O� �. �� ,„�C`�`� �O 2 �`��. �o� �� TANK FARM ROAD � SUBURBAN ROAD CHEVRON � SAN LUIS OBISPO D� TANK FARM LEGEND mo; 0 Project Site I a _ Z U.S. �O1 C� VENTURE � Q Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area m DR. Operates at � _ � Q# Study Intersection and Number LOS D J � � � z � Intersection Exceeds Queuing Capacity / ^' � Bus Route and Number \�la� � BUC LEY'R D O Bus Stop � ��n O��,i�ti � -- 0 City of San Luis Obispo � m '_ 0 _ � San Luis Obispo County � O � z Analyzed Road Segments' � � � Unacceptable Auto Level of Service -� o *Based on PM and/or AM conditions;all other roadway �� segments in the Project vicinity operate at acceptable levels. Study Intersection A.M./P.M.Peak Hour Level of Service �o� O AM:M Acceptable Auto Level of Service(A-D) Q [)�,�,. i � .. _..�.�rq/o�7��1: • Unacceptab(e A)to y vel of S�ice:(D)Caltrans � ' ' Roadwa s; E-F Cit Roadwa s wOOd. Existing Traffic Conditions FIGURE 3. 13-1 313-6 13459 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.13.1.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities in the Project vicinity include on- and off-road bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. . � > > • . , � « « , > > > > • 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. The Bob Jones Trail is considered an attractive bike trail for both novice and experienced bicvclists and is perhaps one of the most important bike trails within the City and Countv. Because of this, several�future plans call for extending the trail from downtown San Luis Obispo to this existing Avila Beach segment and extendin�the trail as part of the Bob Jones Citv-to-Sea Bike Trail Route Plan. This would involve extending a Class I bikewav on between Marsh Street and South Hi�uera at Octa�on Barn on the east side of U.S. 101, as well as a se�ment of trail between Dalidio Drive and Calle Joaquin near the Pro'ecl t site. Class II bicycle lanes 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-7 Final EIR 13460 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 Proj ect 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 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). 3.13-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13461 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC South Hi�uera Street between LOVR and Clover Rid e� 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. 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.- I 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-9 Final EIR 13462 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 Methodolo�v 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. Table 3.13-1. LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections l�:TJ � � � � � � . . . ' . . ., A Uncongested operations;all vehicles clear in a single cycle. < 10 <_ l0 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. 35.1 —55 25.1—35 Vehicles wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long-standing lines formed. E Severe congestion with some long-standing lines on critical 55.1 —80 35.1 —50 approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. F Total breakdown with stop-and-go operations. >80 >50 � Source:TRB 2010. 3.13-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13463 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-2. Automobile Segment LOS Methodology � � �•� � � � � . , , •• � � � , � � � � 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 >l4 >12 >10 E >17 >15 >14 >12 >11 >9 >8 F <l7 <15 <14 <l2 <11 <9 <8 F Any >1.0 Source:HCM 6`�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 �� 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 6r"Edition 2016. �Density is a measurement of the passenger car flow rate,as pc/mi/h,or passenger cars per mile per hour. 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 6t" Pedestrian and Bike/Transit LOS Standards. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-11 Final EIR 13464 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-4. LOS Criteria for Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities/Services LOSx Bicyde Links Pedestrian Links Transit Segments A - Bike lane with ample width - Wide walkways allowing - 15-minute or less headways - Excellent pavement side-by-side walking and - Higher transit travel speeds condition easy passing - High quality walkways to - Separation from vehicle - Buffer from vehicle traffic transit stops traffic (landscaping,parking,bike lanes) - Numerous transit stops with - Low vehicle volumes/speeds benches, shelters,trash cans, - Low vehicle volumes/speeds �ansit ma s - Low heavy truck mix p - No on-street parking - Easy availability of seats onboard B - Narrower bike lane width - One-way street allows - Fewer transit stops or stop - On-street parking allowed higher vehicle volumes/ amenities speeds - Narrower walkways close to - Less buffer between vehicle traffic sidewalk and vehicle traffic C - Higher vehicle volumes/ - Less distance between - Less frequent or reliable speeds adjacent to bike lane sidewalk and vehicle traffic transit service I - Higher vehicle volumes/ - Lower travel speeds speeds adjacent to sidewalk D - Higher vehicle volumes/ - Higher vehicle volumes/ - Less frequent or reliable speeds adjacent to bike lane speeds adjacent to sidewalk transit service - Higher heavy truck mix - Lower travel speeds - Fewer transit stops or stop amenities E - No bike lane - No sidewalk - Infrequent or unreliable - Narrow roadway shoulder - Bike lane serves as roadway transit service width shoulder - Unattractive or inaccessible I - Higher vehicle volumes/ stops speeds adjacent to sidewalk F - No bike lane - No walkway or roadway - No transit service - Poor pavement condition shoulder - High vehicle - No buffer between volumes/speeds pedestrians and vehicle - Higher heavy truck mix traffic - High vehicle volumes/ - High on-street parking speeds adjacent to sidewalk * Each LOS descriprion 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. 3.13-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13465 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-5. Pedestrian Segment and Intersection LOS Methodology I � •� • � � � � � •� • � . � � � � . � � �. <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 6`�Edition 2016. aIn cross-flow situations,the LOS E/F threshold is 13 sf/person(sf/p). Table 3.13-6. Bicycle and Transit Segment and Intersection LOS Methodology II A <2.00 B >2.00-2.75 C >2.75-3.50 D >3.50-425 E >425-5.00 F >5.00 Source:HCM 6��Edition 2016. Studv Facilities Study Intersections Multi-modal operations were evaluated at the following 24 study intersections: 1. LOVR/Foothill Boulevard* 2. LOVR/Prefumo Canyon Road 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** Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-13 Final EIR 13466 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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** 2L 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) 9. South Higuera Street(Tank Farm Road to Prado Road) 10. Tank Farm (South Higuera Street to Broad Street)* 1 L Madonna Road(LOVR to Dalidio Drive) 12. Froom Ranch Way (LOVR to Dalidio Drive) [future extension] 13. Commercial Collectar "A" (LOVR to Commercial Collector "B") [onsite, future roadway] *Portion of segment under County jurisdiction 3.13-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13467 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 Existin� 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-15 Final EIR 13468 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-7. Existing Intersection LOS-Automobile � AM 239 C 1 LOVR/Foothill Boulevard Signal D 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 AM 34.8 C 5 LOVR/Royal Way Signal D PM �� 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 371 E 0.52 9 LOVR/Calle Joaquin Signal D AM 53 A PM 7.0 A 10 LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps Signal C AM 122 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 l3 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 112 B South Higuera Street/Tank Farm AM 222 C 15 Road Signal D pM 27.7 C 16 South Higuera Street/Prado Road Signal D AM 18.5 B PM 28.9 C Prado Road/U.S. l01 NB Ramps/Elks 5 AM 9.1 A 1� Lane AWSC C pM 13.5 B 18 Madonna Road/Oceanaire Drive6 Signal D AM 39.3 D PM 272 C 19 Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive Signal D AM l 9.9 B PM 532 D Madonna Road/U.S. 101 SB AM 30.7 C �� Ramps/Madonna Inn Signal C pM 31.7 C 21 Madonna Road/U.S. l01 NB Ramps Signal C AM 14.7 B PM 32.4 C �Delay-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 far side-street stop- controlled intersections. �LOS-Level of Service 3 V/C ratio reported for worst movement,for locarions with unacceptable LOS only. 4TWSC-Two-way-stop controlled intersection. SAWSC-AII-way stop controlled intersection. 6HCM 6'h Methodology does not support intersections with more than four approaches.Hence HCM 2000 methodology used for Intersection 18. Bold indicates unacceptable operations. Delay and LOS results far Intersections 22,23 and 24 are excluded from existing conditions analysis as these intcrsections are evaluated in Ncar-Term and Cumulative Scenarios. Source:TIS;see Appendix J. 3.13-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13469 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 � . . � � � . � , , . � . � � .� 1 � i EB C 1.75 B 1 JS B 1 LOVR/Foothill Boulevard WB C 2.45 B 2.39 B NB C 2.70 C 2.75 C SB C 2.74 C 2.87 C EB C N/A 2 LOVR/Prefumo Canyon Road' WB C NB C >5 F >5 F SB C >5 F >5 F EB C n/a 3 LOVR/Laguna Lane WB C 2.39 B 2.22 B NB C 2.82 C 2.79 C SB C 2.87 C 2.98 C EB C N/A 4 LOVR/Oceanaire Drive' WB C NB C >5 F >5 F SB C N/A EB C 2.01 B 2.01 B 5 LOVR/Royal Way WB C 2.00 B 1.98 B NB C 3.09 C 3.11 C SB C 3.09 C 3.11 C EB C 2.13 B 2.13 B 6 LOVR/Madonna Road wB C 2.97 C 3.05 C NB C 2.98 C 3.16 C SB C 3.36 C 3.40 C EB C 2.50 C 2.64 C 7 LOVR/Froom Ranch Way WB C 2.39 B 2.44 B NB C 3.08 C 3.22 C SB C 3.07 C 3.21 C Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-17 Final EIR 13470 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-8. Existing Intersection LOS-Pedestrian (Continued) � � � � � � � . . . , , ' ' ' ' ' � 1 � � i • i • EB C N/A 8 LOVR/Auto Park Way' wB C NB C >5 F >5 F SB C >5 F >5 F EB C 2.48 B 2.48 B 9 LOVR/Calle Joaquin wB C 2.09 B 2.09 B NB C 3.09 C 3.34 C SB C 2.96 C 3.21 C EB C 1.90 B 2.21 B 10 LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps wB C 2.25 B 2.21 B NB C 2.89 C 3.02 C SB C 2.94 C 3.26 C EB C 2.45 B 2.54 C ll LOVR/U.S. 101 NB Ramps wB C 1.43 A 1.43 A NB C 2.78 C 2.80 C SB C 2.89 C 3.00 C EB C 2.70 C 2.73 C 12 LOVR/South Higuera Street wB C n/a NB C 230 B 236 B SB C 2.76 C 2.82 C EB C N/A 13 South Higuera Street/Vachell WB C Lane' NB C >5 F >5 F SB C >5 F >5 F EB C N/A 14 South Higuera Street/Suburban WB C 2.18 B 2.25 B Road NB C 2.92 C 3.05 C SB C 2.71 C 2.83 C EB C 2.03 B 2.04 B 15 South Higuera Street/Tank WB C 2.94 C 3.03 C Farm Road NB C 329 C 3.47 C SB C 2.67 C 2.96 C EB C 2.46 B 2.58 C 16 South Higuera Street/Prado WB C 2.38 B 2.45 B Road NB C 2.71 C 2.96 C SB C 2.75 C 2.89 C EB C Prado Road/U.S. 101 NB WB C 17 Ramps/Elks Lane NB C N/A SB C EB C 2.75 C 2.90 C WB C 32l C 3.30 C Ig Madonna Road/Oceanaire NB C 2.0] B 2.02 B Drive 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 3.13-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13471 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-8. Existing Intersection LOS—Pedestrian (Continued) � � � � , . � ., � ., � � � . , , , , - WB C 3.02 C 3.11 C NB C 2.07 B 2.13 B � � SB C 1.99 B 2.00 B EB C 2.96 C 3.11 C 20 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 SB WB C 3.00 C 3.03 C Ramps/Madonna Inn NB C 2.81 C 2.84 C SB C 2.17 B 2.19 B EB C 2.96 C 2.98 C 21 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 NB WB C 2.79 C 2.79 C Ramps 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. �For 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-19 Final EIR 13472 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-9. Existing Intersection LOS-Bicycle - � � - , � , . . . � � � . . . . _ . . EB D 2.71 C 2.71 C 1 LOVR/Foothill Boulevard WB D 3.27 C 3.92 D � NB D 2.77 C 3.03 C SB D 2.56 C 1.89 B � EB D N/A I 3 LOVR/Laguna Lane wB D 3.26 C 2.80 C II NB D 1.90 B 2.22 B SB D 1.44 A 1.28 A EB D 3.13 C 2.96 C 5 LOVR/Royal Way wB D 3.30 C 2.94 C _I NB D 2.67 C 3.01 C SB D 2.20 B 1.87 B � EB D 3.38 C 3.21 C � 6 LOVR/Madonna Road wB D 3.62 D 4.28 D II NB D 1.66 B 2.08 B SB D 2.79 C 2.47 B EB D 3.43 C 4.28 D 7 LOVR/Froom Ranch Way wB D 2.04 B 2.34 B _I NB D 1.77 B 2.09 B SB D 1.72 B 1.76 B I EB D I 8 LOVR/Auto Park Way NB D N/A II SB D EB D 3.07 C 3.01 C 9 LOVR/Calle Joaquin wB D 3.13 C 3.21 C , NB D 1.57 B 1.96 B ] � SB D 1.77 B 0.71 A I EB D N/A I 10 LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps wB D 2.72 C 2.57 C II NB D 1.66 B 2.12 B SB D 1.52 B 1.86 B EB D 3.74 D 3.77 D 11 LOVR/U.S. 101 NB Ramps wB D 1.39 A 1.39 A _I NB D 1.73 B 2.05 B SB D 2.22 B 2.18 B EB D 1.86 B 1.62 B I 12 LOVR/South Higuera Street wB D N/A � NB D 1.97 B 1.75 B SB D 2.21 B 3.22 C I EB D N/A 14 South Higuera Street/Suburban WB D 1.21 A 1.93 B � Road NB D 2.20 B 1.91 B � SB D 1.95 B 2.35 B � EB D 2.71 C 2.71 C � 15 South Higuera Street/Tank Farm WB D 3.64 D 4.56 E Road NB D 2.00 B 2.12 B SB D 1.76 B 2.17 B 3.13-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13473 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-9. Existing Intersection LOS-Bicycle (Continued) - � � � � , . . . � � � . . . . _ . . EB D 2.48 B 2.34 B I 16 South Higuera Street/Prado Road wB D 2.84 C 3.50 D NB D 1.65 B 2.32 B � SB D 1.94 B 1.89 B I EB D 2.77 C 2.82 C I WB D 1.26 A 1.76 B I 18 Madonna Road/Oceanaire Drive 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 EB D 2.15 B 2.04 B 19 Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive wB D 1.58 B 1.94 B I NB D 3.05 C 3.28 C � SB D 2.87 C 2.95 C � EB D 1.94 B 2.00 B I 20 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 SB WB D 1.62 B 1.91 B Ramps/Madonna Inn NB D 3.70 D 3.66 D II SB D 2.94 C 2.99 C EB D 2.71 C 2.30 B � 21 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 NB Ramps wB D 1.58 B 2.05 B I 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 6�h Bike LOS Methodology do not model segments bounded by unsignalized intersections. Source:TIS;see Appendix J. T�ehicle 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): • 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 �throu�h/left-turn lane [WBTL�] during AM & PM peak hour) I • South Higuera Street and Suburban Road (WBL during PM peak hours) Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-21 Final EIR 13474 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • 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) Table 3.13-10. Existing Conditions—95t"-Percentile Queuing � , � � � . � • � , • , , - � WBR 180 AM 0 M � 0 NBL 120 pM 5 1 LOVR/Foothill Boulevard AM 35 NBR 370 pM 120 SBL 490 AM #485 PM #248 WBL Trap Lane AM 90 PM 40 WBR Trap Lane AM 0 3 LOVR/Laguna Lane pM 0 NBR gp AM 10 PM _ 35 SBL 120 AM 45 PM 25 EBR �p AM 10 PM � 0 WBR �p AM 0 PM 0 5 LOVR/Royal Way NBL ll0 AM 25 PM 60 SBL 160 AM 15 PM 15 SBR 50 AM 0 PM 0 EBL 230 AM #255 PM #145 WBL Trap Lane AM 70 PM 190 WBR 170 AM 45 6 LOVR/Madonna Road PM 75 NBL 200 AM 70 PM 140 NBR 175 AM 35 PM 50 � SBL � 350 AM #330 PM 185 3.13-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13475 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-10. Existing Conditions—95t"-Percentile Queuing (Continued) .� . � 1 i � i � , � . I EBL 250 AM 60 PM #240 � WBL 295 AM 75 PM 195 7 LOVR/Froom Ranch Way WBR 50 AM 0 PM 45 NBL 300 AM ll0 � PM 255 � SBL 160 AM 30 PM 100 EBL 100 AM - , PM - I EBR 100 AM - PM - WBL Trap Lane AM - PM - g LOVR/Auto Park Way(Project wBR 175 AM - Driveway) PM - NBL 200 AM - PM - SBL 100 AM - PM - SBR 100 AM - PM - I EBL 260 AM II 25 � PM 35 I EBR 260 AM I 10 PM 10 � AM 50 WBL 100 PM � 105 9 LOVR/Ca11e Joaquin NBL 130 AM I 10 PM m5 I NBR 130 AM 20 PM m5 I� SBL 120 AM 20 PM I 10 SBR 120 AM 0 PM 5 � ��WBTL 190 AM �1-A260 � PM 140345 10 LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps NBL 22p AM m25 PM m60 �I SBR 120 AM 50 PM #220 EBL 610 AM 290 11 LOVR/U.S. 101 NB Ramps pM #330 NBL 400 AM 75 PM 120 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-23 Final EIR 13476 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-10. Existing Conditions—95t"-Percentile Queuing (Continued) � . 1 i � i � , � . � SBR 133 AM m0 PM 0 EBL Trap Lane AM #315 PM 215 EBR 100 AM 40 12 LOVR/South Higuera Street pM 40 NBL 200 AM 15 PM 20 SBR Trap Lane AM 65 PM 200 � � WBL 170 AM 80 PM 270 14 South Higuera Street/Suburban wBR Trap Lane AM 30 Road PM 70 SBL 170 AM 25 PM 25 I EBR Trap Lane AM 0 PM 0 WBL Trap Lane AM 165 PM 340 AM 55 15 South Higuera Street/Tank Farm wBR 250 pM 180 Road NBL 140 AM 40 PM 55 NBR 100 AM 85 PM 30 SBL 165 AM #410 PM #760 EBL Trap Lane AM 60 PM 75 I EBR 100 AM I 15 PM 20 WBL 105 AM 70 16 South Higuera Street/Prado Road PM 120 WBR 200 AM 0 PM 15 �I NBL 100 AM 195 PM #525 SBL 200 AM #210 PM 110 EBL 115 AM 40 PM 40 WBL 115 AM #55 18 Madonna Road/Oceanaire Drive PM #l55 WBR 100 AM 0 PM 0 � NBR 50 AM 0 PM 0 3.13-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13477 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-10. Existing Conditions—95t"-Percentile Queuing (Continued) .� . � 1 i � i � , � . I EBL 120 AM _ 40 I PM 55 WBL 280 AM 70 19 Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive PM 150 NBR 150 AM 10 PM 45 I SBR 50 AM 0 PM II 0 EBL 100 AM 50 PM 55 WBL 260 AM 145 � PM m#215 I NBL Trap Lane AM 185 I 20 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 SB PM #425 Ramps/Madonna Inn NBR 2�5 AM 125 PM 25 SBL Trap Lane AM 20 PM 30 SBR 100 AM 0 PM 0 AM 125 21 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 NB EBL 435 pM #295 Ramps NBL 185 AM 90 PM 180 Notes:Queue length rounded to nearest 5 feet.Queuing analysis is reparted for signalized intersections only. Bold:95r�-percentile volume exceeds capacity. m queue is metered by upstream intersection. #95`h-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-tum lane(NBR);narthbound 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 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): • 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-25 Final EIR 13478 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • 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. 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). 3.13-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13479 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-27 Final EIR 13480 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-11. Existing Segment LOS-Automobile � . � � . � .. . . . � ; . , � ••� , .. 1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road SB D 31.91 45.67 69.87 B 23.56 45.73 51.5 C to Oceanaire Drive NB D 34.47 45.97 74.98 B 30.82 45.77 67.3 B 2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to SB D 11.22 42.64 26.31 F 11.61 42.64 27.2 F Madonna Road NB D 23.25 45.68 50.90 C 23.03 45.68 50.4 C 3 LOVR from Madonna Road to SB D 27.17 44.82 60.62 C 19.51 44.83 43.5 D Froom Ranch Way NB D 20.84 44.82 46.50 D 20.85 44.82 46.5 D 4 LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to SB D 3924 44.80 87.59 A 35.99 44.80 80.3 A Calle Joaquin NB D 33.43 45.22 73.93 B 28.47 45.22 63.0 C 5 LOVR from U.S. 101 SB Ramps SB D 22.43 46.41 48.33 D 17.79 45.33 392 E toU.S. 101 NB Ramps 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 SB D 22.51 40.64 55.39 C 24.06 40.78 59.0 C South Higuera Street NB D 27.58 41.19 66.96 C 32.02 45.77 70.0 B South Higuera Street from City SB D 44.67 45.72 97.70 A 44.02 45.72 96.3 A 7 Limit south to U.S. 101/Clover NB D 40.60 45.73 88.78 A 42.49 45.73 92.9 A Ridge Lane g South Higuera Street from LOVR to SB D 24.76 45.33 54.62 C 23.36 45.34 51.5 C Tank Farm Road NB D 20.23 45.68 44.29 D 15.04 45.69 32.9 E g South Higuera Street from Tank SB D 32J0 45.21 72.33 B 25.66 45.23 56.7 C Farm Road to Prado Road NB D 29.99 45.21 66.33 C 28.19 45.24 62.3 C 10 Tank Farm Road from South EB D 34.11 43.15 79.05 B 34.37 43.15 79.7 B Higuera Street to Broad Street WB D 33.95 42.40 80.07 A 34.66 42.38 81.8 A 11 Madonna Road from LOVR to EB D 25.85 38.92 66.42 C 26.36 39.14 67.3 B Dalidio Drive 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. w A � 3.13-28 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-12. Existing Segment LOS-Pedestrian � . , ,, � . � ... . . . = . 1 L R fr m Pr f m n n R n ir Dri SB C 3.54 D 3.13 C OV o e u o Ca o oad to Ocea a e ve y � NB C 322 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 329 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 � South Higuera Street from City Limit south to U.S. SB C - - - - 101/Clover Ridge Lane 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 EB C - - - - Street 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. w A � N Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-29 Final EIR 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-13. Existing Segment LOS-Bicycle , . , . � � � � . � •, , . .. . . . �� . . , �I SB D 2.10 B 2.13 B 1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive NB D 1.72 A 2.23 B SB D 2.37 C 220 B 2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road 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 I 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 � South Higuera Street from City Limit south to U.S. � SB D 1.49 A 1.72 A 101/Clover Ridge Lane � 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 ll 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. w A W W 3.13-30 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-14. Existing Segment LOS-Transit , . , , . n � i , � •� � i i SB D 4.12 D 3.06 C 1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive NB D 3.07 C 3.09 C SB D 3.76 D 2.43 C 2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road 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 I 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 SB D 3.13 C 3.96 D 8 South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road NB D 4.06 D 4.14 D SB D 3.51 D 3.96 D 9 South Higuera Street from Tank Farm Road to Prado Road NB D 32l C 4.14 D EB D 3.21 C 3.13 C 11 Madonna Road from LOVR to Dalidio Drive WB D 3.29 C 335 C Segments with no transit stops are excluded from the analysis. Source:TIS;see Appendix J. w A � A Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-31 Final EIR 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-15. Existing Segment LOS-Freeway Mainline, Ramps and Weaving Sections � � � � � • � � - - - � � • , � ' � , � ' � 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. ]O1 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 ofPrado 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. w A � � 3.13-32 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Near-Term (20251 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 Prado Road Bridge Replace existing bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek;widen to four 1 Replacement thru-lanes plus center turn lane.Includes width for bike lanes and sidewalk-level Class I Path on both sides of Prado Road. Install second NB left-turn lane. Prado RoadlSouth EB approach to remain as exists now(one left,one through,one right). 2 Higuera Street Extend WB right-turn storage. Improvements 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. 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 Prado Road Interchange Interchange Improvements include: 3 and Dalidio Drive/Prado . Widen Dalidio Drive/Prado Road to four lanes with center Road Widening 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. Froom Ranch Way Extend Froom Ranch Way from LOVR to Dalidio Drive as two-lane 4 Extension collector with bike lanes and Class I Bike Path from Perfumo Creek to Dalidio Drive. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-33 Final EIR 13486 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-16. Near-Term Transportation Project List (Continued) Install dedicated EBR. � � 5 LOVR/Froom Ranch Way Extend storage of WBR. Improvements Install second WB left-turn lane. Construct protected intersection for bicycle/pedestrian safety. Froom Ranch 6 Way/Dalidio Drive Construct two-lane roundabout at Froom Ranch Way/Dalidio Drive. Roundabout Extend WB left-turn storage Madonna Road/Dalidio Install second WB left-turn lane. � Drive Improvements Install EBR. Install split phasing far NB/SB and optimize timing. Install second NB left-turn lane. g LOVR/South Higuera Extend EB right-turn storage. Street 9 South Higuera Restrict Vachell Lane access to right-in/right-out only. Street/Vachell Lane 10 South Higuera Street/ Restripe WB approach to provide left-turn lane and shared left/right- Suburban Road turn lane. 11 Buckley Road Extension Extend Buckley Road west to new signalized intersection with South Higuera Street. I 12 Madonna/Oceanaire Restriping bv San Luis Ranch Project to extend WB ri,ght-turn stora�e — to a�proximately 240'. 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 3.13-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13487 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-17. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS-Automobile � � � � � � . AM 32.7 C 1 LOVR/Foothill Boulevard Signal D PM 55.0 D AM 21.9 C 2 LOVR/Prefumo Canyon Road TWSC D PM 29.6 D AM 14.1 B 3 LOVR/Laguna Lane Signal D PM 8.9 A AM 129.6 F 1.08 4 LOVR/Oceanaire Drive TWSC D PM 104.0 F 0.94 AM 41.6 D 5 LOVR/Royal Way Signal D PM 193 B AM 34.6 C 6 LOVR/Madonna Road Signal D PM 46.6 D AM 20.8 C 7 LOVR/Froom Ranch Way Signal D PM 37.3 D AM 6.5 A 8 LOVR/Auto Park Way Signal D PM 9.4 A AM 5.9 A 9 LOVR/Calle Joaquin Signal D PM 9.5 A AM 163 B 10 LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps Signal C PM 21.4 C AM 23.8 C 11 LOVR/U.S. 101 NB Ramps Signal C PM 29.1 C AM 19.4 B 12 LOVR/South Higuera Street Signal D pM 34.3 C AM 22.6 C 13 South Higuera Street/Vachell Lane TWSC D PM 16.1 C 14 South Higuera Street/Suburban Si nal D AM 9.2 A Roadb g PM 14.4 B �5 South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Si nal D AM 29.9 C Road g PM 47.9 D AM 27.5 C 16 South Higuera Street/Prado Road Signal D PM 43.9 D �� Prado Road/LT.S. 101 NB Ramps/ AWSC C AM 12.0 B Elks Lane PM 22.9 C AM 42.7�$ D 18 Madonna Road/Oceanaire Drive6 Signal D - � PM 3 0_94.4 C Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-35 Final EIR 13488 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-17. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS—Automobile (Continued) � .. � � � � � , AM 21.6 C 19 Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive Signal D pM 28.8 C 20 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 SB Si nal C AM 332 C Ramps/Madonna Inn g PM 43.6 D 1.21 AM 17.8 B 21 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 NB Ramps Signal C PM 54.4 D 1.15 AM 3.3 A 22 Dalidio Drive/Froom Ranch Way Roundabout D PM 3.5 A �Delay—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. �LOS—Level of Service 3 V/C ratio reported for warst movement only. 4TWSC—Two-way-stop controlled intersection. sAWSC—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. Pedestrian Intersection LOS Under Near-Term conditions,the following intersections are proj ected 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 3.13-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13489 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-18. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - Pedestrian � � � EB C 1.75 B 1 JS B 1 LOVR/Foothill Boulevard WB C 2.50 C 2.44 B NB C 2.76 C 2.82 C SB C 2.83 C 2.97 C EB C N/A 2 LOVR/Prefumo Canyon WB C Road NB C >5.0 F >5.0 F SB C >5.0 F >5.0 F EB C N/A 3 LOVR/Laguna Lane wB C 2.40 B 2.22 B NB C 2.87 C 2.86 C SB C 2.93 C 3.08 C EB C N/A 4 LOVR/Oceanaire Drive wB C NB C >5.0 F >5.0 F SB C >5.0 F >5.0 F EB C 2.02 B 2.02 B 5 LOVR/Royal Way wB C 2.00 B 1.99 B NB C 3.16 C 3.22 C SB C 3.14 C 3.19 C EB C 2.14 B 2.15 B 6 LOVR/Madonna Road wB C 3.00 C 3.13 C NB C 3.04 C 3.28 C SB C 3.41 C 3.53 D EB C 2.63 C 2.75 C 7 LOVR/Froom Ranch Way wB C 2.55 C 2.59 C NB C 3.15 C 3.32 C SB C 3.12 C 3.30 C EB C N/A 8 LOVR/Auto Park Way wB C 2.02 B 2.04 B NB C 3.03 C 3.47 C SB C 2.99 C 338 C EB C 2.49 B 2.49 B 9 LOVR/Calle Joaquin wB C 2.10 B 2.11 B NB C 3.18 C 3.46 C SB C 3.05 C 3.22 C EB C 1.95 B 2.32 B 10 LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps wB C 2.30 B 2.24 B NB C 3.05 C 3.18 C SB C 3.09 C 339 C EB C 2.50 C 2.61 C 11 LOVR/U.S. 101 NB Ramps wB C 1.43 A 1.43 A NB C 2.95 C 2.97 C SB C 3.05 C 3.15 C EB C 2.88 C 2.98 C 12 LOVR/South Higuera WB C N/A Street NB C 2.40 B 2.45 B SB C 2.91 C 3.06 C Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-37 Final EIR 13490 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-18. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS-Pedestrian (Continued) �.� - � � - , � � � � , ., , � � ., , � � • � EB C 13 South Higuera Street/ WB C N/A Vachell Lane NB C SB C EB C N/A 14 South Higuera Street/ WB C 2.20 B 2.30 B Suburban Road NB C 3.05 C 3.28 C SB C 2.81 C 3.02 C EB C 2.04 B 2.05 B 15 South Higuera Street/Tank WB C 3.01 C 3.16 C Farm Road NB C 3.39 C 3.65 D SB C 2.73 C 3.08 C EB C 2.61 C 2.73 C 16 South Higuera Street/Prado WB C 2.48 B 2.57 C Road NB C 2.86 C 3.11 C SB C 2.82 C 3.00 C EB C 1� Prado Road/U.S. 101 NB WB C N/A Ramps NB C SB C EB C 2.78 C 2.95 C WB C 3.29 C 3.44 C 1 g Madonna Road/Oceanaire NB C 2.01 B 2.02 B Drive SB C 2.04 B 1.98 B SE C 1.82 B 1.86 B NE C 1.78 B 1.79 B EB C 3.11 C 3.24 C 19 Madonna Road/Dalidio WB C 3.17 C 3.28 C Drive NB C 2.52 C 2.64 C SB C 1.99 B 2.00 B EB C 3.01 C 3.16 C 20 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 WB C 3.06 C 3.10 C SB Ramps/Madonna Inn NB C 2.85 C 2.87 C SB C 2.17 B 2.19 B EB C 3.02 C 3.06 C 21 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 WB C 2.86 C 2.91 C NB Ramps NB C 2.00 B 2.01 B SB C 2.09 B 2.17 B 'For 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. 3.13-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13491 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Bicycle Intersections LOS Under Near-Term conditions,the following intersections are proj ected 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 � . � � � . � , . . . 1 � � i � � , _ . . � � � � ' EB D 2.71 C 2.71 C 1 LOVR/Foothill Boulevard WB D 3.34 C 4.05 D NB D 2.92 C 3.22 C SB D 2.73 C 2.00 B EB D N/A 3 LOVR/Laguna Lane WB D 3.26 C 2.82 C NB D 1.99 B 2.36 B SB D 1.54 B 1.45 A EB D 3.17 C 2.99 C 5 LOVR/Royal Way WB D 3.30 C 2.96 C NB D 2.73 C 3.13 C SB D 2.32 B 2.05 B EB D 3.42 C 3.26 C 6 LOVR/Madonna Road WB D 3.68 D 4.60 E NB D 1.72 B 2.25 B SB D 2.92 C 2.67 C EB D 3.49 C 4.33 D � 7 LOVR/Froom Ranch Way WB D 2.25 B 2.49 B NB D 1.89 B 2.45 B SB D 1.79 B 191 B EB D N/A 8 LOVR/Auto Park Way WB D 2.61 C 2.76 C NB D 3.12 C 3.73 D SB D 3.45 C 3.80 D EB D 3.11 C 3.09 C 9 LOVR/Calle Joaquin wB D 3.16 C 3.32 C NB D 1.71 B 2.17 B SB D 1.92 B 0.87 A EB D N/A 10 LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps wB D 2.90 C 2.69 C NB D 1.89 B 2.38 B SB D 1.71 B 2.02 B Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-39 Final EIR 13492 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-19. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS-Bicycle (Continued) �.� - � � - , � , . . . � � � . . . . _ . . EB D 3.94 D 3.93 D 11 LOVR/U.S. 101 NB Ramps wB D 1.39 A 1.39 A NB D 1.94 B 2.31 B SB D 2.43 B 2.38 B EB D 2.07 B 1.88 B 12 LOVR/South Higuera Street wB D N/A NB D 2.23 B 1.87 B SB D 2.48 B 3.92 D EB D N/A 14 South Higuera Street/Suburban WB D 1.17 A 1.57 B Road NB D 2.44 B 2.19 B SB D 2.09 B 2.69 C EB D 2.73 C 2.74 C 15 South Higuera Street/Tank Farm WB D 3.88 D 5.16 E Road NB D 2.25 B 2.43 B SB D 1.81 B 2.37 B EB D 2.14 B 1.98 B 16 South Higuera Street/Prado Road I wB D 2.07 B 3.00 C � NB D 1.77 B 2.51 C I SB D 2.30 B 2.23 B � EB D 2.78 C 2.84 C WB D 1.54 B 2.22 B 18 Madonna Road/Oceanaire Drive NB D 2.87 C 2.86 C SB D 2.73 C 2.31 B SE D 2.62 C 2.62 C I I I NE D 2.20 B 2.20 B I � EB D 2.18 B 2.24 B 19 Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive wB D 1.73 B 2.14 B NB D 2.02 B 2.63 C SB D 1.59 B 1.94 B EB D 2.00 B 2.07 B 20 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 SB WB D 1.73 B 2.05 B Ramps/Madonna Inn NB D 3.86 D 3.78 D SB D 2.94 C 2.99 C EB D 2.81 C 2.44 B 21 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 NB Ramps 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 6r"Bike LOS Methodology do not model segments bounded by unsignalized intersections. Source:TIS;see Appendix J. 3.13-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13493 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Vehicle Queueing Conditions Under Near-Term conditions, the following seven intersections have vehicle queues that are proj ected 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 AM and PM peak hour) I • 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 ""� I PM ep ak h�our�) Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95t"-Percentile Queuing � � 1 � i � � � ' WBR 180 AM 0 PM 0 NBL 120 AM 0 1 LOVR/Foothill Boulevard pM 15 NBR 370 AM 30 1 PM 150 � SBL 490 AM #585 II PM #280 WBL Trap Lane AM 90 PM 40 WBR Trap Lane AM 0 3 LOVR/Laguna Lane PM 15 NBR gp AM 10 PM 40 SBL 120 AM 45 PM 25 EBR �p AM 15 PM 0 � WBR �p AM 0 PM 0 � 5 LOVR/Royal Way NBL 110 AM 30 I PM 70 � SBL 160 AM 15 PM 15 � SBR � 50 AM 0 I � PM 0 � Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-41 Final EIR 13494 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95t''-Percentile Queuing (Continued) � ' � � � � . � • � � • � � � � • � � � � EBL 230 AM 135 PM 80 WBL Trap Lane AM 95 II PM 220 WBR 170 AM 50 I 6 LOVR/Madonna Road PM gs II NBL 200 AM 90 � PM #190 NBR 175 AM 50 II PM 80 SBL 350 AM 280 PM #240 EBL 250 AM #70 I PM #260 EBR 250 AM 0 PM 65 � WBL 295 AM 55 _ 7 LOVR/Froom Ranch Way PM 100 _I � WBR 50 AM 0 _ � PM 35 NBL 300 AM #125 PM #310 � SBL 160 AM 35 � PM #120 EBL 100 AM - PM - I EBR 100 AM i PM - � � WBL Trap Lane AM 30 PM 80 g LOVR/Auto Park Way(Project wBR �75 AM 15 I Driveway) PM 30 � NBL 200 AM I PM - SBL 100 AM 40 II PM 60 SBR 100 AM I PM - EBL 260 AM 30 _I PM 45 � , EBR 260 AM 15 _I PM 25 AM 55 i 9 LOVR/Calle Joaquin wBL 100 PM 130 � II NBL 130 AM m 10 I PM m 10 NBR 130 AM m 15 _II PM m50 SBL 120 AM 25 3.13-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13495 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95t''-Percentile Queuing (Continued) � ' � 1 i i i � � � . i � i � PM 20 AM 5 1 SBR 120 pM 10 � � WBTL� 190 AM 320�5 � PM 200�38 10 LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps NBL 22p AM m50 PM m100 , ' SBR 120 AM 100 I PM #375 i EBL 610 AM #395 _I PM #415 11 LOVR/U.S. 101 NB Ramps NBL 400 AM 90 _I PM 175 ' SBR 133 AM m0 _I PM 0 AM #460 I EBL Trap Lane PM #470 I EBR 100 AM 45 I 12 LOVR/South Higuera Street PM 50 NBL 200 AM 55 I PM 30 SBR Trap Lane AM 120 I � PM #585 I WBL Trap Lane AM 50 _ 14 South Higuera Street/Suburban PM 185 � Road SBL 170 AM #100 JI i PM #140 EBR Trap Lane AM 0 II PM 0 WBL Trap Lane AM 230 PM 540 AM 55 15 South Higuera Street/Tank Farm wBR 250 pM 295 Road NBL 140 AM 55 I PM 60 NBR 100 AM 90 II PM 140 SBL 165 AM #570 II PM #860 EBL 300 AM 75 I PM #90 EBR 300 AM 0 _I PM 0 16 South Higuera Street/Prado Road WBL 105 AM #165 � PM #175 ' ' WBR 410 AM 0 _I PM 10 AM 120 � NBL 300 pM #250 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-43 Final EIR 13496 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-20. Near-Term Scenario 2 Intersection LOS - 95t''-Percentile Queuing (Continued) � ' � � � � . � • � � • � � � � • � � � SBL 200 AM #355 � PM #180 EBL 115 AM 40 II PM #50 WBL 115 AM #�555 I 18 Madonna Road/Oceanaire Drive PM #105�8 WBR �99240 AM 160�95 , — PM 250#�� NBR 50 AM 0 II PM 0 EBL 145 AM 40 I PM #60 EBR 100 AM 20 PM 85 � WBL 350 AM #125 _ 19 Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive pM #240 NBL 150 AM 40 � � PM 135 NBR 150 AM 10 _I PM 60 SBR 50 AM 0 II PM 0 EBL 100 AM #55 II PM #75 WBL 260 AM 195 PM m185 AM #210 � 20 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 SB NBL Trap Lane PM #515 Ramps/Madonna Inn NBR 2�5 AM 150 PM 50 � SBL Trap Lane AM 20 PM 30 SBR 100 AM 0 II PM 0 AM m160 21 Madonna Road/U.S. 101 NB EBL 435 pM m#320 � Ramps NBL �gs AM 100 PM 170 Queue length rounded to nearest 5 feet.Queuing analysis is reported for signalized intersections only. Bold:95r�-percentile volume exceeds capacity. m queue is metered by upstream intersection. #95`h-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-tum lane(NBR);narthbound trap(NBT);southbound thru-lane(SBL);southbound trap (SBT);southbound right-turn lane(SBR); eastbound right-turn lane(EBR). Source:TIS;see Appendix J. 3.13-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13497 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 313.3.1 below and Appendix J; Table 3.13- 22): • 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-45 Final EIR 13498 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • 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): • 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. 1 O 1 SB,north of South Higuera Street operates at LOS E during PM peak hour 3.13-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13499 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-21. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment Level of Service-Automobile � � � . . � . . . . .. � � , � ••- �� , ; 1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road SB D 31.83 45.46 70.02 B 33.38 45.46 73.4 B to Oceanaire Drive NB D 28.93 45.45 63.65 C 27.79 45.45 61.1 C 2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to SB D 13.33 42.64 31Z6 E 9.70 42.64 22.7 F Madonna Road NB D 24.01 45.68 52.56 C 22.08 45.68 48.3 D 3 LOVR from Madonna Road to Froom SB D 26.48 44.82 59.08 C 1937 44.83 432 D Ranch Way NB D 19.87 44.83 44.32 D 16.93 44.82 37.8 E 4 LOVR from Froom Ranch Way to SB D 36.56 44.80 81.61 A 33.98 44.80 75.8 B Calle Joaquin 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 SB D 19.66 45.33 43.37 D 17.83 45.33 39.3 E U.S. 101 NB Ramps NB D 19.54 40.66 48.06 D 24.03 45.36 53.0 C 6 LOVR from U.S. 1 O1 NB Ramps to SB D 21.59 4,064.00 0.53 C 22.32 40.78 54.7 C South Higuera Street NB D 27.45 41.19 66.64 C 31.07 45.77 67.9 B � South Higuera Street from City Limit SB D 45.53 45.72 99.58 A 43.72 45.72 95.6 A south to U.S. 101/Clover Ridge Lane NB D 40.74 45.73 89.09 A 45.27 45.73 99.0 A g South Higuera Street from LOVR to SB D 23.63 45.33 52.13 C 20.47 45.34 45.1 D Tank Farm Road NB D 19.83 45.68 43.40 D 14.99 45.69 30.2 E 9 South Higuera Street from Tank Farm SB D 31.44 4521 69.54 B 24.58 4523 54.3 C Road to Prado Road NB D 27.80 45.21 61.49 C 25.87 4524 572 C 10 Tank Farm Road from South Higuera EB D 34.08 43.15 78.98 B 34.15 43.15 79.1 B Street to Broad Street WB D 33.87 42.40 79.88 B 33.74 42.38 79.6 B �� Madonna Road from LOVR to EB D 22.96 38.92 58.99 C 2l.33 39.14 54.5 C Dalidio Drive WB D 21.02 38.84 54.12 C 2021 39.15 51.6 C �2 Froom Ranch Way from LOVR to EB D 39.55 41.09 9625 A 38.09 41.09 92.7 B � Dalidio Drive 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. w � 0 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-47 Final EIR 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-22. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment Level of Service-Pedestrian , . , , , . � � , ' - - - - 1 LOVR from Prefumo Can on Road to Oceanaire Drive SB C 3.67 D 3.54 D y NB C � 329 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 I 3.85 D 3.60 D I 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 I NB C � 3.55 D 3.39 C SB C 325 C 3.89 D 8 South Higuera Street from LOVR to Tank Farm Road 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 414 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. w � 0 3.13-48 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-23 Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS-Bicycle _ u � . � � . � �� , . . . . , � � �� 1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive � SB D 2.04 B l.99 A NB D 1.61 A 1.89 A SB D 2.32 C 226 C 2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road 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 to U.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 I SB D 2.44 C 2.45 C NB D 1.83 A 1.99 A � South Higuera Street from City Limit south to U.S. 101/Clover SB D 1.56 A 1.78 A Ridge Lane 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 223 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. w � 0 N Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-49 Final EIR 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-24. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS-Transit . , , , . � � , „ . . - - SB D 2.91 C 2.88 C 1 LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road to Oceanaire Drive � NB D 1.75 A 1.96 A SB D 2.49 C 2.61 C 2 LOVR from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road - 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 I 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 � SB D 3.98 D 3.51 D 6 LOVR from U.S. 101 NB Ramps to South Higuera Street 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 � SB D 3.57 D 4.02 D 9 South Higuera Street from Tank Farm Road to Prado Road 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 � EB D 0.33 A 0.28 A 12 Froom Ranch Way from LOVR to Dalidio Drive WB D 0.82 � A 0.96 A � Segments with no transit stops are excluded from the analysis. Source:TIS;see Appendix J. w � 0 w 3.13-50 Frooin Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-25. Near-Term Scenario 2 Segment LOS-Freeway Mainline, Ramps and Weaving Sections � � � � �• � � ' �' - ��, � � � � � � � � 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 I C Freeway 2 2,491 21.1 C 2,564 2L8 C U.S. 101 NB Prado Road Off-Ramp C Diverge 1 312 25.4 C 143 25.9 C U.S. ]O1 NB Prado Road On-Ramp I 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 l 293 31.2 D 341 34.9 E U.S. 101 SB U.S. 101 SB,north ofMadonnaRoad C Freeway 2 2,131 18.1 C 3,168 27.6 D U.S. 101 SB Madonna Road On-Ramp I 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 w � 0 A Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.13-51 Final EIR 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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. 3.13.21 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. Senate Bi11743 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 3.13-52 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13505 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 lst,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 3.1-1182) � San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 2019 Draft Re,�ional 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 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 SLOCOG'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." Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-53 Final EIR 13506 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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. CiNculation 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 2.11 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. 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 Str�eets. 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, Ser�vice 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. 3.13-54 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13507 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 Impac� 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. • 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-55 Final EIR 13508 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 7.11 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 Gr�owth 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. 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. 3.13-56 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13509 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 81.2 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 proj ects 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. 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 11.11 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). Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-57 Final EIR 13510 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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. Cit,v of San Luis Obispo Bicvcle 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 3.13.31 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); 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 3.13-58 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13511 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 �I 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 ProjecY'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 i£ • 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-59 Final EIR 13512 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • 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. Cit,v 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. 3.13-60 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13513 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-27. City LOS Modal Priority Ranking by Area � 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-61 Final EIR 13514 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Cit,v 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. Cit,v of San Luis Obispo Nei�hborhood 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: 3.13-62 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13515 313 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 20�120). 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-63 Final EIR 13516 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Caltrans. The TIS includes the quantification of current automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit service levels; • Near-Term Conditions (2025) quantifies conditions in a roughly �ve-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; 3.13-64 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13517 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • 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. Proj ect 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 (lOth Edition) and Trip Generation Handbook(3ra 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 �. 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. It should be noted that the projected Project person tr��s by travel mode re�resent � Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-65 Final EIR 13518 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC mode share consistent with existin trg avel patterns and traffic count data within the Pro'�ect vicinity. While the Citv's General Plan Circulation Element identifies more ambitious mode share tar�ets for citvwide trips b�,vear 2035, reducin��le-occupant mode share to 50 percent of all trips, this traffic anal,vsis uses a conservative assumption that Project- �enerated traffic will have similar model share distribution to other existing uses in the Citv. Table 3.13-28. Project Person Trips by Mode of Travel 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 ll 24 Transit 220 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 netwark (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. 3.13-66 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13519 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-29. Net External Vehicle Trip Generation Forecast � i � � � ' • i i ' • � � 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 � . � . . � � I Residential Vehicle Trips Generated 45 85 131 86 7l 157 Retail Vehicle Trips Generated l5 9 24 44 37 81 Retail Pass-By Trips -I S -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 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.;—. I 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-67 Final EIR 13520 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 � � � � . � � � � i � � � � � , . L Installation of Project Infrastructure and 0 0 0 0 Stormwater Management System(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 A more detailed discussion of trip generation assumptions and methodology is provided in the Project TIS (see Appendix J). Project Trip Distribution and Assi ng ment 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 3.13-68 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13521 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 6rh 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). 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 lce�provision of SB 743,passed in September 2013, is the elimination of vehicle delaX and LOS as CEQA si�nificance criterion in urban areas. VMT analysis is not mandatory per CEQA until 7/1/2020. Currently, official measures and local si�nificance thresholds for VMT analysis are bein dg eveloped but have not been adopted. While the TIS anal.� both multi-modal LOS and VMT, in the absence of official si�nificance thresholds, no Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-69 Final EIR 13522 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CEQA findin s� of si�nificance in re,�ards to VMT are made at this time. Hence, VMT anal,ysis conducted for the Project is provided for informational and full disclosure purposes onl� As reported by the City of San Luis Obispo's Travel Demand Model, the forecasted 2035 Total Daily VMT is a�roximately 12.4 million miles for the County region which equates to 30.6 miles per capita based on the anticipated countywide population. The net chan,�e in VMT attributable to the project has been forecasted bv addin_� the proposed land uses to the Citv's travel demand modeL The Citv's travel demand model forecast of net VMT attributable to the prolect is 16,362 daily VMT, an increase of a�proximatelv 0.1%within the Count,�,�ion. Based on the anticipated project population of 1,231 residents, the net total VMT attributable to the project (includin�both residential and non-residential pro'ecl t trips) therefore equates to 13.3 dail,y miles traveled per capita, well below the countvwide avera,ge of 30.6 miles per capita. While local VMT thresholds have yet to be adopted, the latest Technical Advisor�published bv the California Office of Plannin� and Research (OPR) recommends establishin� thresholds for predominantly residential projects based on the re,�ional avera�e VMT per capita. For this reason, VMT totals summarized in Table 3.13-31 below compare the prolect VMT to the re i� �Countx) avera,ge VMT per capita. Table 3.13-31. Avera�e Estimated Year 2035 VMT for the r''�County and Proiect ��ese�»�ie�s �..,;��,.,�_ ��nR�� ii ��,999�999 �9 �58�889 �4 'ee 4�-�94 �1 +��et�� n��°�'',�a.Ri a .n.- .-rTc n .,a:., r Description Total Dailv VMT Poqulation Total VMT qer Count (Residentsl Capita' 2035 No Proiect 12,389,948 404,781 30.6 2035 Plus Project 12,406,310 406,012 30.6 Net Change with Proiect 16,362 1,231 13.3 Notes: �Total VMT includes residential and non-residential VMT.Total VMT per Capita is calculatedby dividing the Total VMT by the residential�opulation. Source:Citv of San Luis Obispo Travel Demand Model. 3.13-70 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13523 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC > > . , > > . , „1. � � � . � � � � • > > . � �iz�i��P��`�e�'-£��$��r'�c'�'".r."spr�'i�e "��'r�Ir'ct�iC�-�c'��.�-2�vj . . � �� 1�� pq� �A4�-�e�I�} ��;998�998 <49 �58�889 �4 �e�ee� 4�,�94 �1 -4Do..,..wo,l�7AAT.-. .-1,,.,,�.01.,.1,7 C'...,.-..o•D.-..:o..�TTC' A.....o...J:., T 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, €e� it is Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-71 Final EIR 13524 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC likelv that some school-based trips from the Pro'ecl t site would be made by pedestrian and bicycle travel, as well as bv bus, �� T��" �� r��r�' ��'��'�� (see also, Section 3.12,Public Services and Recreation). Students and families travelin� to/from the nearest elementary �SL Smith Elementary,) and middle school (La,�una Middle School), which are located a�proximatelv 1.25 miles to the north, are expected to use existing bic,ycle and pedestrian facilities alon,g LOVR and within the Oceanaire nei�hborhood. Because the nearest public hi�h school within the citv (San Luis Obispo Hi�h School) is located a�proximately four �4)miles to the northeast, students are more likelv to travel to/from school b,y car or public transit. With that said, for CEQA analysis, T'�;� r � �„+� ^ � �^+;�� ^ ^'� ^ra +'�� ,.,,;o,.� -rm ,.,,,.�,,,.oa .,�a ;r,,,,,,,,,,,,,,+oathe Project trip �eneration estimates assume that most trips ,�enerated bv the development, includin,g school trips, would be made by personalvehicles ��,o�o �,-;,.� ;,, ��,o ., .,�.,�;� „�D,.,,;o„� ; ,.�� „ �,,,.,,� ,. .,a � or�� ,,,,a �r��. This represents a conservative a�roach and the TIS prepared for this EIR has captured and incorporates these trips in the analysis of Pro�ecl t impacts to local road segments and intersections. 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 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. 3.13-72 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13525 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 Way�extension east to Dalidio Drive (Near-Term Project) • Class I multi-use path on Madonna Road between Oceanaire and the Madonna Inn Driveway • Bicycle protected intersection installations at Madonna RoadlDalidio 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 Proj ect) 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-204, and TRANS-�21). This section briefly � summarizes the findings of the TIS; Appendix J contains the Project TIS, which provides a complete analysis and discussion. The TIS compared Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative (buildout) traffic conditions to those with the added effects of Project- Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-73 Final EIR 13526 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 and impacts to the LOVR/Foothill Boulevard intersection, which requires implementation bv the Count� These impacts are, �T�� included in the discussion as MM TRANS-2��MM TRANS-6b and MM TRANS-12�-4. Table 3.13-32. Summary of Project Impacts TRANS-1.Project construction activities MM TR.ANS-1 Less than -- would potentially create traffic impacts Significant with due to congestion from construction Mitigation vehicles(e.g.,construction trucks, construction worker vehicles,equipment, etc.)as well as temporary traffic lane and sidewalk closures. TRANS-2. Under Existing plus Project MM AQ-6 Significant and Existing plus condirions,the addirion of Project traffic MM TRANS-2 Unavoidable Project Impacts would exacerbate existing queuing and MM TRANS-3 peak hour traffic for automobiles, and poor MM TRANS-4 levels of service for pedestrians and MM TRANS-5 � bicycle modes of transportation,causing MM TRANS-6a transportation deficiencies in the Project MM TRANS-6b vicinity. MM TRANS-7 MM TRANS-8 MM TRANS-9 MM TRANS-10 MM TRANS-11 TRANS-3.Under Near-Term plus Project MM TRANS-2 Significant and Near-Term plus (Scenario 2)conditions,the addirion of MM TRANS-5 Unavoidable Project Impacts Project traffic would exacerbate existing MM TRANS-6a queuing and peak hour traffic for MM TRANS-6b automobiles and poor levels of service for MM TR.ANS-7 pedestrians and bike modes of MM TRANS-8 transportation,causing transportation MM TR.ANS-9 deficiencies in the Project vicinity. MM TRANS-12 MM TRANS-13 MM TRANS-14 MM TRANS-15 MM TRANS-16 MM TRANS-17 MM TRANS-18 I r Rr R rrn n 1.rc i n ��a rr�-�� 3.13-74 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13527 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-32. Summary of Project Impacts (Continued) � � TRANS-4.The Project would result in MM HAZ-4 Less than Emergency traffic safety impacts and inadequate MM TRANS-19� Significant with Vehicle Access emergency access and evacuation options, MM TRANS-20� Mitigation Impacts resulting in potential for structural damage, MM TRANS-21� injuries,or loss of life due to wildland fires or other emergency situations. TRANS-5. Onsite circulation would result MM TRANS-�422 Less than Access � in safety impacts to pedestrian and bicycle Significant with Management access. Mitigation Assessment TRANS-6. Under long-term Cumulative MM TRANS-2 Less than Cumulative plus � plus Project conditions,Project-generated MM TRANS-8 Significant with Project Impacts traffic would result in a cumulatively MM TRANS-9 Mitigation considerable contribution to traffic for MM TRANS-12 automobiles and poor levels of service for MM TRANS-13 pedestrians and bike modes of MM TRANS-14 transportation,causing transportation MM TRANS-16 deficiencies in the Project vicinity. MM TRANS-18 n�rn�r�rn n�.rC �c MM TRANS-23� MM TRANS-24� MM TRANS-25�$ rRrR rrn n1.rc �n rr��r�a-rr�v-z.� rRrR rrn n1.rc �n rrinrrrarr�v-�v 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 far 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-75 Final EIR 13528 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 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. lOL 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 3.13-76 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13529 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-1 The Applicant shall prepare a Constr�uction 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 Ap�licant shall coordinate with SLO Re�ional Rideshare for the development o the Plan. 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 g�eatest extent practicable; • Ensure safety for both those construction vehicles and works and the surrounding community�� • Prevent substantial tr�uck traffic through residential neighborhoods� and.- • Provide st�ate�ies to reduce single-occupancv vehicle trips made by resident and emplovees. The Construction Transportation Management Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Public WoNks Director to ensure that the Plan has been designed in accordance with this mitigation measure. The �plicant shall identi�'j� a point of contact to coordinate Plan implementation. 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 Constr�uction Transportation Management Plan for woNk 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-77 Final EIR 13530 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Project's constr�uction activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian and traffzc flow and the measures to address these disr�uptions. 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.Ioaquin 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. Wo�k shall generally be pe�formed between 8:30 AM and 4:00 PM. This work includes dirt hauling and construction material delivery. Work within the public�ight-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 Wo�ks Department depending on particular constr�uction 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 PNoperty Permit. • Provision of off-street parking for constr uction workers, which may include the use of a Nemote location with shuttle transport to the site, if determined necessary by the City. • Where construction activities require closure of bike lanes or sidewalks alon�LOVR, teinpo�ary bicvcle and pedestrian pathwavs shall be provided where feasible with phvsical separation provided between users and adiacent vehicle tra�'f c consistent with Public Works requirements. Project Coordination Elements That Shall Be Implemented Prior to Commencement of ConstNuction: 3.13-78 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13531 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • The traveling public shall be advised of impending constr�uction 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 constr�uction 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 wo�k. 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. • Construction tra�'fc plans, routes, and schedules shall be shared with the Citv Active Transportation Committee, Countv Public Works Department (for distribution to the Countv Bicvcle Adviso� Committee), the Los Verdes Park 1 and 2 Homeowners Associations, and local bicvcle advocac��s, such as Bike SLO Countv and the SLO Bicycle Club. 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. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-79 Final EIR 13532 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 signifzcant 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 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 15�8 to 161�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. 3.13-80 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13533 3 Q'cO�,PpPo � �� ' SCALE IN FEET 4%(4%) �p� _ 101 5%(5%) 0 2,500 11%(11% OOOO 3 18%(18% OOO d�2 0�0 , �0 - o _ . ___�� - o - . _ - 0000000 � - _ 00 _�� - _ _ � `• �: - � _ - _ _ . 3 �a �-_'�'Lr- 3 � � _-� � 11%(11% +� r � a. t _ _ � ) 1 0 ❑ �y�` � t +_ ti � DO \�� ,� l_t':��17(l... ^ � � ._. .. .... � � L.lI�iC' L � �� ❑ PRFFGMo CANY0N9 2 si�2i� r��sio� � ' �ssi� �A D 1/(1/) 3 1 0%(1 0% 1 • ' ' O oi 2� D O�� O 2 3 �� oQ(o - � � � ��o o O `� o MP '2 0 _ _� � ' ��r�� 0 �� _ 2%(2%) 2� / (12%1 � G 5%(5%) Zo(r� PRADO�OAD � 2 3%(3%) 1��09 �� O DO � � �� ti � �� 2 �"��o� �o� O� 8/8/0) TANK FARM ROAD LEGEND � 0 Project Site ` � �� B�B CHEVRON 0 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area 2�0�2�) � SAN LUIS OBISPO � TANK FARM Q# Study Intersection and Number mo O Intersection Exceeds Queuing Capacity I D _ Z U.S. �O1 C� VENTURE 0,y�/,(��o) Project Trip Distribution-Existing%(Cumulative%) m DR. Operates at �I , r Prado Road Widening LOS D - � � � Future Road - m � BUC LEY'R D � Bus Route and Number �V�`� � 2%(2%) O Bus Stop � �� ,o C'rcc�` -� . -- 0 City of San Luis Obispo �� m '� � � �� _ � _ 0 San Luis Obispo County �' p � z Analyzed Road Segments' � � _� o � Unacceptable Auto Level of Service �c o 'Based on PM and/or AM conditions;all other roadway segments in the Project vicinity operate at acceptable levels. Study Intersection A.M./P.M.Peak Hour Level of Service �� O AM:M Acceptable Auto Level of Service(A-D) 4 ��,,,, i .. _..�.�rq/o�7��1: • Unacceptable Auto Level of Service:(D)Caltrans 1p�,(12%, Roadways;(E-F)City Roadways wOOd. Existing Plus Project Traffic Impacts (2035) FIGURE 3. 13-2 13�3�3-81 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 ��r^�-�� ,�n*'�r^„�-'� �^° of the TIS (Appendix J). Existing Plus Project Impact Summary Intersection #10: LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps The Project would add 15 PM peak hour�automobile�Etrips to the SB ri hg t_turn movement at the LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps intersection, and would exacerbate the existing SB right-turn lane vehicular queues, which currently exceed capacity. Addition of the Project increases PM peak hour 95th percentile queues b��proximately one vehicle length at this turn pocket. The Project would also add 25 PM peak hour automobile trips to the WB ri�ht-turn movement,and would exacerbate the existin�off-ramp queuin�where queues currently exceed capaci _ and spill back from the shared through/ri�ht-turn lane turn pocket. Addition of the Project increases PM peak hour 95th percentile queues by less than one car length. , e�-�se��e-�e-��' �eEl . This automobile queuing impact would be potentially significant and occur at occupation of Madonna Froom RanchL,—though it would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-2 below. As rec�uested by Caltrans, a su�plemental analysis of traffic operations for intersections alon�LOVR between Calle Joaquin and South Hi�uera has been prepared and is provided for reference in A�endix M. This su�lemental analysis uses more recent traffic count data collected in Februar,y of 2020 and a�lies more sophisticated microsimulation tools �SimTraffic analysis software) for queuein_� analvsis in order to better reflect the complex interaction between the closel,�paced LOVR/Calle Joaquin and LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps intersections. The findin�s of the su�lemental analysis su�ort the miti ag tion recommendations described in MM TRANS-2 and confirm that with implementation of 3.13-82 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13535 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC these measures, the automobile c�ueuin� impact at this location would be reduced to less than si�nificant. 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). The Proiect would add two (2)AM and three (3)PM peak hour trips to the deficient intersection movement (WB left-turn from Vachell to S. Hi�) and Dr^;�^++r^��^ 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. The Prolect adds three(3)new PM peak hours automobile trips to the WB left-turn movement, which increases the 85th percentile queue bv a�roximatel,� car len�;th• 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 #I5: 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 queues and exceed the available turn pocket capacity. The Project does not add any vehicle trips to the SB left-turn movement,but adds vehicle trips to other intersection movements, which results in less available �reen time within the traffic si�nal cycle to serve the SB left- Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-83 Final EIR 13536 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC turn phase. The Project increases the PM peak hour 95th percentile queue by less than one vehicle len t�h. 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-6a and TRANS-6b. 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. The Prolect does not add anv vehicle trips to the NB or SB left-turn movements, but adds vehicle trips to other intersection movements, which results in less available �reen time within the traffic si ng al c, c� serve the NB and SB left-turn phases. The Project increases the peak hour 95th percentile �ueues at these movements bv less than one vehicle len�th• 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 fNom 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 IMM TRANS-9. 3.13-84 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13537 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Roadwav Se�ment#6.• LOVR {'�om U.S. 101 to South Hi�uera—Los T�erdes ParkAccess The segment of LOVR between the U.S. 101 interchange and South Higuera is projected to operate at acceptable auto, bike and transit LOS for Existin�plus Project, Near-Term plus Project and Cumulative plus Project study scenarios. Pedestrian LOS impacts were identified and are addressed via MM TRANS-8 and -9, as described above. However, because resident concerns have been raised with previous studies prepared for other projects in this vicinit�, additional analysis has been prepared to evaluate access to the Los Verdes Park residential driveways on this se�ment of LOVR. The Los Verdes Park 1 and 2 nei�hborhoods represent two Planned Unit Development subdivisions to the north and south of Los Osos Valley Road consistin� of over 175 individual parcels. Access to these private drivewa,�provided at the unsi�nalized intersection of LOVR/Los Palos/Los Verdes, located a�roximately 460 feet west of South Hi,�uera Street. While two auto lanes are provided alon�EB LOVR,the WB direction was striped with a one-lane confi,�uration for the specific purpose of improvin tg urning movement access to Los Verdes Drive for residents of Los Verdes Park nei�hborhood. Per an a�roved settlement a,greement between the Citv and the Los Verdes Parks Homeowners Association related to the now complete LOVR Interchan�provement Project, the WB direction of LOVR will be retained with one lane of travel for the foreseeable future until a second lane is needed due to the potential addition of a second SB ri�ht-turn lane or NB left-turn lane at the South Hi�uera/LOVR intersection. Other a�plicable rec�uirements of the LOVR Interchan�e settlement a,�reement include the followin�: • The City shall consider the LOVR/Buckley Road Bypass improvement as part of the next General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element(LUCE� o This was completed as part of the 2014 LUCE update. The outcome of this consideration resulted in the followin�policv adopted in Chapter 2, Table 5 of the Circulation Element: As �art of LOVR Creekside S�ecial Planning Area, the �ro�ect shall analvze im�acts of a new roadwav connection in some ef�'om LOVR to Hi�ueNa; and/or the Citv shall conduct a detailed subarea tra�c analvsis to determine final afeasibilitv of connectin� a roadwa�f�'om U.S. 101 to Hi�ueNa Street. Issues to be studied should include, but are not limited to Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-85 Final EIR 13538 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC impacts to: sensitive noise receptors, a�riculture operations, open space, creek, tra�'f c and biolo�ical resou�ces. " o No development a�lications have been received by the City for the LOVR Creekside Special Planning Area to date. • The Citv shall implement short-term measures to improve traffic conditions near the Los Verdes access point, includin,� elements such as addition of directional s�na_�e, di i�t�peed feedback signs, inclusion of raised curb medians, pedestrian countdown heads, and potential chan,�es at the Hi,�uera/LOVR si�nalized intersection. o These features were installed as part of the LOVR Interchange Project, including signage restricting right-turn on red for SB turns from Hi ue� ra to LOVR, installation of radar speed feedback si�ns on LOVR, directional si�nage,pedestrian countdown heads and a raised curb median at the LOVR/S. Higuera intersection. • The City shall measure traffic and noise levels in the vicinitv of Los Verdes Parks a�proximately 18 months following completion of the LOVR Interchan,�e. If levels are worse than anticipated the Citv shall identifv an,y additional feasible measures to reduce such levels. o A noise stud.�prepared in 2018 and revealed actual noise levels similar or slightly lower than predicted in the LOVR Interchan eg EIR. o A traffic volume comparison and si,gnal warrant analysis was prepared in 2018 and revealed that further intersection control up rades or traffic reduction measures were not warranted. • City shall include consideration of LOVR/S. Higuera intersection and LOVR/Los Verdes Parks Driveway intersection as part of the annual traffic safety_pro rag m for a period of 6 years followin_� completion of the LOVR Interchange project (completed 2016� o The Citv has included analvsis of all citvwide streets and intersections as part of the Annual Traffic Safetv Report, includin,� the identified intersection and roadway se�ments. Since completion of the LOVR interchan�published Traffic Safety Reports have not identified any consistent collision trends at these locations. 3.13-86 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13539 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC As part of a subsequent settlement a�reement between the City, Los Verdes Park, Preserve the SLO Life—a �roup of local residents—the Cit,v agreed to the followin� additional measures to address local traffic and noise concerns: • The City was required to update the Transportation Impact Fee Program to include fundin�for a future LOVR Bypass or similar project to reduce traffic congestion at the LOVR/S. Higuera intersection. o In 2018, the Cit,y Council adopted an update to the Transportation Impact Fee Pro,�ram which includes partial funding for intersection capacitX improvements at LOVR/S. Hi�uera. If future studies/plans recommend implementation of the LOVR Bypass project in lieu of widening the LOVR/S Hi�uera intersection, funds collected under the Fee Program would be eli�ible for use with the By�ass project. • The City was required to have studies prepared b.�ple independent traffic en in� eering consultants to study potential need for traffic control u�grades at the LOVR/Los Verdes/Los Palos intersection, includin� warrants for traffic si n� al or pedestrian hybrid beacon installation. o Traffic en ing eerin,g studies were subsequentl,y prepared bv TJKM and Omni-Means (GHD) usin� traffic data collected in 2018. The warrant anal,ysis conducted bv TJKM is provided in the technical a�pendices of FEIR A�endix J(Pro'ec� t TIS). The findin�s of both studies concluded that warrants were not met for si�nalization or installation of a pedestrian h,ybrid beacon at the Los Verdes access drivewav intersection with LOVR. The technical analvses indicated that auto, ped and bicvcle volumes enterin /eg xitin�the Los Verdes sites were not hi h� enou,gh to warrant traffic control up ades. Without si�nificant chan�es to land use or travel characteristics that would result in si,�nificant increases in in_r� ess/e_�ress volumes at the Los Verdes Park access points, traffic control up,�rades are unlikelv to be warranted in the future at this location, even as traffic volumes increase alon,g LOVR with addition of trips ,�enerated by the Proj ect and other future development. In addition to the abovementioned City requirements, the Los Verdes Park One Homeowners Association received funds from the Avila Ranch Development to construct additional noise-reducin�elements alon�their frontage. Based on the results of this Project Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-87 Final EIR 13540 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC transportation impact analvsis and abovementioned actions alreadv taken bv the Citv to address access concerns at the LOVR/Los Verdes Park access drivewavs, the Pro'e� ct's contribution to operational concerns at this location would be less than si,�nificant. 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 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 Traffzc 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. 3.13-88 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13541 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 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, thou�h would be reduced to less than si,�nificant bv the implementation of MM AQ-6..- Mitigation Measures MMAQ-6 shall apply. MM TRANS-2 The Proiect A�plicant shall desi�n and construct the extension of the southbound right-turn �ocket at the LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ram�s intersection to �rovide a stora�e len th�of at least 1 SO efeet. In coordination with the A�plicant, the Citv and Caltrans shall also im�lement tra�fzc signal coordination between the LOVR/Calle .Ioaquin intersection and adjacent U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ram�s and o�timize tra�'f c signal timin�s at these thNee intersections. In addition, the A�plicant shall also�av a fair share miti a� tionefee towards the im�rovements that are rec�uired to be constructed bv the San Luis Ranch develo�ment at this intersection, which include extension of the southbound o�'f-Nam� throu�h/left-turn�ocket to�rovide a stora�e len�th of at least 320 feet. . , Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-89 Final EIR 13542 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC �c�ccf•��V A�v ccc7ci✓��icc�ccc,f•�cc�•ei�c�V A/T 7 O 1/1 1 � ,,s7 l.,,,,,,.,7 , T{' �j . 7'�2 ZS mitigation measure requires Caltrans approval and coo�dination. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to g�recordation of the final VTM for subdivision of the Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the Applicant shall submit a Public Street Improvement Plan for roadway improvements at the southbound ri_ght- turn pocket and a Traffic Engineering Study �with signal timing recommendations for review and�implementation by the City and Caltrans. Payment of fair share mitigation fees shall be provided prior to first buildin�permit issuance for Madonna Froom Ranch development, while construction of a�plicable improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of first certificate of occupancy 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-3 The Project Applicant shall pav a fair share miti a� tion fee towards the im�rovements to be constNucted bv the Avila Ranch develo�ment�roiect, which include the followin� � left�_ turn� restrictions at the South Higuera Street/Vachell Lane ��intersection, �c-extension o a'Buckley Road from Vachell Lane to South Higuera Street, and installation o a traffic signal at Buckley Road/South Higuera Street intersection. If the Bucklev Road Extension has not been completed prior to the Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the A�plicant shall be responsible for desi�n and installation of alternate measures to miti�ate 3.13-90 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13543 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC the Proiect's proportional sha�e ofintersection impacts to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Alternative measures mav include installation of a center refu�e on S. Hi�uera to allow two-sta�e le t turns from T/achell, installation o{' left-turn restrictions at South Hi�uera/Tlachell if the planned Earthwood Lane street connection between T�achell and Suburban has been completed, or si�nalization of the S. Hi�uera/T�achell intersection. Miti�ation mav rec�uire Countv coordination.�—�;T��e��t�'"�� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of building�ermits for each development phase, the A�licant shall provide a prorated fair share contribution towards the South Higuera/Vachell and Buckle.� improvements per the terms established in the Avila Ranch Private Reimbursement Agreement. If the Buckley Road Extension has not been completed byo uthers prior to issuance of first building,�permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the A�licant shall design and construct alternate mitigation measures to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy for Madonna Froom Ranch. ' � . , 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 pav a fair share miti a� tionefee towards im�rovements to be constr�ucted bv the Avila Ranch develo�ment, which include Nestriping of the westbound approach of the Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-91 Final EIR 13544 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC South Higuera Street/Suburban Road inte�section to extend the left- and right-turn pocket storage to 250 feet. If� ��*� �*,�,�*�� *��•*�� *��'� � ��* � �*�.planned improvements have not vet been completed prior to issuance o building�ermits for the Madonna F�oom Ranch development, the A�plicant shall be responsible e� installation o the stripin�improvements. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to � the issuance of� building permits for Madonna Froom Ranch development, the A�licant . , � shall provide a fair share contribution towards the intersection stripin� improvements. If the planned improvements have not yet been completed by others prior to issuance of building�ermits for Madonna Froom Ranch development,the applicant shall be responsible for installation of the intersection striping improvements prior to issuance of first certificates of occupancy for�e� 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-S The Project A�plicant shall �av a fair share miti a� tion efee towards bicvcle im�rovements at South Hi�uera/Tank Farm to be constructed bX the Avila Ranch develo�ment, which include extendin� the westbound bike lane on Tank Farm Road to the South Hi�uera Street/Tank Farm Road intersection and installation of a bike box (with loo� detection) to facilitate bicvcle left-tuNn movements. Fair share contribution is satisf ed throu h��artici�ation in the Citvwide Trans�ortation Im�act Fee pro r� am• I{'the planned bicvcle improvements have not vet been completed prior to development of the Villag�io Lower A�ea, the A�plicant shall be 3.13-92 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13545 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC responsible for desi�n and installation of the bicvcle improvements.� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of buildin� permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements throu�h pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. If the planned improvements have not yet been completed by others prior to issuance of first building permits for Villa�io's Lower Area development, the A�plicant shall be responsible for design and installation of the bicycle improvements prior to first occupancy_permits for the Villaggio Lower Area development. nzv�[v �l�iccvicr&�i�l7rttiC �;,�•,l �7Tl�iT �,- .a�c�.l�nz�cvi .,«,r ��'-iiiz'�g�l{�--��v=d��tYi��c'�tttG�ttCz`��ii�ll „1-.,Y,;� D„l.l;.. Circc� T,V,,,,-.,.,o,�,o,,� Dl�„ �,- ,- „,a ., ..,1 b.., �L,o !-';�., T,�,,.10,„0,,�.,�;.,,, �l,.,ll l,o .. ,�lo�v,a ,� ,- �., �l,o ; .,�., o,-�;f;�.,�o .,�., 1„,;1�€�ii�ic�ivi�niug�(�--��v=vv�i'€��z�Opni�i�i ��e�e��Ee��-�ee��t�e�t�e��t� �,. �;��o �,. ., �;,. ��,��c-e��t3e�ie��s�s�'�'�cv „� i,,,;�a;,,,. ,.,Y,;�� ,-��;ii.,,.,.;,,�� r „ ,- n,-o., ao.,oi,,,,,,,o„� 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-6a The Project A�plicant shall pav fair share miti at�fees towards intersection improvements to be constructed bv the Avila Ranch development, which include installation of a second southbound le t-turn lane at the South Hi�uera St�eet/Tank Farm Road intersection. FaiN sha�e cont�ibutions are satis aed throu�participation in the Citvwide Transportation Impact Fee pro r� am. Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-93 Final EIR 13546 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC If installation of dual southbound left-turn lanes has not been completed prior to Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the A�plicant shall coordinate with the Citv to retime the t�a�'fic si�nal at South Hi�uera/Tank Fa�m to miti�ate the Project's propoNtional contribution to c�ueueing impacts.��,.,��1�-��,.,,. ,,.a �*,.�� a t,M,�.• *� a n ir, t,,,,�� • cc^�tB32— —cfl ��G�—v=v ci�Srlfccc�-crca-rcg-c�v^f . Plan Requirements and Timin�. Prior to the issuance of buildin� permits for each development phase, the A�licant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti�ation improvements throu�h payment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. If the planned South Higuera/Tank Farm intersection improvements have not _yet been completed by others prior to issuance of first building permits for Madonna Froom Ranch development,the A�plicant shall submit a Traffic En ing eering Study with signal timin� recommendations for review and implementation by the Cit�prior to issuance of first certificates of occupancy for Madonna Froom Ranch development. �' � � , � 3.13-94 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13547 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 1, ' ' ,.f' 1.,,;1,a'„ �� ,- 3n� �urr �0�s3cTc`�C� "�cu ,ao.,ol,.v.,�,o,��,�1,.,�0 Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant pays fair share costs in accordance to the approved phase and design plans. MM TRANS-6b The P�oiect A�licant shall pa�fair shaNe costs for construction o the P�ado Road Ove�pass/Interchan�proiect. Fair share contributions a�e satisfied throu�h pa�ticipation in the Citvwide Transportation Impact Fee pro r� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements throu�h pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees Monitoring. The City shall verify that the A�licant pavs fair share costs in accordance to the a�roved phase and design plans. MM TRANS-7 The Pro�ect A�plicant shall�av a fair share miti a� tion fee towards the intersection im�rovements to be constructed bv the Citv at the South Hi�uera/Prado inteNsection, which includes installation of a second northbound left-turn lane, a second southbound left-turn lane, a second eastbound throu�h lane, bicvcle ��otected intersection afeatures, tra�fzc si.�nal modifzcations, and widenin�of the adiacent Prado Road Creek Bridge west of South Hi�uera. Fair share contributions efor both im�rovements are satisfed throu h��artici�ation in the Citvwide TNans�ortation Im�act Fee�ro rg am• Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of buildin� permits for each development phase, the A�licant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti,�ation improvements throu�h pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees.Dr;^r+^ Tr^a;rT ^„a r ^ra^+;^r Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-95 Final EIR 13548 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 0�tttG�r1�£t�-tl-Y��a�F��Opnz�i� „r-vi r�viR�vl�n., L�',-,,,,,„ v� C�i� tttG �icz93��ii"�uzi-�=civrrr'r "c-c Drru"1'v�ii�a�@�+i�pivv�ii��i+ D�T�zi�z'H� ,�,� i.., t�e r-',�n�e�e��t�e��e�i��ie��e t�e n��c�i�e�=�e��e�e��e��t�e��c�s �-�r-t�e�k��e�i�e�c�e�s--orT�e�e��€ „�� ., rio�oa � ,-t,., „�t,v,-� �t,v nr„i;,.,,,,� �t,.,ii ,�,.,vo � ^�� —s�i��Ee��ie�t#r�g�i��t�c��iei�ir�t�e�� T,.,,,,�,,,,,�„�;,,,, r.,,,..,,.� �vo „ ,. �„ ; „�i.,,;ia;�,. ., ,.,,,;�� ,-�t,o n�r.,a,.,,,,,, �,-,,,,�„ v,,,,,,t, ao.,oi,,,,�„or� Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Ap�licant pavs fair share costs in accordance to the a�proved phase and design plans. -r�,o�n�'-��e�i�t��t�e��,.,,,,��t�e ��e�e��sser�c��e t�e��,,a ,..�,,,�o � a ao�;� ,-,�.�,,�--� r�,-;�,,,�o� ., .,�o �;,. �t,.,,.o „ ,oa t,.,�t,o r;�., 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 vehiculaN traffzc 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. c-e��Some a� ps in�hvsical se�aration mav remain due to ri�ht_of-wax limitations or other design constraints. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to �-r��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�first certificates of occupancy^r'��'a�r�-��*� �for Villaggio's Lower Area development. Improvement costs exceeding the Project's proportional share may be eligible for �c�ea��e�e�� rip vate reimbursement. 3.13-96 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13549 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans� r�,-;�,,,�o� ., .,�o �;,. �t,.,,.o „ ,oa t,.,�t,o r;�., 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. This miti a� tion measure rec�uires Caltrans a�proval and coordinationefor im�rovements near the LOVR/U.S. 101 interchan�e• If Class IV bikewavs are not approved for se�ments within Caltrans right-of-wav, or are deemed infeasible for short se�ments due to other �eometric constraints, alternative treatments to im�rove �edestrian levels of service mav be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Potential alternative tNeatments include installation of stri�ed bike lane bu�'f'ers, street trees oN other efeatures that further bu�'fer�edestrians efNom street tra lc. „a;,,.,.*;�,,. �, ,,.f� , , rnTruirr r �n� ,,,.*�„��,. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to g�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 first �certificates of occupancy • � for Villaggio's Lower Area development. ' �;�'^„y^��N+� Applicable construction costs for improvements along LOVR between Calle Joaquin and Froom Ranch Way consistent with the planned Bob Jones Trail(Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire) Connection Project may be eligible for credits or reimbursement through the City's Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-97 Final EIR 13550 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Transportation Impact Fee pro�ram. Costs exceedin� the Pro�el ct's proportional share for improvements alon� other se�ments ma,v be eli�ible for private reimbursement onl� Monitoring. The City shall verify that the Applicant installs the improvements in accordance to the approved phase and design plans-e� .s. MM TRANS-10 The Project A�plicant shall pav fair share miti at�fees towards Madonna Road improvements to be constr~ucted bv the San Luis Ranch development, which include installation of a Class I Multi-Use Path parallel to Madonna Road between Oceanaire Drive and the U.S. 101 southbound ramps intersection. This proiect is in construction currentl� Fair sha�e cont�ibutions are satis ied th�ou h�pa�ticipation in the Citvwide TransportationlmpactFeepro r� am."''�� p,�;��' ''��;��,�'�� t��e�n-9e�a�c-��B�i-r�-��r r�n,�G,,t ,,.,a Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of buildin� permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti�ation improvements throu�h pavment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. ' . , , . , , � . , Monitoring. The City shall verify that the A�licant pavs fair share costs in accordance to the a�roved phase and design plans. T'�� '�*�� '��" �e�i�t��t�e��t��t�e�e�e��sEer�c��e t�e 3.13-98 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13551 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC o.a 1,.,�l,o !'';�., MM TRANS-11 The Project is responsible for incorporating traffzc 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. Tra ac calmin�measures shall be desi�ned to the satisfaction of the Citv Public Works and Fire De�artments. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to �-r��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 first �certificates of occupancy ^r '��'�'�NR „��*� 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. 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 -6a� and MM TRANS-7 through -ll, I 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-6b requires the completion of the Prado Road I 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 signifzcant and unavoidable. � Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-99 Final EIR 13552 Note:Extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera is part of the overall � �� r ' �' r��,�: �' `� mitigations strategy for South HigueraNachell Lane. ,�• 1 .� �'�; '� � �. "�`� `� ` C f � �' t�'✓,��c J/� ��; , . � . J.•; � �'I.� .�j � �� (` _ �. . ,,� �� • �J ��f �,.'*r� �- '+ / a��,,+' ' �`� 1:�:�'� a .�•. .� ;j - f .l ,, / � �. , '�,_ �.- "'"Y3}„ � �. ,n+x � �, /`.� � / :� � �� x` "'"`-Y� ;� . ,', // � � I �� j� ♦�� (y !/`!/`. %r� �.'_ - � i �� oR / � � '�� I �� `�,� � 5 �C, �",- � ?�;=; �� /s/� 4 � �: /... �*...��J; � � c , % ,.,.b ,a,_ ,� � a . � .,/ .� : �, .��_-{y �� / � � �. � Y. .��y��' . . A �' - - \ i� t �.� 1/� � . \ n'`'^�i. '``\/ \). ?.'� �� /' � n �� i 'W�t �: � \- /�� ..,�� \ �-' G. � -. :�V�.�r�3 ^1 �7 �7F ^_�Y". ' � Y ///--- �I ^�` � `'/� / : _.. �� `;- '. �_ � . _ 4': � / / � �� ,1�� _ L I,`I , .\ _ �\ J� . � ``' ,/ � '— ' - � '. � � � — � • � � ' �� _ � ' ,� 4.�� r " _ t r�`� . ` `� � �.'i��. �'� �' � � . ��,1< � -;'�-' - _ _. . •�^ �� / •► �^1 �:\` �r. - o� /' � ,. �i� ; ^� I.1 — �ti€.. ,?.' {r.�, � _ !_ �t�, . d �r �. /; ;'�� . ,/ r �r �CC„t� . . � �., �/ .�..��, an:. � . t' � t"� =�. � ��`` � � =� " �''� �7 . � � � ��,__ -..�� _� /,�; : �� , � . - :� � � � �, '� ! `:• // .� y��l, FO � r G�. FO 1 � , , �, � r�. -'� �� o so � � � o sa 7 � � • Aerial Source:Google 201 Z �? 7 � ` Aerial Source:Google 2017. FEET � � '� aY � FEET °• e 'L'° ' ' � � '� I � 0 � �l �' � � a szs '�I .h `��y 'r�r.�n�'�y.� � o so '"I � ,�j �� • A � • , J�•j�� ; Aerial Source:Google 2017. . . +��. � �,�� ` Aerial Source;Google 2017. v � ��„� �� h,tiyx-' ,,t...� f ;�: ,c> ,:i B w�� '�'�.I 0 D„ �Il, _ � �'�� r� ' - `ti �'�' ) � C, " 0 � ��/ C> J� ,�, ��.. �. ��- `"'�r'r��;:�' R' , , q..,�� - ,!� ati � � �ry •, -+�j � • . ' ��/ _, � �„ r `7 � �_, :. �� _ � F` 4 J ;pP 9 � - / �.. !�� j� o " � r 1� (I '�' � � ,``� " � '�`, �`� � �� `. _ i� a.- �; � �v�r "''� y . • .`•� //'�� ,�T �„' �i 4f r ��rr�� ;� A ` � - � _ �'�,�7� � ! F�� '"�- � .�. �. ` ` /� ��{�^o.. .��, �''•,,� � �� ,y ��/._ .�/�;`,�` ' �� . . � �,`�i� ,:7 r��,�� i � ��/� `. .. . ,; ��. \ � Y' y 1 �\�` . � � '� � . � .... , . . � �� . . : � \.. �„ �� , �. � .-_` 2n \ �w' ..�;:: : .. .... . . _' . � �• � --t.� �r �/� - �/ ,, � ^ (�;��'�`. f.:� • / ��(��lJ. i J/�� .J � �1.:`� � " -� '':v��g'.�" /� ' .<�� : ,�r ' ,�{�,�,��, _ �`^`+t A A . �r ° �. �,p� �� f �. , r`. ,y.r r�- r,,.. = Y _- �i�. �� _ �'.i ;' � � .i � Q'•-;. C��/� ,�43 LL�� .J;��` .!i..� . .�� :L_ � q; i , �� _. f .' — .' ^' i � � fr :� s� ;� - � ��: � _ � y,....f ,, ��'�, ;��` . �: - — ,; , _ �y _ � � �� i �ri .r.r•'.-..—i f �� '!� � , �y. � p:y.: ' :. s _rt:r x � . _ :'%� Note:Project is either constructing improvements directly or contributing _:_ ` "� " � �,�� ;'�:�� • - =''�: � fair share a ments towards improvements through City transpor- '" � tation impact fees or project-specific fair share mitigation fees. , � Partial List of Applicant Funded City Improvements to WOO�. Transportation Network– Intersections 13, 14, 15, and 16 FIGURE [depicted improvements are not representative of final design plans, 3. 1 e3-3 and may be constructed in conjunction with other projects in the area] 3.13-100 13553 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-33. Existing Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary Intersection#10: LOVR/ Development of Less than U.S. 101 SB Ramps Madonna Froom Auto(Queue) TRANS-2 Significant with Ranch Mitigation Intersection#13: South Development of Less than Higuera Street/Vachell Madonna Froom Auto TRANS-3 Significant with Lane Ranch Mitigation Intersection#14: South Development of Less than Higuera Street/Suburban Madonna Froom Auto(Queue) TRANS-4 Significant with Road Ranch Mitigation Development of TRANS-5 Less than Villaggio Lower Bicycle Significant with Intersection#15: South �ea Mitigation Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road Development of Madonna Auto(Queue) TRANS-6a Significant and I Froom Ranch TRANS-6b Unavoidable Intersection#16: South Development of Less than Higuera Street/Prado Road Madonna Froom Auto(Queue) TRANS-7 Significant with Ranch Mitigation Roadway Segments#1 and #2: LOVR from Prefumo Development of Less than Canyon Road to Oceanaire Villaggio Lower Pedestrian TRANS-8 Significant with Drive and from Oceanaire Area Mitigation Drive to Madonna Road Roadway Segments#3,#4, Development of Less than #5 and#6: LOVR from Villaggio Lower Pedestrian TRANS-9 Significant with Madonna Road to South Area Mitigation Higuera Street Roadway Segment#11: Development of Less than Madonna Road from LOVR Villaggio Lower Pedestrian TRANS-10 Significant with to Dalidio Drive Area Mitigation Development of Neighborhood Less than Local Road"A" Villaggio Lower Traffic TRANS-11 Significant with Area Management 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. Roadway widening for pedestrian or bicycle circulation infrastructure along LOVR, as required per MM TRANS-8 and TRANS-9, may result in secondar.�pacts on biological resources. The design of the proposed improvements would result in an estimated 19,300 s�cuare feet (sf� of additional�avement area eXtending into the Project site, resultin ig n an estimated 18,425 sf of disturbance to the wetlands and riparian habitat located within the Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-101 Final EIR 13554 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC existin,g LOVR ditch and Calle Joaquin wetlands. Based on the total area of disturbance associated with widenin� 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)-. Implementation of MM BIO-5 requiring mitigation of direct impacts to wetlands at a 2:1 ratio would reduce the si,�nificance of this secondarv impact to less than si�nificant with miti at� ion (see Section 3.4, Biolo�ical Resou�ces� 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 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 Proj ect 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 221�-9 to 224� 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 Proj ect conditions. These include automobile impacts at eight locations, bicycle and pedestrian related impacts at 3.13-102 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13555 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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/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, 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 C��Applicant would need to be I 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/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. ��_These �e�i�c�, pedestrian, and bicycle impacts would be potentially signifzcant and occur at occupancy of Villaggio's Lower Area, and would remain significant and unavoidable with the implementation of MM TRANS-�6b and MM TRANS-13, �'��'� 'rn n�.Tc i�� ,,,,,a ��r��r rrn n�.rc i� After implementation of the Prado Interchan,�e, as recommended in MM TRANS-6b, Project-added vehicular traffic would exacerbate unacceptable queuin,� issues for the SB left-turn movement at the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection durin� the AM peak hour. The Project does not add anv vehicle trips to the SB left-turn movement, but adds vehicle trips to other intersection movements, which results in less available ,�reen time within the traffic si_n� al cycle to serve the SB left-turn phase. The Project increases the SB left-turn PM peak hour 95th percentile queue by less than one vehicle len�th. This queueing impact Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-103 Final EIR 13556 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC would be potentiallv si�nificant and occur at occupancy of Villag�io's Lower Area,though would be reduced to less than si,�nificant bv the implementation of MM TRANS-�17. Intersection #10: LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps The Project would add 15 PM peak hour automobile trips to the SB ri�ht-turn movement at the LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps intersection, and would exacerbate the existing SB ri�ht- turn lane vehicular queues, which exceed capacit,v with and without the Project. Addition of the Proiect increases PM peak hour 95th percentile queues bv a little less than two vehicle len�ths at this turn pocket. The Project would also add 25 PM peak hour automobile trips to the WB ri,�ht-turn movement,and would exacerbate the existin�off-ramp queuin� �ueues spill back from the shared throu�h/ri�ht-turn lane turn pocket with and without the Project. Addition of the Proiect increases PM peak hour 95th percentile queues at the off- ramp bv less than one car length. n��E�-a��t�^��t�a��^ �T�^��'a �m„^��t�re� ng��-�k�e�tte�te—i��t�e�o.,v�,,,,,,. ., ;�c�e�-�Ee��t�e�� ,. „�;�o�,,,�,;,,,. ��e�e��_�� e�E��t�e��t{tr�oc�e�c-a�c�t�The�se automobile queuing impacts 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-6b. As requested by Caltrans, a su�lemental analysis of traffic operations for intersections along LOVR between Calle Joaquin and South Hi�uera has been prepared and is provided for reference in A�endix M. This su�lemental analysis uses more recent traffic count data collected in February of 2020 and a�lies more sophisticated microsimulation tools (SimTraffic analysis software) for queuein_� analysis in order to better reflect the complex interaction between the closel�paced LOVR/Calle Joaquin and LOVR/LT.S. 101 SB Ramps intersections. The findin�s of the su�plemental analysis su�port the miti ag tion recommendations described in MM TRANS-2; however, the findin�s described above remain—the automobile queuing impacts would remain significant and unavoidable until completion of the Prado Road Interchange. Intersection #1 S: 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 3.13-104 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13557 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-144�5 � 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. The Project does not add any vehicle trips to the SB left-turn movement, but adds vehicle trips to other intersection movements, which results in less available green time within the traffic si ng al cycle to serve the SB left-turn phase. The Project increases the SB left-turn PM peak hour 95th percentile queue b��roximately two vehicle lengths. The Project adds 10 AM and 10 PM peak hour trips to the northbound right-turn movement, increasing peak hour 95th percentile queues by less than one vehicle length• These� automobile queuing impacts would be potentially signifzcant and occur at occupancy of Madonna Froom Ranch, and would remain significant and unavoidable with the implementation of MM TRANS-15�i-�TRANS-6a and TRANS-6b. I 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. The Project does not add any vehicle trips to the NB or SB left-turn movements, but adds vehicle trips to other intersection movements, which results in less available �reen time within the traffic signal cycle to serve the NB and SB left-turn phases. The Project increases the peak hour 95th percentile queues for the NB left-turn movement by less than one vehicle length, and the SB left-turn movement by a little less than two vehicle len tg hs. This automobile queuing impact would be potentially signifzcant and occur at occupancy of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-�7. � 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. The Project does not add any vehicle trips to the WB right- turn movement, but adds vehicle trips to other intersection movements, which results in less available green time within the traffic si ng al cycle to serve the WB a�proach. The Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-105 Final EIR 13558 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Project increases the peak hour 95th percentile queues for the WB ri�ht-turn movement by less than one vehicle len_t� h. 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-6b. Intersection #19: Madonna Road/Dalidio DNive IWith completion of the Prado Road interchan�e, as recommended in MM TRANS-6b, Project-added automobile traffic would exacerbate the EB right-turn queue during both the AM and PM peak hours �t��e�use�b��t�3e�� „� „*�'� *��rn�r�- � � N* ��and exceed the available turn pocket capacity. The Prolect does not add anv vehicle trips to the EB ri�ht-turn movement,but adds vehicle trips to other intersection movements, which results in less available �reen time within the traffic si n� al cvcle to serve the EB a�proach. The Prolect increases the peak hour 95th percentile queues for the EB ri ng t-turn movement bv less than one vehicle len_�th. 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-18�9. 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 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-6b�-4. Roadway Segments#1 and#2:LOVR fNom 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 Proj ect 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. 3.13-106 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13559 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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#S: LOVR f�om 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-2 and TRANS- 16k�. Mitigation Measures MM TRANS-2 shall apply. MM TRANS-S shall apply. MM TRANS-6a shall apply. MM TRANS-6b shall applv. MM TRANS-7 shall applv. MM TRANS-8 shall apply. MM TRANS-9 shall apply. MM TRANS-12 In coordination with the Countv, the Proiect A�plicant shall pav ae air share miti at� ion e ee for costs to constr~uct the e ollowin� future imp�ovements at the LOVR/Foothill Boulevard intersection: widen no�thbound a�roach to provide one left-turn, two throu�h, and one ri�ht-turn lane; widen westbound a�proach to provide one left-turn lane, one sha�ed throu�h/ri�ht-turn lane, and one ri�ht-turn lane. Additional improvements include roadwav stripin� and tra�'fic si� modif cations needed to accommodate new lane con�i�u�ations. This Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-107 Final EIR 13560 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC miti�ation measure rec�uires Countv a�roval and coordination. �t Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to recordation of the final VTM for development of Villaggio's Lower Area, the A�licant shall submit preliminarv intersection improvement plans for review and a�proval bX the Count. ,Y with plans developed to a level of detail sufficient to provide an engineer's estimate of probable construction costs, includin�r�ight- of-wa_y acquisition if needed). Fair share miti�ation fees for these improvements shall be paid to the County prior to issuance of first certificates of occupancy development of Villa�gio's Lower Area.� . , � . , Monitorin�. The City shall verify that the A�licant has provided a�plicable desi n�plans and contributes an a�ropriate fair share miti�ation fee to the satisfaction of the Count��''��';*�,�'��" ��r;�,*'��* t�3e�� „e��e�e��t�e�e�e��sEer�c��t�e ,oa .,�,.,�o .,ra ao�;,.��,,,,� „ „�,.;�.,,,�v� ., .,�o�;,.��,,,,.o �,. ��,v �.,�;��,.�;,.,, „��,o r,,,,��., MM TRANS-13 In coordination with the A�plicant, the Citv shall retime the tra�fic si,�nal at LOVR/Madonna to im�lement Lead Pedestrian Intervals efor each �edestNian crossin��phase. r nvAin.rr,a�,�,�r p�r,a;,,.�.,,��.,�t;.,,,. 3.13-108 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13561 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to the issuance of first buildin� permits for the Villag�io Lower Area development phase, the City shall implement the si,�nal timin,� modifications.n��i� r�Ee��ie�-��t�e �;,,�,i ��Tn�r �,. a e�=�ne�+ ^��e� A,-o., �l,o A,-.,-.1;...,,,��l,.,ll �„1.,�,;��T,-.,f'�;..�'„�.;,,00,-;,,..C�,,,a.,;,ao,,�;�,;,,.. � ,,.7o,a � .,1 �;,ti,;,�.. ,�,,..7;�;...,�;.,,,� �,- ,- ,,,a ., ,.,1 1�.., t�3e �''��zr�'rc pivpe$@��ez'�E�e��nr�e�c`�`�s"sn"�ui�'vc�irst�e�t'�-"pr"'�r^vr ��s�=dz'li�Cz-^vn`�6�ti�E-&��AEE�k�3C�, ,,,- 1-.,,;la;,,,. ,-, ,�1 '�^vr �7;11.,�.�.;,.�� T ., ,- A,-o� ,ao.,ol,.,,,�,o„� Monitoring. The City shall verify that the signal timin� modifications are implemented in accordance to the a�roved project phase.�e-C� p,�,. e�s�I-�t-��e��t�-�to;�f��,,,,,,.a rr r �n,T �� r��-�iv^iri�=m=�n��-c c��r�'i•,lur��`P�ir�`��iir�ttlG��ri^cc`� E6ircr'rl'vu�S--c`�ii .,�o �;,.�t,.,,.o „ ,oa t,.,��,o r;�., MM TRANS-�14 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-109 Final EIR 13562 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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-�1 S The P�oiect A�plicant shall pay {'air share miti a� tion fees towards extension of the northbound ri�ht-tu�n pocket stora�e at the South Hi�uera/Tank Farm Road inte�section to 230e eet. Improvements are to be constructed bv the San Luis Ranch Development or as a Citv-led capital improvement proiect. Fair share contributions are satis aed throu h�participation in the Citvwide Transportation Impact Fee pro r� am. �, ��,. ,,.f,,;�,,,.;,,,,. *�,. ,�a� ,,.t � �*., Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of buildin� permits for each development phase, the A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the mitigation improvements through payment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. � , , . , , Monitorin�. The Cit,v shall verify that the A�licant pavs its fair share fees.-ri,o r�;�., ��,,,ii . ,.;�, �t,.,� ��,v n�ri;,,.,�� ;,,��„ii� ��,o ; „�� 3.13-110 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13563 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .,,-.a.,,,�o �., �l,o ., 0.7 „1,.,�0 �,,.a ao�;..,, v.l.,,,� ., „�,-;1,,,�0� ., .,�o �;,.�t,.,,.o „ ,oa t,.,��,o r;�., � � � � � -r�,o r,•��n�'�e�i��t�e��,.,,,,��s��t�e „�� ; ,,,.a„r„o�„ ��,o ., ,oa r�,,,�o .,,,a ao�;,.,, ��,,,,� „ ,��,-;1.,,�0� ., .,�0 4'�;,- �1�.,,-o � 0,7 1�...�L,o r-�;�., MM TRANS-�16 In coordination with the Citv and Caltrans, the Pro�e� ct A�plicant shall fund costs required to o�timize tra�f c signal timings alon� the LOVR coNridor between Descanso Street and the South Hi�uera to im�Nove tra�c coordination and o�erations alon�this roadwav se�ment. These intersections include LOVR/Descanso, LOVR/Roval, LOVR/La�una, LOVR/Madonna, LOVR/Froom Ranch, LOVR/Auto Park, LOVR/Calle Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-111 Final EIR 13564 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Joaquin, LOVR/U.S. 101 southbound ramps, LOVR/U.S. 101 northbound ramps and LOVR/S. Hi�uera. This requires coordination with Caltrans. '�-��i-o�t� �'��C-a'�� r r n vA ir r r �n� t z��9"'��r ,a ��rrA ir r r �n� �r�—��,-�-v-�-r�-�-c,-i—�cr t��s—circ� �rr fte��t�s��e�i��C��c=�i-t�c-C-c�-�t-�c-,� Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of first buildin� permits for development of Villa�gio Lower Area, the A�plicant shall submit a Traffic En ing eerin� Stud_y identifying recommended si_�nal timing modifications for review and a�proval by the City and Caltrans. Si�nal timing implementation shall be completed by the City and Caltrans. � Monitoring. The Citv shall verifv that the A�licant submits the required Traffic En ing eering Study��'.,'�^'-��e�i�t��t�e �n�t��t�e�e�e��sEer�c��e t�e�� r1,,,�o a ao�;�p rl.�•�--e�ce�ttt�� . ��c�r�nz�s b' N""' o.a 1-...�b,o !'';�.. MM TRANS-�17 The Proiect A�plicant shall �av a efaiN share miti ag tion afee to efund restri�in� modif cations at the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection to increase southbound turn �ocket stora�e to 365 feet. ��ee-� 3.13-112 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13565 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC �, �7,. ,,.s,.;l,,,r;,,,,. r�,,. ,.,,1� ,,.t � �r., Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of first buildin� permits for the Villag�io Lower Area development phase,the A�licant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti ag tion improvements. Improvements to be installed by the City as part of regular si_�nin� and stripin� improvements. � , , . , , Monitorin�. The Cit,v shall verify that the A�licant pavs its fair share fees and that adequate fundin� is collected to implement these improvements.��-r'..'��'-��e�i�t��t�e��t��t�e „�� ; ,,,.a„r„o�„ ��,o ., ,oa r�,,,�o .,,,a ao�;,.,, ��,,,,� „ ,��,-;1.,,�0� ., .,�0 4'�;,- �1�.,,-o � 0,7 1�...�L,o r-�;�., MM TRANS-�918 The Proiect A�plicant shall �av a efair share miti ag tion afee to efund modifzcations to the tra�c si�nal at the Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive intersection to �rovide an eastbound ri�ht-turn overla� �hase concurrent with the northbound left-tuNn�hase. Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to the issuance of first buildin� permits for the Madonna Froom Ranch development phase, the Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-113 Final EIR 13566 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC A�plicant shall provide a fair share contribution towards the miti a� t� improvements. Improvements to be implemented bv the Citv as part of its on�oin,� traffic operations improvement pro,�ram or installed in conjunction with other intersection modifications to be constructed bX the San Luis Ranch development project.��e ��i�� r�EA�£��ieii$��e��ci��i�a�r ro�R�F=�ii�i� ,.��.7,�,„,., L�',-.�.�,,, rDc£�C�i� �3P��i�iicc"rift�tl"�x�v�"rzr�ravii�a�@��prv��H}�i+Drriirir vr r�F'i�•,, •,,"� •, ,•,1 1-••, � /_',�niFi�ii��1��1�3"�zai v�E6iir�icccc piz^v��6 �i2�S�'�C� ,•z-vi c'�i�AEE�3C•, b•,,;1,�;,,,• •,�l�i+�� n�T.,.a�.,„,., �',-.,.,,�,D.,,,..1, ao..ol.,,,.,ti,o„� T,V,,,,-.,.,o,v,o„�...,�� o o.a;,,..�l,o Div^f@E�S-�3�9}3Af�i6ii��-S�3 ,- L•� �i�z^v�i@�E�e'�'�0� r�11�2virr3�13�1��cvir.s�lcc��-S6vii"cr v�vttte""�rriiC�&�6irzi�tttC (''�„��'sp^vr+c&�6�pii6�€�3�6�1 ` ';1�rttiG�r^vJcE�S �;,- �1,.,,-v �;,,.,,,..;.,1 .,1-.1;�..,�;.,,, D.,.,,„o„� .,�!-ti�.. T,-.,,,�,-..,,-�.,�;.,,, T,,,,-..,..� �'oo� �l,.,ll l.o ,- ,-o.a ,. ,- ��, , .,� 1,,,;1.a;,�.. ,� ,-,�,;�� ,- o ..1, .a o..vl.,.,,�,o„�„l,.,�o Monitoring. The City shall verify that the A�plicant pavs its fair share fees and that adequate funding is collected to implement these improvements. Residual Impacts �E�ht �of the identified impacts would be less than significant with mitigation while seven s�impacts would be unavoidable and significant (see Table 3.13-34). With implementation of MM TRANS-2, -5, -8, -9, -13, and -�-14 through -�9-18, impacts under Near-Term plus 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 . . . 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 could not be implemented, impacts would be signifzcant and unavoidable. Similarly, implementation of MM TRANS-6b �4, ,��requires the completion of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project, which cannot be ensured rip or to 3.13-114 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13567 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC occupancv of�this Project. While MM TRANS-2, -6a, -13, and -15 would miti_gate Project-related impacts to the maximum extent feasible, seven impacts �",�'��a� ae�z�ne�1� „��a,-.,,,,,, �,-,.,.,�, v� �� int,,,�o n� n�r� rrv n�.rc i n „�Te�� . , ��c�s-z�e��p�i��a �r� � �trt��-e��e�e�e�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 � � Intersection#1: Development of LOVR/Foothill Villaggio Lower Auto(Queue) TRANS-12 Significant and Boulevard Area Unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Development of TRANS-134 Villa A ea�W�r Pedestrian � Intersection#6: TRANS- LOVR/Madonna Development of gicycle �36b Significant and Road Villaggio Lower Unavoidable Area Development of Vehicle TRANS- Villaggio Lower �17 Less than Sipnificant Area with Miti at��ion�� a rT...,..,,;a.,�.io Intersection#10: Development of LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Madonna Froom Auto(Queue) TRANS-2 Significant and Ramps Ranch TRANS-6b Unavoidable I Development of TRANS-� � Villaggio Lower pedestrian 14 Less than Significant Area with Mitigation Development of Intersection#15: Villaggio Lower Less than Significant South Higuera Street Bicycle TRANS-5 � /Tank Farm Road �'ea with Mitigation Development of Auto(Queue) TRANS- Significant and Madonna Froom 6a� Unavoidable Ranch TRANS-6b TRANS-15g Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-115 Final EIR 13568 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-34. Near-Term Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary (Continued) Intersection#16: Development of Less than Significant � South Higuera Street/ Madonna Froom Auto(Queue) TRANS-7� �,�,�th Mirigation Prado Road Ranch Intersection#18: Development of /�afle Madonna Froom Auto(Queue) TRANS-6b Significant and �Madonna Road Ranch Unavoidable /Oceanaire Drive Intersection#19: �,�n�7� Less than Significant Development of Madonna Road/ � with n �,a,�ny: ,o Madonna Froom Auto(Queue) �,9TRANS- �Dalidio Ranch 18 Miti_a,� tion�igni��n� Drive — Intersection#20 and Develoument of #21: Villaggio Lower C*r^^*� TRANS- Significant and Area�evele�+nen� Auto(Queue) �Madonna Road � 6b�4 Unavoidable /U.S. 101 SB Ramps � &NB Ramps Roadway Segments#1 and#2: LOVR from Prefumo Canyon Road Development of Less than Significant to Oceanaire Drive Villaggio Lower Pedestrian TRANS-8 �,ith Mitigation and from Oceanaire Area Drive to Madonna Road Roadway Segments #3,#4,#5 and#6: Development of Less than Significant LOVR from Madonna Villaggio Lower Pedestrian TRANS-9 �,ith Mitigation Road to South Area Higuera Street I Roadway Segment#5: Development of TRANS-2 LOVR from U.S. 101 Madonna Froom Auto TRANS- Less than Significant � SB Ramps to U.S. 101 Ranch �$16 with Mitigarion NB Ramps 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 l 30 through 149 of the TIS. � Bolded items indicate significant and unavoidable impacts. Note:MM AQ-6 also applies to reduce VMT and trips. 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). 3.13-116 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13569 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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-�19. � 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 Proj ect 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 subj ect 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 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-117 Final EIR 13570 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 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). 3.13-118 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13571 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 MMHAZ-4 shall apply. MM TRANS-�19 The Project shall desi�n and install��e-a landscaped median along � LOVR from the terminus of the existing median at northern PNoject frontage to Calle Joaquin. 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 a�roval. Prior to recordation of the final VTM for development of Villag�io's Lower Area, the A�plicant shall submit a public improvement plan for review and Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-119 Final EIR 13572 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC a�proval bv the Citv. Implementation shall be completed prior to the issuance first certificates of occupancv for development of Villag� LowerArea. -r�,o �;,,,,i �n c� ��,,,ii i.o „ oraoa �„ ; ,.,,�o��,o „�,,,.,o oa;,,,, , „� � ,. �,. .,a,.��;,,r .,ra �„�.�,,;��oa �,. ��,o r�;�., �,. r�ti�v'-iiir� � •��1 T1,�Io�a,'z.�.,llzrri aczrrcc�� ttiC�iirc`l� �r�z vi ,-��, ., ..,1 .,f'.7o..01.,.,,�,o„�„1.,,�� Monitoring. The Cit_y shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the final FRSP prior to Project a�proval. The City shall verify that the A�licant installs the improvements in accordance to the a�proved phase and design plans. MM TRANS-�20 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 netwo�k to fight fires in Irish Hills, specifically to Neil Havlik Way which connects to the four utility power line str~uctures 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-�21 The Project shall integNate 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 fzrefighting vehicle access, ramps up proposed retaining walls, and similar vehicle infrastr�ucture to maintain access to the base of the Irish Hills. 3.13-120 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13573 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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. Residual Impact Implementation of MM TRANS-�19,requiring installation of a landscaped median along � LOVR,would reduce traffic safety impacts of the Project by reducing potential for vehicle collisions along this existing identified high-collision segment. Installation of emergency access improvements as part of MM TRANS-�20 and MM TRANS-�21 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 Proj ect 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-�20 and MM TRANS-�21 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 3.4, 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-�19 through -�21 and I 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-121 Final EIR 13574 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 Proj ect site,and other persons 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 signifzcant 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 for users of all a�es and abilit. 1�. 3.13-122 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13575 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Mitigation Measures MM TRANS-�422 To address pedestrian and bicycle circulation safety issues, the Project A licant shall incoN orate the ollowin ��'��'elements into�ublic im�rovement�lans based on design guidance published by National Association of City Transportation Offzcials 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 noNthbound left-turn lane at the LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection in lieu of dual left-turn lanes, as currently proposed, to shorten pedestrian cNossing distance at the south leg of the intersection. • Minimize the amount o roadwav widenin�rec�uired alon�LOVR to the extent practicable bv reducin� turn pocket len�ths at the LOVR/Auto Park intersection to the minimum extent rec�uired per a�licable tra�'ac en�ineerin�standards; • 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, conce�tuall�consistent with planned improvements at the � nearby LOVR/Froom Ranch Way and Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive intersections, and as illustrated in the Bob Jones Trail (Calle .Ioac�uin to Oceanaire) Pro�ect Studv Re�ort; • 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 Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-123 Final EIR 13576 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC vehicular traffic or by const�ucting 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 requi�ements 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. Prior to recordation of the final VTM for development of Villa�gio's Lower Area, the A�licant shall submit a public improvement plan for review and a�proval b_y the Cit� Implementation shall be completed prior issuance of first certificates of occupancy for development of Villaggio's Lower Area.'�� Monitoring. The City shall ensure the above measure is incorporated into the final FRSP prior to Project approval. The Cit,y shall verify that the A�plicant installs the improvements in accordance to the a�roved phase and design plans. Residual Impact IWith the implementation of MM TRANS-�422, 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. 3.13.3.4 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 3.13-124 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13577 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 272� to 277b4 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 134 separate intersections and roadway � segments due to increased automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic under Cumulative plus Project conditions. These include automobile impacts at fives�locations, bicycle and pedestrian related impacts at�six 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/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 signifzcant and occur after development of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-12�. I Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-125 Final EIR 13578 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Intersection #S: 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. The Project does not add anX vehicle trips to the NB left-turn movement, but adds vehicle trips to other intersection movements, which results in less available green time within the traffic si ng al c. c� serve the NB and SB left-turn phases. The Project increases the peak hour 95th percentile queues for the NB left-turn movement by less than one vehicle len�th, and the SB left-turn movement by less than one vehicle len tg h• This automobile queuing impact would be potentially signifzcant and occur after development of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-16 and TRANS-�623. Intersection #6.• LOVR/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 signifzcant 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/Calle.Toaquin 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 Ranch, though would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM ITRANS-�24. Intersection #10: LOVR/U.S. 101 SB Ramps Project-added automobile traffic would impact the SB right-turn lane queue in the�AM peak hour and WB shared throu_�h/ri�ht-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-2 and MM TRANS-�16. 3.13-126 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13579 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Intersection #1 S: 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 signifzcant and occur after development of Madonna Froom Ranch, though would be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of MM TRANS-1�4. � 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. The Project does not add any vehicle trips to the SB left-turn movement, but adds vehicle trips to other intersection movements, which results in less available �reen time within the traffic si ng al c, c� serve the SB left-turn phase. The Proiect increases the SB left-turn 95th percentile queue bv a�roximately two vehicle len tg hs. 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-�25. �i-t�e�i�e�t�'Q.��i��t�e��-9Ee�ta-t��i� � � - � ,�„-,io,�,o��.,�;,,r „��ana rrv n�.rc �o Intersection #19: Madonna Road/Dalidio DNive Project-added automobile traf�c 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. The Project does not add anv vehicle trips to the EB ri,�ht-turn movement, but adds vehicle trips to other intersection movements, which results in less available �reen time within the traffic si_�nal cvcle to serve the EB ri h_� t-turn phase. The Project increases the EB ri,�ht-turn 95rh percentile queue bv a little less than three vehicle len t�€��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-�-918. � Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-127 Final EIR 13580 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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 signifzcant 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; I � • Installation of U.S. 101 NB auxiliary lane planned as part of the Prado Interchange Phase 1; and 3.13-128 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13581 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • 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 Citywide Transportation� Impact Fees and LOVR Subarea Fees. The Project's cumulative contribution to impacts on U.S. 101 mainline facilities would be less than signifzcant. Mitigation Measures MM TRANS-2 shall applv. � MM TRANS-8 shall apply. MM TRANS-9 shall apply. MM TRANS-12 shall applv. MM TRANS-13 shall apply. MM TRANS-14 shall applv. MM TRANS-16 shall applv. MM TRANS-18 shall applv , t�e��'"�z��e��ne��,�„ �,-,, n.,�c�i, t�e �icz'�t�ii�ll „1-.,�,;� n„t,l;.. c�i-rrc�3Piv��i+ D�r�ici�iiiz �',,..;,,00,-�� '��;,,,.,�v �,�D,-�,l,.,l.lo !''.,�� ,- ,- ,,,a ., ..,1 1-.., �l,o (�'..,,,,f., T1,o A,�.,-.l;cz'��ii"l��iiri�iccsiv +cni, cv,,,,�m�ivr �,. �l,o ; .,f'.,,� �, ,-1,,,;1,a;,,..„ ,-,ti,;� �,-n�T.,a�„„�., �',-.,.,,V, Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-129 Final EIR 13582 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC i�c£�C�i�€'b�Elt�Pni�i��6 �„,�pi�€�3cucivir=vrtiYG�cc�T'�rirccrscc�6ix �vi�i�l'-�n�-S�i�2'�1 � MM TRANS-�23 The Pro7ect A�plicant shall pav a fair share miti a� tion e ee to fund stripin� modif cations to extend the northbound left-turn pocket at the LOVR/Ro av l Wav intersection to 1 SO feet. This miti�ation measure rec�uires Caltrans a�proval and coordination. ''''-� "��* �'��'��' Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of first buildin� permits � for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its fair share fees to the City. Monitorin�. 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-�24 In coordination with the A�plicant, the Citv shall retime the tra�c si,�nal at LOVR/Calle.Ioac�uin to im�lement Lead Pedestrian Intervals or each�edestrian crossing phase. Rec�uires Caltrans coordination.�t Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to the issuance of first building permits for the Villa�gio Lower Area development phase, the City shall implement the signal timing modifications.��e�;��^�n 3.13-130 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13583 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ,-1,,,;1,a;,,�.,,o,-,,,;��,-l��T.,.7.,,�,�., �',-.,�,,,,D.,,,..1, �l,o Av.v.l;...,,,� � �l,.,ll ,. ;�� ;,-�1,.,,-o �o� �., �L,o !'';�., Monitoring. The City shall verify that the signal timin� modifications are implemented in accordance to the a�roved project phase.�e-C� MM TRANS-�25 The Project Applicant shall pay its fair share miti at� ion fees to fund intersection stripin�improvements to extend'�'��t��ie�--ef� 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 e�first-building permits for Madonna Froom Ranch, the Applicant shall pay its fair share fees to the City. Monitorin�. 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. �� t.,,;ia;r,. ,. ,-,�,;� �,-n�r„a,,,,,,., �,.,,,,�„ n.,,,,.t, �t,o n.,,,i;,..,,,� �t,,,ii ,. ;�� ;,. �t,.,,-o �o� �„ �t,v r�;�., �I��er-�n�-s�i-�e�i�� Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-131 Final EIR 13584 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC � TL,o�r�'i"lzrr��`r'�lr�`��h^��pii,••,,�czm�m3c£�''�� imprvv�ii��iisiirz'�EE6�£�i}C��6 ��@vca ,�1,.,"0 � a ,ao";�i ,-•�•�r3--�Tr r�,-;�,,,�o� ., .,�o �;,. �t,.,,.o „ ,oa t,.,�t,o r;�., 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 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). 3.13-132 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13585 313 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 3.13-35. Cumulative Plus Project Transportation Impact Summary Intersection#1: LOVR post Development Less than /Foothill Boulevard of Madonna Froom Auto TRANS-12� Significant with � Ranch Mitigation Post Development Less than � Intersection#5: LOVR TRANS-16 /Royal Way of Madonna Froom Auto(Queue) TRANS-�23 Significant with Ranch Mitigati on Intersection#6: LOVR post Development Less than /Madonna Road of Madonna Froom Pedestrian TRANS-13 Significant with Ranch Mitigation Intersecrion#9: LOVR Post Development Less than /Calle Joaquin of Madonna Froom Pedestrian TRANS-�24 Significant with � Ranch Mitigation Intersection#10: LOVR post Development TRANS-2 Less than of Madonna Froom Auto(Queue) Significant with /U.S. 101 SB Ramps Ranch TR.ANS-16� Mitigation Less than Pedestrian TRANS-14� Significant with � Intersection#15: South Post Development Mitigation Higuera Street/Tank of Madonna Froom Farm Road Ranch Less than Auto(Queue) TRANS-�25 Significant with � Mitigati on r.,.o,.�o,..:,,,, ui Q. n,.�*r�v.,oi,,.....o�� r o ��i..,., . � r,r.,,a,..,,,., n,,.,,� i „�n�r.,,a,,,,,,., �,,,,,,.., n„�„in„o„o� �rn n�.Tc �� c:,.,,;�;,..,.,....:.�. � �-� � � �te�� Intersection#195: Post Development Less than Madonna Road/ of Madonna Froom Auto(Queue) TRANS-�818 Significant with Dalidio Drive Ranch Mitigation Roadway Segments#1 and#2: LOVR from post Development Less than Prefumo Canyon Road of Madonna Froom Pedestrian TRANS-8 Significant with to Oceanaire Drive and Ranch Mitigation from Oceanaire Drive to Madonna Road Roadway Segments#3, post Development Less than #4,#5 and#6: LOVR of Madonna Froom Pedestrian TRANS-9 Significant with from Madonna Road to Ranch Mitigation South Higuera Street Post Development Less than U.S. 101 Mainline of Villaggio Lower Auto " Significant Area 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 and unavoidable impacts. � Froom Ranch 5pecific Plan 3.13-133 Final EIR 13586 13587 314 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, HydNology 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 Wastewater City of San Luis Obispo,Utilities Department,Wastewater Division Collection and Treatment Water Supply, City of San Luis Obispo,Utilities Department,Water Division Treatment, and � Distribution 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 Final EIR 13588 314 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 inanages 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(MLIN). The MLTN 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 CapacitX The WRRF has a treatment capacity for dry- � weather flow (e.g., typical non-storm urban runoff and wastewater flows of 5.1 million � � � � " > �ir�-_�n��. _ _��' :�s— ,..' � — _.�._ gallons per day (MGD) (City of San Luis � � � :-� ��a�,�� ; �� Obispo 2014c). As of 2018, the WRRF �Q:�� '>�� " ■ �� receives an average of 3.3 MGD of dry- '`��e,t� , ' :�, � �,�_ weather flows (City of San Luis Obispo � � � , � 2015a). Therefore, the estimated remaining T�,� l,irRRr,-�,r��„�s,�l�ds, reduces the amount CapaCity of the WRRF 1s 1.8 MGD or 32 of nutrients, and eliminates bacteria in the treated wastewater before it is discharged to percent of the total dry-weather wastewater San Luis Obispo Creek. 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 314-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13589 314 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 MLTN 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.i 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 ' Inflow and infiltration occur when groundwater or rainwater flow into the sewer system, either through a direct connection or seepage throu�h cracked laterals, leaky joints, and/or deteriorated manholes(City of San Luis Obispo 2019c). Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-3 Final EIR 13590 314 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 staf£ 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 Reserooir, and a limited amount of 314-4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13591 314 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. ReservoiNs 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 Final EIR 13592 314 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). 314-6 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13593 314 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). Cit,y 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 Final EIR 13594 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Table 3.14-2. City of San Luis Obispo's Water Resource Annual Availability (2018) Salinas Reservoir(Santa Margarita Lake)and 4,910 AF Safe Annual Yield' Whale Rock Reservoir Nacimiento Reservoir 5,482 AF Dependable Yield� Recycled Water 238 AF 2017 Annual Usage3 Siltation(from 2010 to 2060) (500)AF WWME Policy A 4.2.24 Total 10,130 AF � Safe Annual Yield determined from computer model,which accounts for siltation loss through 2010(per WWME Policy A 4.2.1). �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). 314-8 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13595 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Table 3.14-3. Water Demand and Water Availability in the City of San Luis Obispo Based on WWME Policies . � Current Annual Availability(2018) 10,130 Primary Water Supply(Esrimated Future Demand) 7,496 � Calculated using the City's per capita water demand factor of 1 17 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 � � �� 10,130 5,225 7,496 1,220 1,414 ' Calculated using the City's per capita water demand factor of ll 7 gpcd and the City 2017 population. Source:City of San Luis Obispo 2018a. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-9 Final EIR 13596 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Drou�ht 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, 314-10 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13597 314 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 Final EIR 13598 314 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 Electricitv 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. 314-12 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13599 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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). California Ener Demand (CED) 2018—2030 Revised Forecast 4ao,oao tCED 2fl17 Revised High ❑emand —�CEb 2fl17 Re�ised Mid bemand 35n,oao }�ED 2fl17 Re�ised Low Demand �CEDU 201b Mid Dernand History 3ao,000 � � zsa,aao zao,oao Zso,oao o rv � � co � ;� � � co o ni a� ■a co � ;v a � co 0 :T• :P Q� � � '.� � � � � ;V N N N N M � �+ �+ rn � � o 0 0 0 0 � c o 0 0 0 0 � o 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Source: CEC 2018b. 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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-13 Final EIR 13600 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION (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. Local Energ,v 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 � � � � , i . � • � � • . � � County 284,010 81,678,060 1,766.0 287.6 62 State 39,557,045 12,638,157,740 281,1202 319.5 7.1 Source: CEC 2019b;U.S. Census Bureau 2019b.. Transportation Energ_y 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 314-14 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13601 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 Ener�y 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 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 l, 2012. AB 341 requires any business Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-15 Final EIR 13602 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION (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 Bi11939 AB 939, the California lntegrated 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 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, 314-16 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13603 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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. Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations - California's Energ_y Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildin�s 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 11.1 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-17 Final EIR 13604 3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 L U 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 L U 1.S Jobs/Housing Relationship. The gap between housing demand(due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply should not increase. Policy Lt71.131 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 L U 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 L U 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 L U2.3.1 Mi.xed 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). 314-18 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13605 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 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 L U 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 andlor 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 tur£ Collection and use of site runoff and rainwater harvesting in landscape irrigation is encouraged. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-19 Final EIR 13606 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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. L 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 Lt7 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. 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 andlor 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. 314-20 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13607 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Consei^vation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy COS 4.3.1 tlse 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. 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 fi^iendly 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-21 Final EIR 13608 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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: 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. 314-22 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13609 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-23 Final EIR 13610 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 N'ater 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 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. L Ground water treatment and brackish water desalination should be pursued when necessary to maximize locally available, drought-proof water supplies. 314-24 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13611 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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. 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-25 Final EIR 13612 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 Mana�ement 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 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. 314-26 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13613 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 Ener�y 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; 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; Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-27 Final EIR 13614 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 Proj ect would: � Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or g) 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. 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 (CaIEEMod) v. 2016.3.2 modeling results (see Appendix D), and energy conservation goals and policies established in the City's Climate Action Plan (2012).� 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 �The City is currently updating the Climate Action Plan; see also, Section 3.3,Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 314-28 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13615 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 Proj ect 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 CaIEEMod 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. Table 3.14-6. Summary of Project Impacts UT-1. The Project would require the expansion of MM AQ-1 Less than Significant with utility infrastructure to serve new development, MM BIO-1 Mitigation including water, sewer,natural gas,and MM CR-3 electricity into the site;the construction of which MM CR-4 could cause environmental effects. 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 UT-2.Project-related increases in water use None required Less than Significant would increase demand for the City's potable water supply. UT-3.Project-generated wastewater would MM UT-2 Less than Significant with conri-ibute to demand for wastewater collection Mitigation facilities and remaining available and planned capacity of the Ciry's WRRF. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-29 Final EIR 13616 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Table 3.14-6. Summary of Project Impacts (Continued) UT-4. The Project would generate additional None required Less than Significant solid waste for disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfi 11. UT-5. The Project would result in an increase of None required Less than Significant energy consumption and requirement for additional energy resources. 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. 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 314-30 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13617 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 ResouNces). 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 ResouNces 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, TNansportation 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 MateNials, and Wildfzre. 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 TNibal Cultural Resources, Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and WildfiNe, Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Section 3.10,Noise, and Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffzc). Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-31 Final EIR 13618 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Miti�ation Measures MMAQ-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. 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 infrastr~ucture 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. Monitorin�. City staff shall ensure measures are on all Project plans. City staff shall work with the Applicant to ensure that these requirements are implemented. 314-32 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13619 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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. 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-33 Final EIR 13620 3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Table 3.14-7. Estimated Water Demand from Project WSA based on City Water Use Factors � � � , � � � � MADONNA FROOM RANCH Housing(R-3 attached 130 dwellings 0.3 0 39.0 39.0 townhomes) Apartments(R-4 multi- 44 apartments 0.18 3.1 4.8 7.9 family/affordable) 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 11.3 acres ** ** ** ** (including creek planting) Subtotal 19.1 81.2 100.3 VILLAGGIO IndependentLiving (standalone residential 61 dwellings 03 0 18.3 18.3 units) Garden,Village Suite and Standard Apartment Units apartments 0.1 12.2 183 30.5 (senior) 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 51,500 sf 0.06 0.93 2.16 3.09 Occupancy 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 Fimess Facility with Pool 13,000 sf 0.26 1 A1 2.37 3.38 Common Area ** ** ** ** Landscaping 15.6 acres Subtotal 20.49 53.39 73.88 Total(AFY) 39.59 134.59 174.18� Source:Water Supply Assessment 2019;see Appendix K. �Water Use Factors from the 1999 City of San Luis Obispo Water Use Factors. �Does 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 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. 314-34 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13621 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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. Table 3.14-8. City Water Supply Availability and Froom Ranch Water Usage � �,� . ' � � 7,496 AFY 5,225 AF in 2018 2,271 AFY 236.48 AFY AFY=acre-feet/year 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 water3, 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. 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). 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 3.14-35 Final EIR 13622 3.14 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Table 3.14-9. Wastewater Projections Resulting from the Project. , . .. ' i � i •� � � i • i i VILLAGGIO Independent 366 units 105 Living Units Multi-Family gallons/unit/day 38,430 gpd Assisted Living 38 units Single-Family 150 5,700 gpd Units gallons/unit/day Health Care Units 51 beds 150 Single-Family gallons/unit/day �,650 gpd Health Care 85,078 sf Administration Office 54 gallons/1,000 4,594 gpd Building sf/day Ancillary Uses 84,078 sf Commercial 60 gallons/1,000 5,045 gpd sf/day Villaggio Subtotal 61,419 gpd MADONNA FROOM RANCH Medium-High 130 units Density Multi-Family 105 13,650 gpd Residential gallons/unit/day High Density 44 units Mulri-Family 105 4,620 gpd Residential gallons/unit/day Hotel with 70,000 sf Commercial 60 gallons/1,000 4,200 gpd Restaurant sf/day Other 30,000 sf Commercial 60 gallons/1,000 1,800 gpd Commercial sf/day Madonna Froom Ranch Subtotal 24,270 gpd Grand Total 85,689 gpd gpd=gallons per day �Refer to Table 2-2 for summary list of proposed development ZCity 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 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. 314-36 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13623 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 Proj ect 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 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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-37 Final EIR 13624 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 constr~uction 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. Monitorin�. 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). 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. 314-38 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13625 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 Proj ect 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 signifzcant. Table 3.14-10. Estimated Solid Waste Production � � ' i � i � i � i i i � � _ VILLAGGIO Multi-family Independent Living 366 units 8.61b/day/unit 3,147.6 Units Nursing/Retirement Assisted Living Units 38 units 5 lb/person/day' 190 Home Hospital Health Care Units 51 beds 161b/bed/day' 816 Administration Office Building and 85,078 sf 0.006 lb/sf/day 510.5 Ancillary Uses Commercial Sectar Ancillary Uses 84,078 sf 0.046 Ib/sf/day 3,867.6 (Commercial Retail) Subtotal 8,531.7 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-39 Final EIR 13626 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Table 3.14-10. Estimated Solid Waste Production (Continued) ' � � � i � � � MADONNA FROOM RANCH Multi-family Medium-High 130 units g'6 3 l,l l8 Density Residential lb/day/unit Mulri-family High Density 44 units 5.31 4 233.6 Residential lb/day/unit Service Sector(Other Hotel with '70,000 sf 3.121b/l00 2 �84 Services) Restaurant sf/day Commercial Sector Other Commercial 30 000 sf 0.046 1 380 (Commercial Retail) ' lb/sf/day ' 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 �CalRecycle estimates 5 lb/person/day far 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 5,289.7 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/yr) of electricity (Table 3.14-11) based on CaIEEMod modeling results. 314-40 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13627 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Table 3.14-11. Estimated Project Electricity and Natural Gas Demands � • � � • � VILLAGGiO Tndependent Living Units 366 units 1,661.5 MWh/yr 37,327.8 therms/yr Congregate Care(Assisted 89 units 367.4 MWh/yr 7,689.1 therms/yr Living and Health Care Units) Administration Building and 169,748 sf 581.7 MWh/yr 34,083.8 therms/yr Ancillary Uses(wellness center,restaurants,theater,etc.) Subtotal 2,610.6 MWh/yr 79,100.7 therms/yr MADONNA FROOM RANCH Medium-High Density 130 units 565.3 MWh/yr 13,258.5 therms/yr Residential High Density Residenrial 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 7ll.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 ' 1,000 megawatt-hours(MWh)= l gigawatt-hours(GWh) � 1 therm= 100 thousand British Thermal Units(BTU) Source: See Appendix D,CaIEEMod Worksheets, Secrion 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. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-41 Final EIR 13628 314 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 CaIEEMod 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 502,3472 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 �ii�+' �� '�' 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. OpeNational T�ehicle Fuel Consumption Operation of the Project would result in the daily consumption of vehicle fuel for Project trips. As provided in Section 3.13, Ti^ansportation and Traffic, operation of the Project is anticipated to result in the generation of an additiona146,894 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. 314-42 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13629 314 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 Ti^affic for additional discussion regarding Project VMT. Table 3.14-13. Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled City 46,548 85],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 , . � ' � � � • .. � , � � �� Passenger Cars 58.9 27,620.6 23.3 1,185.4 Light/Medium 34.1 15,990.9 17.1 935.1 Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty 6.6 3,095.0 7.3 424.0 Vehicles/Other Motorcycles 0.4 187.5 43.4 4.3 Total 100% 46,894 -- 2,548.8 i 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 �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 42. Trip Summary Information; Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2016. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-43 Final EIR 13630 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Energ,y 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 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 � � � � � � � � • � � • � � • � � • � . ,. City' 46,548 9,586,861 239,580.9 205.9 5.1 County 281,101 83,787,570 1,778,503.6 298.1 63 State 39,557,045 12,571,045,750 288,613,480.2 317.8 73 Proposed 1,231 128,574.7 5,289.7 104.4 43 Project 'Electricity and natural gas demands for the Ciry represent demands as of 2016. Source: CEC 2018;U.S. Census Bureau 2019b;Ciry of San Luis Obispo 2019b. 314-44 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13631 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 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 Proj ect 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 Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-45 Final EIR 13632 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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- 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 Proj ect 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 314-46 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 13633 314 UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION 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 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 signifzcant with mitigation. Froom Ranch Specific Plan 3.14-47 Final EIR 13634 13635