Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-05-2016 Item 08 Review of Request to initate preparation of Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road specif plan
Meeting Date: 4/5/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Shawna Scott, Consulting Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF REQUEST TO INITIATE PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSED MADONNA ON LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (LOVR) SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, SENIOR HOUSING, PARK, AND OPEN SPACE USES (12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD) RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Authorizing Initiation of an Application for the Proposed Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments, Including Related Actions in Support of the Application” (Attachment A).) SITE DATA Applicant John Madonna, John Madonna Construction Company Bob Richmond, Villagio Senior Living Representative Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group Zoning Would require pre-zoning for Specific Plan General Plan SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area Site Area 111 acres Environmental Status A Program-Level Final EIR was adopted for the LUCE in 2014. Project Environmental Review to begin upon project submittal. REPORT-IN-BRIEF John Madonna, the applicant, has requested Council’s authorization and initiation of the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area (Area SP-3 per Land Use 8 Packet Pg. 213 Element Policy 8.1.5), which would ultimately lead to the development of the 111-acre property. In addition, the Specific Plan application package will include General Plan Amendments and related entitlements as discussed further in this report and referenced attachments. The applicant’s conceptual exhibit shows a mix of land uses including senior housing (Continuing Care Retirement Community [CCRC]), multi-family housing, single-family housing, commercial retail uses, open space, and a neighborhood park. The applicant’s proposal includes components that require additional review and direction from the City Council, due to inconsistencies with the Land Use Element (LUE). This initiation request focuses on the following two key issues included in the applicant’s request, which will ultimately drive the components of the Specific Plan application submittal, if authorized. 1) The conceptual mix of uses, which differ from the vision identified in the Land Use Element for the SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area because they include the CCRC and reduce the square footage of commercial retail uses; and, 2) The applicant’s request to develop above the 150-foot elevation, which is currently inconsistent with the Irish Hills Hillside Protection Policy identified in the LUE, and would require consideration of a General Plan Amendment to modify the current language presented in LUE Policy 6.4.7.H. DISCUSSION Site Description The project site consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 111 acres, located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road within County of San Luis Obispo jurisdiction, and adjacent to the City limits (APNs 067-241-030 and 067-241-031). The current land use and natural setting includes livestock grazing, unpaved agricultural roads, the Irish Hills and Home Depot stormwater basins, the historic Froom Ranch Complex, John Madonna Construction office (within the historic complex), staging and materials storage, quarry area, wetlands, grasslands, stands of mature trees, Froom Creek and associated tributaries, and vacant land. General Plan Guidance Regarding SP-3 and Hillside Protection The project site is described in the LUE as Madonna on Los Osos Valle y Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area (SP-3), and is subject to purpose and performance standards identified in the LUE for this area.1 The project site is also located within Hillside Planning Area H Irish Hills2 (Attachment C, LUE Chapter 6 Resource Protection and Chapter 8 Special Focus Areas). 1 LUE Section 8.1.5 Special Focus Areas, SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area 8 Packet Pg. 214 Figure 1. Land Use Concept Showing 150-foot Elevation Line Project Description The applicant’s proposal includes the following significant project features (Attachment G, Applicant’s Project Description Statement and Applicant’s Review and Discussion of Issues and Attachment H, Applicant’s Exhibit Plan Set): 1. A mix of land uses within the Specific Plan area, including: a. 200 multi-family apartments; b. 75 attached or detached single-family dwellings, c. 25,000-45,000 sf of commercial; d. Neighborhood park associated with the Froom Ranch Historic Complex (education, community use); and e. Open space. 2. Senior housing (Continuing Care Retirement Community [CCRC]) including: a. 276 independent living apartments; b. 66 independent living villas and assisted living units; c. 122-bed skilled nursing and memory care facility; d. Common area facilities, such as a dining area/restaurant, reading room, indoor events area, outdoor recreation and activities areas (swimming pool(s), pathways, and gardens), recreation room, non-denominational chapel, physical therapy and exercise areas; e. Service, maintenance, and delivery facilities and office for staff; and f. Controlled access entry and exit security kiosk/gate house. 3. Development of the CCRC and residential uses above the 150-foot contour (see discussion in “Amendment to 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy” below). 4. Realignment and restoration of Froom Creek within the property boundaries, new passive recreation areas and gardens, and new active recreation areas including bike and pedestrian pathways and hiking trails connecting to the existing Irish Hills Natural Reserve. 5. Internal circulation system intended to provide for autos, trucks, service vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, which would connect to existing transit and transportation systems and nearby commercial developments. 2 LUE Policy 6.4.7.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. (See also Section 8, Special Focus Areas.)” 8 Packet Pg. 215 6. Stormwater/floodplain management and riparian restoration and enhancements proposed via re-alignment and improvements to Froom Creek and existing stormwater basins. According to the applicant, there is adequate developable land below the 150-foot elevation to implement SP-3 as envisioned in the LUE, and the primary reason the applicant is requesting consideration of development above the 150-foot elevation is to also accommodate the proposed CCRC (a new use not envisioned in the LUE for SP-3). The proposed CCRC can also be accommodated below the 150-foot elevation, but not along with all of the uses envisioned for SP-3. For these reasons, a General Plan Amendment would be necessary to accommodate the applicant’s request as conceptually proposed. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation On December 9, 2015 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project initiation request and the applicant’s pre-application package (refer to Attachment D, Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes, December 9, 2015). Based on this initial review, the Planning Commission continued the item and requested additional information (refer to Attachment E, Directional Items Request to Applicant). The applicant responded to the information request and provided supplemental materials including amended exhibits, impact and constraints quantifications, and revised visual simulations (refer to Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report, January 27, 2016 Section 2.1 Response to Planning Commission). On January 27, 2016 the Planning Commission considered the additional materials, staff report, and testimony. During deliberation, the Commissioners identified comments, concerns, and recommendations, which are summarized below (refer to discussion under “Evaluation, Mix of Land Uses and Amendment to 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy”). With these comments noted, the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council initiate the Specific Plan on a 4-3 vote. The recommendation includes approval of initiation of the Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendments as conceptually proposed by the applicant (including the CCRC and consideration of a General Plan Amendment to modify LUE 6.4.7.H regarding development above the 150-foot contour), and direction to the applicant regarding supplemental materials for further evaluation in a formal application (see Attachment F, Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-1001-16). EVALUATION Mix of Land Uses The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) identified a vision for this Specific Plan (SP-3) area3 which includes a compact mixed use development comprised of residential, commercial, parks, and open space/agriculture (refer to Attachment C, LUE Chapter 8 Special Focus Areas). 3 LUE Section 8.1.5 SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area: “The purpose of the specific plan [SP -3] is to provide design flexibility that will secure the appropriate development of the site while protecting sensiti ve 8 Packet Pg. 216 A comparison of LUE SP-3 standards to the applicant’s proposal is provided in the following discussion and Table 1, below. Table 1. Comparison Between LUE and Conceptual Project1 LUE SP-3 Development Standards Applicant’s Conceptual Land Use Mix Type/Designation Min-Max2 Approximate Area Conceptual Land Use Mix Approximate Area 1 Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 8 – 29 acres 275 residential units 18 acres 2 Commercial / NC, CR 50,000 to 350,000 sf 3- 24 acres 25,000-45,000 sf3 2-3 acres 3 Parks / PARK -- 6.5 acres Neighborhood park, active and passive recreation 6.5 acres 4 Circulation and Stormwater management -- 8 acres Internal circulation system and stormwater management 8 acres 5 CCRC Not envisioned by SP-3 Not envisioned by SP-3 CCRC4 20 acres 6 Total Development (approx.)1 -- 25.5 – 67.5 acres -- 54.4 - 55.5 acres 7 Open Space / OS 50% 55 acres Open space, wetlands, drainages, steep vegetated slopes 55 acres 1 Please note the acreages identified in Table 2 are conceptual and approximate, and are intended to give the Council and the public a general understanding of the approximate acreage needed to accommodate a Specific Plan development based on the LUE standards and the applicant’s conceptual land use mix 2 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints. 3 The applicant has also indicated 50,000 sf of commercial uses to meet the LUE minimum standards. 4 CCRC not identified as a use envisioned for SP-3. 1. Consistent with General Plan SP-3: a. Proposed mix of land uses (except CCRC as discussed below) is consistent with General Plan SP-3 standards (see Table 1: lines 1, 2, 3, & 4). b. Residential unit count and approximate area is within the range identified by SP -3 (see Table 1: Line 1) 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”. 8 Packet Pg. 217 c. Proposed Open Space consisting of 50% of the project site (see Table 1: Line 7) 2. Not Envisioned by General Plan SP-3: a. Senior Housing: CCRC (see Table 1: line 5) i. The CCRC is not specifically envisioned for SP-3 and the addition of the CCRC would require consideration of General Plan Amendments to allow this use in SP-3. ii. Portions of the CCRC and single-family residential areas are proposed to be located above the 150-foot elevation (refer to Attachment H, Exhibit B.1, Conceptual Land Uses) development limit line per LUE Policy 6.4.7.H4. See discussion in “Amendment to 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy” below. b. Proposed commercial square-footage is substantially less that SP-3 standards (see Table 1: line 2) Planning Commission Comments on Proposed Land Uses and Mix (Attachment F, Planning Commission Draft Minutes, January 27, 2016) 1. Inclusion of the CCRC into SP-3 Consideration of a new use (the CCRC) under SP -3 requires a General Plan Amendment. Some concerns were stated regarding the siting of a CCRC in this location, due to existing policy regarding hillside development. In addition the efforts expended during the City’s preparation and approval of the LUE did not include identification of a CCRC- type facility as part of SP-3. While the Commissioners agreed that the CCRC is a needed and important use within the City, some Commissioners expressed concern that the project site is not appropriate for this use, which may be more appropriately sited closer to downtown and other amenities, or even on the project site but below the 150-foot elevation limit. Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending inclusion of the CCRC in the formal Specific Plan application (refer to Attachment F, Planning Commission Draft Minutes, and Resolution No. PC-1001-16, January 27, 2016). 2. Land Use Mix Some Commissioners stated that while the project must be assessed as a whole, it appears to be two projects in one location, as the project includes: 1) the land use components envisioned for SP-3 and 2) the CCRC, which was not envisioned for SP-3. Some concerns were identified that the project was jamming two distinctive projects into one Specific Plan, which may not be appropriate for the project site. Some Commissioners noted that potential considerations moving forward may include increasing the single- 4 LUE Policy 6.4.7.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. (See also [LUE] Section 8, Special Focus Areas.)” 8 Packet Pg. 218 family and multi-family housing units, reducing the park acreage, and reducing commercial areas based on the needs and connection to the residential and CCRC components of the project, if authorized. Additional details regarding the type and intent of proposed housing (i.e. workforce and affordable housing) was requested for further evaluation upon submittal of the formal application. No concerns were identified by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed reduction in commercial use square footage (refer to Attachment F, Planning Commission Draft Minutes, January 27, 2016). Amendment to 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy 1. Policy Background The language specifying the 150-foot elevation development limit was carried forward into the LUE from the City’s previously adopted Land Use Element (adopted August 23, 1994 and revised June 15, 2010). The 1994 Land Use Element included a Hillside Planning Policies and Standards section; the purpose of which was to “protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features, set boundaries for commercial and residential development in sensitive hillside areas by creating a permanent open space greenbelt at the edge of the community, and to protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards”.5 The Hillside Policies identified in the 2014 LUE focus on “where and how some hillsides may be developed” (refer to Attachment C, LUE Chapter 6 Resource Protection). According to General Plan LUE 6.4.2, development limits and special design standards for hillside areas are intended to “cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources (as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element)6), and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards”; these policies also help protect the city’s scenic setting including gateways into the city.7 Development is required to be located within the development limit line unless a location outside the line “is necessary to protect public health and safety”.8 Land outside of the development limit line is required to be protected as permanent open space.9 Additional information regarding the County of San Luis Obispo’s Sensitive Resources Area and Geologic Study Area designations for the project site is available in the December Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment D, Planning Commission Staff Report, December 9, 2015, Section 4.1.a. Initiation Request, Alteration of 150-foot maximum site development elevation, Staff Discussion). 5 Final Environmental Impact Report Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates, August 1994 6 Refer to COSE Chapter 3 (Cultural Heritage), Chapter 7 (Natural Communities), Chapter 8 (Open Space), and Chapter 9 (Views). 7 LUE Section 6.4.2 Development Limits 8 LUE Section 6.4.3 Development Standards 9 LUE Section 6.4.4 Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines 8 Packet Pg. 219 Additionally, the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) EIR provides an analysis of each proposed Specific Plan area, including the project site. Potential visual impacts identified in the LUCE EIR, specific to SP-3, include the following: a. Development of the site, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, could result in increased urbanization of the existing viewshed along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially block or obstruct existing public views. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. b. Development of the area, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, has the potential to result in increased urbanization of an undeveloped area which could degrade the existing visual character and its surroundings. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. c. Development of the area could result in increased in ambient nighttime lighting through the addition of residential and commercial uses and associated structural development in a primarily undeveloped area. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.10 As noted above, the 150-foot development limitation line was carried forward into the recently adopted LUE, and was contributing evidence supporting the City Council’s finding that implementation of the LUE would result in less than significant aesthetic impacts. As described below, there is adequate developable land below the 150-foot elevation to accommodate development envisioned for SP-3. Any modification to the existing hillside protection policy was identified as a serious issue by the Commissioners. The Commission emphasized that, if authorized by the City Council, comprehensive analysis of any changes to the existing 150-foot development limitation policy shall be conducted during staff evaluation and preparation of the project EIR (Attachment F, Planning Commission Draft Minutes, January 27, 2016). If supported, the proposed development above the 150-foot contour would need to be evaluated during preparation of the project’s EIR. 2. Conceptual Proposal, Development Constraints The topography of the project site ranges from approximately 110-120 feet near Los Osos Valley Road to 450 feet in the upper elevations. Approximately 50 acres of the project site is located above the 150-foot elevation, and 61 acres is located below the 150-foot elevation. The applicant’s conceptual land use exhibit shows the CCRC area extending to the 250-foot elevation and single-family residential uses extending to the 180-foot elevation. 10 Land Use and Circulation Element Update Final EIR, September 2014 8 Packet Pg. 220 On December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission requested additional information from the applicant regarding potential development constraints and other justifications warranting the applicant’s request. In response, the applicant provided additional quantification of land use and environmental constraints (refer to Attachment H, Exhibits A.1, Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map and D.1, Conceptual Creek Corridor Plan and Section, and Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report, January 27, 2016, Section 2.1 Response to Planning Commission). Based on this information, which was presented to the Planning Commission on January 27, 2016, land use and resource constraints below the 150-foot elevation, as identified by the applicant, include historic buildings, wetlands, stormwater basins, steep slopes, Froom Creek realignment and restoration, and creek setbacks (refer to Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report, January 27, 2016, Section 2.1.a Planning Commission Direction #1, and Section 2.1.b. Planning Commission Direction #2). The applicant indicates that the approximate area of constrained land below the 150-foot elevation is 28.9 acres. This would leave approximately 32.1 acres of developable area below the 150-foot elevation. This acreage is a key component of the applicant’s justification for requesting the City’s consideration of development above the 150-foot elevation. As shown in Table 1 above, the approximate development acreage to meet LUE standards for SP-3 ranges between 25.5 and 67.5 acres, due to the variations in minimum to maximum units and square footage for identified land uses. Therefore, there is adequate development area below the 150-foot elevation to accommodate the LUE vision for SP-3. In addition to the development area estimated to be necessary to comply with the LUE standards, the applicant estimates that the CCRC would require an additional 20 acres of developable land. As shown in Table 1, the applicant’s conceptual plan including the CCRC would require up to approximately 55.5 acres of total developed land, which would exceed the developable land acreage below the 150-foot elevation by approximately 23.4 acres. For comparison, if a Specific Plan were proposed to meet the minimum LUE development standards (25.5 acres) and accommodate the proposed CCRC (20 acres), this concept would exceed developable land area below the 150-foot elevation by approximately 13 acres. Therefore, the applicant is requesting and the Planning Commission is recommending approval of the request to initiate a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment process to allow submittal of an application package including development of the CCRC and residential land uses above the 150-foot elevation. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the submittal would include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of the development on natural/scenic resources. 3. Potential Impacts Resulting from Development Above 150-foot Elevation On December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission requested additional information regarding potential impacts to resources above the 150-foot elevation, noting that this information is preliminary. Potential impacts are outlined below; a complete summary of 8 Packet Pg. 221 Figure 2. Proposed Building Roof Height Limitations Above 150-foot Elevation potential impacts to visual, biological and cultural resources are presented in the attachments to this report (refer to Attachment D, Planning Commission Staff Report, December 9, 2015, Section 4.1.a. Alteration of 150-foot maximum site development elevation and Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report, January 27, 2016, Section 2.1.c. Planning Commission Direction #3). Visual Resources The project site is located within the Irish Hills Hillside Planning Area 11, which is identified as having high scenic value. The project site is located within a scenic vista as seen from U.S. Highway 101, and is also visible from Los Osos Valley Road and other areas within the City (i.e. public streets, parks, open space). Information considered by the Planning Commission included the applicant’s pre-application submittal package (refer to Attachment G, Project Description Statement and Applicant’s Review and Discussion of Issues) and visual simulations (refer to Attachment I, Applicant’s Visual Simulations). The applicant points to existing development in the area, and feels that the specific numerical elevation appears arbitrary, and does not reflect the land form conditions (topography) and visual considerations of the project site. The applicant intends to minimize visual impacts by siting and design, including identification of maximum roof height limits (refer to Figure 2 and Attachment H, Exhibit C.1, Conceptual Building Heights and Attachment D, Planning Commission Staff Report, December 9, 2015, Section 4.1.a. Alteration of 150-foot maximum site development elevation for more information). The topography may provide opportunities to screen future development from view; however, certain components including lighting and grading cut slopes may be difficult to fully “hide”, and overall, the project is anticipated to create some change in the visual environment, and may increase cumulative noticeability of the existing structures and the proposed development in the upper elevations of the Irish Hills. It is difficult to evaluate the full extent of the potential changes prior to review of a specific project. 11 Identified in LUE Figure 7 Hillside Planning Areas 8 Packet Pg. 222 Biological Resources In addition to potential visual impacts, the conceptual project could also affect sensitive biological resources present both above and below the 150-foot elevation. Based on the applicant’s submitted information (Attachment J, Biological Resources Inventory by Kevin Merk Associates), Attachment H, Exhibit A.1, Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map, and Attachment H, Exhibit A.3, Basis for Design Studies), sensitive resources present above the 150-foot elevation include: wetland habitat, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, serpentine rock outcrop, special-status plants and wildlife, and coast live oak woodland. Special-status plant species documented above the 150-foot elevation include: Chorro Creek bog thistle, San Luis Obispo owl’s clover, San Luis mariposa lily, Eastwood’s larkspur, mouse- grey dudleya, Blochman’s dudleya, Jones’s layia, chaparral ragwort, Cambria morning glory, club hair mariposa lily, and Palmer’s spineflower (Attachment J). Based on an approximation of potential impacts, development of the conceptual project above the 150-foot elevation may impact approximately: 1. 6.68 acres of serpentine bunchgrass 2. 1.24 acres of California Rare Plant Rank List 1B species, and 3. 7,500 square feet of wetland habitat (road and trail drainage crossings). If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, potential impacts to biological resources and associated avoidance and mitigation measures would be fully evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the General Plan, and Municipal Code, as well as through consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts that may require take permits for removal and translocation or out-planting of these species (refer to Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report, January 27, 2016, Section 2.1.a. Planning Commission Direction #3 and Attachment G, Applicant’s Review and Discussion of Issues for additional information and discussion). Cultural Resources As documented in the applicant’s submitted Section 106 Prehistoric and Historic Report by First Carbon Solutions in February 2015 (confidential report, not attached), the project site contains both historic and archaeological resources. The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located in the northwest portion of the project site, and with the exception of a historic dairy barn, the complex is located below the 150-foot elevation (refer to Attachment H, Exhibit A.1, Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map). The applicant’s conceptual proposal includes modifications to this complex, which may include repositioning structures onsite in association with the proposed park, and incorporation of interpretive and educational elements. The applicant’s conceptual exhibits show avoidance of archaeological sites, which are located above the 150-foot elevation (refer to Attachment H, Exhibit A.3, Basis for Design Studies). 4. Planning Commission Input for Consideration by the City Council 8 Packet Pg. 223 Hillside Protection In addition to the Commissioners comments noted above (refer to “Amendment to 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy, Policy Background”), guidance was provided to the applicant to minimize potential visual impacts through site design and development standards, including reduction of massing and lowered building heights. Biological Resources Impacts The Commission suggested the applicant minimize impacts to special-status plants and vegetation, including native bunchgrass, through site design. Further environmental analysis is required to fully assess these impacts, in addition to the applicant’s conceptual proposal to realign and restore Froom Creek. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The certified Final EIR for the LUCE Update states that the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan will be required to address several issues (as listed in the LUE), including environmental constraints, resource protection, hillside and open space protection, viewsheds, and views from off-site locations.12 In the event that Council approves the proposed Specific Plan initiation, full environmental analysis would be required. The Project-level EIR will need to address the impacts of future development of the site in the context of the required entitlements, including but not limited to the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments. The scope of the EIR has not been determined, but will be based on the certified Final EIR for the LUCE Update and an Initial Study to be prepared by staff, and will likely include but not be limited to key environmental issues including: 1. Aesthetic (Visual) Resources 2. Agricultural Resources 3. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4. Biological Resources 5. Cultural (Archaeological, Tribal, and Historic) Resources 6. Geology and Soils 7. Hydrology (drainage, floodplain, stormwater management and quality) 8. Noise 9. Population and Housing 10. Public Services and Utilities 11. Traffic and Circulation (automobile, truck, and multi-modal) NEXT STEPS If the City Council authorizes the initiation of the project appli cation based on staff’s recommendation, the next stops in the process are as follows: 12 “Future development to consider viewsheds, hillside and open space protection, height limits, wetland protection, access to other connections, historic farm buildings, mixed use to accommodate workforce housing, and neighborhood commercial type uses” (LUCE Final EIR 2014). 8 Packet Pg. 224 1. Submit Formal Application. A formal application will be submitted to the City that provides additional project details, and requesting the following reviews and entitlements: General Plan Amendments and Pre-Zoning; Specific Plan; Development Plan; Modification of the Urban Reserve Line; Architectural Review; Cultural Heritage Committee Review; and Airport Land Use Commission Review. 2. Initiate CEQA Process. City staff will prepare an Initial Study for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This document, along with a detailed project description provided by the applicant, will be part of a Request for Proposals (RFP) sent to consultants to prepare an EIR. The city will also conduct the required public scoping meeting. 3. Prepare Project-level EIR. The EIR process is likely to take several months, depending on the complexity of the issues, and the extent to which the project has adequately addressed the issues as part of its application. The timeframe might also be affected if there is a high level of public interest and involvement in the process. 4. Consideration of Project Approval. Once the Final EIR is prepared, which incorporates public input on the Draft EIR, the project (including General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan, and Development Plan) would be considered by both the Planning Commission and City Council for possible approval. The Final EIR would require certification. CEQA Findings and potentially a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required if the project is approved 5. Annexation. If the project is approved, the City would initiate the annexation process with the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Annexation will 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 wastewater). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with initiating the project application . The developer will reimburse the City for all staff and consultant fees associated with processing the application. As part of the application, the applicant will be required to prepare a fiscal impact study that would analyze the project’s effects on the City. Due to the size of the project, the applicant will be paying for actual costs for staff time rather than a flat fee to process all of the required permits and to coordinate the preparation of an EIR. CONCLUSION The scope of the initiation review only provides authorization for the applicant to proceed with the application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments. If the Council supports inclusion of the applicant’s request to propose alteration of the 150-foot maximum site development and modification to the mix of land uses envisioned in the Land Use Element for the Specific Plan area, the Planning Commission recommends the Council include the following direction (this language has been included in Attachment A, Draft Resolution): 1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on natural and scenic resources (particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge), including but not limited to: photosimulations, 8 Packet Pg. 225 cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details; assessment of potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highwa ys, and open space areas; a comprehensive project-specific and quantified impact analysis on special-status plants, animals, vegetative communities and trees, and creeks, drainages, and wetland habitat; proposed mitigation plan(s) for both on and off-site restoration (as applicable); and hydrological analysis accompanying proposed plans to modify and restore Froom Creek. ALTERNATIVES 1. Initiate application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments, but provide a land use mix that more closely correlates with LUE policies for Specific Plan Area 3. 2. Initiate application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, but the formal submittal should not include a General Plan Amendment to develop above the 150- foot contour line. 3. Initiate application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, but the formal submittal should be modified to conform to feedback given by the City Council regarding both land use mix and development above the 150-foot contour line. 4. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include details of additional information or analysis required. 5. Determine that no major amendments should be made to the General Plan and recommend the City Council deny the request for Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Initiation. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE 1. Froom / Il Villagio Specific Plan Exhibits (RRM Design Group), Full Size 2. Preliminary Technical Reports and Information a. Madonna Froom Authorization to Proceed Response to E-mail dated January 7, 2016 and attached Exhibits (RRM Design Group, January 11, 2016) b. Froom / Il Villagio Specific Plan, Planning Commission January 27, 2016 (Planning Commission PowerPoint and Narrative, RRM Design Group) c. Visual Simulations (RRM Design Group, January 11, 2016) d. Biological Resources Inventory (KMA, January 2016) e. Request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (KMA, August 4, 2015) f. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Letter (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 24, 2015) g. CONFIDENTIAL, approved persons only - Section 106 Prehistoric and Historic Report (First Carbon Solutions, February 20, 2015) h. Stormwater Memorandum (RRM Design Group, February 26, 2015) i. Drainage Master Plan (Alternative #1, February 2015) ii. Drainage Master Plan (Alternative #2, February 2015) 8 Packet Pg. 226 i. Preliminary Transportation Analysis (Central Coast Transportation Consulting, April 2015) Attachments: a - Resolution b - Vicinity Map c - General Plan Policies d - PC Staff Report and Minutes December 7 2015 e - PC Directional Items f - PC Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report January 27 2016 g - Applicant Project Description and Narrative h - Applicant Exhibits i - Applicant Visual Simulations j - Biological Resources Inventory 8 Packet Pg. 227 RESOLUTION NO. (2016 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED MADONNA ON LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING RELATED ACTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 27, 2016 to consider the pre-application package for the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan, the components of which are described in the Council Agenda Report for April 5, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 5, 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the applicant’s proposal and the Planning Commission’s recommendation; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The request to initiate the project application is consistent with City Regulations. 2. On January 27, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed the pre-application package and passed a resolution recommending to the City Council that the application should be initiated, based on input from Commissioners and the general public. 3. The requested initiation does not grant land use entitlements, but formally authorizes staff to accept an application for the proposed project, including related requests for entitlements, which will require evaluation before project approval could be considered. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed request for initiation involves initial feedback and direction on the proposed project and related entitlement requests, and does not include any final action or approval. Council action on the proposed initiation is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It can be said with certainty that there is no possibility that the subject pre- application may have a significant effect on the environment because it is only an initiation of future applications and no project approval is occurring at this time. If initiation of an application is authorized by the City Council, a formal project submittal for consideration of the proposed project and associated discretionary entitlements will be subject to environmental review. 8.a Packet Pg. 228 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 SECTION 3. Action. The City Council hereby authorizes initiation of the project application allowing formal submittal of requested entitlements for evaluation and further consideration by Council including a Specific Plan, annexation of the project site to the City, modification of the Urban Reserve Line, and General Plan Amendments addressing adjustment of the 150-foot contour development limit line and the land use mix as proposed by the applicant with the following direction: 1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on natural and scenic resources (particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge), including but not limited to: erection of story poles representative of potential development both above and below the 150 -foot topographic elevation, photosimulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details; assessment of potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highways, and open space areas; a comprehensive project-specific and quantified impact analysis on special-status plants, animals, vegetative communities and trees, and creeks, drainages, and wetland habitat; proposed mitigation plan(s) for both on and off-site restoration (as applicable); and hydrological analysis accompanying proposed plans to modify and restore Froom Creek. 2. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential aesthetic and visual effects of a General Plan Amendment modifying Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.H. (Hillside Planning Areas, Irish Hills area) including, but not limited to: identification of site specific maximum building elevations (as measured above average natural grade); site specific standards regarding building materials and colors; and exterior lighting standards consistent or more restrictive than City Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23 (Night Sky Preservation) to enable a comprehensive evaluation of potential adverse effects to hillside and scenic resources. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this ___ day of __________, 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price Interim City Clerk 8.a Packet Pg. 229 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price Interim City Clerk 8.a Packet Pg. 230 At t a c h m e n t : a - R e s o l u t i o n ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Attachment B: Vicinity Map Project Site 8.b Packet Pg. 231 At t a c h m e n t : b - V i c i n i t y M a p ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Figure 1. Hillside Planning Areas Project Site 8.c Packet Pg. 232 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-68 6.RESOURCE PROTECTION 6.1. Overall Resource Protection Policies 6.1.1. Resource Planning The City shall protect its unique natural resources and systems by including their considerations and needs within its planning program, and giving those considerations and needs a planning priority co-equal with that accorded other community needs. Under this policy, the City will make provisions for the continued existence of its natural resources within the community. The term “community” thus includes not only the urbanized human community, dominated by urban land development and technological systems, but also a natural community rich in biological and geological diversity, as well as a pre-urban human community with a strong agricultural base. 6.2. Overall Resource Protection Programs 6.2.1. Resource Mapping The City shall prepare and maintain geographic information systems-based maps of the city, the urban reserve, and the planning area to guide in land use designations and decision-making. Maps for the city and urban reserve shall be in sufficient detail to highlight all significant natural resources and systems. Maps for the planning area may be at a lesser degree of detail. The maps shall show at least the following resources: native plant communities, wildlife habitats and corridors, aquatic ecosystems, productive or potentially productive soils (prime or other unique agricultural soil types), viewsheds, terrain, hillsides, greenbelt areas. The overlay maps shall also show development constraints such as flood hazard areas, geological hazard areas, soil hazard areas (subsidence, liquefaction), noise impact areas, airport hazard and noise areas, radiation hazard areas. The maps shall provide the basis of determining where urban development is most appropriate, and where other needs of the community outweigh the desire or need for urban development. As a result of the findings of these maps, the City shall re-evaluate its land use designations and future plans for undeveloped areas, and revise the LUE land use map accordingly. 6.2.2. Resource Protection The City shall seek to protect resource areas deemed worthy of permanent protection by fee acquisition, easement, or other means. 6.3. Open Space Policies (See also the Growth Management section) 6.3.1. Open Space and Greenbelt Designations The City shall designate the following types of land as open space: A. Upland and valley sensitive habitats or unique resources, as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element, including corridors which connect habitats. B. Undeveloped prime agricultural soils which are to remain in agricultural use as provided in Policy 1.9.2. 8.c Packet Pg. 233 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element Page 1-69 C. Those areas which are best suited to non-urban uses due to: infeasibility of providing proper access or utilities; excessive slope or slope instability; wildland fire hazard; noise exposure; flood hazard; scenic value; wildlife habitat value, including sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element; agricultural value; and value for passive recreation. D. A greenbelt, outside the urban reserve, that surrounds the ultimate boundaries of the urban area, and which should connect with wildlife corridors that cross the urbanized area. E. Sufficient area of each habitat type to ensure the ecological integrity of that habitat type within the urban reserve and the greenbelt, including connections between habitats for wildlife movement and dispersal; these habitat types will be as identified in the natural resource inventory, as discussed in the "Background to this Land Use Element Update" and in Community Goal #8. Public lands suited for active recreation will be designated Park on the General Plan Land Use Element Map. The City may establish an agricultural designation. (See the Conservation and Open Space Element for refinements of these policies.) 6.3.2. Open Space Uses Lands designated Open Space should be used for purposes which do not need urban services, major structures, or extensive landform changes. Such uses include: watershed protection; wildlife and native plant habitat; grazing; cultivated crops; and passive recreation. The City shall require that buildings, lighting, paving, use of vehicles, and alterations to the landforms and native or cultural landscapes on open space lands are minimized, so rural character and resources are maintained. Buildings and paved surfaces, such as parking or roads, shall not exceed the following: where a parcel smaller than ten acres already exists, five percent of the site area; on a parcel of ten acres or more, three percent. (As explained in the Conservation and Open Space Element, the characteristics of an open space area may result in it being suitable for some open space uses, but not the full range.) Parcels within Open Space areas should not be further subdivided. 6.4. Hillside Policies As noted in the open space section of this element and in the Conservation and Open Space Element, 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 section focuses on where and how some hillsides may be developed. 6.4.1. The City shall maintain comprehensive standards and policies for hillside development for the following reasons: A. To protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines, plant communities, rock outcroppings and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops for the community. B. To set the limits of commercial and residential development in hillside areas by establishing a permanent open space green belt at the edge of the community. C. To protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires, flooding and erosion. 8.c Packet Pg. 234 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-70 6.4.2. Development Limits The City shall establish and maintain clear development limit lines for hillside planning areas, and special design standards for the hillside areas. The location of the development limit and the standards should cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element, and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards. Also, the development limit line and the standards should help protect the city’s scenic setting. (Locations of hillside planning areas are shown in Figure 7. 6.4.3. Development Standards The City shall require development – including buildings, driveways, fences and graded yard areas – on hillside parcels to: A. Be entirely within the urban reserve line or development limit line, whichever is more restrictive (though parcel boundaries may extend beyond these lines when necessary to meet minimum parcel-size standards), unless one of the following three exceptions applies: (a) A location outside the urban reserve line or development limit line is necessary to protect public health and safety. (b) New wireless telecommunication facilities may be appropriate on South Street Hills inside the three- acre leasehold already developed with commercial and municipal radio facilities, subject to use permit approval and architectural review and approval. Applicants shall comply with all other provisions of this section, and demonstrate that (a) new facilities will not individually or additively interfere with City radio equipment necessary for emergency response coordination, and (b) will not cause on-site radio frequency radiation levels to exceed exposure standards established for the general public by the American National Standards Institute. (c) Where a legally built dwelling exists on a parcel which is entirely outside the urban reserve line or development limit line, a replacement dwelling may be constructed subject to standards B through H below. B. Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes; C. Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles, or columns; D. Minimize grading of roads; E. Minimize grading on individual lots; generally, locate houses close to the street; minimize the grading of visible driveways; F. Include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and which provides a visual transition from developed to open areas; G. Use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high contrasts; H. Minimize exterior lighting. 6.4.4. Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines The City shall require that before development occurs on any parcel that crosses the urban reserve or development limit lines, the part outside the lines be protected as permanent open space. 8.c Packet Pg. 235 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element Page 1-71 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! o £¤101 B R O A D O R C U T T BUCKLEY TANK FARM M I L L H I G U E R A C H O R R O P I S M O L O S O S O S V A L L E Y MA D ON N A FOOTHILL HIGH M A RS H L E F F F O O T H I L L W JOHNS O N T O R O PRADO O S O S SOUTH C A L I F O R NIA B U C H O N HIGUERAS S A N T A R O S A ELKS S A N L UIS EL L A H I G H L A N D B IS H O P LAUREL SLACK EVANS P O IN S ETTIA H I L L HOOVER SOUTHWOOD B U L L O C K L U N ET A D E L R I O M O U NT BIS H O P P A L M V A L L E VI S T A V I L L AGE G R A N D LAWR E N C E POL Y C A NYON S Y D N E Y L I Z Z I E MEISSNER SUBURBAN M I OSSI G A T H E WOOD B R I D G E R O C K VIE W LONG BEEBEE D A N A HOPE DA LIDIO SANTAFE ELM MARGARITA BOND ISABEL L A BROAD FLO R A D Orcutt L Luneta Sto neridge C Goldtree J Prefumo H Irish Hills K Madonna B Woodland Drive A Cal Poly - Cuesta Park I Billygoat Acres G Calle Joaquin F EM argarita Figure 7 Legend Hillside Planning Area Boundaries LUCE SOI Area ! !! ! City Limits Highway Roads Railroad o Airport Water Body Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012 010.5 Mile Hillside Planning Areas 8.c Packet Pg. 236 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-72 6.4.5. Development Credit Transfer Any residential development credit obtained from Open Space designations outside the urban reserve line or development limit line should be transferred to land in the Downtown Core or Specific Plan area. 6.4.6. Homesites Outside the Limit Lines Where homesites are to be developed outside the urban reserve or development limit lines, and beyond the City’s jurisdiction within the City’s greenbelt, the City shall encourage the County to promote the transfer of development credits into the Downtown Core or Specific Plan area. If development is to proceed in these areas, the City shall encourage the County to only allow creation of home sites consistent with the following guidelines: A. Be on land sloping less than 15 percent; B. Have effective emergency-vehicle access from a City street or County road; C. Be on a geologically stable site; D. Have adequate water supply for domestic service and fire suppression; E. Avoid areas with high wildland fire hazard; F. Be next to existing development; G. Avoid significant visual impacts; and H. Be clustered to minimize impacts and retain open space. 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 on Figure 7 are listed below. For each of these areas, land above the development limit line should be secured as permanent open space. A. The Cal Poly – Cuesta Park area includes the hill east of Cal Poly and north of Highway 101 near Cuesta Park. Development should be separated or protected from highway traffic noise and should have adequate fire protection. The City shall urge the County to conduct architectural review of development on lots fronting Loomis Street to address visual impacts of development. B. The Woodland Drive area Development of vacant land near Woodland Drive (Figure 7) shall address the following: (a) The location and design of new public streets and private drives serving several owners, and any necessary changes to existing streets in the area; (b) Water and sewer systems, including new storage tanks, pumps, main pipes, and access roads, and changes to existing facilities necessary for adequate service to the area; (c) New parcels and existing parcels to be changed or combined; (d) Location of building sites on parcels next to or crossing the urban reserve line; (e) Areas to be kept open through easements or dedication of fee ownership; (f) A program for transferring development potential, consistent with these hillside planning policies; (g) Location of creek easements to provide flood protection and to protect existing creekside vegetation; (h) Phasing of development and public improvements. 8.c Packet Pg. 237 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element Page 1-73 C. The Goldtree area extends up the hill from the Alrita Street neighborhood. This is a minor expansion area which can accommodate single-family houses. In addition to meeting the usual criteria for approving minor annexations, this area should: (a) Provide a gravity-flow water system giving standard levels of service to all developed parts of the expansion area and correcting water-service deficiencies in the Alrita Street neighborhood; (b) Correct downslope drainage problems to which development within the expansion area would contribute. (c) A development plan or specific plan for the whole expansion area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided, or developed. (Existing houses inside the urban reserve line need not be annexed along with any new subdivision) (d) All new houses and major additions to houses should be subject to architectural review. D. The Orcutt area includes land on the western flanks of the Santa Lucia foothills east of the Southwood Drive neighborhood and Orcutt Road. No building sites should be located above the development limit line. E. The Margarita area includes the southern slopes of the South Street Hills. No building sites should be located above the development limit line. F. The Stoneridge area includes land on the northern slopes of South Street Hills. Development west of the end of Lawrence Drive should be subject to architectural review and to measures assuring that building sites will be stable. G. The Calle Joaquin area should allow the continuation of a commercial use for the existing building on the hill, but no further development. 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. (See also Section 8, Special Focus Areas.) I. The Billygoat acres area extends into the Irish Hills above Prefumo Creek. No further development should occur beyond the urban reserve line. J. The Prefumo Creek area extends into the Irish Hills west of Prefumo Canyon Road. Development should be limited to areas within the urban reserve line with permanent protection of the creeks and upper hillsides. K. The Madonna Inn area includes land west of Highway 101 on the lower slopes of San Luis Mountain and the northeast slopes of the foothill bordering Laguna Lake Park. (a) A development plan for the whole area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided, or further developed. (See also Section 8, Special Focus Areas.) (b) The City shall require that development locations and building forms respect the area's extraordinary visual quality and natural slopes, and maintain views of the mountain from the highway and nearby neighborhoods. (c) The area immediately west of Highway 101 should be retained as an open space buffer. L. The Luneta Drive area includes parcels which may be used for housing, so long as new construction and major additions are approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 8.c Packet Pg. 238 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-74 6.5. Hillside Programs (See also Section 12, Implementation) 6.5.1. Designating Sensitive Sites Subdivision approval in hillside planning areas shall include designation of "sensitive sites," which shall be subject to architectural review. 6.5.2. Delineation of Development Limit Lines The City shall create and maintain a GIS layer to accurately document development limit lines as they are applied in the General Plan. 6.5.3. Community Design Guidelines Consistent with the Community Design guidelines, all hillside areas are considered sensitive sites, and architectural review is required for new development. The Community Development Director will screen all proposals to identify any which do not need architectural review. The City will mitigate the visual impacts of hillside structures, including revising the way maximum building height is determined. 6.6. Creeks Wetlands, and Flooding Policies San Luis Obispo's aquatic ecosystems consist of creeks, Laguna Lake, floodplains, marshes, wetlands, serpentine seeps, and springs. These aquatic ecosystems provide habitat, recreation, water purification, groundwater recharge, and soil production as well as natural flood protection by reducing the force of floodwaters as they spread and decelerate over floodplains. Creeks, which are the most obvious of these systems because they flow under and through the City, provide wildlife habitat, backyard retreats, and viewing and hiking pleasures, in addition to carrying storm water runoff. When some creeks overflow during major storms, they flood wide areas beyond their channels (Figure 8). San Luis Obispo wants to avoid injury or substantial property losses from flooding, while keeping or improving the creeks' natural character, scenic appearance, recreational value, and fish and wildlife habitat. 6.6.1. Creek and Wetlands Management Objectives The City shall manage its lake, creeks, wetlands, floodplains, and associated wetlands to achieve the multiple objectives of: A. Maintaining and restoring natural conditions and fish and wildlife habitat; B. Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding; C. Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection, and use of adjacent private properties. D. Recognizing and distinguishing between those sections of creeks and Laguna Lake which are in urbanized areas, such as the Downtown core, and sections which are in largely natural areas. Those sections already heavily impacted by urban development and activity may be appropriate for multiple use whereas creeks and lakeshore in a more natural state shall be managed for maximized ecological value. 6.6.2. Citywide Network The City shall include the lake, creeks, and wetlands as part of a citywide and regional network of open space, parks, and – where appropriate – trails, all fostering understanding, enjoyment, and protection of the natural landscape and wildlife. 8.c Packet Pg. 239 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element Page 1-75 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! o £¤101 B R O A D O R C U T T BUCKLEY TANK FARM M I L L H I G U E R A C H O R R O P I S M O L O S O S O S V A L L E Y MA D ON N A FOOTHILL HIGH M A RS H L E F F F O O T H I L L W JOHNS O N T O R O PRADO O S O S SOUTH C A L I F O R NIA B U C H O N HIGUERAS S A N T A R O S A ELKS S A N L UIS EL L A H I G H L A N D B IS H O P LAUREL SLACK EVANS P O IN S ETTIA H I L L HOOVER SOUTHWOOD B U L L O C K L U N ET A D E L R I O M O U NT BIS H O P P A L M V A L L E VI S T A V I L L AGE G R A N D LAWR E N C E POL Y C A NYON S Y D N E Y L I Z Z I E MEISSNER SUBURBAN M I OSSI G A T H E WOOD B R I D G E R O C K VIE W LONG BEEBEE D A N A HOPE DA LIDIO SANTAFE ELM MARGARITA BOND ISABEL L A BROAD FLO R A £¤101 £¤1 Figure 8 Legend 100-Year Floodplain Creeks LUCE SOI Area ! !! ! City Limits Highway Roads Railroad o Airport Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012 010.5 Mile Creeks and Floodplains 8.c Packet Pg. 240 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-76 6.6.3. Amenities and Access The City shall require new public or private developments adjacent to the lake, creeks, and wetlands to respect the natural environment and incorporate the natural features as project amenities, provided doing so does not diminish natural values. Developments along creeks should include public access across the development site to the creek and along the creek, provided that wildlife habitat, public safety, and reasonable privacy and security of the development can be maintained, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. 6.6.4. Open Channels The City shall require all open channels be kept open and clear of structures in or over their banks. When necessary, the City may approve structures within creek channels under the limited situations described in the Conservation and Open Space Element. 6.6.5. Runoff Reduction and Groundwater Recharge The City shall require the use of methods to facilitate rainwater percolation for roof areas and outdoor hardscaped areas where practical to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. 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. 6.6.7. Discharge of Urban Pollutants The City shall require appropriate runoff control measures as part of future development proposals to minimize discharge of urban pollutants (such as oil and grease) into area drainages. 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. 6.7. Creeks and Flooding Programs 6.7.1. Previously Developed Areas To limit the potential for increased flood damage in urbanized areas, the City shall ensure new development complies with the City’s flood plain ordinance, setbacks, specific plans, and design standards to minimize flood damage and flood plain encroachment. 6.7.2. National Flood Program The City shall administer the National Flood Insurance Program standards. 6.7.3. Creekside Care and Notification In maintaining creek channels to accommodate flood waters, the City shall notify owners of creeks and adjacent properties in advance of work, and use care in any needed removal of vegetation. 6.7.4. Evaluate Use of Financing Districts The City shall evaluate the feasibility of establishing a financing district or districts to address flood concerns in affected areas. Cost and benefits will be weighed in relation to the cost of flood insurance for affected property owners. 8.c Packet Pg. 241 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-82 8.SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS Introduction Within the Planning Area are several areas where it is appropriate to consider a range or mix of uses which do not correspond with any one open-space, residential, commercial, or public designation used by this element. However, a particular use or mix of uses may not be desirable unless it is chosen in combination with a specific physical design which solves problems of relationships between activities within the site, and between the site and its neighbors. In addition, there are areas where special design concepts can help revitalization efforts. In Special Focus Areas, the City intends to do one or more of the following: A. Require a specific plan for areas with complex development parameters (e.g. land use mix, significant infrastructure needs environmental site constraints), prior to development. B. Make a choice about appropriate land uses based on information which will become available. In some cases, the choice will be connected with approval of a development plan, possibly with customized limits on specific activities and requirements for improvements or dedications. C. Work with properties in areas where an innovative design approach is needed to help revitalize and beautify the area. Special Focus Areas are designated by number on Figure 10. These areas and the guidelines for their development are listed below. (The number following the decimal point corresponds to the map number.). The following areas require a specific plan prior to development: SP-1 (Margarita), SP-2 (San Luis Ranch/Dalidio), SP-3 (Madonna), and SP-4 (Avila Ranch). The Special Focus Areas are those that present opportunities to develop customized land use approaches or special design implementation to enhance their appearance and achieve their respective development potential: Foothill Blvd/Santa Rosa, Bishop Knoll, Alrita area, Upper Monterey, Mid-Higuera, Caltrans site, General Hospital site, Broad Street Area, Madonna Inn area, Sunset Drive-in/ Prado, Pacific Beach, Calle Joaquin auto sales area, LOVR Creek area, CalFire / Cal Poly property, and Broad Street at Tank Farm area. POLICIES Introduction To help guide the development of large land areas (previously referred to as “expansion areas”) and to provide guidance on the redevelopment of sites identified, the City shall use the following policy statements to guide their review and actions relative to these properties. 8.1. Specific Plan Areas 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 Specific Plan Area on 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. Attachment c 8.c Packet Pg. 242 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! £¤10 1 UV22 7 La g u n a La k e £¤10 1 £¤1 !(7 !(6 !(3 !(5 !(8 !(15 !(13 !(2 !(10 !(11 !(12 !(1 !(9 !(4 !(14 Or c u t t A r e a SP Ai r p o r t A r e a S P SP - 4 Av i l a R a n c h SP - 1 Ma r g a r i t a Ar e a SP - 2 Sa n L u i s Ra n c h SP - 3 Ma d o n n a on L O V R B R O A D O R C U T T BUCKLEY TANK FARM J O H N S O N M I L L C H O R R O P I S M O L O S O S O S V A L L E Y FOO THILL HIGUERA S HIGH M A R S H L E F F I S L A Y HIGHLAND H I G U E R A F LO R A FOOTHILL W T O R O O S O S SOUTH GRAND C AL I F O R N I A SA N T A R O S A N S A NT A R O S A P E A C H M O N T E R E Y M A D O N N A SAN LUIS E L L A BIS H O P A U G U S T A EVANS PRADO P O IN S E T T I A LA UREL H I L L HOOVER DIA B L O LUNETA CALLE JOAQUIN VI A CA R T A D E L R I O P A L M VACHELL M O U N T B I S H O P F U L L E R O C E A N A I R E V A L L E VIS T A R O Y A L P O LY C A N Y O N C A S A L I Z Z I E LINCOLN S A C R A M E N T O ELKS LN SUBURBAN LI M A G AT H E S H I G U E R A S T WOODBRIDGE SLACK R OC K VI EW AIR P ORT LONG HAYS TI B U R O N BEEBEE LOOMIS ST SANTA FE LAWRENCE MEISSNER ST NAS E LLA PRADO RD SPANISH OAKS ELM VIA LA G U N A VISTA K E N TU CK Y F E R R I N I SOU THWOOD K E N D A L L HANSEN IRONB ARK MURRAY M I S S I ON KLAM A T H HE L E NA DALY ISABELLA D E E R E T O SANTA BARBARA T ON I N I C A U D I L L CLARION LA ENTRADA McMILLAN C L O V E R B U L L O CK ALDER C U ES T A ALRITA JESPERSON S O U T H P E R I M E T E R ESPERANZA TWIN RIDGE LOS PALOS DAVENPORT CREEK PINE D A LIDIO D R HORIZON H O L L Y H O C K RACHEL STENNER CREEK C O NEJO VISTA LA G O HIDDEN SPRINGS T U LI P MELLO THREAD CRAIG WAY OA KRIDGE SISQUOC ST P A C I F I C P H I L L I P S KENTWOOD SAN SIME ON L A L O M A F R O O M R A N C H P A C I F I C Figure 10LegendSpecific Plans Existing Specific Plans New Specific Plans 010.5 Mile Special Focus AreasWater Body !!!!City Limits Freeway Highway/ Regional Route Arterial Local Railroad Other LUCE SOI Planning Subarea Urban Reserve Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012Special Focus Area !(1 Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Area !(2 Upper Monterey !(3 Mid-Higuera Area !(4 Caltrans Site !(5 General Hospital Site !(6 Broad Street Area !(7 Madonna Inn Area !(8 Sunset Drive-In Theatre/Prado Road Area !(9 Pacific Beach Site !(10 Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Site Area !(11 LOVR Creekside Area !(12 Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site !(13 CalFire/Cal Poly !(14 North Side of Foothill (Bishops Knoll)!(15 Alrita Properties Pa g e 1 - 8 3 8.c Packet Pg. 243 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element Page1-85 For each specific plan site identified in this section, the location, purpose and performance standards for that site are defined. The performance standards section defines the following standards that must be met as part of the specific plan submitted for each site. A. Type. This defines the basic type of use being described. B. Designations Allowed: This defines the standard General Plan designations that can be used to describe the development proposed. See Table 1 for ranges allowed. C. % of Site: This defines the percent of each site dedicated to open space (using the gross project site). D. Minimum: This provides a minimum development assumed for each site. For residential and commercial types, these are not considered requirements, and a number lower than that shown can be proposed. E. Maximum: In order to exceed the minimum development for a given site, transfer of development credits or other permanent protection of open space would be provided. Development credits would be transferred from areas in the city, the urban reserve, or the greenbelt where development would be less appropriate, generally those designated conservation/open space or, on the County's map, agriculture or rural lands. The performance standards listed are to supplement other City requirements, standards, and Zoning Code requirements. If a conflict occurs, the most stringent standard shall apply. 8.1.2. Specific Plan Content All specific plans prepared for a Specific Plan Area must meet the requirements of State law and be comprised of four planning frameworks. Within each framework, the specific plan will provide the goals and policies that will guide future decisions on projects within the specific plan area. The plan will also include a detailed implementation plan that will identify responsibilities, financing requirements, and phasing / timing. The Land Use Framework will include the proposed land use pattern, actual development densities in each subarea on the project site, and development phasing. The framework will also include specifics on development standards. The Specific Plan prepared will provide complete guidance on the land use provisions that will guide future development within the Planning Area. At a minimum, these provisions will address the following topics. In consultation with City staff, other topics may be required depending on site specific needs. A. Land Use Classification. A land use classification system that clearly identifies the uses that may be allowed in each subarea. Based on the land use designations listed under “Performance Standards” section for each site, the specific plan will provide further details on development standards for each subarea. This classification system would use clear terminology to define and further describe allowable uses. Both the land use classification system and the uses allowed within the various subareas will provide for an overall mix of uses. B. General Site Planning and Development Standards. These standards will specify the requirements that would be applied to all development and land uses regardless of the applicable land use designation. These would address, as appropriate, sensitive resources; site access requirements; energy efficiency; fences, walls, hedges, buffers, and other screening; noise regulations; outdoor lighting standards; performance standards (e.g., air quality, glare, vibration, etc.), undergrounding of utilities; and other similar topics. Planning should also address how the development will be designed to enhance compatibility with adjacent properties. Attachment c 8.c Packet Pg. 244 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-86 C. Development Standards. Development standards for each land use designation (e.g., building forms, design objectives, land use objectives, height limitations, setback requirements, site coverage requirements, etc.) will be organized in tables and graphically illustrated wherever possible. D. Housing Mix. The specific plan will discuss the proposed mix of housing types within the area. In keeping with the City’s Housing Element, affordable housing requirements and density bonus provisions and related incentives will be incorporated as appropriate. A key to the housing component will be to incorporate a mix of housing types, and to provide phasing mechanisms that ensure to the City the development of this housing mix as a part of each phase of the project. The Design Framework will provide detailed design guidelines that will be used as the specific plan is implemented / developed. The purpose of these guidelines will be to establish the expected level of design within the area while still maintaining project flexibility and innovation. The objective of this framework is not to dictate a specific design, but to establish design expectations. The design guidelines will be illustrated to help explain the intent and expectations. This part of the Specific Plan will also incorporate detailed landscaping standards. The Design Framework will also provide guidance on the integration of the streetscape into the overall project design. The framework will define public improvements and the public rights-of-way to define the overall character of the streetscape. The Circulation Framework will include the proposed circulation network system elements, design standards, and system phasing. This framework will address all modes of circulation as well as parking and loading standards if different from the standard City requirements. The Infrastructure / Public Facilities Framework will cover infrastructure requirements (water, sewer, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, and communications) as well as parkland, schools, and other public facilities. For infrastructure, the framework will address the proposed trunk infrastructure system improvements and system phasing necessary to support implementation of the land use plan and financing mechanisms to implement planned facilities. 8.1.3. SP-1, Margarita Area Specific Plan Update Location: The Margarita Area covers about 420 acres bounded by South Higuera Street, Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, and the ridge of the South Street Hills in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo. Purpose: Adopted in October 2004, the Margarita Area Specific Plan contains five key principles: open space and sensitive resource production, cohesive neighborhood creation, transit supporting land uses and densities, pedestrian environment, and minimizing infrastructure costs. The approved specific plan includes 868 residential dwelling units, as well as a business park, a neighborhood park, sports fields, and open space areas. Over 40 percent of the land area is designated as open space and 56 acres are designated as parks. The City shall consider this area as potentially appropriate to accommodate additional housing. Revisions to the Margarita Area Specific Plan will be required if residential development in excess of that accommodated in the plan is proposed. 8.c Packet Pg. 245 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element Page 1-87 8.1.4. SP-2, San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area Location: This specific plan area is located in the southwest quarter of the city at the corner of Madonna Road and Dalidio Drive. The site is approximately 132 acres and is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is primarily flat topographically. The entire site is within the City’s Planning Area, but is outside the current city limits. Purpose: This project site should be developed as a mixed use project that maintains the agricultural heritage of the site, provides a commercial / office transition to the existing commercial center to the north, and provides a diverse housing experience. Protection of the adjacent creek and a well-planned integration into the existing circulation system will be required. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues. a.Provide land and appropriate financial support for development of a Prado Road connection. Appropriate land to support road infrastructure identified in the Final Project EIR (overpass or interchange) at this location shall be dedicated as part of any proposal and any area in excess of the project’s fair share of this facility shall not be included as part of the project site area used to calculate the required 50% open space. b.Circulation connections to integrate property with surrounding circulation network for all modes of travel. c.Connection to Froom Ranch and Calle Joaquin, if proposed, shall not bifurcate on- site or neighboring agricultural lands. Any connection to Calle Joaquin shall be principally a secondary / emergency access by design. d.Development shall include a transit hub. Developer shall work with transit officials to provide express connections to Downtown area. e.Maintain agricultural views along Highway 101 by maintaining active agricultural uses on the site, and maintain viewshed of Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis. f.Maintain significant agricultural and open space resources on site (see Policy 1.13.8.B). Land dedicated to Agriculture shall be of size, location and configuration appropriate to maintain a viable, working agricultural operation. g.Where buffering or transitions to agricultural uses are needed to support viability of the agricultural use, these shall be provided on lands not counted towards the minimum size for the agriculture / open space component. Provide appropriate transition to agricultural uses on-site. h.Integrate agricultural open space with adjacent SLO City Farm and development on property. i.Site should include walkable retail and pedestrian and bicycle connections to surrounding commercial and residential areas. j.Commercial and office uses shall have parking placed behind and to side of buildings so as to not be a prominent feature. k.Neighborhood Commercial uses for proposed residential development shall be provided. 8.c Packet Pg. 246 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-88 l.Potential flooding issues along Prefumo Creek need to be studied and addressed without impacting off-site uses. m.All land uses proposed shall be in keeping with safety parameters described in this General Plan or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport. n.Historic evaluation of the existing farm house and associated structures shall be included. Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards. Type Designations Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum Residential LDR MDR MHDR HDR 350 units 500 units Commercial NC CC 50,000 SF 200,000 SF Office/High tech) O 50,000 SF 150,000 SF Hotel/Visitor-serving 200rooms Parks PARK 5.8ac Open Space / Agriculture OS AG Minimum 50%2 No maximum Public n/a Infrastructure n/a 1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints. 2 The City Council may consider allowing a portion of required open space to be met through off-site dedication provided: a.A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off-site property exchanged to meet the on-site requirement; and b.Off-site land is of similar agricultural and visual value to the community; and c.Off-site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for agriculture/open space. 8.c Packet Pg. 247 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element Page 1-89 8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area Location: This site includes just over 111 acres and is located directly west of the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin. Purpose: The purpose of the specific plan is to provide design flexibility that will secure the appropriate development of the site while protecting sensitive environmental resources on the site. Development on the site should be a compact, mixed use project that provides workforce housing options and neighborhood commercial uses that support pedestrian and bicycle access. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues. a.Develop a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints and adjusts accordingly through design. Constraints include wetland protection, slope protection, historic structures, and open space protection. b.Maintain viewshed of surrounding mountains and secure steeper hillsides as protected open space areas. c.Variable height limits will be required to protect views of adjacent hills. d.Provide access to trails. e.Provide a plan for adequate and safe infrastructure, including appropriate points of access to Los Osos Valley Road. f.Address neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhood. g.Provide connectivity to adjacent development. Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards. Type Designations Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum Residential (Mixed Use) MDR MHDR HDR 200 units 350 units Commercial NC CR 50,000 SF 350,000 SF Parks PARK Open Space / Agriculture OS AG Minimum 50% Public n/a Infrastructure n/a 1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints. 8.c Packet Pg. 248 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-90 8.1.6. SP-4, Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area Location: Avila Ranch is located on the north side of Buckley Road at the far southern edge of the City of San Luis Obispo. The three parcels that make up the Avila Ranch area comprise approximately 150 acres. The entire site is located within the Airport Area Specific Plan. Purpose: This area will be developed as primarily a residential neighborhood development with supporting neighborhood commercial, park, recreation facilities, and open space/resource protection. Within the project, emphasis should be on providing a complete range of housing types and afford abilities. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues: a.Provision of a variety of housing types and affordability levels. b.Modification of the Airport Area Specific Plan to either exclude this area or designate it as a special planning area within the Airport Area Specific Plan. c.Provision of buffers along Buckley Road and along eastern edge of property from adjacent agricultural uses. d.Provision of open space buffers along northern and western boundaries to separate this development from adjacent service and manufacturing uses. e.Provision of open space buffers and protections for creek and wildlife corridor that runs through property. f.Safety and noise parameters described in this General Plan and the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act; or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport. g.Participation in enhancement to Buckley Road and enhancement of connection of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street. h.Appropriate internal and external pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to the City’s circulation network. i.Implementation of the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan including connections to the Bob Jones Trail. j.Water and wastewater infrastructure needs as detailed in the City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans. This may include funding and/or construction of a wastewater lift station. k.Fire protection and impacts to emergency response times. l.Architectural design that relates to the pastoral character of the area and preserves view of agrarian landscapes. m.Provision of a neighborhood park. 8.c Packet Pg. 249 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element Page 1-91 Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards. Type Designations Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum Residential LDR MDR MHDR HDR 500 700 Commercial NC 15,000 SF 25,000 SF Open Space / Agriculture OS AG 50%2 Public n/a Infrastructure n/a 1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints. 2 Up to 1/3 of the open space may be provided off-site or through in-lieu fees consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan. 8.2. Special Planning Areas The policies under Section 8.2 provide site specific guidance on the development / redevelopment of sites in the city. For sites that have existing development, renovation of streetscapes, landscaping, and building facades is encouraged. The City shall require property owners to prepare area plans with land uses consistent with this section, as well as multi-modal circulation and infrastructure facilities as appropriate, design guidelines and implementation programs. The City may consider implementation incentives for redevelopment areas, such as variations from development standards and/or participation in the installation or financing of infrastructure. 8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa, is currently developed as commercial centers that include highway and neighborhood serving commercial uses. At the affected property owners’ request, the boundary of this area on the north side of Foothill may be extended to include one or more of the existing commercial properties west of Chorro Street. The City shall work with property owners / developers to redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical mixed use) to include a mix of uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and Medium High to High Density Residential designations. The non-residential component of the project should include elements that serve the nearby neighborhoods. Examples include: specialty stores and services food service entertainment, and recreational facilities (except that movie theaters, nightclubs, bars/taverns and restaurants serving alcohol after 11 pm shall be prohibited) 8.c Packet Pg. 250 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-92 As part of this project, the City will evaluate adjustments to parking requirements to account for predominant pedestrian and bike access. Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered with mixed use development. Redevelopment plans shall include consideration of improving the existing complex intersections of Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability of modifying Boysen at and through the property on the northeast corner of the area, and enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections across Foothill and Santa Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus. Among other possible incentives, building height adjustments on the North side of Foothill may be considered with mixed use development. The Fire Station will be maintained or relocated within the area. 8.2.2. Upper Monterey In the Upper Monterey area, the emphasis will be on revitalization and enhancement. The area above Johnson shall have an emphasis on land use compatibility and neighborhood preservation. The following actions will be pursued in this area. A. The City shall investigate adding the Upper Monterey area to the Downtown Parking District, thereby allowing in-lieu payment towards common parking facilities. B. The City shall integrate a new Downtown Transit Center in the Upper Monterey area and provide enhanced connectivity to the center from the Upper Monterey area. C. The City will work with hotels in the Upper Monterey area to provide shuttle service to the Downtown and Downtown Transit Center. D. The City will promote restaurant development in the Upper Monterey area, and include outdoor dining opportunities and other public activities oriented toward Monterey Street. North of California, these types of activities shall be prohibited on the creek side of buildings. E. The City will evaluate reconfiguring Monterey Street in this area to enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to Downtown and to Cal Poly. F. The City will work with local hotels and Cal Poly to develop enhanced meeting rooms and conference facilities. These types of facilities would not be located on the east side of Monterey north of California Street, nor is a stand-alone conference center appropriate for this area. G. The City will work with developers to assemble adjacent properties into lots of suitable size for redevelopment limited to areas southwest of California Street. H. The City will develop an Upper Monterey area master plan and design guide that will provide guidance on street enhancements, façade improvement programs, and pedestrian enhancement along Monterey Street. As part of this effort, the City will investigate the ability to apply form-based codes to guide future development and will involve residents in adjoining areas as well as business and property owners along Monterey Street as part of the public review process in development of the master plan/design guide. Particular attention will be given to creek protection, noise, safety, light and glare, and privacy impacts to adjoining neighborhoods 8.c Packet Pg. 251 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element Page 1-93 PROGRAMS (See also Section 12, Implementation) 8.3. Ordinance 1130 The City will review and update Ordinance 1130 and involve residents to ensure that neighborhood concerns are addressed. 8.4. Mid-Higuera Area The City will update the plan for this multi-block commercial area to reflect current needs and changes that have occurred since the 2001 plan was adopted. 8.5. Caltrans Site While this area is within the Mid-Higuera Area, the unique qualities and opportunities provided by the site warranted special consideration in the General Plan. This area is planned for redevelopment from a Caltrans office and yard complex to a mixed use development. Commercial uses will be as described under the Tourist Commercial designation with some residential incorporated using a Medium High to High Density Residential component. Redevelopment plans shall consider the suitability of realignment of the Madonna/South Higuera intersection. The site should be developed to serve as a gateway into the community, with consideration of additional open space uses, retention and rehabilitation of the Master List historic structure, and retention of Heritage Trees on the site. Conference center-type uses are encouraged along with other appropriate tourist-serving uses as appropriate for the site. Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered with mixed use development. The site shall also include a park site north of Madonna Road. 8.6. General Hospital Site The General Hospital site includes County-owned property including the old hospital building (which is planned to remain as an office / treatment facility) and lands behind the facility. Lands behind the hospital building that are inside the City’s Urban Reserve line will be designated as Public (for existing public facility) and a range of residential uses (Low Density and Medium Density Residential) and will include the ability to support residential care, transitional care use, and other residential uses consistent with the adjacent areas. The remaining site outside the City’s Urban Reserve line will remain as Open Space. The City shall seek to secure permanent protection of the open space outside of the urban reserve line as part of any development proposal. The undeveloped portion of this site on the southwest side of Johnson Avenue will remain designated for Public uses. 8.7. Broad Street Area The City shall implement the South Broad Street Area Plan to create a safe, attractive and economically vital neighborhood with a mix of complementary land uses. The Area Plan shall: A. Encourage innovative design concepts that help revitalize and beautify the area. B. Facilitate housing development to meet the full range of community housing needs. C. Improve circulation safety and connectivity within the area and across Broad Street. 8.c Packet Pg. 252 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Chapter 1 Page 1-94 8.8. Madonna Inn Area The Madonna Inn Area includes land west of Highway 101 on the lower slopes of San Luis Mountain and the northeast slopes of the foothill bordering Laguna Lake Park. This area may be developed further only if surrounding hillsides including area outside the Urban Reserve Line are permanently protected as open space. (See also hillside policies under 6.4 and programs under 6.5.) A. A development plan for the whole area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided, or further developed. B. Upon amendment to an urban designation, the area may accommodate a generously landscaped, low intensity extension of the existing tourist facilities. This area may also be suitable for assisted and/or senior living facilities. Development locations should be clustered and building forms should respect the area's extraordinary visual quality and natural slopes, and should maintain views of the mountain from the highway and nearby neighborhoods. C. The area immediately west of Highway 101 should be retained as an open space buffer. D. Any plan for further development in this area must address reconfiguration of the Marsh Street interchange and larger circulation issues throughout the area. E. Walking and biking paths shall be provided as appropriate to connect to the City’s network and to the Downtown, amenities along Madonna Road, and open space areas. 8.9. Sunset Drive-in Theater / Prado Road Area This 38-acre area should be further developed only if flooding can be mitigated without significant harm to San Luis Obispo Creek. Until flood hazards are mitigated, continued agricultural use and low-intensity recreational use are appropriate. Any use drawing substantial regional traffic also depends on providing needed infrastructure at Prado Road, extending Prado Road to connect with Madonna Road, and realignment of Elks Lane. Once flooding, access, and agricultural preservation issues are resolved, the area would be suitable for development as a mixed use (horizontal or vertical) development with a mix of Commercial uses. Permanent open space shall be required in order to protect the adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek. As part of future development, a full assessment of the Drive-in Theater site’s potential as a historic resource will need to be evaluated and addressed. Bicycle connectivity as referenced in the Bicycle Transportation Plan is an important component of future development of the area. Property within the area may need to be designed to accommodate the Homeless Services center and/or transportation agency use. 8.10. Pacific Beach Site This area is planned for redevelopment from current use as a continuation school, school office and park uses to commercial retail uses along Los Osos Valley Road and Froom Ranch Road and the remaining site maintained under a Park designation. 8.11. Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area These four vacant lots are suitable for commercial mixed use and other uses described under the Tourist Commercial designations. Portions of the site may be appropriate for use as auto sales, depending on market demand. Development of this area must address preservation of and transition to the agricultural parcels/uses to the northwest; connectivity to the Dalidio Ranch area; viewshed preservation; and treatment as a gateway to the City visible from Highway 101. 8.c Packet Pg. 253 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Land Use Element Page 1-95 8.12. LOVR Creekside Area This area is heavily constrained by flood potential along the western boundary as well as limited circulation access to the site given its proximity to the proposed LOVR / Highway 101 interchange and its limited frontage on LOVR. Flooding and access issues must be resolved prior to developing Medium High Density Residential (in areas adjacent to existing residential uses). Agricultural Designations must be maintained along the west side of site. As part of future development, compatibility with adjacent residential areas to the east will be required. Permanent protection of the adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek will need to be addressed as part of proposed development. The south side of the site will also need to accommodate relocation of LOVR right-of-way and changes related to the planned Highway 101 interchange. 8.13. Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site Located at the northwest corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road, this approximate 10 acre site will be used as a mixed use site, providing for a mix of uses as described under the Community Commercial and Office designations. The site will provide a strong commercial presence at the intersection. Areas along the creek on the western edge of the site will be appropriately buffered to provide creek protections. Attention to connectivity, safety and comfort of bicycle and pedestrian circulation will be especially important in the development of this corner. 8.14. CalFire /Cal Poly-owned property on Highway 1 The Cal Poly Master Plan currently designates this area for Faculty and Staff housing. The City shall collaborate with Cal Poly in updating the Master Plan for development of campus property. Master Plan direction for this property shall address sensitive visual and habitat resources, circulation issues, impacts to City services, transition and potential impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. 8.15. North Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll) Future development of this area shall address open space requirements under Policy 1.13.8 and open space buffers in accordance with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.3.2. This area shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource protection; circulation and access, and transition to existing neighborhoods. The steep hillside should be dedicated as Open Space and residential lots grouped at the bottom of the hill closer to Foothill. Development shall provide a parking lot and trail access to Bishops Peak. Circulation connectivity shall be provided to Los Cerros Drive as feasible. Density shall be limited to 7 units / acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance. 8.16. Alrita Properties Future development of this area shall address hillside planning requirements under Policy 6.4.7C. This area shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource protection; circulation and access; visual impacts, and transition to existing neighborhoods. Additional analysis will need to occur in the LUCE EIR to evaluate potential water service issues. While there is a pump station nearby, more analysis is needed to determine if the City’s water distribution system can adequately serve development in this area. Density shall be limited to 7 units/acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance. 8.c Packet Pg. 254 At t a c h m e n t : c - G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c i e s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of request to initiate preparation of Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan PROJECT ADDRESS: 12165 and 12393 BY: Shawna Scott, Consulting Planner Los Osos Valley Road Phone: 543-7095 e-mail: sscott@swca.com VIA: Steve Matarazzo, Senior Planner Phone: 781-7522 FILE NUMBER: PRE 1293-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Consider key issues related to proposed land uses and proposed modifications to hillside development limits and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the request to initiate the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (Alternatives 5.1-5.5). 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant is requesting authorization from the City Council to pursue preparation of the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (identified as Specific Plan Area SP-3 in General Plan Land Use Element). The applicant has requested clarification and direction on a number of policies and regulations, which staff discusses further in this report. The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend to the City Council whether to initiate the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. SITE DATA Applicant John Madonna, John Madonna Construction Company Bob Richmond, Villagio Senior Living Representative Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group Zoning County of San Luis Obispo – Commercial Retail, Agriculture, Rural Lands General Plan SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area Site Area 111 acres Environmental Status A Program-Level Final EIR was adopted for the LUCE in 2014. Meeting Date: December 9, 2015 Item Number: 1 8.d Packet Pg. 255 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 2 2.0 SPECIFIC PLAN INITIATION The applicant’s proposal includes several components that require additional review and direction from the City Council, due to inconsistencies with the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan. The purpose of the Commission’s review is to evaluate the request and provide a recommendation to Council on the requested Specific Plan initiation. In addition to the initiation request, the applicant has requested clarification on how a number of development standards and policies would apply to the proposed development (Attachment 3). The initiation review is not an exhaustive analysis of the applicant’s conceptual project plans and does not identify all potential conflicts with City regulations or policies that may require amendment or which could require revisions. If the initiation request is authorized by the City Council, a subsequent formal application would be submitted and evaluated based on Council direction. The proposed project would then be evaluated comprehensively as a formal application including complete environmental review in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of the initiation review is to receive direction on whether a formal submittal is warranted given the fact that the proposal would require amendments to General Plan Policy. Two key issues include: 1) alteration of the 150-foot maximum site development elevation and 2) the conceptual mix of uses appropriate for the SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area. Staff has included a brief discussion of the policies and standards which will be reviewed in the formal application. The initiation review does not include definitive direction on many of the questions posed by the applicant, since most of the items will require a complete submittal, environmental review, and advisory body input. These issues include: realigning Froom Creek to reflect its historic flow pattern; management and access to the historic Froom Ranch Complex; and how the Specific Plan should comply with the 50% Open Space requirement for annexed areas. Other items included in the applicant’s initiation narrative will require further analysis, such as required setbacks from Froom Creek, avoidance of Chorro Creek bog thistle, on and off-site mitigation for impacts to native bunch grass, and determination of appropriate building heights. These issues would be addressed as part of the overall evaluation of a complete project submittal, which would occur following review of this initiation request. 3.0 SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The Madonna-Froom Ranch project site consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 111 acres, currently located within County of San Luis Obispo jurisdiction, and adjacent to the City limits. The current land use and natural setting includes livestock grazing, unpaved agricultural roads, the Irish Hills and Home Depot stormwater basins, the historic Froom Ranch Complex, the John Madonna Construction office (within the historic complex), staging and materials storage, quarry area, and 8.d Packet Pg. 256 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 3 vacant land. The project site is identified in the LUE as the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area (SP-3) (Attachment 5, LUE Chapter 8 Special Focus Areas). The applicant intends to submit a Specific Plan, pursuant to the guidelines set forth in the LUE. The project would require pre-zoning by the City, and annexation into the City limits. The applicant’s conceptual exhibit shows a mix of land uses within the Specific Plan area, including Senior Housing (Continuing Care Retirement Community), multi-family housing, single-family housing, retail sales uses, open space, and parks (Attachment 4, Exhibit B.1 Conceptual Land Uses). The preliminary proposal includes the realignment and restoration of Froom Creek within the property boundaries, and construction of parks and pathways. The applicant’s submitted narrative (Attachment 3) seeks to receive initial feedback on several issues. As noted above, this initiation request focuses on two key issues, which will ultimately drive the components of the Specific Plan application submittal, if authorized by the City Council. 4.0 EVALUATION 4.1 Initiation Request a.Alteration of 150-foot maximum site development elevation The most significant issue raised by the applicant is the request to allow development above the 150- foot elevation. The applicant’s conceptual land use exhibit shows senior housing extending to the 250- foot elevation and residential uses extending to the 180-foot elevation. The project site is located within Hillside Planning Area H Irish Hills1 (refer to Attachment 5, Figure 1). The topography of the project site ranges from approximately 110-120 feet near Los Osos Valley Road to 450 feet in the upper elevations. Approximately 44.3 percent (48.61 acres) of the project site is located above the 150- foot elevation. The applicant’s conceptual land use plan shows 19.12 acres of development (39.3 percent of the project site) above the 150-foot elevation line (refer to Attachment 4). Modification of the existing development limit line would allow development in the upper elevations of the Irish Hills above the 150-foot elevation. This area is identified as having high scenic value and is located within a scenic vista as seen from U.S. Highway 101.2 The site is also visible from Los Osos Valley Road and other areas within the City (i.e. public streets, parks, open space). Should the Council approve the proposed Specific Plan initiation, full environmental analysis would be required, including an assessment of the project’s impacts on aesthetic resources and consistency with adopted plans and policies. 1 LUE Policy 6.4.7.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. (See also Section 8, Special Focus Areas.)” 2 COSE Figure 11 (Scenic Roadways and Vistas) and Circulation Element Figure 3 (Scenic Roadways) 8.d Packet Pg. 257 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 4 The language specifying the 150-foot elevation development limit was carried forward into the LUE from the City’s previously adopted Land Use Element (adopted August 23, 1994 and revised June 15, 2010). The 1994 Land Use Element included a Hillside Planning Policies and Standards section; the purpose of this section was to “protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features, set boundaries for commercial and residential development in sensitive hillside areas by creating a permanent open space greenbelt at the edge of the community, and to protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards”.3 The Hillside Policies identified in the 2014 LUE focus on “where and how some hillsides may be developed” (refer to Attachment 5, LUE Chapter 6 Resource Protection). The Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) EIR provides an analysis of each proposed Specific Plan area, including the project site. Potential visual impacts identified in the LUCE EIR, specific to SP-3, include the following: Development of the site, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, could result in increased urbanization of the existing viewshed along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially block or obstruct existing public views. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Development of the area, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, has the potential to result in increased urbanization of an undeveloped area which could degrade the existing visual character and its surroundings. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Development of the area could result in increased ambient nighttime lighting through the addition of residential and commercial uses and associated structural development in a primarily undeveloped area. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.4 Therefore, the less than significant impact determinations specific to visual impacts were based on compliance with policies included in the LUE, such as the 150-foot development limit. Further environmental analysis, including a viewshed study and photo-simulations, would be required to determine if development above the 150-foot elevation would result in any significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts, and to determine appropriate mitigation measures. The applicant points to existing development in the area, including Mountainbrook Church and the KSBY Station building, which are located above the 150-foot elevation line and contribute to the 3 Final Environmental Impact Report Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates, August 1994 4 Land Use and Circulation Element Update Final EIR, September 2014 8.d Packet Pg. 258 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 5 existing visual setting. However, it should be noted that the Mountainbrook Church development was approved by the County of San Luis Obispo, pursuant to the County’s General Plan and Land Use Ordinance, and associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. The City did not have discretionary review authority for the project. These developments are also located outside of the Irish Hills Hillside Area, although Mountainbrook Church is located at elevation 203, right at the line between the Irish Hills and Calle Joaquin Hillside areas (refer to Attachment 4 Exhibit A.4). The applicant notes that the specific numerical elevation appears arbitrary, and does not reflect the land form conditions (topography) and visual considerations of the project site. The applicant requests that development performance standards (for view protection) be addressed through the Specific Plan, including identification of site-specific maximum roof elevations. Staff Discussion – Alteration or deletion of the 150-foot maximum site development elevation policy to allow development standards to be established in the Specific Plan: As noted above, the 150-foot development limitation line was carried forward into the recently adopted LUE, and was contributing evidence supporting the City Council’s finding that implementation of the LUE would result in less than significant aesthetic impacts. The LUE and associated Final EIR also anticipated that further discretionary review would be required during analysis of the anticipated Specific Plan, although there is no policy or indication that the development line could or should be adjusted during discretionary review of the Specific Plan. Development limits and special design standards for hillside areas are intended to “cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE), and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards” and help protect the city’s scenic setting.5 Development is required to be located within the development limit line unless a location outside the line “is necessary to protect public health and safety”.6 Land outside of the development limit line is required to be protected as permanent open space.7 The upper elevations of the project site support sensitive resources, including Chorro Creek bog thistle, native bunchgrass, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) listed plant species. The applicant’s conceptual exhibits show avoidance of Chorro Creek bog thistle, and note that mitigation will be required for the loss of native bunchgrass and CNPS listed vegetation. Approximately 37 percent of the project site (28 acres) is located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone. These lower elevations proximate to Los Osos Valley Road are subject to flooding, and this area includes floodway management features and two stormwater management basins, creating a significant constraint regarding development in the flat lands. 5 LUE Section 6.4.2 Development Limits 6 LUE Section 6.4.3 Development Standards 7 LUE Section 6.4.4 Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines 8.d Packet Pg. 259 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 6 As identified in the County’s General Plan, the upper elevations of the subject parcels are within the County Sensitive Resource Area (SRA) designation. The intent of the SRA is to call attention to the importance of highly scenic and important backdrops and natural landmarks visible from scenic highways and urban areas and the locations of rare or endangered plants and animals. The SRA extends down to the 200-foot elevation line.8 The project site is also located at the urban/wildland interface, and the upper elevations are located within the County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Geologic Study Area (GSA) overlay for geologic hazards. This overlay does not present a restriction; however, further study would be warranted to address potentially significant geologic hazards such as slope stability and landslide hazards. Steeper slopes also have a greater potential for rockfall and erosion. The applicant’s Conceptual Land Use exhibit (Attachment 4, Exhibit B.1) shows Senior Housing, Single Family, Park, and Open Space land uses above the 150-foot elevation line (refer to Attachment 5, Figure 2). The topography above the 150-foot elevation within the project site shows a natural plateau (0-15 percent slopes) and intervening topography, which may provide natural screening of future development; however, construction of access roads and utilities would require grading along moderately to steeply sloping topography. Additional information including photo-simulations and environmental analysis is required to fully evaluate the potential effects of raising or eliminating the development limit line and identifying specific building height elevations within the project site. Key public health and safety issues associated with the project site that may limit development in the lower elevations include flooding hazards and the need for floodway management along Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin Road. This area is identified as Open Space on the applicant’s conceptual exhibit, and is intended to support a realigned section of Froom Creek and existing and future stormwater basins. The certified Final EIR for the LUCE Update states that the Specific Plan will be required to address several issues (as listed in the LUE), including environmental constraints, resource protection, hillside 8: “Scenic and visual qualities of distant ridges, peaks and hillsides, as well as the closer or "foreground" elements such as rock outcrops, oak woodlands, creeks and other visually appealing natural formations and vegetation contribute to the widespread perception by local residents and visitors alike that the San Luis Obispo area is a desirable place to live or visit. This perception, in turn, has a beneficial effect on the economic stability of the recreation and tourist industries. Other economic sectors also benefit from local employees and employers alike who place a high value on living in San Luis Obispo. Therefore, identification and protection of the scenic resources in the San Luis Obispo planning area is an important aspect of planning. Ridges, peaks and hillsides comprise scenic backdrops and natural landmarks. They rise above urban areas and highways, terminating vistas with a largely undeveloped appearance” (County of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Planning Area, San Luis Obispo Sub-Area North Area Plan). 8.d Packet Pg. 260 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 7 and open space protection, viewsheds, and views from off-site locations.9 The applicant’s project narrative states the project can be designed to minimize impacts to scenic resources by using the existing topography, which may provide a natural visual barrier between the development and public viewing areas. Variations in topography may provide opportunities to screen future development from view; however, certain components including lighting and grading cut slopes may be difficult to fully “hide”, and overall the project is anticipated to create some change in the visual environment, and may increase cumulative views of the existing structures and the proposed development in the upper elevations of the Irish Hills. It is difficult to evaluate the full extent of the potential changes prior to full environmental analysis and review of a specific project. This analysis would need to be undertaken as part of the recommended EIR analysis in the event Council approves the applicant proposed initiation. If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, including preliminary authorization to proceed with a Specific Plan that includes development above the 150-foot elevation, the application package would include a General Plan Amendment to modify the current language presented in LUE Policy 6.4.7.H to allow for hillside development above the 150-foot elevation. The planning and environmental review process would include preparation of an EIR that would evaluate the potential impacts to visual, biological, and hydrological resources, potential geologic and soils hazards, and consistency with plans and policies specifically identified to protect these sensitive resources. The review process would include review and direction from the City’s Architectural Review Commission. As proposed, the conceptual layout does not meet the intent of the LUE and COSE, which calls for a compact mixed-use project and includes numerous policies calling for the protection of hillsides in and proximate to the City. Additional information, including photo simulations of the proposed development within the hillside context would be necessary to determine if the project could be designed to protect hillside views, consistent with LUE hillside development policies and LUE resource protection policies10, Open Space Policies protecting scenic vistas, and Circulation Element policies which call for the protection of views from roadways designated as having scenic value. b.Receive confirmation that the development of more housing (CCRC, SFR, and MF Rental Housing) and less commercial space on this Specific Plan site is an acceptable refinement of the LUCE planning vision for this site. Staff Discussion – Mix of Uses: The LUCE identified a vision for this Specific Plan area, which includes a compact mixed use development including the following land uses (refer to Table 1 on the following page). A private care facility is not specifically envisioned for the project site, and this type 9 “Future development to consider viewsheds, hillside and open space protection, height limits, wetland protection, access to other connections, historic farm buildings, mixed use to accommodate workforce housing, and neighborhood commercial type uses” (LUCE Final EIR 2014). 10 LUE Chapter 6 Resource Protection 8.d Packet Pg. 261 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 8 of facility is generally not of the low to moderate housing type. The LUE identifies the following Special Focus Areas as suitable for residential care and assisted and/or senior living facilities: General Hospital Site (Special Focus Area 5, located on Johnson Avenue) Madonna Inn Area (Special Focus Area 7, located on Madonna Road) Table 1. Comparison of Land Use Standards (LUE identified and Applicant Proposed) LUE Type/Designation Min-Max1 Applicant Proposed Land Uses Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 200-250 apartment units 60-80 single-family units CCRC including: - 276 independent living apartments - 66 independent living villas and assisted living units - 122-bed skilled nursing and memory care facility Commercial / NC, CR 50,000 to 350,000 sf 25,000 to 45,000 sf Parks / PARK Small neighborhood park including historic structures (education, community use) Open Space, Agriculture / OS, AG 50% 50% open space to be provided throughout the project site Public To be determined Infrastructure Integrated circulation, drainage/floodway management, utilities, parking, etc. to be provided 1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints Additional information is necessary to determine if the Specific Plan would provide the appropriate range of housing envisioned for this area of the City, in addition to meeting inclusionary and affordable housing regulations.11 Additional market analysis would be necessary to determine the economic impact resulting from the proposed mix of uses, which include a significant reduction in commercial uses compared to that identified in the LUE. 11 New development is required to provide affordable housing by: 1) constructing affordable housing, or 2) paying an in- lieu fee, or 3) contributing real property to be used as affordable housing, or 4) a combination of these methods. 8.d Packet Pg. 262 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 9 CONCLUSION The scope of the initiation review only provides authorization for the applicant to proceed with the application process for the Specific Plan. Conceptual land use plans submitted for the initiation include two key issues which are not consistent with existing General Plan Policy: 1) the proposed mix of land uses, which differ substantially from the General Plan performance standards for SP-3, and 2) comments on whether development over the 150-foot contour should be included for further evaluation in the formal submittal. Staff recommends that other issues raised by the applicant (i.e., appropriate designation of Open Space, treatment of the Froom Ranch historic complex, realignment and restoration of Froom Creek, building heights, and resource mitigation) are more appropriately addressed through further evaluation in a formal Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment application based on Council direction. The proposed project would then be evaluated comprehensively by Staff, including complete environmental review in an EIR. If the Commission recommends inclusion of the applicant’s request to propose alteration of the 150 foot maximum site development alteration and/or modification to the mix of land uses envisioned in the Land Use Element for the Specific Plan area, Staff recommends the recommendation include the following conditions: 1.The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on the hillsides above the 150-foot contour line including but not limited to: photo-simulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details. The formal application shall assess potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highways, and open space areas. 2.Evaluation of the formal application shall include market analysis to determine the economic impact resulting from the proposed mix of uses, which include a significant reduction in commercial uses compared to what was identified in the LUE. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Recommend the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the applicant: (1) alteration of the 150 foot elevation maximum site development; and, (2) modification of the Land Use Element specified land use mix. 8.d Packet Pg. 263 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE-1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 10 5.2 Recommend the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments, but provide a land use mix that more closely correlates with LUE policies for Specific Plan Area 3 5.3 Recommend the City Council approve the initiation but the formal submittal should not include a General Plan Amendment to develop above the 150-foot contour line. 5.4 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 5.5 Determine that no major amendments should be made to the General Plan and recommend the City Council deny the request for Specific Plan Amendment Initiation. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1.Draft Resolution 2.Vicinity Map 3.Applicant’s Project Description Statement and Applicant’s Review and Discussion of Issues (dated April 30, 2015) 4.Applicant’s Exhibit Plan Set (8.5 x 11 in color) 5.General Plan Policies Pertinent to the Initiation Request NOTE: Not Attached to Attachment d, please refer to individual attachments to the Council Agenda Report 8.d Packet Pg. 264 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 9, 2015 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, December 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Larson. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice- Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner John Fowler. City Staff Present: Interim Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, and Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minut es of the Planning Commission meeting of October 28, 2015 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.12165 Los Osos Valley Road. PRE-1293-2015; Request to initiate preparation of a Specific Plan and Environmental Review, including guidance regarding select City Policies, for the Madonna-Froom Ranch (SP-3); John and Susan Madonna, applicants. 8.d Packet Pg. 265 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) City Consultant, Shawna Scott, presented the staff report requesting the Commission recommend City Council approve the request to initiate the Madonna LOVR Specific Plan (Alternatives 5.1-5.5). Commissioner Dandekar acknowledged being familiar with the site; Commissioner Malak stated having an ex-parte visit and tour of the site with the Applicant; Commissioner Draze stated visiting the site on his own. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Applicant, John Madonna, summarized the project; indicated that the property is uniquely suited for a complete continuing care facility and stated there is a need in the community for this type of elder care; expressed a desire to receive authorization to move forward with the project. Applicant Representative, Victor Montgomery, provided an overview of the project; indicated having key meetings with perspective residents, neighbors, City staff, and agencies from the Froom Creek Realignment and noted no issues were brought up during those meetings that would hinder moving forward with the project. He pointed out that a site evaluation was completed; noted site constraints that would require amendments to General Plan Policy such as alteration of the 150-foot maximum site development elevation and the conceptual mix of uses appropriate for the SP-3 Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area; requested guidance and direction from the Commission. Judy Reiner, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the project stating the need for a continuing care retirement community in the area; indicated there is a lack of choice for elderly care facilities and shared that her parents had to be separated and live apart due to the lack of a facility that would accommodate both of their needs. Ken Reiner, San Luis Obispo, stated that there are over 245 households over the age of 75 in the area who are interested in moving into a continuing care facility; noted that people who are retiring are very active and would like to be close to hiking and biking trails; stressed the need and interest for this type of facility in the community. Rey Walters, Avila Beach, principal of Villaggio Communities, spoke in support of the project, stated there is an overwhelming need for this type of housing; shared a presentation demonstrating statistics and demographics that reflect the lack of elder care options and the need for a continuing care facility; opined that after looking at many locations throughout the County, the LOVR location would be the best location for the project. John Wilbanks, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the project; suggested that a General Plan amendment may not be needed to develop above the 150-foot elevation contour, noting that policy 6.4.7.H of the General Plan Land Use Element states: “The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation” and pointed out that the word “should” is permissive. 8.d Packet Pg. 266 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Riggs, inquired regarding the creek setback. Natural Resources Manager, Robert Hill, clarified that the zoning regulations require a 35-foot creek setback. Commissioner Draze stated that he was not opposed to the change in uses and the mixed uses being proposed are not inconsistent with the General Plan ; agreed that there is a need for a continuing care facility; indicated there are issues related to development above the 150-foot elevation contour that still need to be evaluated and voiced concerns over the visual impacts this project could have on the edge of the community. Commissioner Dandekar stated that the intended use of this area was for workforce housing; noted concerns over allowing development above the 150-foot elevation contour due to the fact that this area serves as a gateway into the City and stated the importance of maintaining the open space character in the area. Vice-Chair Multari thanked staff for the thoughtful analysis and the applicant for their presentation; recommended the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission review the project; stated the City is over zoned for commercial uses and noted concerns over traffic on LOVR. He stated that there are pending questions which warrant further analysis as to whether this location is right for the elderly care facility, such as topography and proximity to hospitals; indicated that there is a growing demand for this type of facility; stated it would be premature to recommend conceptual approval or recommend a General Plan amendment without further examination. Commissioner Riggs noted that the development capacity of the site belo w the 150-foot threshold and the carrying capacity were discussed in the late summer of 2014; indicated that he was not convinced the use is critical enough to warrant development above the 150-foot elevation contour, considering the potential visual impacts; voiced concerns over possible ecological impacts from relocating Froom Creek, and noted having mixed feelings about relaxing setback policies; commented that specific zoning standards are inconsistent with the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE); indicated being concerned about circulation and access. Chair Larson stated that a General Plan amendment would be needed in order to reconcile the issues; opined that the mix of uses are consistent with the mix of uses envisioned for this area in the Land Use Element; noted not being convinced that this project would preclude workforce housing. Stated the re-alignment of the creek could be an opportunity to enhance the habitat, appearance, and functioning of the creek; agreed with Commissioner Riggs’s comments regarding circulation and access; stated it would be beneficial to receive more community input. 8.d Packet Pg. 267 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Commissioner Dandekar commented that during the LUCE deliberations the 150-foot development limit contour was seen as a safeguard to protect the open space and the City’s ambience; stated having a great deal of concern about extending the 150-foot elevation threshold. Commissioner Draze suggested that if the Commission decides to adopt alternative recommendation (5.1) “the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the applicant: (1) alteration of the 150-foot elevation maximum site development; and, (2) modification of the Land Use Element specified land use mix”, that language should be included to address the visual impacts of development above the 150-foot elevation. Also, stated there needs to be broader public notification in order to gain more community involvement and feedback. Commissioner Malak opined that the view shed would not be degraded by allowing the height extension from the 150-foot to the 200-foot elevation contour; noted supporting the modification to the land use element, stating that there is a need for this type of elder care facility; stated being in favor of re-locating the creek; indicated he would like to see more information regarding traffic impacts and an EIR; indicated he would like to see ADA approved apartments as well as workforce housing to be included in this project; commented that this is a great opportunity to meet the needs of the community. In response to inquiry by Vice-Chair Multari, Commissioner Riggs, clarified his position stating not being convinced that the proposed site is the most appropriate for this land use; noting that environmental impacts, the historic value of the landscape and the visual impacts are very significant issues that also needed to be addressed. Commissioner Dandekar stated that the intent for this site was dense mix-use residential, and was hoping to see an urban development in this site; indicated feeling discomforted over the visual impacts and the land use. Commissioner Draze suggested that issues regarding the creek, circulation, and visual impacts need to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Riggs stated it is important to highlight the fact that zoning regulations have not been updated to reflect the LUCE objectives; urged staff to address this issue as soon as possible. Commissioner Malak noted that the zone would remain dense; Chair Larson concurred, stating he did not think the proposal would displace housing; noted these details would have to be worked out when the project moves forward; concurred it would be beneficial to include language in the resolution to include the additional issues brought up by Commissioner Riggs. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Malak to adopt alternative recommendation 5.1 with the following changes: Recommending the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the 8.d Packet Pg. 268 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) applicant : (1) revisit of the 150-foot elevation maximum site development, particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge; and, (2) modification of the Land Use Element specified land use mix. Including the following changes to Section 3 condition 1: Condition 1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on the hillsides above the 150-foot contour line, particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge, including but not limited to: photo-simulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details. The formal application shall assess potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highways, and open space areas. Removal of Finding 2. Finding 2. Evaluation of the formal application shall include market analysis to determine the economic impact resulting from the proposed mix of uses, which include a significant reduction in commercial uses compared to what was identified in the LUE. AYES: Commissioners Malak, Larson, and Draze, NOES: Commissioners Multari, Riggs, and Dandekar RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The motion did not carry 3:3. No action was taken. Commissioner Riggs requested more information regarding the re-alignment of the creek, information on the setbacks, and asked for more strategies to improve consistency with the Circulation Element. Chair Larson stated that if the proposal to re-align the creek is pursued, he would like to see an improvement to the habitat, noted that all constraints and recourses should be taken into consideration; requested additional information that is more comprehensive to help make a decision on this matter. Commissioner Dandekar expressed interest in seeing if the mix-use requirements could be met without violating the 150-foot elevation threshold. Vice-Chair Multari indicated that many of the issues are linked, and stated there were more issues aside from the elevation such as flood zones and visual impacts that needed to be addressed; stated not having the information needed to make a decision. The Co mmission discussed the importance of having a transparent process and having community involvement. 8.d Packet Pg. 269 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) On motion by Commissioner Riggs, seconded by Commissioner Malak, to continue to a date uncertain with the intent to provide additional information. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Malak, Multari, Larson, and Riggs. NOES: Commissioner Draze RECUSED: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The motioned passed on a 5:1 vote. RECESS: The Commission recessed at 8:09 p.m. and reconvened at 8:17 p.m. 2.2881 Broad Street. SBDV-1988-2015; A determination of whether the disposition of a city- owned lot and the acquisition of the property bordering 2881 Broad Street is in conformance to the City’s General Plan; R-2-S zone; Dustin Pires, applicant. Assistant Planner, Walter Oetzell, presented the staff report and provided an overview of the project, recommending, adopting a draft resolution of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission determining the disposition of a portion of a City-owned lot at the southerly edge of Stoneridge Drive and acqu isition of property along the northerly edge of Perkins Lane, adjacent to Property Located at 2881 Broad Street is in Conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan (SUBDV-1988-2015), based on findings. Commissioner Malak asked for clarification on the improvements that would be made to the area; Assistant Planner Oetzell explained that a side walk, curb and gutter were going to be added to Perkins Lane. In response to Commissioner Dandekar and Malak’s inquiries, regarding the process of determining an equitable exchange, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere, stated the City looks at a number of factors including the location, and the significance of the land, noting that if the property is large, they get an appraisal, but in small cases such as the one at hand the appraisal would likely exceed the fair market value of the property. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Applicant, Dustin Pires, stated that the project would drastically improve the street and circulation in the area, noting that the excha nge would be a win-win situation. COMMISSION COMMENTS On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Malak, moved to adopt staff recommendation, finding that the proposed property exchange is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, with the addition of the following amendment: 8.d Packet Pg. 270 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15312, Surplus Government Property Sales, of the CEQA Guidelines. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Larson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. There were no further comments made from the Commission. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 1.Staff a.Agenda Forecast – Interim Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, provided an update of upcoming projects; noted that the next meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2016, in which the Commission will be reviewing the Motel Inn project. 2.Commission Commissioner Malak brought to light a synopsis in the Tribune regarding the Fremont Square development. Commissioner Riggs pointed out that he forwarded comments from the October 28, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, and asked the Commission to review them. ADJOURMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Respect fully submitted by, Sarah Reinhart Recording Secretary 8.d Packet Pg. 271 At t a c h m e n t : d - P C S t a f f R e p o r t a n d M i n u t e s D e c e m b e r 7 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) December 16, 2015 John Madonna 12165 Los Osos Valley Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Subject: PRE 1293-2015 (12165 and 12393 Los Osos Valley Road): Request to Initiate Preparation of Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (Madonna-Froom Specific Plan) Dear Mr. Madonna: On December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission met to review the request to initiate preparation of the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (Madonna-Froom Specific Plan). The Planning Commission requested additional information to better inform their decision-making process. Based on this direction, staff requests that you provide the following items by January 5, 2016, with the intention of scheduling the item for a January 2016 hearing date: 1.Provide justification why development is conceptually proposed above the 150-foot elevation. 2.Clearly identify constraints warranting development above the 150-foot elevation, which correlate to Exhibit A.1 (Site Constraints Map) or an amended constraints map. 3.Quantify approximate resource impacts potentially resulting from development above the 150-foot elevation, including but not limited to: grading on slopes exceeding 20 percent; USACE and CDFW jurisdictional waters and habitat; Chorro Creek bog thistle; native bunchgrass; and mature trees by species. 4.Amend visual simulations to show elevation contours. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (805) 543-7095 extension 6811. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Contract Planner Community Development Department sscott@swca.com 8.e Packet Pg. 272 At t a c h m e n t : e - P C D i r e c t i o n a l I t e m s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.f Packet Pg. 273 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.f Packet Pg. 274 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Planning Commission Minutes Draft San Luis Obispo Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Wednesday, January 27, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Larson. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, William Riggs Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent: Commissioner Michael Draze* *Note: Commissioner Draze joined the meeting at 8:27 P.M. Staff Present: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Planning Technician Kyle Bell, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Assistant City Clerk John Paul Maier ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.2450 Victoria Avenue. GENP-2550-2015: Review of General Plan conformance for the abandonment and acquisition of right-of-way for Victoria Avenue between Alphonso Street and Woodbridge Street and for the abandonment and acquisition of right-of-way for a sewer line, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-S-SF and C-R-SF zones; PC Opportunity 3, LLC., applicant. DR A F T 8.f Packet Pg. 275 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Community Development Deputy Director Davidson and Planning Technician Bell narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled, “2450 Victoria Avenue” and reviewed the contents of the report. Planning Technician Bell provided a brief summary, noting that the alignment closely reflects the original conceptual design of the extension of Victoria Avenue of the South Broad Street Area Plan and the proposed right-of-way fulfills the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element goals. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Larson noted that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for 2450 Victoria Avenue on December 9, 2015 and mentioned that Attachment 3 of the staff report includes the report for that hearing. On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to adopt “A Resolution of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission determining General Plan conformance for the abandonment and acquisition of right-of-way for Victoria Avenue between Alphonso Street and Woodbridge Street and for the abandonment and acquisition of right-of-way for a sewer line over portions of 783 Alphonso Street and 780 Woodbridge Street Properties for use of a right-of-way by the City of San Luis Obispo with a categorical exemption from environmental review, as represented in the staff report and attachments dated January 27, 2016 (2450 Victoria Avenue, GENP-2550- 2016),” which determines and reports to the City Council, that the proposed acquisition conforms to the General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Fowler, Malak, Riggs, Vice Chair Multari and Chair Larson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioners Draze The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 2.1101 Monterey Street. OTHR-2484-2015: Conceptual review and preliminary feedback for a Planned Development with a new 75-foot tall mixed-use project that includes an 80-room hotel, 26,000 square feet of residential units, 20,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space, 33,000 square feet of office space, a 45- foot tall parking garage and a transit center; CR zone; Stone Park Capital and NKT Commercial, applicant. Commissioner Fowler announced he would recuse himself for Item 2, due to a potential conflict of interest; noting that his employer Peoples’ Self-Help Housing is in discussion with the applicant about a possible participation in the project site. DR A F T 8.f Packet Pg. 276 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Community Development Director Codron and Associate Planner Cohen provided the staff report, highlighting that the presented project is a planned development for conceptual review and preliminary feedback; noted the opportunity for the public to learn about and comment on a project proposal early in the design phase; recognized the Downtown Concept Plan and Downtown Core/Monterey Focus Area Key Policies. Applicant representatives Andrew Firestone and Pam Ricci summarized the plans submitted for conceptual review and described the project. The applicants addressed public concerns, concluding that a floor of office space would be removed from the original design to allow for four floors of work-force and affordable housing. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dia Hurd, expressed concerns with allowing a 75 foot building at this location and inquired if construction of the parking structure would be built first. William Cochran, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the Commission’s purview, noting concerns with parking and noise effects on small businesses in the area; expressed concerns with the proposed 75 foot height of the structure; urged the Planning Commission to consider the scenic views of the hillside, when deciding the height of the project. Pam Orth, San Luis Obispo, expressed gratitude for consideration of the parking, affordable housing, and transit center elements of the project; voiced concerns with the current empty retail stores, suggesting that currently, new developments are constructed and have a difficulty in retaining occupants; urged the Planning Commission to consider the size and scope of the project for this location. Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, noted that he submitted a letter of concerns, highlighting increases for downtown building heights and intensity limits; noted negative impacts of taller buildings associated in a small town ambience; expressed concerns with the project conforming to the policy objectives; and urged that a 75 foot tall building must meet all planned development objectives. Diane Duenow, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the size of the 75 foot building in the proposed location and consistency of heights of the other buildings in the area; opined that to allow a project of that scale, it should be considered at an alternative location; explained that the City needs Ordinances to allow developers to follow when designing plans and urged the Planning Commission to consider the scenic views when considering future developments. Ron DeCarhi, Executive Director of San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, spoke about a study completed in 2012 to determine a location for a transit center; expressed support for a public-private partnership and urged the City to work closely with transit agencies to allow a mixed use facility and transit center; urged the Planning Commission to support the construction of a transit center at the presented location. DR A F T 8.f Packet Pg. 277 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Jerry Rioux, San Luis Obispo, stated that construction of a new transit center will improve parking in the downtown area; spoke about the San Luis Obispo County government building’s height in comparison to the proposed project. Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, stated that he is a former president of the Chamber of Commerce and highlighted the different elements of a downtown area; spoke about the height of the proposed project, noting that the location chosen for this project is ideal; urged support to the conceptual plan. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, stated that the building is too large for the City’s downtown area; opined that allowing this building in the downtown would be a drastic change; voiced concerns with the proposed project. Linda White, San Luis Obispo, submitted a letter, expressing concerns with the height of the proposed project; stated that the developers should consider a 45 foot building; stated that the building scale and mass are not consistent with the other buildings in the downtown area. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, identified similar buildings in comparison to proposed structure, relating to the mass and scale; spoke about the downtown area of Santa Maria and how it has developed; stated that the proposed height of structure is too tall. John Grady, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the benefits of a new transit center; urged the Commission to enforce a 45 foot height limit for the proposed project; stated that the City of Santa Barbara has similar regulations for the downtown area, regarding the height of buildings that limits new development to 45 feet. Melissa James, San Luis Obispo, spoke about economic development in the downtown area; noted that the City has a difficulty in attracting and retaining a growing workforce; opined that there is a need for affordable housing in the City of San Luis Obispo. Russell Brown, Save Our Downtown - San Luis Obispo Chair, stated that the proposed structure is too large for the downtown area; explained that the building is not consistent in aspects of height and mass; spoke about his service on the Land Use Task Force, noting that the entry point of San Luis Obispo downtown area needs to be carefully considered. Baylin Vieeland, San Luis Obispo, urged support to the proposed project, regarding the element of additional residential living spaces in the downtown area; spoke about preservation of the downtown area and the effects of additional residential space of a downtown. Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the mass and scale of the proposed structure; explained that the proposed structure is not consistent with the existing residential area; urged the Commission to consider a 45 foot limit for the proposed mixed-use project. DR A F T 8.f Packet Pg. 278 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Bob Lucas, San Luis Obispo, submitted a letter to the Planning Commission, addressing affordable workforce housing in the downtown area; expressed concerns with plans for a proposed hotel. Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, about the preservation of open space and the downtown area; urged the Commission to consider policies and projects thoughtfully when updating the downtown; stated that cities that consider development projects need to be well designed, regardless of scale. Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, stated that development projects need to have parking on site; spoke about the impacts of off-site parking; explained that employees of the County offices park in residential areas due to a lack of parking. Dominic Tartalia, San Luis Obispo, explained that he neither supports or disagrees with the proposed project; expressed support to invigorate the downtown area through private investment. Charlene Rosales, Chamber of Commerce, expressed support to the conceptual project; stated that the proposed project brings the opportunity of a new transit center and affordable housing to the community. Chair Larson recessed the meeting at 8:16 P.M. Chair Larson called the meeting to order at 8:27 P.M. Commissioner Draze joined the meeting at 8:27 P.M. DR A F T 8.f Packet Pg. 279 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Riggs expressed support to the mixed-use element of the proposed project; stated that additional housing and a transit center are needed; urged the developer to include a wider sidewalk; stated that this site is appropriate for the level of density; expressed concerns with the traffic flow of vehicles, noting that there would be a high volume of drivers who may make sudden turns behind the building; encouraged the developer to include a pedestrian interface, possibly including the corner and a pedestrian scramble. Commissioner Draze voiced support to Commissioner Riggs’ comments and expressed support to the proposed transit center; stated that he is a proponent of vertical design rather than horizontal design. Chair Larson expressed support of a proposed transit center, noting the importance and convenience for bus riders in the downtown area; urged the developer to consider the importance of the scenic views, including hillsides; noted that the proposed project mass is not consistent to the area; urged the developer to consider the integration of a parking structure; expressed support to integrating pedestrian space and consideration of a pedestrian scramble. Commissioner Dandekar expressed support to the mixed-use component of the proposed project, including additional housing and urged the developer to maximize the number of units in the structure; urged the developer to consider design details for public space and how it will enhance the downtown; expressed support to a 60 foot range for the proposed structure and consider store-fronts around the building. Commissioner Malak expressed support to Commissioners’ Riggs and Dandekar comments, regarding an open patio or open area; urged the developer to consider an open area at the corner of the development; expressed support to the proposed transit center; urged the developers to consider additional store-fronts around the front of the building, noting the importance of sidewalk space; expressed support to a 60 foot height limit for the proposed structure. Vice Chair Multari expressed support to additional housing; expressed support to Commissioners Riggs’ and Malak’s comments, relating to moving the transit center; stated that housing should be located farther away from the transit center; expressed support to Malak’s comments regarding a structure that maintains the downtown character. Commissioner Riggs’s stated that the Commission needs to consider the effects to the community, relating to parking and architectural use for this project. In response to the Public and Commissioner comments, Chair Larson urged the applicants to consider the provided feedback and to work with staff in developing the project. There were no further comments made from the Commission. DR A F T 8.f Packet Pg. 280 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle 3.12165 Los Osos Valley Road. PRE-1293-2015: Request for authorization to proceed with Specific Plan and Environmental Review and guidance regarding select City policies; John and Susan Madonna, applicant. (Shawna Scott, SWCA) Deputy Director Davidson and Consulting Planner Scott reviewed the contents of the report, highlighting that the presented project is a continued hearing to review request to initiate preparation of the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan and associated general amendments and provided a brief background. Consulting Planner Scott explained that the Planning Commission considered the applicant's request on December 9, 2015 at a Planning Commssion Meeting, providing feedback and direction for the conceptual land use plan. Applicant Representative Victor Montgomery of RRM Design Group narrated a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commissioners’ inquiries. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ray Walters, Co-Applicant, spoke about a shortage of senior housing in the State; expressed support to the location of the proposed retirement care facility; noted that there are no continuing care retirement communities in the County of San Luis Obispo. Judy Riener, San Luis Obispo, spoke about a need for retirement communities in San Luis Obispo; explained that her parents lived in a rental apartment in a retirement community. Ken Riener, San Luis Obispo, spoke about different properties and locations considered for a continuing care retirement community and the need for a CCRC; provided a history of problematic locations, noting that the proposed location would be better if nearer to a hospital. John Madonna, Applicant, stated that senior housing is underserved in the area and there are no similar retirement facilities in the County; stated that without the allowance of the 150 foot proposal the creek would not be moved; and voiced support for a need of a continuing care retirement community. Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, expressed support to the retirement facility concept; expressed concerns regarding water resources for the proposed development; and expressed concerns with the proposed projects as it relates to the 150 foot height limit. COMMISSION COMMENTS Deputy Director Davidson clarified that the fundamental question for the proposed development is the consideration of a proposed development that is above 150 feet. The Commission deliberated the Applicant’s requests for two projects on the same property, noting consideration of change of policies to the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. Chair Larson noted that there are two major considerations for the proposed development: authorization of a General Plan Amendment to change the 150 foot contour line and to allow consideration of a new use at this location. DR A F T 8.f Packet Pg. 281 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle On motion by Commissioner Malak, seconded by Commissioner Draze, to allow continuance of the Planning Commission meeting and hear the agenda item after 11:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Malak, Riggs, Vice Chair Multari and Chair Larson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. On motion by Commissioner Malak, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution, “a Resolution of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission recommending the City Council authorize initiation of the Madonna-Froom Ranch Specific Plan (PRE 1293-2015)” and providing a recommendation to the City Council for consideration of the request to initiate the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan and associated General Plan amendments. AYES: Commissioners, Fowler, Malak, Riggs, Vice Chair Multari and Chair Larson NOES: Commissioners Dandekar, Riggs, and Vice Chair Multari RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 4:3 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Deputy Director Davidson provided an agenda forecast of upcoming items. On motion by Commissioner Malak, seconded by Commissioner Draze, to direct staff to provide workshops on usage and conservation for energy and water. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Multari and Chair Larson NOES: Commissioners Fowler and Riggs RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 5:2 vote. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, John Paul Maier Assistant City Clerk Approved by the Planning Commission on xx-xx-xxxx. _______________________________ Lee Price Interim City Clerk DR A F T 8.f Packet Pg. 282 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Continued hearing to review request to initiate preparation of the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan and associated General Plan amendments PROJECT ADDRESS: 12165 and 12393 BY: Shawna Scott, Consulting Planner Los Osos Valley Road Phone: 543-7095 ext. 6811 e-mail: sscott@swca.com VIA: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phone: 781-7176 FILE NUMBER: PRE 1293-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Consider key issues related to proposed land uses and proposed modifications to hillside development limits and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the request to initiate the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan and associated General Plan amendments (Alternatives 4.1-4.5). 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant is requesting authorization from the City Council to pursue preparation of the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (identified as Specific Plan Area SP-3 in the General Plan Land Use Element). The action was initially considered by the Planning Commission on December 9, 2015; at that time, the Planning Commission moved to continue the item and provided direction to staff and the applicant, which is addressed in this report. The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend to the City Council whether to initiate the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. SITE DATA Applicant John Madonna, John Madonna Construction Company Bob Richmond, Villagio Senior Living Representative Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group Zoning County of San Luis Obispo – Commercial Retail, Agriculture, Rural Lands General Plan SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area Site Area 111 acres Environmental Status A Program-Level Final EIR was adopted for the LUCE in 2014. Meeting Date: January 27, 2016 Item Number: 3 8.f Packet Pg. 283 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 2 2.0 SPECIFIC PLAN INITIATION HEARING CONTINUANCE On December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the applicant’s request to initiate the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan and provided feedback and direction regarding several key issues identified in the applicant’s submitted project description narrative and the staff report (refer to Attachment 3, December 9, 2015 staff report and attachments). The Planning Commission generally supported the applicant’s proposed mix of uses, which include Senior Housing (Continuing Care Retirement Community), multi-family housing, single-family housing, retail sales uses, open space, and parks (Attachment 3, Exhibit B.1 Conceptual Land Uses). The most significant issue raised by the applicant is the request to allow development above the 150-foot elevation. The applicant’s conceptual land use exhibit shows the senior housing land use area extending to the 250-foot elevation (existing grade) and residential use area extending to the 180-foot elevation (existing grade). As indicated by the applicant, the conceptual land use plan includes 19.12 acres of development above the 150-foot elevation line (refer to page 3 of Attachment 3, Planning Commission Staff Report, December 9, 2015). The Planning Commission moved to continue the item pending receipt of additional information and clarification as discussed in section 2.1 below. 2.1 Response to Planning Commission a.Planning Commission Direction #1: Clearly identify constraints warranting development above the 150-foot elevation: Approximately 61 acres of the 111-acre project site is located below the 150-foot elevation. As indicated by the applicant and as graphically shown on the applicant’s Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map (refer to Attachment 4, Exhibit A.1), existing land use and resource constraints below the 150-foot elevation include: 1.Existing historic buildings associated with the Froom Ranch Historic Complex (1.5 acres) 2.Wetland habitat proximate to Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin Road (7.0 acres) 3.Stormwater basin serving adjacent commercial development (2.8 acres) 4.Slopes 21 percent or greater (6.0 acres) The applicant’s preliminary conceptual plans include the realignment and restoration of Froom Creek below the 150-foot elevation (refer to Attachment 5, Exhibit D.1, Conceptual Creek Corridor Plan and Section). This component would result in approximately 11.6 acres of drainages onsite; this acreage includes a 35-foot building setback from Froom Creek and a 20-foot building setback from an unnamed tributary to Froom Creek. Therefore, the applicant indicates that approximate area of constrained land below the 150-foot elevation is 28.9 acres. This would leave approximately 32.1 acres of developable area below the 150- foot elevation. This acreage is a key component of the applicant’s justification for requesting 8.f Packet Pg. 284 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 3 the City’s consideration of development above the 150-foot elevation, as discussed further below. b.Planning Commission Direction #2: Provide justification for development above the 150- foot elevation: The applicant’s justification for development above the 150-foot elevation relates to the acreage of unconstrained land, compliance with the LUE standards for SP-3, and the additional Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) component of the conceptual plan. As noted above, the applicant has identified approximately 32.1 acres of developable land below the 150-foot elevation. As shown in Table 1 below, the approximate acreage to meet LUE standards for SP-3 ranges between 25.5 and 67.5 acres, due to the variations in minimum to maximum units and square footage for identified land uses. Please note the acreages identified in Table 1 on the following page are conceptual and approximate, and are intended to give the Planning Commission and the public a general understanding of the comparison between developable acreage and the approximate acreage needed to accommodate a Specific Plan development. In addition to the development area estimated to be necessary to comply with the LUE standards which could feasibly be accommodated in some form below the 150-foot elevation, the applicant estimates that the CCRC would require an additional 20 acres of developable land to accommodate activities and life transitions from active adult to skilled nursing and hospice. As shown in Table 1, the applicant’s conceptual plan, which includes general compliance with the LUE SP-3 standards and the CCRC, would require up to approximately 55.5 acres of total developed land, which would exceed the developable land acreage below the 150-foot elevation by approximately 23.4 acres. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a recommendation to initiate the Specific Plan that would allow submittal of an application package including development of the CCRC and residential land uses above the 150-foot elevation. As shown in Table 1, if a Specific Plan were proposed to meet the minimum LUE development standards (25.5 acres) and accommodate the proposed CCRC (20 acres), this concept would exceed developable land area below the 150-foot elevation by approximately 13 acres. 8.f Packet Pg. 285 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 4 Table 1. Developable Land Requirements1 LUE SP-3 Development Standards Applicant’s Conceptual Land Use Mix Type/Designation Min-Max2 Approximate Area Conceptual Land Use Mix Approximate Area Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 8 – 29 acres 275 dwelling units 18 acres CCRC including: - 276 independent living apartments - 66 independent living villas and assisted living units - 122-bed skilled nursing and memory care facility 20 acres Commercial / NC, CR 50,000 to 350,000 sf 3- 24 acres 25,000-45,000 sf3 2-3 acres Parks / PARK -- 6.5 acres Small neighborhood park including historic structures (education, community use) 6.5 acres Circulation and Stormwater management -- 8 acres Circulation and stormwater management 8 acres Total (approx.) -- 25.5 – 67.5 acres -- 54.4 - 55.5 acres 1 Does not include 50% Open Space Requirement (55 acres) 2 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints 3 The applicant has also indicated 50,000 sf of commercial uses to meet the LUE minimum standards c.Planning Commission Direction #3: Description of potential impacts to environmental resources as a result of potential development above the 150-foot elevation Prior to formulation of a recommendation to the City Council regarding initiation of the Specific Plan, the Commission requested additional information regarding the resources potentially affected by development above the 150-foot elevation. Based on the applicant’s submitted Biological Resources Inventory (Kevin Merk Associates [KMA], January 2016) (Attachment 7), Section 106 Prehistoric and Historic Report (First Carbon Solutions, February 2015) (confidential report), and Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map (refer to Attachment 4, Exhibit A.1), sensitive environmental resources present above the 150-foot elevation include special-status plant species and habitats, a portion of the Froom Ranch Historic Complex, and archaeological resources. Due to the conceptual nature of the current proposal, which does not yet include a Specific Plan application package, impacts to 8.f Packet Pg. 286 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 5 these resources as a result of a specific project has not yet been determined; however, preliminary information based on the conceptual plan is presented below. Special Status Habitats and Plant Species As shown on the applicant’s Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map dated December 16, 2015 (Attachment 4, Exhibit A.1), sensitive habitats present above the 150-foot elevation include: wetland habitat, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, serpentine rock outcrop, and coast live oak woodland. Special-status plant species documented above the 150-foot elevation include: Chorro Creek bog thistle, San Luis Obispo owl’s clover, San Luis mariposa lily, Eastwood’s larkspur, mouse-grey dudleya, Blochman’s dudleya, Jones’s layia, chaparral ragwort, Cambria morning glory, club hair mariposa lily, and Palmer’s spineflower (KMA, January 2016). Based on an approximation of potential impacts, development of the conceptual project above the 150-foot elevation may impact approximately: 1.6.68 acres of serpentine bunchgrass 2.1.24 acres of California Rare Plant Rank List 1B species, and 3.7,500 square feet of wetland habitat (road and trail drainage crossings). The applicant’s conceptual exhibit shows approximately 24 individual Chorro Creek bog thistle plants located onsite and identifies a 50-foot buffer surrounding these plants (refer to Attachment 3, Exhibit A.3 April 2015 Pre-Application Basis for Design Studies). If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, potential impacts to biological resources and associated avoidance and mitigation measures would be fully evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the General Plan, and Municipal Code. Historic and Archaeological Resources The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located in the northwest portion of the project site. With the exception of a historic dairy barn, the complex is located below the 150-foot elevation (refer to Attachment 4, Exhibit A.1). The two intact prehistoric resources (CA- SLO-783 and CA-SLO-1195) onsite are located above the 150-foot elevation. These resources are comprised of bedrock mortars and lithics, dietary shellfish, and bone remains, and it is possible that undiscovered subsurface resources are present. In addition, a number of isolate prehistoric artifacts and historic features were documented onsite, including a small concentration of stone artifacts, isolate waste flakes, linear rock wall features, and a stacked stone revetment/retaining wall (First Carbon Solutions, February 2015). The applicant’s conceptual exhibits show avoidance of archaeological sites (refer to Attachment 3, Exhibit A.3 April 2015 Pre-Application Basis for Design Studies). If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, potential impacts to historic and prehistoric resources, and avoidance and mitigation measures would be fully evaluated pursuant to CEQA, the General Plan, and Municipal Code. 8.f Packet Pg. 287 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 6 d.Planning Commission Direction #4: Amended visual simulations to show elevation contours and graphic simulations In response to the Planning Commission’s questions and concerns regarding potential impacts to scenic viewsheds and hillsides, the applicant provided a visual simulations package (refer to Attachment 6) including the following scenarios for comparison: 1.Photograph of existing view 2.Photo-simulation of conceptual development 3.Photo-simulation of conceptual development showing the approximate location of the 150-foot elevation line 4.Photo-simulation of conceptual development showing only proposed buildings above the 150-foot elevation 5.Photo-simulation of conceptual development showing only proposed buildings below the 150-foot elevation If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, potential impacts to visual resources including independent verification and analysis of project photo-simulations would be conducted pursuant to CEQA, the General Plan, and Municipal Code. 3.0 CONCLUSION The scope of the initiation review only provides authorization for the applicant to proceed with the application process for the Specific Plan. If the Commission recommends inclusion of the applicant’s request to propose alteration of the 150-foot maximum site development alteration and/or modification to the mix of land uses envisioned in the Land Use Element for the Specific Plan area, Staff recommends the Planning Commission’s recommendation include the following direction: 1.The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on natural and scenic resources (particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge), including but not limited to: photo- simulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details; assessment of potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highways, and open space areas; a comprehensive project-specific and quantified impact analysis on special-status plants, animals, vegetative communities and trees, and creeks, drainages, and wetland habitat; proposed mitigation plan(s) for both on and off-site restoration (as applicable); and hydrological analysis accompanying proposed plans to modify and restore Froom Creek. 4.0 ALTERNATIVES 4.1 Recommend the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the applicant: (1) revisit the 150 foot elevation maximum site development, particularly as it relates to visual 8.f Packet Pg. 288 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) PRE 1293-2015 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request Page 7 impacts on the City’s edge; and, (2) modification of the Land Use Element specified land use mix. 4.2 Recommend the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments, but provide a land use mix that more closely correlates with LUE policies for Specific Plan Area 3. 4.3 Recommend the City Council approve the initiation but the formal submittal should not include a General Plan Amendment to develop above the 150-foot contour line. 4.4 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 4.5 Determine that no major amendments should be made to the General Plan and recommend the City Council deny the request for Specific Plan Amendment Initiation. 5.0 ATTACHMENTS 1.Draft Resolution 2.Vicinity Map 3.Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments, December 9, 2015 4.Environmental Summary Site Constraints Map (Updated Exhibit A.1) 5.Conceptual Creek Corridor Plan and Section (Updated Exhibit D.1) 6.Applicant’s Updated Photo-simulations 7.Biological Resources Inventory (KMA 2016) NOTE: Not Attached to Attachment f, please refer to individual attachments to the Council Agenda Report 8.f Packet Pg. 289 At t a c h m e n t : f - P C R e s o l u t i o n , M i n u t e s , a n d S t a f f R e p o r t J a n u a r y 2 7 2 0 1 6 ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.g Packet Pg. 290 At t a c h m e n t : g - A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d N a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.g Packet Pg. 291 At t a c h m e n t : g - A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d N a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.g Packet Pg. 292 At t a c h m e n t : g - A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d N a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.g Packet Pg. 293 At t a c h m e n t : g - A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d N a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.g Packet Pg. 294 At t a c h m e n t : g - A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d N a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.g Packet Pg. 295 At t a c h m e n t : g - A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d N a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.g Packet Pg. 296 At t a c h m e n t : g - A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d N a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.g Packet Pg. 297 At t a c h m e n t : g - A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d N a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.g Packet Pg. 298 At t a c h m e n t : g - A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d N a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.g Packet Pg. 299 At t a c h m e n t : g - A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d N a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.h Packet Pg. 300 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.h Packet Pg. 301 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.h Packet Pg. 302 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.h Packet Pg. 303 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.h Packet Pg. 304 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.h Packet Pg. 305 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.h Packet Pg. 306 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.h Packet Pg. 307 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 2015 To: Victor Montgomery Organization: RRM Design Group From: William Strand Title: Manager of Engineering Project Name: Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Il Villaggio) Project Number: 1014012 Topic: Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Il Villaggio) Stormwater Location and Existing Conditions The Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Il Villaggio) project is located in the city of San Luis Obispo, California on the west side of Los Osos Valley Road and approximately 600 feet northwest of Highway 101. The project boundary is approximately 111 acres with approximately 76 acres proposed to be developed. The site is underlain by soils with high clay content which are poorly suited for infiltration (5.). The site is mainly undeveloped and used as range land with approximately 4 existing buildings and dirt roads at the northern end of the site. An existing drainage channel (Q100 = 102 cfs) runs south along Los Osos Valley Road conveying runoff from upstream development through the property (1.). Froom Creek also flows through the site along the northwestern and southeastern boundaries and has a 100-year flow rate of 1,066 cfs (2.). Approximately 28 acres (37%) of the project area lies within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Zone A). The site has two existing stormwater basins that receive runoff from the adjacent Home Depot and Irish Hills commercial sites. The basin serving the Home Depot development was sized to retain a water quality volume equal to the 95th percentile capture volume of 1.27 ac-ft. The detention basin serving the Irish Hills shopping center has a capacity of 2.03 ac-ft. (sized per County of San Luis Obispo Standards to detain the 50-year storm while discharging at the 2-year storm flow rate). Proposed Development Proposed improvements include the construction of approximately 55 acres of single family, multi-family, and assisted living and 21 acres of commercial developments. Existing drainage patterns along Los Osos Valley Road, and Froom Creek will be maintained. Froom Creek will be slightly re-aligned and modified to contain the 100-year storm event; however, the channel will still release at the historical point of discharge. A channel with a capacity of 102 cfs will be constructed to convey flows parallel to Los Osos Valley Road. Above and below ground stormwater basins will be constructed to provide storage for the existing 1.27 ac-ft. Home Depot basin and 2.03 ac-ft. Irish Hills basin. Culverts and channels will be designed to provide capacity for flows from the 100-year storm event. No upgrades to culverts at Highway 101 are proposed. Stormwater Requirements Stormwater requirements are listed in the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. The proposed improvements to the Froom Ranch property will require compliance with Runoff Retention and Peak Management. The design of this project will be driven by the Runoff Retention requirement since this volume is greater than the Peak Management Volume. 8.h Packet Pg. 308 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Runoff Retention Most of the proposed project area lies within Watershed Management Zone 1—requiring capture of the 95th percentile storm event without runoff for water quality (3.). The 95th percentile storm depth is 2.0 inches. Since harvesting/reuse and infiltration are infeasible, retention volumes shall be multiplied by 1.2. The total required runoff retention volume is 10.91 acre-ft. Sub-Basin # Depth (inches) Landuse Post-Dev. Runoff Coeff. Dev. Area (acres) Capture Vol. (ac- ft.) 1 2.0 Commercial 0.7520.95 3.14 2 2.0 CCRC 0.7511.16 1.67 3 2.0 Residential 0.7027.04 3.79 4 2.0 Residential 0.7016.51 2.31 75.66 10.91 Total Peak Management Post-development peak flows discharged from the site shall not exceed pre-project peak flows for the 2- through 10-year storm events (respective depths of 2.00” and 4.51”) (4.). The required Peak Management volume is 7.71 acre-ft. Existing On-site Retention Ponds Sub- Basin Pre- dev. Runoff Coeff. Landuse Post- Dev. Runoff Coeff. Dev. Area (acres) 95th Percentil e Depth (inches) Detention Basin (Q-50 – Q- 2)ac-ft. 95th Percentile Capture Vol. (ac-ft) Home Depot 0.45 Commerci al 0.75 10.14 2.0 -- 1.27 Irish Hills 0.45 Commerci al 0.75 18.62 2.0 2.03 2.33 Notes: 1.Per pg. V-6, Eagle Hardware EIR 10-1-2014 Sub- Basin # Pre- Dev. Runof f Coeff . Proposed Landuse Post- Dev. Runoff Coeff. Dev. Area (acre s) 2-Year, 24 Hr Depth (in.) 10- Year, 24 Hr Depth (in.) 2-Year Peak Manageme nt Volume (ac-ft) 10-Year Peak Manageme nt Volume (ac-ft) 1 0.45 Commerci al 0.75 20.95 2.00 4.51 1.05 2.36 2 0.45 CCRC 0.75 11.16 2.00 4.51 0.56 1.26 3 0.45 Residential 0.70 27.04 2.00 4.51 1.13 2.54 4 0.45 Residential 0.70 16.51 2.00 4.51 0.69 1.55 75.66 7.71 Total 8.h Packet Pg. 309 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 2.Per pg. 22, Revised Hydraulic Study Report Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvement Project. November 2010. San Luis Obispo County 3.Per Section B.4 Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region 4.Per Section B.5 Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region 5.Per USGS Web Soil Survey 8.h Packet Pg. 310 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.h Packet Pg. 311 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) 8.h Packet Pg. 312 At t a c h m e n t : h - A p p l i c a n t E x h i b i t s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 1 Ja n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 6 VI S U A L S I M U L A T I O N S Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n 8.i Packet Pg. 313 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 2 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w f r o m N o r t h b o u n d 1 0 1 View 1.1 - Existing CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 1 Before 1 8.i Packet Pg. 314 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 3 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 1.2 - Proposed Vi e w f r o m N o r t h b o u n d 1 0 1 CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 1 After 1 8.i Packet Pg. 315 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 4 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 2.1 - Existing Vi e w f r o m D a l i d i o P r o p e r t y CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 2 Before 2 8.i Packet Pg. 316 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 5 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 2.2 - Proposed Vi e w f r o m D a l i d i o P r o p e r t y CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 2 After 2 8.i Packet Pg. 317 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 6 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 2 . 3 - P r o p o s e d w i t h 1 5 0 ’ C o n t o u r Vi e w f r o m D a l i d i o P r o p e r t y CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 2 After 2 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 318 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 7 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 2 . 4 - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s B e l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n Vi e w f r o m D a l i d i o P r o p e r t y - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s B e l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 2 After 2 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 319 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 8 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 2 . 5 - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s A b o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n Vi e w f r o m D a l i d i o P r o p e r t y - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s A b o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 2 After 2 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 320 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 9 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Th i s p a g e h a s b e e n i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k . 8.i Packet Pg. 321 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 10 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 3.1 - Existing CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 3 Before Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n 3 8.i Packet Pg. 322 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 11 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 3.2 - Proposed CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 3 After Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n 3 8.i Packet Pg. 323 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 12 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 3 . 3 - P r o p o s e d w i t h 1 5 0 ’ C o n t o u r CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 3 After Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n 3 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 324 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 13 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 3 . 4 - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s B e l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 3 After Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s B e l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 3 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 325 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 14 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 3 . 5 - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s A b o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 3 After Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s A b o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 3 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 326 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 15 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Th i s p a g e h a s b e e n i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k . 8.i Packet Pg. 327 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 16 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 4.1 - Existing CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 4 Before Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n a n d L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d 4 8.i Packet Pg. 328 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 17 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 4.2 - Proposed CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 4 After Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n a n d L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d 4 8.i Packet Pg. 329 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 18 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 4 . 3 - P r o p o s e d w i t h 1 5 0 ’ C o n t o u r CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 4 After Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n a n d L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d 4 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 330 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 19 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 4 . 4 - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s B e l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 4 After Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n a n d L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s B e l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 4 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 331 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 20 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 4 . 5 - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s A b o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 4 After Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n a n d L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s A b o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 4 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 332 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 21 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Th i s p a g e h a s b e e n i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k . 8.i Packet Pg. 333 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 22 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 5.1 - Existing CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 5 Before Vi e w f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d O v e r p a s s o v e r 1 0 1 F r e e w a y 5 8.i Packet Pg. 334 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 23 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 5.2 - Proposed CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 5 After Vi e w f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d O v e r p a s s o v e r 1 0 1 F r e e w a y 5 8.i Packet Pg. 335 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 24 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 5 . 3 - P r o p o s e d w i t h 1 5 0 ’ C o n t o u r CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 5 After Vi e w f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d O v e r p a s s o v e r 1 0 1 F r e e w a y 5 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 336 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 25 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 5 . 4 - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s B e l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 5 After Vi e w f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d O v e r p a s s o v e r 1 0 1 F r e e w a y - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s B e l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 5 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 337 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 26 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 5 . 5 - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s A b o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 5 After Vi e w f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d O v e r p a s s o v e r 1 0 1 F r e e w a y - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s A b o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 5 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 338 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 27 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Th i s p a g e h a s b e e n i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k . 8.i Packet Pg. 339 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Pa g e 2 8 View 6.1 - Existing CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 6 Before Vi e w f r o m S o u t h H i g u e r a a n d L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d 6 8.i Packet Pg. 340 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 29 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 6.2 - Proposed CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 6 After Vi e w f r o m S o u t h H i g u e r a a n d L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d 6 8.i Packet Pg. 341 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 30 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 7.1 - Existing CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 7 Before Vi e w f r o m M a d o n n a R o a d O v e r p a s s o v e r 1 0 1 F r e e w a y 7 8.i Packet Pg. 342 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 31 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 7.2 - Proposed CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 7 After Vi e w f r o m M a d o n n a R o a d O v e r p a s s o v e r 1 0 1 F r e e w a y 7 8.i Packet Pg. 343 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 32 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 8.1 - Existing CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 8 Before Vi e w f r o m S o u t h b o u n d 1 0 1 a c r o s s f r o m P r a d o R o a d 8 8.i Packet Pg. 344 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 33 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 8.2 - Proposed CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 8 After Vi e w f r o m S o u t h b o u n d 1 0 1 a c r o s s f r o m P r a d o R o a d 8 8.i Packet Pg. 345 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 34 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 8 . 3 - P r o p o s e d w i t h 1 5 0 ’ C o n t o u r CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 8 After Vi e w f r o m S o u t h b o u n d 1 0 1 a c r o s s f r o m P r a d o R o a d 8 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 346 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 35 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 8 . 4 - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s B e l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 8 After Vi e w f r o m S o u t h b o u n d 1 0 1 a c r o s s f r o m P r a d o R o a d - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s B e l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 8 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 347 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 36 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Vi e w 8 . 5 - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s A b o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 8 After Vi e w f r o m S o u t h b o u n d 1 0 1 a c r o s s f r o m P r a d o R o a d - P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w i t h o u t B u i l d i n g s A b o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 8 Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 f t E l e v a t i o n 8.i Packet Pg. 348 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 37 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n Th i s p a g e h a s b e e n i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k . 8.i Packet Pg. 349 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 38 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 9.1 - Existing CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 9 Before Vi e w f r o m F r o o m R a n c h W a y & L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d I n t e r s e c t i o n 9 8.i Packet Pg. 350 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 39 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 9.2 - Proposed CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 9 After Vi e w f r o m F r o o m R a n c h W a y & L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d I n t e r s e c t i o n 9 8.i Packet Pg. 351 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 40 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 10.1 - Existing CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 10 Before Vi e w f r o m F r o o m R a n c h W a y 10 8.i Packet Pg. 352 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Page 41 Fr o o m R a n c h S p e c i f i c P l a n View 10.2 - Proposed CALLE JOAQUINLOS OSOS VALLEY RD.MADONNA ROAD PRADO RD.HWY 101 S. HIGUERA ST.BUCKLEY RD.TANK FARM RD.SOUTH ST.PROJECT SITE 10 After Vi e w f r o m F r o o m R a n c h W a y 10 8.i Packet Pg. 353 At t a c h m e n t : i - A p p l i c a n t V i s u a l S i m u l a t i o n s ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) FROOM RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY Prepared for: John Madonna Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 5310 San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Prepared by: KMA Kevin Merk Associates, LLC P.O. Box 318 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 January 2016 8.j Packet Pg. 354 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. ES-‐i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a biological resources inventory to support development planning efforts on the Froom Ranch located in San Luis Obispo County, California. The purpose of the study was to characterize the existing conditions on the property and evaluate the potential for special status biological resources to be present within the study area. A background literature review, floristic inventory, tree inventory and special status species evaluation was conducted. The study took place over the course of the winter, spring, summer and fall of 2015 to delineate and characterize plant communities onsite, conduct rare plant surveys, and identify any habitat that could potentially support special status species or otherwise be of concern to the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), NOAA Fisheries, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the City of San Luis Obispo. As stated above, prior to field work, a background literature review including past biological studies conducted in the region and environmental documents from projects onsite and in the immediate area was conducted. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) maintained by the CDFW was queried to compile a list of special status resources known to occur in the area that could potentially be present onsite. The field effort mapped onsite habitat types, characterized natural drainage features, and identified all plants within the study area to a sufficient level to determine their respective rarity status. For special status wildlife, a habitat suitability analysis was used to determine the species that could potentially occur within the study area. The following findings were gathered in the report: Existing Conditions. The site is a 111 acre working cattle/horse ranch that supports primarily grassland habitat (both native bunchgrass and non-‐native annual). Oak woodlands, coastal scrub, and serpentine outcrops were identified within the study area. Froom Creek and three tributary drainages are also present onsite. Froom Creek is a tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek located offsite to the southeast. A site location map, aerial overview map, soils map, habitat map, CNDDB botanical occurrences map, special status plant occurrences map, and CNDDB wildlife occurrences map are provided herein. A list of plant and animal species observed, special status species known to occur in the region and an evaluation of their potential to occur onsite, a photo plate, and tree inventory data are included as appendices. Special Status Biological Resources. The site contains Froom Creek and associated tributary drainages. The upper elevation areas in the southwest of the site have serpentine derived soils and rock outcrops. Grasslands in the southwest part of the study area contain native species such as purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), and was mapped as serpentine bunchgrass grassland separated from the annual grassland that forms the dominant cover onsite. Other special status resources onsite include coast live oak/California bay woodland, and wetland and riparian habitat associated with natural drainage features. In addition, wetlands were delineated along Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road where surface and subsurface hydrology has been impounded due to the construction of roads and adjacent development. The floristic inventory identified the following special status plants occurring in the serpentine bunchgrass grassland, wetlands and on scattered serpentine outcrops in the southwest part of the site: ¥ Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae; CRPR List 1B.1); ¥ Brewer's spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri; CRPR List 1B.3); ¥ Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis; CRPR List 4.2); ¥ Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis; CRPR List 2.2); ¥ Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense; federal and state endangered and CRPR List 1B.2); ¥ club hair mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus CRPR List 4.3); 8.j Packet Pg. 355 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. ES-‐ii • Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; CRPR List 1B.1); • Eastwood’s larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae; CRPR List 1B.2); • Jones's layia (Layia jonesii; CRPR List 1B.2); • mouse-‐gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina; CRPR List 1B.2); • Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri: CRPR List 4.2); • San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2); and • San Luis Obispo owl's-‐clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2). No rare animals were observed onsite during the field surveys, but based on a habitat suitability analysis, the following special status animals could potentially occur onsite: • American badger (Taxidea taxus; species of special concern) • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; species of special concern); • California homed lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; watch list); • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi; watch list); • Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; watch list and CDFW Fully Protected); • Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; species of special concern); • Merlin (Falco columbarius; watch list); • Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus; species of special concern); • Purple martin (Progne subis; species of special concern); • Sharp-‐shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; watch list); • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; candidate species and species of special concern); • White-‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; CDFW Fully Protected); • Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri; species of special concern); • Big free-‐tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; species of special concern; • Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; special animal); • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; species of special concern); • San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; species of special concern); • Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; federal threatened and species of concern); • Townsend’s western big-‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendi townsendi; species of special concern); • Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; species of special concern); • Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli; species of special concern); and • Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis; special animal). A variety of birds and bats could also utilize the larger trees within the oak/bay woodland and riparian habitat for nesting and roosting activities. In addition, several bird species could potentially use the grassland habitat in the study area for nesting. Given the property contains a mosaic of habitat types, birds and bats would be expected to forage throughout the property. 8.j Packet Pg. 356 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Background Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Special Status Biological Resources Definition ......................................................................................... 4 2.3 Field Surveys ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Tree Inventory ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.5 Floristic Inventory ................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.6 Wildlife Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 7 3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 Habitat Types ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Tree Survey ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Drainage Features .............................................................................................................................................. 15 3.4 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.5 Special Status Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 19 5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................. 26 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 27 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – Aerial Overview Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 -‐ Soils Map .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 4 – Habitat Map ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5 – Tree Survey Map ................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 6 – CNDDB Botanical Occurrences Map .......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7 -‐ Special Status Plant Occurrences Map ..................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8 – CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences Map ............................................................................................................. 24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Survey Dates and Personnel .............................................................................................................................. 6 APPENDICES Appendix A – List of Plants and Animals Observed Onsite Appendix B – CNDDB Table of Special Status Biological Resources Known or Potentially Occurring on the Site Appendix C – Photo Plate Appendix D – Tree Survey Data Form 8.j Packet Pg. 357 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a biological resources inventory on the Froom Ranch located just outside the current city limits of the City of San Luis Obispo, in San Luis Obispo County, California. The purpose of the investigation was to provide baseline information of the biological resources present or potentially present on the site for future development planning and review by the project team and the City of San Luis Obispo. The site is located in the eastern flank of the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range just north and west of Highway 101, and west of Los Osos Valley Road (please refer to Figures 1 and 2). The subject property is bounded by the Irish Hills Plaza to the north, Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) to the east, the City of San Luis Obispo Irish Hills Natural Reserve to the west, and Mountainbrook Church and several hotels along Calle Joaquin to the south. The Froom Ranch has a long history as a working ranch composed of a diverse array of coastal habitats including annual and perennial grasslands, coastal scrub, chaparral, oak and bay woodland, riparian and wetland creating a mosaic of plant communities across the landscape. The region is characterized as a Mediterranean climate with mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Due to the site’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean, daily temperatures do not fluctuate as much as the County’s interior northeast of the Santa Lucia Mountains. Average annual temperatures range from approximately 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 71 degrees F, and annual precipitation in the San Luis Obispo area ranges from approximately 21 to 24 inches depending on location (Western Regional Climate Center and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015). Most of the rain occurs between November and March with a small amount attributed to coastal fog and monsoonal flow during the summer months. The biological resources inventory was prepared at the request of Mr. John Madonna to identify plant communities, plants and wildlife present on the property that could be of special regulatory importance. In addition, a delineation of waters of the United States and State of California was conducted onsite (KMA 2015), and the report was reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Based on field and office review of the delineation report, the USACE confirmed the maps identified the extent of their Clean Water Act jurisdiction (letter dated September 24, 2015). 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Background Literature Review Prior to conducting field work, KMA’s Principal Biologist, Kevin Merk, and Senior Biologist, Robert Sloan, reviewed pertinent background information from the general area. This included the review of past studies conducted by KMA and other biological consultants in the region and on the subject site. Portions of the study area and surrounding lands have been subject to previous biological studies. Several Environmental Impact Reports for nearby development projects were also reviewed. Several surrounding development projects included wetland delineations and some focused biological studies. In some instances, the focused studies included the northern and eastern parts of the study area (i.e.: Home Depot/Irish Hills Plaza and Calle Joaquin Improvement projects). Hydrologic studies and wetland mitigation plans and subsequent mitigation monitoring reports were also prepared and reviewed as part of the investigation. Clean Water Act permitting for the Home Depot project, and subsequent regulatory actions taken by the USACE for permit violations during the construction of Home Depot resulted in a settlement agreement (e.g., Consent Decree dated August 12, 2002) between the former owner of the property and the USACE. The Consent Decree has been resolved and all stipulations were met (letter from the USACE on 2/19/2015). 8.j Packet Pg. 358 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Site Location Froom Ranch Figure 1 Sources: Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 1 inch = 10,000 feet Site Location John Madonna Construction, Inc.Site Location 1 in = 400,000 ft 8.j Packet Pg. 359 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Froom Ranch John Madonna Construction, Inc. Figure 2 Aerial Overview Sources: (c) ESRI and its data providers; USFWS, NWI Data; City of San Luis Obispo Study Area Boundary 1 inch = 1,500 feet HW Y 1 0 1 L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d Mado n n a R d S. H i g u e r a S t 8.j Packet Pg. 360 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 4 The following documents were reviewed as part of the existing conditions characterization and preliminary biological constraints analysis: • Madonna Eagle Hardware Environmental Impact Report (1998); • Biological Resources Analysis Letter of Findings for the Los Osos Valley Road Improvement Project (Olberding Environmental, 2001); • Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plans Relating to the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Project (Olberding Environmental, 2002); • San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Enhancement Plan (Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, 2002); • Year 1 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Boysen Ranch Mitigation Sites (Olberding Environmental, 2003); • Calle Joaquin Realignment Wetland Delineation (Morro Group, 2004); • Irish Hills Plaza II Wetland Delineation Map (Morro Group, 2004); • Froom Ranch Wetland Assessment (Morro Group, 2005); • Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for Sustaining a Separated Wetland Near Calle Joaquin (Balance Hydrologics, 2005); • Irish Hills Plaza Detention Basin Report (Wallace Group, 2006); • Year 5 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Site (Olberding Environmental, 2007); • Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 Interchange Improvements Project Biological Assessment for Central California Coast Steelhead (2008); and • Irish Hills Natural Area Conservation Plan Update (2011). The California Natural Diversity Database maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game (updated in 2015; CNDDB) was searched for special status biological resources documented within the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-‐minute topographic quadrangle maps centered on and surrounding the site. This included the Morro Bay South, San Luis Obispo, Lopez Mtn., Port San Luis, Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande NE quads. Given the project site’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean and geographic setting within the San Luis Range in close proximity to San Luis Obispo, the focus on these six quads was deemed a sufficient search area to identify special status species occurring in the vicinity of the site for inclusion in the study. A larger search radius picks up a number of plants and animals known from higher elevations in the Santa Lucia Mountains and further south in the Callendar and Guadalupe Dunes that would not be expected to occur on this site based on the lack of suitable habitat and soils. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey was reviewed to determine the soil mapping units present within the study area (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s online Wetland and Critical Habitat Mapper (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html; http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/) were also reviewed to evaluate the extent of documented wetlands and designated critical habitat defined in the region. 2.2 Special Status Biological Resources Definition For the purpose of this report, special status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); those listed or proposed for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8.j Packet Pg. 361 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 5 (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern,” “Fully Protected,” or “Watch List” by the CDFW; and plants occurring on California Rare Plant Rank 1, 2, 3 and 4 developed by the CDFW working in concert with the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The specific code definitions are as follows: • Rank 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California; • Rank 1B.1 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat); • Rank 1B.2 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly endangered in California (20-‐80% occurrences threatened); • Rank 1B.3 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known); • Rank 2 = Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; • Rank 3 = Plants needing more information (most are species that are taxonomically unresolved; few species on this list meet the definitions of rarity under CEQA); and • Rank 4.2 = Plants of limited distribution (watch list), fairly endangered in California (20-‐80% occurrences threatened, seldom meets the definition of rarity under CEQA). • Rank 4.3= Plants of limited distribution (watch list), not very endangered in California (seldom meets the definition of rarity under CEQA). Sensitive or special status natural communities are those plant communities listed as rare in the CNDDB queried in April and November 2015. In addition, those habitat types or plant communities that have special regulatory status such as riparian habitats protected by California Fish and Game Code or the Clean Water Act are also identified as special status biological resources. 2.3 Field Surveys Kevin Merk and Robert Sloan were the primary investigators for all field work associated with the biological resources inventory. Additional field support was provided by KMA staff, Mr. Jaryd Block. Surveys were conducted on multiple days through the winter, spring, summer and fall of 2015. In addition, Mr. Merk conducted multiple site visits prior to, during and immediately following winter rain events during 2013/2014 to evaluate and characterize onsite wetlands to support the delineation of waters of the United States and state of California prepared by KMA in August 2015. A focused tree survey, a full floristic inventory, and a wildlife habitat assessment were conducted on the site. The following table provides the date and personnel for each survey conducted in 2015: 8.j Packet Pg. 362 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 6 Table 1. 2015 Survey Dates and Personnel. Survey Date Survey Personnel January 28, Merk, Sloan, Block February 10 Sloan, Block March 3 Merk, Sloan March 11 Merk, Sloan, Block March 20 Merk, Sloan April 3 Merk, Sloan April 24 Merk May 22 Sloan June 1 Merk, Sloan June 19 Merk July 21 Merk, Sloan August 19 Merk September 17 Merk October 15 Merk The entire property was included in the study. During each survey, the study area was traversed on foot with special attention given to the drainage features, wetlands, native grasslands and serpentine rock outcrops. Extensive time was spent onsite, especially in the lower elevation grasslands along Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin, to delineate the extent of federal and state jurisdictional wetlands and other waters (please refer to KMA’s Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California prepared in August 2015 for further information). Existing plant communities were mapped on an aerial photograph obtained from Google Earth and ESRI, both from 2015. Serpentine bunchgrass grassland was identified based on the dominant cover of native bunchgrasses and forb associates, and then delineated with a Trimble GPS unit. Historic aerial imagery obtained from Google Earth was also utilized to assess plant community distribution onsite during field surveys. Photos of notable features including special status plants were also taken to document existing conditions of the study area. 2.4 Tree Inventory KMA Senior Biologist Robert Sloan with field support from Jaryd Block and Kevin Merk conducted an inventory of trees within the Froom Ranch property on February 10 and March 3, 2015. The survey covered the entire Froom Ranch property. Trees on the steep western hillside area were not tagged due to access and dense poison oak. All other trees located within the property with a diameter at breast height (about 4.5 feet above grade; DBH) of approximately four (4) inches or greater were identified, measured, tagged, and evaluated during the inventory. Tags consisted of aluminum disks numbered 1 through 96, and were attached with aluminum nails to the east side of the main trunk. The locations of all tagged trees were recorded with a Trimble GPS unit. Willow shrubs/trees along LOVR that were four inches DBH or greater were not tagged, but were counted and generally evaluated for health or vigor. Basic tree characteristics and physical conditions were evaluated for each tagged tree, and overall health was evaluated based on vigor, presence of damage (i.e. pathogens, insect pests, and other forms of natural and human-‐caused damage), and comparison to the typical archetype of the same species. Field evaluations of all trees considered the following attributes: 8.j Packet Pg. 363 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 7 Trunk diameter – The diameter of the trunk of each tagged tree was measured at approximately 4.5 feet above grade using a forester’s steel diameter-‐equivalent tape measure. Trees with multiple trunks or stems were measured at the same height and measurements for all trunks larger than four inches were collected. Damage – Identification of damage caused by pathogens or insect pests, by natural causes such as wildlife interaction, or by human activity was noted. Vigor rating – All tagged trees were evaluated based on various parameters, including amount of new growth, leaf color, bark conditions, dead wood, evidence of wilt, excessive branch or leaf necrosis, thinning of crown, presence of exudate, etc. A subjective ranking was assigned to quantify the overall physical condition of each tree based on the ratings described below: • High: A healthy and vigorously growing tree characteristic of its species and reasonably free of any visible signs of stress, disease, or pest infestation. • Moderate: A healthy and vigorous tree with minor visible signs of stress, disease, and/or pest infestation. Some dead wood, broken branches, or yellowing leaves may be present. • Low: A tree exhibiting signs of dieback, necrosis, stress, disease, or insect damage at levels above what is typically expected for the species. Symptoms could also include sparse leaf growth, predominately yellow leaves, dead or rotted wood in lower trunk, broken limbs, exposed roots, and parasite growth. • Dead: Tree had no foliage and exhibited no sign of life or vigor. 2.5 Floristic Inventory Kevin Merk and Robert Sloan conducted the botanical surveys in accordance with accepted protocols developed by the USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000), CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2000), and CNPS (California Native Plant Society, 2001), which means: 1) survey personnel traversed all suitable habitat within the entire project area on foot by walking meandering transects to ensure thorough coverage of the area; 2) surveys were spaced throughout the late winter, spring, summer and fall seasons to document the site’s flora; a 3) surveys were floristic in nature, and all plant species observed were recorded and identified to a sufficient level to determine rarity. Plant taxonomy followed nomenclature included in the Jepson Manual, second addition (Baldwin et al., 2012). Robert Hoover’s The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California (1970) was also used to identify plants observed onsite. Species not readily identifiable in the field were brought to the office for further analysis. Calflora (www.calflora .org) and the Consortium of California Herbarium were also accessed online to obtain records of special status plant observations from the region. Special status plant occurrences observed in the field were delineated using a Trimble GPS (GeoXH 6000) unit capable of sub-‐meter and decimeter accuracy. 2.6 Wildlife Assessment Direct observations of wildlife including their sign (i.e.: tracks and scat) were noted in the field and are included on the species list in Appendix A. The evaluation of special status animal species and identification of habitat that could support these species was based on our field observations coupled with an understanding of the species biology. Definitive or protocol-‐level surveys to determine the presence or absence of the animal species that may occur within the project area were not conducted. USFWS protocol surveys for special status wildlife species, such as the federal threatened California red-‐legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF), require extensive field time to be 8.j Packet Pg. 364 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 8 conducted only at certain times of the year. In addition, given that 2015 is the fourth year of an ongoing drought, no sufficient aquatic habitat was present to search for species such as the CRLF. Further, we relied on survey data from the immediate project vicinity contained in the CNDDB and conducted by other knowledgeable biologists to conclude whether or not certain special status animals were expected to occur onsite. Known occurrence records in the region coupled with our site-‐specific observations were used to make presence/absence determinations for special status wildlife potentially occurring onsite. 3.0 RESULTS The Froom Ranch covers approximately 111 acres spanning two Assessor’s parcels (APN 067-‐241-‐ 030 and 067-‐241-‐031). The ranch has been grazed by cattle and horses for many years, and is composed of a mix of habitat types, including annual grassland, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, coastal scrub/chaparral, coast live oak/California bay woodland, wetland, and riparian. Also present are developed and disturbed (or ruderal) areas including existing buildings, roads, an active mine in the northwestern part of the site, and storm water detention facilities for the neighboring Irish Hills Plaza to the north. Planted trees such as blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) and pepper tree (Schinus molle) are also present. The primary parent material underlying the site is serpentinite with varying amalgamations of serpentine derived clays that affect the distribution of vegetation on the site. Serpentine rock outcrops are scattered across the upper western part of the site and support a diverse assemblage of native plants adapted to the high metal content, including some that have special regulatory status. Many of the native plants are endemic to this area, and occur nowhere else on earth. Hoover (1970) referred to this biological hot spot, which is within an approximate ten-‐mile radius around San Luis Obispo, as the Obispoan pocket of endemism. Froom Creek and three small tributary drainages are present on the study area. In several areas, the drainages include pockets of wetland habitat. In addition, the steeper hillsides in the southwestern part of the site contain springs, or seeps, where fresh water “daylights” out of the ground. Coastal scrub/chaparral occurs on drier, shallow rocky soils on the steep slopes in the upper western part of the site. Coast live oak/California bay woodlands are present along drainage courses (identified as Drainages 1 and 2) and more north-‐facing slopes in the southwestern part of the site. As stated above, wetlands are present at seeps and springs formed at fractures in the serpentinite bedrock, along drainages, and along Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin where the roads have impounded surface and subsurface flow. Riparian habitat is also present onsite, but primarily restricted to the drainage ditch constructed along Los Osos Valley Road. A total of 204 plant species were identified in the study area, including 151 native species and 53 non-‐natives. Thirteen of the native plants are special status species as defined in this report. Of this number one plant is a federal and state endangered species, nine (9) are California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) List 1B species and one (1) is a CRPR List 2 species. Three (3) are CRPR List 4 species, which is a watch list. The endangered and List 1B and 2 species meet the rarity threshold defined in Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). List 4 species typically do not. 37 animal species were observed within the project area during field surveys. A soils map is provided as Figure 3 to illustrate soil map units present onsite, and Figure 4 illustrates the plant communities, or habitat types, present onsite. A list of plants and animals observed during the surveys is included as Appendix A. Appendix B includes a list of all special status species and plant communities identified in the CNDDB, and identifies whether they were 8.j Packet Pg. 365 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Study Area Boundary Soil Type Cropley clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 15 to 30 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Obispo-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 75 percent slopes Riverwash Salinas silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 0 230 460 690 920115Feet Soils Map Figure 3Froom Ranch Source(s): (c) Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers (2010): NRCS, SLO County Soils Data (2008) John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 in = 400 ft HW Y 1 0 1 L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d Ca l l e J o a q u i n 8.j Packet Pg. 366 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Irish Hills Plaza Mountainbrook Church Los Oso s V a l l e y R d HWY 101 Calle J o a q u i n Irish Hills Natural Reserve Froom Creek Drainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 Study Area Boundary Storm Water Basin (5.21 ac) Sycamore Trees (0.13 ac) Developed/Disturbed (8.88 ac) Eucalyptus Trees (0.61 ac) Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub (1.87 ac) Wetland (7.25 ac) Drainage Feature (2.66 ac) Coast Live Oak/CA Bay Woodland (3.23 ac) Serpentine Rock Outcrop (1.96 ac) Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland (13.46 ac) Coastal Scrub/Chaparral (6.52 ac) Annual Grassland (59.22 ac) 0 230 460 690 920115Feet Habitat Map Figure 4Froom Ranch Source(s): ESRI and its data providers; San Luis Obispo County Parcel Information John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 in = 400 ft 8.j Packet Pg. 367 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 11 observed onsite. If they were not observed, an evaluation as to their potential to occur onsite is provided. Appendix C includes a series of photographs of representative areas of the site and special status plants taken during the field surveys. Appendix D includes the tree inventory data. 3.1 Habitat Types Six primary habitat types, or plant communities, were observed within the project site, and included native bunchgrass grassland (Valley and Foothill Grassland/Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland), non-‐native annual grassland, coastal scrub, coast live oak woodland, wetland, and riparian. In addition, serpentine rock outcrops are present throughout the study area that support an interesting assemblage of native plants that thrive due to the lower competition from non-‐native species as a result of the higher metal content. The characterizations of these plant communities generally follow those of Holland’s (1986) vegetation classification system and the plant community descriptions in the Manual of California Vegetation, second edition (Sawyer, Keeler-‐ Wolf, and Evens; 2009). Other mapped features onsite included natural drainage features that traverse the property and horticultural plantings of Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) and blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus). The following discusses the habitat types delineated on Figure 4 and provides a characterization of the existing conditions. 3.1.1 Annual Grassland (Lolium perenne Semi-‐Natural Herbaceous Stands) The primary grassland type observed onsite is dominated by annual species, and occurs on the flat portions of the property historically impacted by cattle and horse grazing. The annual grassland habitat type corresponds to the perennial rye grass fields described in the Manual of California Vegetation (2009, second edition) with the exception that it is dominated by the annual Italian rye grass. It corresponds to the Non-‐native Grassland described by Holland (1986). The annual grassland onsite was dominated by Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum = Festuca perennis). Other non-‐native grasses observed in this habitat type included wild oats (Avena barbata), false brome (Brachypodium distachyon), soft chess (Bromus hordeacous), and prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper). Pockets of yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) were also present adjacent to disturbed areas. This grassland type was also present along the ranch roads as they become recolonized by vegetation. Annual grasslands provide foraging, breeding habitat and movement corridors for many wildlife species. Several mammals, such as the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and deer mice (Peromyscus spp.) were observed within this habitat type. Numerous invertebrate species (such as insects), many of which provide a food source for larger animals such as lizards, birds and some small mammals can also be found within grassland communities. A variety of birds rely on open expanses of grasslands for foraging habitat. Grasslands that are bordered by habitats containing trees are particularly important for raptors because the birds can use the large trees as nesting, roosting, and as observation points to locate potential prey within nearby grassland habitats. Reptiles are also frequently found in grasslands. In addition, in areas where grasslands surround creeks, wetlands and seasonal water availability is important for wildlife. 3.1.2 Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland Native grassland composed of purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) along with a mix of native and non-‐native species was present primarily in the upper elevation southwest portion of the study area where serpentine soils influence plant distribution. The native grassland onsite corresponds to 8.j Packet Pg. 368 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 12 the Valley Needlegrass and Serpentine Bunchgrass Grasslands described by Holland (1986) and the Nassella (or Stipa) pulchra Herbaceous Alliance (purple needlegrass grassland) described by Sawyer, Keeler-‐Wolf and Evens (2009). Occurrences of non-‐native species, such as red-‐stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), cat’s ear (Hypochaeris glabra), and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa ssp. villosa) were observed scattered in this habitat on the site, but for the most part, the area was dominated by native species such as yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis), checker bloom (Sidalcea malviflora), blue-‐eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), and western vervain (Verbena lasiostachys). Similar to the wildlife habitat discussion above, this grassland type provides suitable habitat for a number of species common to the area. 3.1.3 Coastal Scrub/Chaparral The shrubland association found on the project site was dominated by open to dense stands of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), with other shrub constituents such as black sage (Salvia mellifera) primarily occurring on drier serpentine soils and rock outcrops in the steep upper reaches of the project site. This habitat type was described by Sawyer, Keeler-‐Wolf and Evens as the Artemisia californica-‐ Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance (Manual of California Vegetation, 2009), and the Central Lucian Coastal Scrub by Holland (1986). In some areas, the scrub vegetation segued into more chaparral habitat with species such as buck brush (Ceanothus cuneatus) forming the dominant cover. Also included in this shrub habitat were occurrences of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), bush monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus), California fuchsia (Epilobium canum), and deerweed (Acmispon glaber). The understory was composed of leaf litter in may places, but in some open areas the herbaceous layer consisted of scattered occurrences of non-‐ native grasses such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and rattail fescue (Festuca myuros) with pockets of purple needlegrass also present. Coastal scrub/chaparral communities provide cover and nesting habitat for a variety of animals such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), western rattlesnake (Crotalis viridis), blue-‐ gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), wrentit (Chamae fasciata), California towhee (Melazone crissalis), California mouse (Peromyscus californicus), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargentus). Larger mammals such as coyote (Canis latrans) and bobcat (Lynx rufus) would also be expected to occur onsite and use the entire property. Mountain lions (Felix concolor) have also been documented in the region and could occur onsite as a rare transient. 3.1.4 Coast Live Oak/California Bay Woodland The woodland community observed in the study area was dominated by coast live oak and California bay trees. This habitat type corresponds to the coast live oak woodland and California bay forest (Quercus agrifolia and Umbellularia californica woodland alliances) described by Sawyer et al. in the Manual of California Vegetation (2009). Holland (1986) classified this community as the coast live oak woodland and California bay forest. Shrubs and understory species observed in this part of the site consisted of toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California coffeeberry (Rhamnus =Frangula californica), poison oak, and hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea). In areas where California bay trees formed the dominant cover, the understory was sparse and consisted mostly of leaf litter. Similarly, very little understory vegetation was present where the oak tree canopy was dense. Oak/bay woodlands, in general, provide quality habitat for a large variety of wildlife species. Large 8.j Packet Pg. 369 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 13 trees provide nesting sites and cover for birds and many mammals. Dead and decaying trees with few branches or no leaves provide “hawking sites” for raptors and perches for other bird species. They also contribute woody debris to the duff in the woodland understory, which provides foraging areas for small mammals and microclimates suitable for amphibians and reptiles in addition to fungi. Acorns are a valuable food source for many animal species, including acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), scrub jay (Aphelocoma corulescens), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), and black-‐tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Scrub jay, western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-‐tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and black-‐tailed deer were observed within oak/bay woodlands onsite. Other representative animal species that could potentially occur in the oak dominated woodland on-‐site include western screech owl (Otus kennicottii), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus). 3.1.5 Wetland This habitat type is a combination of the Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh and Vernal Marsh vegetation communities described by Holland (1986). Sawyer, Keeler-‐Wolf and Evens have several classifications for wetlands that describe the perennial and seasonal wetlands onsite, including the Eleocharis macrostachya, Juncus effusus, Juncus patens, and Juncus phaeocephalus Herbaceous Alliances (spike rush, soft rush, and western marshes). In the wetland area adjacent to Calle Joaquin, a more perennial wetland was observed that supports occurrences of other wetland plants such as round-‐leaf leather root (Hoita orbicularis), seep spring monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus), silverleaf (Potentilla anserina), California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), and rough sedge (Carex senta). Seasonal wetlands consisted of species such as rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Italian ryegrass, and grass poly (Lythrum hyssopifolia). Wetlands occur in nutrient-‐rich mineral soils that are saturated through part or all of the year. Wetland communities are best developed in locations with slow-‐moving, stagnant or ponded shallow water, which is the case with the impounded hydrology created by the construction of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin. In between the large constructed basin and the mapped wetland along Calle Joaquin, an extensive reed fescue occurrence was observed, most likely due to the historic grazing regime on the site. Small ponded areas within these wetlands may provide habitat for aquatic invertebrates such as water striders (family Gerridae) and boatmen (family Carixidae), and more opportunistic amphibians such as the Pacific chorus frog (Psuedacris regilla). Seasonal ponded water would also be expected to be used as a drinking source for larger animals, and also a potential stop over or foraging site for ducks and great blue herons (Ardea herodias). 3.1.6 Riparian This habitat on-‐site is consistent with the Arroyo Willow Shrubland Alliance as described by Sawyer, Keeler-‐Wolf and Evens (2009), and corresponds to the Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub community described by Holland (1986). This vegetation community was restricted to the lower reach of the study area along LOVR. This habitat was mostly dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and contained a few young cottonwoods in the ditch behind TJ Maxx. The dry ephemeral nature of Froom Creek and historic grazing pressure limited the extent of riparian vegetation development. In one location in the northwestern part of the site, a small occurrence of riparian scrub was observed on the creek bank, south of the existing buildings and equipment storage yard. Common plant species observed in this habitat included Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), poison oak, and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). Central Coast Arroyo Willow 8.j Packet Pg. 370 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 14 Riparian Scrub is a form of forested wetland that is considered a sensitive natural community by the CDFW. Riparian communities along larger drainage courses are important for many wildlife species since the abundance of moisture and associated vegetation provide structure, materials, and food sources for nesting and roosting animals. However, the onsite riparian habitat consists of a relatively young monoculture of arroyo willows growing along a constructed roadside ditch. This severely limits the forage value within the understory and expected use of this habitat as cover or as a corridor for movement along the edges of open areas. In addition, people have been using the riparian habitat in this area as shelter. Given the limited extent of this habitat onsite, common wildlife such as the Pacific chorus frog, western fence lizard, raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum, and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) would be expected to use this area periodically. While nesting habitat is limited in this area, house wren (Troglodytes aedon), ruby-‐crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and goldfinches (Carduelis spp.) could potentially nest, perch and forage in this habitat. As stated above, the willows are relatively young, and would not be expected to provide suitable nesting or perching habitat for larger raptors such as the red-‐tailed hawk that are present in the area. Seasonal water and the wetness of the soil would typically increase the value of this habitat for wildlife if it wasn’t associated with a roadside ditch. This riparian habitat likely improves water quality by protecting the ditch from erosion, and filtering sediment and some pollutants from runoff before it drains to the Calle Joaquin wetland area, and eventually offsite towards San Luis Obispo Creek. 3.1.7 Developed/Disturbed (Ruderal) The existing ranch roads, equipment storage area, buildings and active mine were mapped as Developed/Disturbed (also known as ruderal) habitat based on the presence of bare soils, base rock, and structures. Developed/Disturbed (Ruderal) habitat is not a native plant community, nor is it described by the vegetation classification systems used in this study since it is an anthropogenic influenced land type. Along road margins, high concentrations of invasive, non-‐native species were present, likely due to the historic disturbance. Some plants characteristic of the onsite annual grassland habitat described above were present, in addition to dominant weedy species such as Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and yellow star thistle. Because of the highly disturbed nature of this habitat, it is of marginal value to wildlife. Nonetheless, its proximity to the natural plant communities onsite allow several common species such as the western fence lizard and California ground squirrel to utilize disturbed or ruderal areas of the site for basking in the sun and foraging. 3.1.8 Serpentine Rock Outcrop Scattered throughout the steeper portions of site, primarily in the southwest part of the study area, are areas of serpentine rock outcroppings. The exposed serpentine rocks were mostly bare, but did support native plants in cracks or areas of talus accumulation. Species observed included several species of mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus, C. obispoensis), cryptantha (Cryptantha clevelandii), mouse gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina), Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae), and stinging phacelia (Phacelia imbricata). 8.j Packet Pg. 371 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 15 3.1.9 Eucalyptus and Sycamore Trees Within the study area, several planted blue gum eucalyptus trees were present. In addition, several sycamore (Platanus racemosa) trees were identified in the active mine in the northwestern part of the site. The extent of tree canopies was delineated on the habitat map included as Figure 4. While bird nests were not observed during surveys, these trees provide perching and nesting opportunities for a variety of birds, including raptors such as great horned owl and red-‐tailed hawk. 3.2 Tree Survey A total of 96 trees with DBH of four (4) inches or greater were tagged within the study area, and included five (5) species of native trees and two (2) non-‐native tree species. Please refer to Figure 5 – the Tree Survey Map. Trees were concentrated primarily along Drainage 1. Native trees recorded included 41 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), 31 California bay (Umbellularia californica), three (3) western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), three (3) Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), three (3) arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and one (1) holly-‐leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia). Non-‐native trees present included 12 blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), and two (2) Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle). Generally, the majority of trees present exhibited high or moderate vigor. Several large oak and bay trees exhibited hollow or dead main trunks, but had large, healthy secondary trunk growth. Several trees exhibited sparse canopy growth and poor leaf development. The very steep upper portion of Drainage 1 in the southwestern corner of the site contained oak and bay trees in a narrow canyon area. This area was not accessible due to steep terrain, dense vegetation and poison oak. The LOVR roadside channel contained approximately 200 arroyo willow shrubs/trees that have established along the channel over the last 10 years. These willows consisted primarily of multi-‐ stemmed specimens (some with 10 or more trunks) located mostly within the centerline of the ditch. The willow occurrences were mapped as riparian habitat as part of the plant community or habitat type mapping effort, and the areal extent calculated. 3.3 Drainage Features 3.3.1 Froom Creek and Tributaries Froom Creek is an intermittent stream with a relatively small watershed that originates in the Irish Hills to the southwest of the study area. The creek channel bisects the study area in a generally north to south direction, and ultimately passes beneath Calle Joaquin and U.S. Highway 101 via two concrete box culverts, heading to its confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo Creek flows in a westerly direction ultimately connecting to the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. Due to the lack of dominant wetland vegetation within or adjacent to the channel, Froom Creek was classified as Riverine Intermittent Streambed per Cowardin, and as non-‐wetland waters of the U.S. and state of California subject to USACE, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Three small ephemeral drainage features (identified as Drainages 1, 2, and 3) are present in the southwestern portion of the study area that are tributaries to Froom Creek. Due to the presence of a defined bed and bank, OHWM, and hydrologic connectivity to Froom Creek, these small features were classified as Riverine Intermittent Streambed per Cowardin, and constitute jurisdictional non-‐ wetland waters of the U.S. and state of California. While these drainages were mostly comprised of 8.j Packet Pg. 372 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Los Os o s V a l l e y R d Calle Jo a q u i n HWY 101 Irish Hills Plaza Mountainbrook Church Tagged Trees (96 total) Arroyo Willow California Bay Coast Live Oak Eucalyptus Fremont Cottonwood Hollyleaf Cherry Peruvian Pepper Tree Western Sycamore Study Area Boundary Untagged Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub Untagged Coast Live Oak Forest John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 230 460 690 920115Feet Tree Survey Map Source(s): ESRI and its data providers; San Luis Obispo County Froom Ranch Figure 51 in = 400 ft 8.j Packet Pg. 373 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 17 upland vegetation, areas of wetland habitat were observed and mapped in specific locations. In addition, several seeps or springs were observed originating on adjacent hillsides and were hydrologically connected to the drainage feature. In-‐channel areas and abutting areas dominated by wetland vegetation are classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and constitute wetlands under USACE, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. 3.3.2 LOVR Roadside Channel The LOVR Roadside Channel is located along the northern property boundary, and contained a dense willow canopy and wetland understory, along a narrow and shallow constructed channel area. The willow canopy has developed since the ditch was constructed, and the channel appears to have lost capacity due to vegetative growth and sediment accumulation. Current channel dimensions in this area ranged from six inches to two feet deep, and one to four feet wide. Willow canopy and wetland vegetation extended beyond the channel banks into the adjacent meadow area, apparently the result of the constructed roadways impounding seasonal surface and subsurface water. Because the majority of in-‐channel and abutting areas were dominated by wetland vegetation, the LOVR Roadside Channel is classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and constitutes wetland waters under USACE, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Jurisdictional boundaries in this area were mapped into the LOVR right-‐of way to the road shoulder, which was outside the Froom Ranch property line. Please refer to the KMA Delineation of Waters of The U.S. and State of California for further detail. 3.3.3 Detention Basins The northern basin is an approximately one-‐acre temporary basin constructed in upland grassland areas to receive runoff during the construction of Home Depot. During construction of the Irish Hills Plaza, a swale and culverts were installed behind the current Whole Foods and TJ Maxx buildings to direct surface runoff into this basin and then let it spread overland to support the historic wetland feature in the area. Seasonally ponded water was evident in the basin during aerial photograph review, and patchy occurrences of seasonal wetland vegetation were noted during field work conducted in 2015 confirming some wetland habitat attributes are still present. However, it is our understanding that once the Home Depot and surrounding areas were constructed, surface runoff from this development was directed into the larger basins constructed further south. As a result, this temporary basin was not identified as a potential jurisdictional feature subject to Clean Water Act regulation since it was constructed in an upland as a temporary basin to support construction of the neighboring project. The approximately 3.2-‐acre southern basin is a permanent feature constructed in upland grassland habitat to receive runoff from the Plaza Hills I development fronting LOVR. Following development of the Home Depot project, surface runoff was then directed into this basin. It consists of two basins and a spillway, and was sized to contain runoff from any future Phase II development within the study area (Wallace Group, 2006). This basin releases water to the LOVR Roadside Channel by a storm drain and swale. During large storm events, it was designed to discharge water into the wet meadow area along Calle Joaquin via a concrete spillway. Otherwise, water leaves the basin through evaporation and percolation into the ground. This feature was also not identified as a potential jurisdictional feature since it was constructed in an upland area and is part of the neighboring project’s storm drainage system. Because both basins are man-‐made structures constructed in uplands that are fed primarily by concentrated hardscape runoff from neighboring development, these basins and associated swales 8.j Packet Pg. 374 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 18 are not expected to be subject to Clean Water Act or California Fish and Game Code requirements. The 2015 USACE verification of the Wetland Delineation does not include these features as Waters of the U.S. 3.4 Soils The NRCS identified eight soil map units as occurring on the study area (refer to Figure 3). Of these map units, Riverwash, and Xererts-‐Xerolls are listed as hydric soils by the NRCS California Hydric Soils List for San Luis Obispo County. An unnamed component of Cropley clay, 0-‐2 % slopes, is also considered hydric, when present in drainageways. Cropley clay 0-‐2 % slopes. Cropley clay consists of a dark gray or black (10YR 4/1, 3/1, 2/1 moist) clay horizon about 36 inches thick, underlain by a light brown calcareous clay loam to 60 inches or more. Permeability of this soil is slow and the available water capacity is high. Cropley soils formed in alluvium developed from sedimentary rocks. An unnamed component of Cropley clay is listed as a hydric soil when present in drainageways. This inclusion is typically very dark gray throughout, with mottles present in the lower horizons. This dark gray soil was not observed on-‐ site. Mapped inclusions within this series include Diablo clay, Los Osos loam, and Salinas silty clay loam. Diablo and Cibo clays 9-‐15 and 15 -‐ 30 % slopes. Diablo clay consists of a 0 to 23 inch, black (10YR 2/1) clay formed in residual material weathered from sandstone, shale, or mudstone, commonly displaying fine roots to four inches. The structure is granular to 4 inches, and coarse, angular, and blocky to 23 inches. This moderately to steeply sloping soil is very poorly drained. The soil has moderate erodibility and high shrink-‐swell characteristics, and has potential septic system constraints due to steep slopes and slow percolation. Cibo clay consists of a 0 to 31 inch, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) clay formed in residual material weathered from hard metasedimentary rocks, and commonly displaying fine roots. The structure is coarse and angular blocky. This moderately to steeply sloping soil is considered very poorly drained. The soil has moderate erodibility and high shrink-‐swell characteristics, and potential septic system constraints due to steep slopes, shallow depth to bedrock, and slow percolation. Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex 5-‐9 and 15-‐30 percent slopes. Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex consists of about 40 percent Los Osos soil, and 35 percent Diablo soil, found on foothills and mountain ridge tops. These soils are moderately deep, well drained, and have low permeability. Typical Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex soil (moist) consists of a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam or black (10YR 2/2) clay, 40-‐60 inches thick. Permeability of Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex soil is rapid, and the available water capacity is low. The available water capacity of Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex soil is low to very high, while surface runoff is rapid. Obispo-‐Rock outcrop 15-‐75% slopes. Obispo-‐Rock outcrop consists of about 50 percent Obispo soil and 30 percent Rock outcrop. Obispo soils are shallow, well drained, slowly permeable soils formed in residual materials weathered from serpentine rock. Typical Obispo soil (moist) consists of a black (10YR 2/1) clay to a depth of about 18 inches, underlain by serpentine rock. The available water capacity of Obispo-‐Rock outcrop soil is low, while surface runoff is rapid or very rapid. Riverwash includes soils found in active stream and river channels, and consists of excessively drained, water deposited sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles present. Riverwash soils located in and along stream channels are generally subject to 8.j Packet Pg. 375 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 19 flooding during and immediately after every storm. Riverwash soils are typically excessively drained, but can be somewhat poorly drained in low lying areas. Permeability is very rapid, surface runoff is very slow, and the erosion hazard is variable. Typical inclusions include Psamments and Fluvents, and Corralitos soils. Riverwash and Psamments and Fluvents located in drainageways are listed as hydric soils. These soils have a Hydric Criteria Code of 4: soils that are frequently flooded for long or very long duration during the growing season. Xererts-‐Xerolls-‐Urban land complex 0-‐15% slopes. The Xererts-‐Xerolls-‐Urban land complex consists of nearly level to strongly sloping soils and miscellaneous areas that are covered by urban structures. Most areas of these soils are used for urban development. The soil materials have been modified by earthmoving equipment or covered by urban structures so that much of their original shape and physical characteristics have been altered. The Xererts of this complex are Cropley or Los Osos-‐Diablo soils. The percentage of the various soils in this complex and the degree of urbanization vary from place to place (SCS 1984). An unnamed inclusion of the Xererts-‐Xerolls-‐ Urban land complex associated with depressions has a Hydric Criteria Code of 2A: soils in Aquic suborder that are somewhat poorly drained and have a frequently occurring water table less than 0.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually 14 consecutive days or more) during the growing season. 3.5 Special Status Biological Resources The San Luis Obispo area supports numerous special status, or rare, plant communities, and species of plants and animals. As stated in the methodology section above, the biological resources inventory used a six quadrangle search of the CNDDB in addition to the review of environmental documents prepared for projects in the area to identify special status resources that could be present onsite. Appendix B provides a table with the special status biological resources occurrence data, listing status for all special status species and habitats, the results of the surveys, and an evaluation of wildlife presence or potential to occur onsite. The following discussion provides further detail regarding the special status biological resources occurring or potentially occurring on the Froom Ranch study area. 3.5.1 Special Status Natural Communities The CNDDB search identified occurrences of nine (9) special status plant communities within the general area and included Central Dune Scrub, Central Foredunes, Central Maritime Chaparral, Coastal Brackish Marsh, Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Northern Coastal Marsh, Northern Interior Cypress Forest, Serpentine Bunchgrass, and Valley and Foothill Grassland. Please refer to Figure 6 illustrating the botanical data obtained from the CNDDB. Our observations onsite identified another special status natural community in the area, consisting of the riparian habitat along LOVR and Froom Creek. Three special status natural communities, including the Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (Wetland), Riparian, and the Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland were observed onsite (please refer to Figure 6) and meet the special status natural communities definition pursuant to the CDFW. In addition, special status plants occur on serpentine rock outcrops or in areas of annual grassland, these features should also be considered special status resources since they support special status plants. 8.j Packet Pg. 376 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) USGS QUAD PORT SAN LUIS USGS QUAD PISMO BEACH USGS QUAD MORRO BAY SOUTH USGS QUAD LOPEZ MTN.USGS QUAD SAN LUIS OBISPO USGS QUAD ARROYO GRANDE NE Study Area Boundary USGS Quadrangle Search Radius (5 miles) CNDDB Occurrences (CDFW October 2014) Agrostis hooveri Arctostaphylos cruzensis Arctostaphylos morroensis Arctostaphylos pechoensis Arctostaphylos pilosula Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus Calochortus obispoensis Calochortus simulans Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis Carex obispoensis Castilleja densiflora var. obispoensis Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Chorizanthe breweri Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Cirsium occidentale var. lucianum Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata Delphinium parryi ssp. blochmaniae Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae Dudleya abramsii ssp. bettinae Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae Eriodictyon altissimum Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Fritillaria viridea Horkelia cuneata var. puberula Layia jonesii Lupinus ludovicianus Monardella palmeri Monardella sinuata ssp. sinuata Monolopia gracilens Sanicula maritima Scrophularia atrata Senecio aphanactis Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus Trifolium hydrophilum Central Maritime Chaparral Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Serpentine Bunchgrass John Madonna Construction, Inc04,700 9,40014,10018,8002,350 Feet CNDDB Botanical Occurrences Map Figure 6Froom Ranch Source(s): ESRI and its data providers: CDFW, CNDDB, October 2014; USFWS Critical Habitat Data, September 2015 1 in = 8,000 ft 8.j Packet Pg. 377 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 21 3.4.2 Special Status Plants The CNDDB contains records of many special status plant species that are known to occur within the greater San Luis Obispo area (please refer to Figure 6). Special status plant species typically have highly localized habitat requirements and many are known to occur on serpentine rock outcrops and soils, active and stabilized coastal dunes, or in maritime chaparral, and brackish marsh habitats. Coastal dunes, central maritime chaparral and brackish marsh habitats do not occur on the property, and therefore, species such as beach spectacle pod (Dithyrea maritima), Morro manzanita (Arctostaphylos morroensis), and salt marsh bird’s beak (Chloropyron maritimum) are not expected to occur onsite based on the lack of suitable habitat. In addition, a number of species identified in the database search occur at higher elevations in the Santa Lucia Mountains further to the north of the Ranch. This includes species such as the San Benito fritillary (Fritillaria viridea), hooked popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys uncinatus), and Cuesta Pass checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala). While elevation alone is not sufficient to rule out a species from a particular study area, these species were not observed during the focused surveys of the property at a time of year when they would have been identifiable. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that they are not expected to occur onsite. Moreover, special status perennials would have been identifiable at the time the field surveys were conducted. Perennial shrubs such as Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita (Arctostaphylos cruzensis), Santa Lucia manzanita (Arctostaphylos luciana), and Santa Margarita manzanita (Arctostaphylos pilosula) were not observed during field surveys, and as a result, are not expected to occur on the project site. Special status plants identified in the area by the CNDDB that are known to occur on serpentine based soils were identified as having potential to occur onsite and put on the target search list during the surveys (please refer to Appendix B for further detail). Surveys conducted in 2015 located the 13 special status plants listed below. Please refer to Figure 7 for species locations. • Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae; CRPR List 1B.1); • Brewer's spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri; CRPR List 1B.3); • Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis; CRPR List 4.2); • Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis; CRPR List 2.2); • Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense; federal and state endangered and CRPR List 1B.2); • club hair mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus CRPR List 4.3); • Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; CRPR List 1B.1); • Eastwood’s larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae; CRPR List 1B.2); • Jones's layia (Layia jonesii; CRPR List 1B.2); • mouse-‐gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina; CRPR List 1B.2); • Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri: CRPR List 4.2); • San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2); and • San Luis Obispo owl's-‐clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2). Even though drought conditions were experienced in the project region over the course of the last four years, sufficient rain fell during the 2015 growing season to allow an accurate inventory of the site’s vegetation and identification of special status plants on the study area as shown on Figure 7 – the Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. 8.j Packet Pg. 378 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) De pa eaLa jo De pa ea De pa La jo Ca de ob Ca de obCa ob Du ab mu La jo Ca de obLa jo Ca de ob La jo Ca de obLa jo Ca de ob Du bl Du bl Du bl La jo Du ab mu Se ap Ca de ob Du ab mu Ch br Ch br Ca de ob Du bl Ce pa co La jo Study Area Boundary Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense CDFW List 1B Species John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 200 400 600 800100Feet Special Status Plant Occurrences Map Froom Ranch Figure 71 in = 350 ft Irish Hills Natural Reserve Irish Hills Plaza Mountainbrook Church Ca de ob = Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis Ca ob = Calochortus obsipoensis Ce pa co = Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Ch br = Chorizanthe breweri De pa ea = Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae Du ab mu = Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina Du bl = Dudleya blochmaniae La jo = Layia jonesii Se ap = Senecio aphanactis 8.j Packet Pg. 379 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 23 3.4.3 Special Status Animals The CNDDB contained occurrence data for numerous special status animal species in the general area. Please refer to Figure 8 and Appendix B for the special status animals that were evaluated in this study, and a determination as to their potential to occur onsite. Similar to the plant evaluation above, many of these special status animal species are not expected to occur on the subject site due to the lack of suitable habitat. Species such as California black rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus), Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana), and Morro Bay blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides morroensis) are coastal species that have specific habitat attributes and requirements that are not present onsite, and therefore, are not expected to occur on the property because suitable habitat is not present. A number of avian species are known from the general area and could potentially utilize the grasslands, coast live oak/California bay woodland, coastal scrub, and eucalyptus stands for nesting and foraging. Given the large expanses of open grasslands and mixed shrub/woodlands on the property, many of the special status birds known from the general area could potentially occur on the property at least as transients moving through the region seasonally. Ground nesting birds, and small songbirds could potentially use the site for nesting activities. Special status species identified in the CNDDB and that could potentially occur onsite include the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and white-‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Bat species, such as the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big-‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and various species of Myotis have large home ranges, and could forage over and around the site, as well as roost in trees and under the eves of existing structures. The Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a relatively common species from the general area, and could forage onsite. It would not be expected to overwinter on the Ranch because the species requires specific autumnal and overwintering habitat attributes typically observed closer to the coast. The small grouping of eucalyptus trees, and riparian oak and bay trees that are present in the study area are not suitable to support monarch butterfly overwintering habitat. Based on the lack of suitable sandy soils, the legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) are not expected to occur in the coastal scrub habitat mapped onsite. The heavy clay soils on the property preclude fossorial (burrowing) reptiles such as the legless lizard from occurring under shrubs on the slopes or flatter areas of the site. Species such as the San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) and American badger (Taxidea taxus) could potentially occur onsite, and woodrat nests were observed in dense oak/California bay woodland areas in the southwestern part of the property. The portion of Froom Creek within the site does not appear to contain appropriate aquatic and riparian habitat to support the federally threatened California red-‐legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF). The closest known occurrence is from the waste water treatment ponds on the east side of Highway 101. No records of CRLF in the immediate project area were found. It appears that Froom Creek does not contain flowing water or any deep pools during the late spring or summer months to support a breeding population of CRLF. The small tributary drainages in the higher elevations of the study area also 8.j Packet Pg. 380 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) USGS QUAD PORT SAN LUIS USGS QUAD PISMO BEACH USGS QUAD MORRO BAY SOUTH USGS QUAD SAN LUIS OBISPO USGS QUAD LOPEZ MTN. USGS QUAD ARROYO GRANDE NE Study Area Boundary USGS Quadrangle Search Radius (5 miles) CNDDB Occurrence (CDFW September 2015) American badger Atascadero June beetle California red-legged frog Coast Range newt San Luis Obispo pyrg Townsend's big-eared bat black legless lizard (silver legless lizard) ferruginous hawk foothill yellow-legged frog monarch butterfly pallid bat prairie falcon steelhead - south/central California coast DPS tidewater goby vernal pool fairy shrimp western mastiff bat western pond turtle western yellow-billed cuckoo white-tailed kite USFWS Critical Habitat California red-legged frog (USFWS 2010) Steelhead Critical Habitat (USFWS 2005) John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 4,100 8,20012,30016,4002,050 Feet CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences Map Figure 8Froom Ranch Source(s): (c)ESRI and its data suppliers (2010): CDFW, CNDDB, October 2014; USFWS Critical Habitat Data, September 2015 1 in = 7,000 ft 8.j Packet Pg. 381 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 25 did not contain suitable aquatic habitat to support CRLF. The constructed detention basins onsite lack suitable aquatic habitat with a sufficient hydroperiod to support CRLF, and did not contain any emergent vegetation. Southern steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) are known to occur further to the southeast of the project site in San Luis Obispo Creek. They have also been identified as occurring within the upper reaches of Froom Creek outside the study area (personal communication with Freddy Otte, City of San Luis Obispo Biologist). Also, other highly aquatic species such as the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), the two-‐striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), and the Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa torosa) are not expected to occur onsite in Froom Creek, its tributaries or the constructed basins based on the lack of seasonally flowing and ponded water. The USFWS has identified critical habitat for steelhead and CRLF in the region. The project site, however, does not occur in the critical habitat polygons developed for CRLF, but Froom Creek is identified as critical habitat for southern steelhead. It is highly unlikely, however, that Froom Creek supports a steelhead run since it is separated from San Luis Obispo Creek by a series of culverts and man-‐made ditches. The Coast Range newt is a species of concern known to occur in the Santa Lucia Mountains and Santa Margarita region north of the project site. This species lives in terrestrial habitats and breeds in ponds and slow moving streams during winter months. Although the species is not documented from the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range, there is potential for this animal to occur further upstream in the watershed. It is unlikely to occur within the study area due to the lack of suitable habitat. The evaluation of special status species occurrences onsite was based on a habitat suitability analysis coupled with on the ground observations. Please refer to Appendix B for further detail. The investigation did not include definitive surveys to determine the presence or absence of species such as the CRLF, but did include direct observation of onsite and offsite conditions, inspection of the drainage channels and their respective hydrologic regime, and review of biological reports and the CNDDB records documenting recorded occurrence data from the area to conclude whether or not a particular species could be expected to occur. Based on this analysis, the following species have the potential to be present within the project study area at some point in time: • American badger (Taxidea taxus; species of special concern) • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; species of special concern); • California homed lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; watch list); • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi; watch list); • Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; watch list and CDFW Fully Protected); • Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; species of special concern); • Merlin (Falco columbarius; watch list); • Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus; species of special concern); • Purple martin (Progne subis; species of special concern); • Sharp-‐shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; watch list); • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; candidate species and species of special concern); • White-‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; CDFW Fully Protected); • Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri; species of special concern); • Big free-‐tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; species of special concern; • Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; special animal); 8.j Packet Pg. 382 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 26 • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; species of special concern); • San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; species of special concern); • Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; federal threatened and species of concern); • Townsend’s western big-‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendi townsendi; species of special concern); • Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; species of special concern); • Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli; species of special concern); and • Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis; special animal). As stated above, CRLF, western pond turtle, Coast Range newt, and two-‐striped garter snake are known from the region. Given Froom Creek’s inconsistent flow regime, these species are not expected to occur onsite based on the lack of seasonal aquatic habitat. Under above average rainfall years when Froom Creek is flowing and seasonal in-‐channel pools persist for a longer period, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that these species could find their way onto the site. Furthermore, seasonally ponded water along Calle Joaquin could also potentially provide seasonal habitat for these highly aquatic species. 5.0 CONCLUSION The Froom Ranch is situated in a biologically rich area of San Luis Obispo County composed of a mosaic of annual and native grasslands, coast live oak/California bay woodland and coastal scrub/chaparral habitats bisected by natural drainages in the northeastern flank of the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range. Froom Creek traverses the site in a mostly north to south direction and joins San Luis Obispo Creek south of the site before flowing to the Pacific Ocean in Avila Beach. Wetland habitat occurs along the unnamed tributary drainages to Froom Creek, and in flat grassland areas where surface and subsurface water is impounded by LOVR and Calle Joaquin. The LOVR Roadside Channel also contained riparian habitat composed of an arroyo willow monoculture. The most significant biological resources present onsite are the natural drainage features (i.e.: Froom Creek and its three tributary drainages) and associated wetland and riparian habitats, and the native serpentine bunchgrass grassland and serpentine rock outcrops supporting a suite of special status plant species, many of which are endemic to the San Luis Obispo area. Non-‐native annual grassland was the dominant plant community on the ranch, primarily occurring in the flatter portions of the site where past disturbances such as cattle/horse feeding has occurred. The southwestern part of the site contained native serpentine bunchgrass grassland where rock outcrops and thinner, less developed soils were present. The wetland, riparian, and native bunchgrass grassland habitats delineated on the habitat map were identified as special status natural communities. Occurrences of special status plants were identified within the study area and their occurrences shown on Figure 7, the Special Status Plant Occurrence Map. Nine of the special status plants are California Rare Plant Rank List 1B species, and one is a List 2 species. List 2 means that the species is rare in California but more widespread elsewhere. The federal and state endangered and CRPR List 1B Chorro Creek bog thistle was also identified onsite, and was confined to wetland areas in Drainages 1 and 2 in the southwestern part of the study area. List 4 species are on a watch list and are relatively common in the project area. No special status wildlife species were observed onsite, but Froom Creek could potentially provide a movement corridor for the federal threatened southern steelhead between upstream breeding areas and San Luis Obispo Creek when flowing water was present. In addition, a number of species of special concern including a diverse range of birds, (including raptors), and bats could potentially occur onsite on a seasonal basis. 8.j Packet Pg. 383 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Report John Madonna Construction, Inc. 27 6.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Calflora. 2015. Information on wild California plants for conservation, education, and appreciation. Berkeley, CA. Accessed via: http://www.calflora.org/. California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. November 24, 2009. California Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Fish and Game Code of California, Section 3503.5. Gould Publications, Altamonte Springs, FL. California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. 3. Queried April and November 2015. County of San Luis Obispo. 2009. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Reports. Department of Planning and Building, Environmental Division. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State -‐ Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-‐06-‐008. Olympia, WA. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Hoover, Robert F. 1970. The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California, 1 November 1994. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 255 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006 (January). 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead; Final Rule. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed via: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-‐Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. January 2000. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Accessed via: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. 8.j Packet Pg. 384 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) APPENDIX A List of Plants and Animals Observed KMA 8.j Packet Pg. 385 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 1 Appendix A – List of Plants and Animals Observed Onsite During 2015 Field Surveys. Scientific Name Common Name Plants Achillea millefolium Yarrow Achyrachaena mollis Blow wives Acmispon americanus var. americanus Spanish lotus Acmispon glaber (=Lotus scoparius) Deer weed Acmispon wrangelianus Lotus Agrostis pallens Bent grass Aira caryophyllea* Silver hair grass Allium crispum Crinkled onion Ambrosia psilostachys Ragweed Amsinckia intermedia Common fiddleneck Anagallis arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Anthriscus caucalis* Bur chervil Aquilegia eximia Vanhouette’s columbine Artemisia californica California sagebrush Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort Asphodelus fistulosus* Onionweed Astragalus curtipes South coast milkvetch Astragalus gambelianus Gambel’s dwarf locoweed Avena barbata* Slender wild oats Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Bloomeria crocea Golden stars Brachypodium distachyon* False brome Brassica nigra* Black mustard Brodiaea terrestris Dwarf brodiaea Bromus carinatus California brome Bromus diandrus* Ripgut brome Bromus hordeacous* Soft chess Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens* Red brome Calandrinia ciliata Red maids Calochortus argillosus Clay mariposa lily Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus Club-‐hair mariposa lily (List 4.3) Calochortus obispoensis San Luis mariposa lily (List 1B.2) Calystegia macrostegia ssp. cyclostegia Coast morning glory Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis Cambria morning glory (List 4.2) Cardamine californica California toothwort Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge Carex senta Rough sedge Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis San Luis Obispo owl’s clover (List 1B.2) Ceanothus cuneatus Buck brush Centaurea solstitialis* Yellow star thistle Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon’s tarplant (List 1B.1) Chenopodium album* Goosefoot Chlorogallum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum Soap plant Chorizanthe breweri Brewer’s spineflower (List 1B.3) Chorizanthe palmeri Palmer’s spineflower (List 4.2) Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Chorro Creek bog thistle (FE, SE, List 1B.2) Cirsium vulgare* Bull thistle 8.j Packet Pg. 386 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 2 Scientific Name Common Name Clarkia bottae Botta’s clarkia Claytonia perfoliata Miner’s lettuce Conium maculatum* Poison hemlock Conyza canadensis Horseweed Corethrogyne filaginifolia Corethrogyne Crassula connata Pygmy weed Cryptantha clevelandii Cryptantha Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda grass Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Deinandra fasciculata Yellow tarweed Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae Eastwood’s larkspur (List 1B.2) Dichelostemma pulchra Blue dicks Dipsacus fullonum* Fuller’s teasel Distichlis spicata Saltgrass Dodecatheon clevelandii Padre’s shooting star Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina San Luis Obispo serpentine dudleya (List 1B.2) Dudleya blochmaniae Blochman’s dudleya (List 1B.1) Eleocharis macrostachya Spike rush Elymus glaucus Western wild rye Epilobium canum California fuchsia Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia fleabane Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Eriogonum parvifolium Coastal buckwheat Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden yarrow Erodium botrys* Filaree Erodium cicutarium* Red-‐stemmed filaree Eschscholzia californica California poppy Eucalyptus globulus* Blue gum eucalyptus Euphorbia peplus* Petty spurge Euphorbia spathulata Spurge Festuca arundinaceae* Tall fescue Festuca microstachys Eastwood fescue Festuca perennis* Italian rye grass Filago californica California filago Filago (=Logfia) gallica* Narrowleaf cottonrose Foeniculum vulgare* Fennel Fritillaria biflora var. biflora Chocolate lily Galium aparine Bedstraw Galium porrigens Climbing bedstraw Gastridium ventricosum* Nit grass Genista monspessulana* French broom Geranium dissectum* Cut-‐leaf geranium Gilia achilleifolia California gilia Gilia capitatum Blue field gilia Gnaphalium californica California everlasting Gnaphalium purpureum Purple everlasting Hazardia squarrosa Saw-‐tooth golden bush Helminthotheca echioides Prickly ox tongue Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia Hayfield tarweed Hesperocyparis (=Cupressus) macrocarpa Monterey cypress Hesperoyucca whipplei Chaparral yucca 8.j Packet Pg. 387 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 3 Scientific Name Common Name Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Hirschfeldia incana* Summer mustard Hoita orbicularis Round-‐leaf leather root Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum* Mediterranean barley Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum* Foxtail Hypochaeris glabra* Smooth cat’s ear Juncus bufonius Toad rush Juncus effusus Spreading rush Juncus patens Common rush Juncus phaeocephalus Brown headed rush Koeleria micrantha June grass Lactuca serriola* Wild lettuce Lamarckia aurea* Goldentop Lasthenia californica Common goldfields Layia jonesii Jones’s layia (List 1B.2) Leptosiphon parvifolius Variable linanthus Leymus condensatus Giant wild rye Leymus triticoides Creeping wild rye Lomatium utriculatum Biscuit root Lotus corniculatus Birdsfoot trefoil Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine Lupinus microcarpus Chick lupine Lupinus nanus Sky lupine Lupinus succulentus Succulent lupine Lythrum hyssopifolium* Grass poly Malva nicaaensis* Bull mallow Matricaria matricarioides* Pineapple weed Medicago polymorpha* Bur clover Melica californica California melic Melica imperfecta Melic grass Melilotus sativa* Sweet cicily Microseris douglasii Douglas’ microseris Mimulus aurantiacus Sticky monkey flower Mimulus guttatus Seep monkey flower Muhlenbergia stricta Deer grass Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco Oenanthe sarmentosa Water parsley Opuntia ficus-‐indica Prickly pear cactus Oxalis pes-‐caprae Bermuda buttercup Pellaea mucronata Birdfoot fern Pennisetum setaceum* Fountaingrass Phacelia imbricata Stinging phacelia Plagiobothrys nothofulvus Popcorn flower Plantago erecta California plantain Plantago lanceolata* English plantain Platanus racemosa Sycamore Platystemon californicus Cream cups Polypogon monspeliensis* Rabbitfoot grass Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Potentilla anserina Silverweed 8.j Packet Pg. 388 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 4 Scientific Name Common Name Prunus ilicifolia Holly-‐leaved cherry Psilocarphus tenellus Wooly marbles Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Ranunculus californicus California buttercup Raphanus sativa* Wild radish Rhamnus (=Frangula) californica Coffeeberry Rosa californica California rose Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry Rubus ursinus California blackberry Rumex acetosella* Sheep sorrel Rumex crispus* Curly dock Rumex pulcher* Fiddle dock Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Salvia columbariae Chia sage Salvia mellifera Black sage Salvia spathacea Hummingbird sage Sanicula bipinnatifida Purple sanicle Sanicula crassicaulis Common sanicle Sanicula laciniata Coast sanicle Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis California tule Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush Scirpus microcarpus Panicled bulrush Scrophularia californica California bee plant Senecio aphanactis Rayless ragwort (List 2.2) Sidalcea malviflora Checker bloom Silene californica California catch-‐fly Silybum marianum* Milk thistle Sisyrinchium bellum Blue-‐eyed grass Solanum xantii Purple nightshade Sonchus asper* Prickly sow thistle Stachys pycnantha Short spike hedge nettle Stipa (=Nassella) pulchra Purple needlegrass Symphoricarpos mollis Creeping snowberry Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak Trifolium depauperatum var. depauperatum Dwarf sack clover Trifolium fucatum Sour clover Trifolium hirtum* Rose clover Trifolium subterraneum* Subterranean clover Trifolium willdenovii Tomcat clover Triphysaria eriantha ssp. eriantha Butter and eggs Typha latifolia Cattail Umbellularia californica California bay laurel Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea Stinging nettle Verbena lasiostachys Western vervain Veronica anagallis-‐aquatica Water speedwell Vicia sativa* Spring vetch Vicia villosa ssp. villosa* Hairy vetch Viola pedunculata Johnny jump up Woodwardia fimbriata Giant chain fern Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur 8.j Packet Pg. 389 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 5 Scientific Name Common Name Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur Zeltnera davyi Davy’s centaury Zigadenus fremontii Star lily Animals Accipiter cooperi Cooper’s hawk Agelaius phoenicius Red-‐winged blackbird Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow Aphelocoma corulescens Scrub jay Ardea herodias Great blue heron Bubo virginianus Great horned owl Buteo jamaicensis Red-‐tailed hawk Buteo lineatus Red-‐shouldered hawk Callipepla californica California quail Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Canis latrans Coyote Carpodacus mexicanus House finch Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Chamae fasciata wrentit Circus cyaneus Northern harrier Egretta thula Snowy egret Elgaria multicarinata Alligator lizard Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole Melanerpes formicivorus Acorn woodpecker Melazone crissalis California towhee Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Odocoileus hemionus Black-‐tailed deer Pituophis catenifer catenifer Pacific gopher snake Procyon lotor Raccoon Regalus calendula Ruby crowned kinglet Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe Sceloporis occidentalis Western fence lizard Setophaga townsendi Townsend’s warbler Sialia mexicana Western blue bird Spermophilus beecheyi California ground-‐squirrel Sturnella neglecta Meadowlark Sturnus vulgaris* European starling Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher Tyrannus verticalis King bird Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Zonotrichia leucophorys White crowned sparrow *Asterisk identifies non-‐native species; species in bold type are special status species. 8.j Packet Pg. 390 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) APPENDIX B Special Status Biological Resources Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring Onsite KMA 8.j Packet Pg. 391 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 1 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations LICHENS/BRYOPHYTES Firm cup lichen Cladonia firma --/--/-- Lichen known from maritime habitats in Europe and North America on stabilized sand dunes on the coast. Documented in the Morro Bay/Los Osos area on sands of marine origin. No suitable habitat present onsite. Not expected to occur. Splitting yarn lichen Sulcaria isidiifera --/--/-- Known from the Los Osos area growing on branches of coast live oak and maritime chaparral plants in sandy areas. No suitable habitat present onsite. All reported collections are from the Baywood fine sands of Los Osos. Not expected to occur based on the lack of suitable habitat. PLANTS Adobe sanicle Sanicula maritima --/R/1B.1 Perennial herb; blooms February through March; ranges from 30 to 240 meters; Occurs on clay and serpentine soils in chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows, seeps, and valley and foothill grassland. Potential habitat present in on-site grasslands in proximity to serpentine rock outcrops. Not observed within the study area during floristic surveys. Not expected to occur. Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita Arctostaphylos cruzensis --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms from December to March; occurs between 60 and 310 meters in sandy soils; found in broadleaved upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland. This perennial shrub would have been easily identifiable during surveys. Not observed during surveys. Not present onsite. Beach spectaclepod Dithyrea maritima --/T/1B.1 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms March through May; found in sandy soils, usually near shore, in coastal dunes and coastal scrub habitats; ranges from 3 to 50 meters in elevation. Site is too far from the immediate coast for this species to occur. Species only known to occur on sand dunes along the coast. Not observed during surveys. Not present onsite. Betty’s dudleya Dudleya abramsii ssp. bettinae --/--/1B.2 Perennial succulent; blooms May through July and is endemic to coastal San Luis Obispo County west of Cerro Romualdo; found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands, usually on serpentine outcrops or shallow rocky soils; ranges in elevation from 20 to 180 meters. Suitable serpentine soils present on-site, but this particular subspecies is known to occur further west of the property towards Morro Bay and Cayucos. The Dudleya observed onsite was D. abramsii ssp. murina. Betty’s dudleya was not observed onsite and is not expected to occur. Black-flowered figwort Scrophularia atrata --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through July; ranges from 10 to 500 meters in elevation; occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and riparian scrub habitats, typically on sandy or diatomaceous shale soils. Marginal habitat present along the edges of coast live oak woodland and riparian habitats on-site. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur. S. californica was identified on site. Blochman’s dudleya Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae --/--/1B.1 Perennial herb; blooms April through June; found on rocky, often clay or serpentine soils in coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; ranges from 5 to 450 meters in elevation. This species was observed growing on rock outcrops in select locations in the southwestern part of the study area. Blochman’s leafy daisy Erigeron blochmaniae --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous perennial herb; blooms July through August; ranges from 3 to 45 meters in elevation and occurs in coastal dunes and coastal scrub. This species is restricted to coastal dunes typically along the immediate coastline. No suitable habitat or soils present onsite. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. 8.j Packet Pg. 392 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 2 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Brewer’s spineflower Chorizanthe breweri --/--/1B.3 Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats on serpentine derived soils and rock outcrops, mostly in rocky and gravelly areas; ranges in elevation from 45 to 800 meters; annual herb; blooms May through August. This species was observed growing on serpentine rock outcrops and gravelly soils in the southwestern part of the study area. California seablite Suaeda californica E/--/1B.1 Perennial succulent shrub that grows along the margins of coastal salt marshes in a narrow elevational range from 0 to 5 meters; known to occur in the Morro Bay area Not expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat (i.e., no coastal salt marsh habitat present). Cambria (San Luis Obispo County) morning-glory Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis --/--/4.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms from April to May; occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and sparse to dense grassland covering sloped or flat areas in clay-rich soils; ranges from 60-500 meters; restricted to outer South Coast ranges in SLO and Santa Barbara Counties. Observed as a component of onsite serpentine bunchgrass grasslands. Present in varying densities throughout the western part of the study area. Caper-fruited tropidocarpum Tropidocarpum capparideum --/--/1B.1 Annual herb; blooms March through April; ranges from 1 to 455 meters and is found on alkaline clay soils in valley and foothill grassland. Potentially suitable habitat present in onsite grassland habitats. Not observed during surveys when species would have been in flower and identifiable. Not expected to occur onsite. Chorro Creek bog thistle (San Luis Obispo fountain thistle) Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense E/E/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms February to July; ranges from 35 to 365 meters in elevation; occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats, often in serpentine seeps. Species was observed in wetland habitat along the upper portions of Drainages 1 and 2. Club-haired mariposa lily Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus --/--/4.3 Perennial bulbiferous herb known to occur on serpentine rock outcrops, valley grassland (i.e., perennial bunchgrass), chaparral, and foothill woodland; typically blooms from May to June. Species was observed in the extreme southwestern portion of the study area growing on rocky serpentine soils in coastal scrub and native grasslands. Coast woolly threads Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata --/--/1B.2 Annual herb that grows in coastal sand dunes in open spaces of the coastal strand; known to occur in the Montana de Oro area in sandy soils. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Coastal goosefoot Chenopodium littoreum --/--/1B.2 Annual herb that grows on sandy flats in coastal dunes along wetland and salt marsh habitat. Typically found between 30 and 100 meters, and is known from the Morro Bay estuary. No suitable habitat present onsite for this species. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Congdon’s tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms from June to November; occurs in moist alkaline conditions in marshes, swamps, vernal pools, and valley and foothill grassland habitats; ranges from 1 to 230 meters in elevation. Species was observed growing in the temporary stormwater basin in the northern part of the site. 8.j Packet Pg. 393 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 3 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Coulter’s goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri --/--/1B.1 Annual herb that grows in coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools usually on alkaline soils from 1- 1,400 meters. Marginal habitat present in onsite wetlands and seeps. Only Lasthenia californica, a common species, was observed growing in and around the serpentine outcrops. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Coulter’s saltbush Atriplex coulteri --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb grows in coastal bluff scrub, sandy dune habitat as well as in valley grassland and coastal sage scrub. Marginal habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys, therefore, not expected to occur. Crisp monardella Monardella crispa --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms April through August; ranges from 10 to 120 meters in elevation and occurs on sandy soils in coastal dunes and coastal scrub. Species typically occurs in coastal dunes in close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, and the site is therefore outside the species range. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Cuesta Pass checkerbloom Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala --/R/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms May through June; ranges from 600 to 800 meters and is found on serpentine soils in closed-cone coniferous forest; known from only three occurrences on Cuesta Ridge in San Luis Obispo County. Project site is outside the known range for this species. Although suitable serpentine soils are present onsite, only the common checkerbloom, Sidalcea malviflora, was observed in bunchgrass grassland on the site. Cuesta Pass checkerbloom was not observed during surveys and is not expected to occur onsite. Cuesta Ridge thistle Cirsium occidentale var. lucianum --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb known to occur along the Cuesta Ridge in openings on steep rocky serpentinite slopes from 500 to 750 meters. Although suitable serpentine-based soils are present onsite, the study area is lower in elevation than areas in the Santa Lucia Mountains where this species has been observed. This species was not observed during field surveys, and is not expected to occur onsite. Dacite manzanita Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. daciticola --/--/1B.1 Perennial shrub known to occur in chaparral and cismontane woodland. Only one known occurrence of this species in SLO County on the porphyry buttes (Hollister Peak) east of Morro Bay No suitable habitat for this species present onsite. Perennial shrub would have been identifiable if encountered during the surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Diablo Canyon blue grass Poa diabolic --/--/1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb known from highly localized areas along the coast from Montana de Oro south onto Diablo Nuclear Power Plant property. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub and closed cone coniferous habitat types on shale. Marginal habitat present onsite. This species was not observed during surveys of the site at times when it would have been identifiable if encountered. Given it is a highly restricted species known to occur on the western flank of the San Luis Range, and there are no shale outcroppings onsite, this species is not expected to occur. Dune larkspur Delphinium parryi ssp. blochmaniae --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through May; occurs in maritime chaparral and coastal dune habitats at elevations ranging from 0 to 200 meters, typically on volcanic soils and/or rocky slopes. No suitable habitat present onsite due to lack of sandy soils. Not observed during spring surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. A closely related species was observed onsite – see below. Dwarf soaproot Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. minus --/--/1B.2 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms May to August; occurs on serpentine soils in chaparral and valley and foothill grassland habitats, ranging from 305 to 1000 meters in elevation. Suitable habitat present at serpentine rock outcrops and thin soils in native bunchgrass grassland. Only the common soaproot, Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum was observed onsite. Dwarf Soaproot was not observed during rare plant surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. 8.j Packet Pg. 394 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 4 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Eastwood’s larkspur Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb known to occur on serpentine based soils (clays) and outcrops in the general San Luis Obispo area with collections made on Camp San Luis Obispo. Blooms March to May. Species was observed in the southwestern portion of the study area growing in coastal scrub and native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils. Hardham’s evening- primrose Camissoniopsis hardhamiae --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in chaparral and foothill woodland habitats; typically blooms from March to May. Only one recorded occurrence in the region from sandy openings in oak woodland in Los Osos. No suitable sandy soils present onsite. Not observed during field surveys, therefore, it is not expected to occur onsite. Hooked popcorn flower Plagiobothrys uncinatus --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in the Santa Lucia Mountains growing in chaparral typically on shale and sandstone soils. No suitable habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur. Hoover’s bent grass Agrostis hooveri --/--/1B.2 Stoloniferous, perennial herb; blooms April to July; occurs between 60 and 600 meters on sandy soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. No suitable sandy soils present to support this species. Grassland and oak woodland areas were searched for this species, but it was not observed. Not expected to occur onsite. Hoover’s button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri --/--/1B.1 An herb that can occur as either an annual or a perennial; blooms in July and occurs at elevations ranging from 3 to 45 meters; found in vernal pools, seasonally wet grasslands, and often in roadside ditches. Marginal habitat present in wetlands on- site. Seasonally wet areas were searched for this species and it was not observed. Not expected to occur onsite. Indian Knob mountainbalm Eriodictyon altissimum E/E/1B.1 Evergreen shrub; blooms March through June; ranges in elevation from 80 to 270 meters and occurs in maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub, usually on sandstone; often found in open disturbed areas. Marginal habitat identified in oak woodland and coastal scrub habitats on-site. No suitable sandstone based soils present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Jones’ layia Layia jonesii --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms March through May; occurs on clay soils and serpentine outcrops in chaparral and valley and foothill grassland; ranges in elevation from 5 to 400 meters. Species was observed in the southwestern portion of the study area growing in native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils. Leafy tarplant Deinandra increscens ssp. foliosa --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms June through September; typically found in sandy soils in valley and foothill grassland, and ranges from 300 to 500 meters in elevation. No suitable sandy soils present on-site to support this species. Leafy tarplant is known to occur further east on the Arroyo Grande NE quad. Not observed during surveys and not expected to be present onsite. Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola E/E/1B.1 Stoloniferous, perennial herb; blooms May to August; occurs in freshwater marshes and swamps, bogs and fens, and some coastal scrub, ranging from 3 to 170 meters in elevation; common associates include Typha, Juncus, and Scirpus. Marginal habitat was identified in Drainage 1. Species was not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Mesa horkelia Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula --/--/1B.1 Sandy or gravelly sites in chaparral, coastal scrub and cismontane woodland; 70 to 700 meter elevation range. Marginal habitat identified in coastal scrub and oak woodland on-site, but this species typically occurs in sandy soils not on clay and serpentine. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. 8.j Packet Pg. 395 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 5 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Miles’ milk-vetch Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms March to June; found in coastal scrub habitats, typically occurring on clay soils; ranges in elevation 20 to 90 meters. Suitable habitat identified in coastal scrub and adjacent bunchgrass grassland habitats on-site. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur within the site. Morro manzanita Arctostaphylos morroensis T/--/1B.1 Evergreen shrub; blooms December through March; ranges in elevation from 5 to 205 meters; typically found on sandy-loam or Baywood sands in chaparral, woodlands, coastal dunes and coastal scrub. Project site is outside the known range for this species. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Most beautiful jewel- flower Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms April through June; occurs on serpentine soils in chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, and cismontane woodland, ranging from 120 to 1000 meters in elevation. Suitable serpentine soils and rock outcrops present. Not observed during surveys when this species would have been in identifiable condition. Not expected to occur onsite. Mouse-gray dudleya (aka San Luis Obispo dudleya) Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina --/--/1B.3 Perennial succulent herb; blooms May through June; occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland, usually on serpentine rock outcrops, at elevations ranging from 90 to 300 meters. Species was observed in the western portion of the study area growing in coastal scrub and native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils, and in the northern portion of Froom Creek. Oso manzanita Arctostaphylos osoensis --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub known to occur in chaparral and cismontane woodland on the porphyry buttes east of Morro Bay. No suitable habitat present. Shrub would have been identifiable if encountered during surveys. Not expected to occur. Palmer’s monardella Monardella palmeri --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms June through August; occurs on serpentine soils in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats at elevations ranging from 200 to 800 meters. Suitable serpentine soils and habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Palmer’s spineflower Chorizanthe palmeri --/--/List 4.2 Annual herb known to occur on serpentine-based soils in grassland and coastal scrub habitats in the outer coast ranges of Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties. Blooms from April through August Species was observed in the western portion of the study area growing in native grasslands on thin rocky and clay derived serpentine soils. Pappose tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, coastal salt marsh and valley and foothill grasslands typically vernally mesic; elevation ranges from 2 – 420 meters. Only occurrence of this species in the area is known from the Boysen Ranch wetland mitigation area at Foothill Blvd. and Los Osos Valley Road in seasonal wetlands on the valley floor east of Laguna Lake. It is possible that this occurrence was confused with Congdon’s tarplant, which is known from the Boysen Ranch. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur. Pecho manzanita Arctostaphylos pechoensis --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms November to March; occurs on siliceous shale in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and coastal scrub habitats, ranging from 170 to 1100 meters in elevation. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. 8.j Packet Pg. 396 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 6 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Pismo clarkia Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata E/R/1B.1 Annual herb; blooms May through July; ranges from 25 to 185 meters in elevation and occurs in sandy soils in chaparral (margins, openings), cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Rayless (chaparral) ragwort Senecio aphanactis --/--/2.2 Annual herb; blooms January through April; ranges from 15 to 800 meters in elevation; typically found on drying alkaline flats, serpentine soils and barren gravelly or sandy slopes in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats. Three plants were observed at one location in the southwestern portion of the study area, growing on rocky serpentine soils. Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms April through June; ranges from 0 to 300 meters in elevation and occurs in mesic and alkaline conditions in marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Marginal habitat identified in wetlands on- site, however not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Salt marsh bird’s-beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum E/E/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur along margins of salt marsh habitat and coastal dunes. Limited to the higher zones of the Morro Bay estuary. No suitable habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys. Species not expected to occur onsite. San Benito fritillary Fritillaria viridea --/--/1B.2 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms March to May; ranges from 200 to 1525 meters in elevation and occurs in chaparral on serpentine soils. Suitable serpentine soils present. Not observed during surveys. Only Fritillaria biflora observed onsite. Not expected to occur onsite. San Joaquin spearscale Atriplex joaquinana --/--/1B.2 Annual herb that grows in seasonal alkali wetlands and alkali sink scrub typically found in the San Joaquin Valley. One recorded occurrence of this species from 1899 in CNDDB was from the vicinity of Morro Bay. Unlikely that this species occurs in the project area. No alkali meadow habitat present, or other indicator species such as Distichlis spicata or Frankenia salina. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. San Luis mariposa-lily Calochortus obispoensis --/--/1B.2 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms May to July; ranges from 75 to 730 meters on sandstone, serpentine and/or sandy soils in chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland; endemic to San Luis Obispo County and is known from localized occurrences in the San Luis Obispo and Arroyo Grande region. Species was observed in the southwestern portion of the study area growing in native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils. San Luis Obispo (La Panza) mariposa-lily Calochortus simulans --/--/1B.3 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms April to May; occurs in sandy, often granitic, sometimes serpentine soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland; ranges from 395 to 1100 meters in elevation. Suitable serpentine soils present in western portion of site. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. San Luis Obispo County lupine Lupinus ludovicianus --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through July; commonly found on sandstone or sandy soils in chaparral and cismontane woodland, ranging in elevation from 50 to 525 meters. Suitable habitat identified in oak woodlands and adjacent scrub/grasslands on-site, but no suitable soil substrate given the serpentine and clay soils. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. 8.j Packet Pg. 397 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 7 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations San Luis Obispo monardella Monardella frutescens --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms May through September; ranges from 10 to 200 meters and occurs on sandy soils in coastal dunes and coastal scrub. Species is known to occur in sand dunes along Pacific Ocean. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. San Luis Obispo owl’s clover Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms in April; ranges from 10 to 400 meters in elevation and occurs in meadows, seeps, and valley and foothill grassland. Occurrences of this species were observed in the southwestern portion of the study area, growing in native grasslands on rocky serpentine and clay soils. San Luis Obispo sedge Carex obispoensis --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms April to June; ranges from 10 to 790 meters; occurs in closed- cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland (usually near seeps and springs); Usually occurs in transition zone on sand, clay or serpentine. Suitable soils and wetland/seep habitat present on-site. Suitable habitat was searched, but species was not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Santa Lucia manzanita Arctostaphylos luciana --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms February to March; occurs on shale outcrops in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats; ranges from 350 to 850 meters in elevation. Site lacks shale outcrops and is well outside known range for this species. Perennial shrub would have been identifiable during field surveys. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Santa Margarita manzanita Arctostaphylos pilosula --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms December to March; occurs in Closed cone coniferous forests, cismontane woodland, and chaparral, typically on shale outcrops/soils in San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties; ranges from 170 to 1100 meters in elevation. Potentially suitable habitat identified in oak woodland on-site. Perennial shrub would have been identifiable during field surveys. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Straight-awned spineflower Chorizanthe rectispina --/--/1B.3 Annual herb; blooms May through July; occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats, ranging in elevation from 200 to 1035 meters; has even been found in vineyards and other frequently disturbed areas. Found in granite sand or disintegrating shale. Marginal habitat present in coastal scrub and oak woodland habitat on-site. Unlikely to occur on serpentine-based soils. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Surf thistle Cirsium rhothophilum --/T/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through June; ranges in elevation from 3 to 60 meters; occurs in coastal dune and coastal bluff scrub communities in close proximity to the ocean. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Woodland woolly threads Monolopia gracilens --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands and cismontane woodlands growing on serpentine soils. Potentially suitable habitat present in grasslands near serpentine rock outcrops. This species was not observed within the project area. Not expected to occur. INVERTEBRATES Atascadero June beetle Polyphylla nubila --/SA/-- Sand dunes. No suitable habitat. Not expected to occur. 8.j Packet Pg. 398 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 8 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations California linderiella Linderiella occidentalis --/SA/-- Seasonal pools in grasslands underlain by hardpan or in sandstone depressions. Marginal habitat identified in seasonally wet areas. Site does not appear to support necessary habitat attributes to support the species. Further, no vernal pool habitat present onsite or in the immediate vicinity. Unlikely to occur. Globose dune beetle Coelus globosus --/SA/-- Inhabits coastal sand dune habitat in foredunes and sand hummocks most common beneath dune vegetation. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur onsite Mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) Tryonia imitator --/SA/-- Found only in permanently submerged areas in coastal lagoons. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus --/SA/-- Wind-protected tree groves of eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress with nectar and water sources nearby. No suitable overwintering habitat present on-site. Eucalyptus trees present do not create the necessary microclimate needed for overwintering. Species expected to forage onsite, but is not expected to use the project area for overwintering. Morro Bay blue butterfly Plebejus icarioides moroensis --/SA/-- Inhabits stabilized dunes and adjacent areas of coastal San Luis Obispo and NW Santa Barbara counties. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Morro shoulderband snail Helminthoglypta walkeriana E/--/-- Known to occur in coastal sage scrub and dune scrub habitats on Baywood fine sands on the southside of Morro Bay. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. San Luis Obispo pyrg Pyrgulopsis taylori --/SA/-- Freshwater habitats in San Luis Obispo County. Marginal habitat present in lower wetlands of project area, but unlikely since they are man-induced wetlands. Unlikely to occur. Sandy beach tiger beetle Cicindela hirticollis gravida --/SA/-- Inhabits area adjacent to non- brackish water along the coast of California from San Francisco Bay to Northern Mexico. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi T/SA/-- Endemic to grasslands of central coast mountains; opportunistic species inhabits a variety of small clear-water pools including sandstone depressions and grassland swales that contain surface water for approximately 30 days during the winter and spring rain season. Marginal habitat identified in seasonally wet areas at Calle Joaquin wetland. Nearest observation of vernal pool fairy shrimp is on the Chevron Tank Farm near the San Luis Obispo Airport. Past studies for Calle Joaquin improvements did not locate this species. Unlikely that this species would have colonized the site in a short period of time. Unlikely to occur. White sand bear scarab beetle Lichnanthe albipilosa --/SA/-- Coastal sand dunes of San Luis Obispo County, in the vicinity of dune lakes. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. 8.j Packet Pg. 399 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 9 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations FISH Steelhead – South/Central California ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus T/SSC/-- Fresh water, fast flowing, highly oxygenated, clear, cool stream where riffles tend to predominate pools. Suitable habitat present further upstream offsite in Froom Creek. SLO Creek is identified by USFWS as critical habitat for the species, and Froom Creek is shown as a steelhead stream. Potentially could occur onsite during high rainfall years when flowing water is present. Not expected to spawn onsite, but would use this portion of Froom Creek as a movement corridor to areas of suitable habitat further upstream in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi E/SSC/-- Brackish water habitats along the California coast from San Diego county to Del Norte county. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. AMPHIBIANS/REPTILES California red-legged frog Rana draytonii T/SSC/-- Lowland and foothills in or near permanent or semi-permanent sources of deep water (at least 0.5 meter) bordered by emergent wetland and/or riparian vegetation. May use a variety of aquatic and upland habitats during the year for refugia and dispersal. Potential habitat was identified in several locations onsite including a ponded culvert at Calle Joaquin wetland. Onsite portion of Froom Creek does not contain aquatic habitat with any frequency to support this species, which reduces the potential for red-legged frogs to successfully breed onsite. Nearest recorded occurrence is from the wastewater treatment ponds to the east of San Luis Obispo Creek that are separated from the site by Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. No direct surveys were conducted as part of this investigation due to the lack of aquatic habitat greater than 12 inches deep due to the ongoing drought. Unlikely to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable aquatic habitat at least on a seasonal basis. Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii --/SSC/-- Frequents a wide variety of habitat including sandy washes with scattered shrubs and open areas for sunning. Loose soils for burial. Marginal habitat present on-site given dense clay soils and rock outcroppings. Even though site does not contain loose friable sandy soils, species could potentially occur in onsite coastal scrub habitat in upper elevations, but appears unlikely. Coast Range newt Taricha torosa torosa --/SSC/-- Coastal drainages from Mendocino County to San Diego County. Lives in terrestrial habitat and breeds in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams. No suitable habitat present in this portion of Froom Creek. The onsite tributary drainages are highly ephemeral in nature and lack suitable in channel ponds and vegetative cover to support breeding. Known records of this species are in Santa Lucia Mountains to the north and Arroyo Grande Creek to the south. Not expected to occur based on the lack of suitable habitat. Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii --/SSC/-- Occurs in partly shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats typically in the upper mountainous reaches of drainages in the outer coast ranges. Species needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying and 15 weeks of aquatic habitat to attain metamorphosis. No suitable habitat present onsite given the highly ephemeral nature of the drainages. Two old occurrence records in CNDDB from upper San Luis Obispo Creek and upper Lopez Canyon. Unlikely that this species occurs onsite due to lower elevation of the Ranch and lack of typical habitat. 8.j Packet Pg. 400 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 10 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra --/SSC/-- Sandy or loamy soils in valley and foothill woodlands, chaparral, coastal scrub and coastal dunes. No suitable habitat present onsite due to the heavy clay soils and rocky serpentine outcrops. Not expected to occur. Southern Pacific (western) pond turtle Emys marmorata --/SSC/-- Basking sites such as partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, or open mud banks. No suitable habitat present in onsite drainages, and marginal habitat present seasonally within the Calle Joaquin wetland. Species known to occur in San Luis Obispo Creek where perennial water is present. Unlikely to occur onsite due to barriers such as Highway 101 and LOVR. Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii --/SSC/-- Perennial and intermittent streams bordered by dense vegetation; stock ponds bordered by dense emergent riparian vegetation. Small highly ephemeral drainages and wetlands do not provide sufficient habitat for this species. Not expected to occur. Western spadefoot Spea hammondii --/SSC/-- Grassland habitats and vernal pools for breeding/egg-laying with loose friable soils for burrowing. No suitable vernal pool habitat present nor are suitable loose friable soils present to support burrowing during dry summer/fall months. Not expected to occur. BIRDS Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia --/SSC/-- (burrow sites and wintering sites) Grasslands; nests in burrows. They prefer areas with low vegetation on small hills that provide a vantage point of the surrounding areas. Suitable habitat present in grasslands, however extensive burrowing mammal activity was not observed within the project area. Could occur as a seasonal transient overwintering on and around the site, but would not be expected to breed onsite. California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus --/T/-- Freshwater marshes, wet meadows and shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch that does not fluctuate and dense vegetation for nesting. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus E/E/-- Occurs in salt-water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs with abundant growths of pickleweed. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. California condor Gymnogyps californianus E/E/-- Roosts in cliffs or ledges; feeds in open areas up to 100 miles from roost. No suitable roosting or nesting habitat on- site, but could forage in grasslands as a very rare transient. Unlikely to occur. California homed lark Eremophila alpestris actia --/WL/-- Sparse coastal sage scrub and grasslands. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat in grasslands on-site. Could occur. California least tern Sterna antillarum browni E/E/-- Nests along coast from San Francisco Bay to northern Baja California. Nests on sandy beaches, alkali flats, landfills or paved areas. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii --/WL/-- (nesting) Wooded areas. Nests in tall trees and often hunts around human structures. Potentially suitable nesting habitat present in oak/bay woodlands and eucalyptus/sycamore trees on-site. Could also forage across the site. Could occur. Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis --/WL/-- (nonbreeding/ wintering) Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Eats mostly lagomorphs, ground squirrels and mice. Suitable foraging habitat present in grasslands on-site, however this species typically does not nest in California. Could occur as a seasonal transient during fall/winter months. Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos --/WL, FP/-- (nesting & nonbreeding/ wintering) Nests on cliffs and rocks and forages in open country, grasslands. Suitable foraging habitat in grasslands on- site. Unlikely to nest on the property, but rock outcroppings and cliff faces in the upper elevations outside the study area could be used for nesting. 8.j Packet Pg. 401 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 11 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus --/SSC/-- (nesting) Nests in shrubs in coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats or in trees that overlook grasslands; preys over semi-open habitats and feeds primarily on large insects and often skewers prey on a barb or thorn to cache for later feeding. Suitable woodland, grassland, and scrub habitat present for foraging and nesting. Could occur. Merlin Falco columbarius --/WL/-- (nonbreeding/ wintering) Nests outside of California; forages in a variety of habitats. Uses clumps of trees or windbreaks for roosting. Suitable foraging habitat present on-site. Could occur. Northern harrier Circus cyaneus --/SSC/-- (nesting) Forages and nests in grasslands and marshes. Requires large expanses of habitat for foraging. Suitable habitat present onsite for this species as the grassland habitat is expansive and connected to large open space. Observed foraging across the site, but no signs of nesting behavior. Could occur. Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus --/WL/-- (nesting) Catches pray in air and in open ground in grasslands. Nests in cliffs overlooking large areas. No nesting habitat present, but rocky outcrops in hills outside study area could potentially support nesting activities. Potential foraging habitat present on-site. Unlikely to occur. Purple martin Progne subis --/SSC/-- (nesting) Nests in cavities of large trees in oak and riparian woodlands, and low elevation coniferous forests; rare; usually found near water. Suitable nesting habitat present in oak woodland and marginal habitat present in riparian habitat along LOVR. Could occur. Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus --/WL/-- (nesting) Prefers riparian plant communities, but can be found in pine and oak woodlands on north-facing slopes. Potentially suitable foraging and nesting habitat in oak//bay woodland and large trees present onsite. Could occur. Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor (nesting colony) C/SSC/-- (nesting colony) Found near freshwater habitats where it nests in emergent freshwater or riparian vegetation. This species prefers nesting in dense thickets of cattails and tules. Due to their highly colonial nature, nesting areas must be large enough to support a colony of about 50 pairs. No suitable nesting habitat present in onsite detention basins or along the Froom Creek corridor. While a patch of tules is present along Calle Joaquin the area does not appear to be large enough to support nesting tricolored blackbirds. Not observed during surveys and unlikely to nest within the study area. Could occur as an uncommon transient and potentially nest onsite should the tule patch enlarge. Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T/SSC/-- (nesting) Sandy beaches, salt pond levees or shores of large alkali lakes. Sandy, gravelly or friable soils required for nesting. Federal listing refers only to the Pacific coastal population. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis C/E/-- (nesting) Nests and forages in dense lowland riparian vegetation during summer. Marginal habitat present in onsite riparian habitat along OVR. Last CNDDB record for the County was in 1921, and given the riparian habitat is comprised of a thin band of willows along a busy road, it is unlikely that this species would nest onsite. White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus --/FP/-- (nesting) Riparian woodlands near agricultural fields; forages over open grasslands and scrub. Suitable nesting habitat in oak, bay, eucalyptus and sycamore trees on-site, with good quality foraging habitat in grasslands throughout the Ranch. Not observed during surveys and no stick nests observed that could be used by this species for nesting activities. Known to occur further north of the site in the Los Osos Valley, and could occur onsite during foraging activities. Could also potentially nest onsite in the future. 8.j Packet Pg. 402 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 12 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri --/SSC/-- (nesting) Riparian plants, prefers willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores and alders for resting and foraging. Marginal habitat is present in willow riparian area along the LOVR ditch, especially considering the well developed riparian corridor along San Luis Obispo Creek to the east. Could potentially occur in more dense riparian habitat but unlikely to nest onsite given disturbance along LOVR. MAMMALS American badger Taxidea taxus --/SSC/-- Friable soils and open, uncultivated ground for denning. Preys on burrowing rodents such as groundsquirrels. Suitable habitat is present in grassland on- site, but heavy clay soils likely preclude badgers from being regular residents onsite. No dens or large ground squirrel colonies observed within the project area. Could potentially occur as a transient across the site. Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis --/SSC/-- Occurs in low lying arid areas of Southern California. Needs high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. Feeds primarily on large moths. Could potentially occur onsite, and use the upper rocky ridgelines and rock outcrops outside the study area for roosting sites. Not expected to roost onsite, but could forage over the grasslands, oak woodlands and coastal scrub areas. Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus --/SA/-- Roosts in dense foliage of large trees. Requires water. Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics with access to trees for cover and open areas of habitat edge for feeding. Suitable foraging habitat on-site. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak woodland especially in close proximity to confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 with Froom Creek. Could occur. Morro Bay kangaroo rat Dipodomys heermanii morroensis E/E/-- Coastal sage scrub on the south side of Morro Bay. Needs sandy soil on stabilized dunes with vegetation. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus --/SSC/-- Occurs in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts under bridges and in some areas in old structures such as barns. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak/bay woodland. Suitable foraging habitat in on-site grasslands and coastal scrub. Could occur. San Diego woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia --/SSC/-- Coastal scrub, oak woodlands with moderate to dense canopies. Abundant in and around rock outcrops and rocky cliffs and slopes with shrub and tree cover. Suitable habitat present in oak woodlands and coastal scrub throughout the southwestern part of the site. Wood rat nests observed in upper reaches of the property in coastal scrub habitat. Could potentially occur. Townsend’s western big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii --/-SSC/-- Requires caves, tunnels, mines, or similar man-made structures for roosting. This bat feeds primarily on moths, but will eat a variety of soft- bodied insects. Suitable foraging habitat present throughout the site. Potential roosting habitat located at existing buildings. Could occur. Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus --/SSC/-- Open, arid habitats including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grassland, and chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliffs faces high buildings, trees and tunnels. Suitable foraging habitat in grasslands on- site. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak woodland and large eucalyptus and sycamore trees. Could occur. Western red bat Lasiurus blossevilli --/SSC/-- Roosts in trees near open areas for foraging. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak/bay woodland and foraging habitat consists of onsite grasslands. Could occur. Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis --/SA/-- Riparian, arid scrublands, deserts, and forests near permanent sources of water. Roosts in trees, rock crevices, trees hollows, mines, caves and a variety of manmade structures. Potentially suitable roosting and foraging habitat on-site. Could occur. 8.j Packet Pg. 403 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. B - 13 Appendix B. Special-‐Status Biological Resources Present or Potentially Occurring Onsite Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Project Site Suitability/Observations Plant/Natural Communities Central Dune Scrub Not present Central Foredunes Not present Central Maritime Chaparral Not present Coastal Brackish Marsh Not present Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Present. In select areas in Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and along LOVR and Calle Joaquin Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Not present Northern Interior Cypress Forest Not present Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland Present. Identified on the habitat map as Native Bunchgrass habitat. Valley Needlegrass Grassland Present. Synonymous with the above Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland habitat. *E = Endangered; T = Threatened; R = Rare CL = Candidate for Listing Status; SSC = California Species of Special Concern; FP = Fully Protected; WL = Watch List; SA – Special Animal; ‘—‘ = no status; List 1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; List 2 – Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; List 4 – Limited distribution (Watch List). Source: California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2015); California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare Plants, accessed April and November 2015 (online at www.cnps.org); and background literature review. 8.j Packet Pg. 404 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) APPENDIX C Photo Plate KMA 8.j Packet Pg. 405 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 PHOTO PLATE Photo 1. Northwesterly view of annual grassland in the flat areas adjacent to the Calle Joaquin wetland. In the distance is the large detention basin and spreading occurrence of reed fescue. Photo 2. Representative view of serpentine bunchgrass grassland with Eastwood’s larkspur in flower on the slopes in the southwest part of the site. 8.j Packet Pg. 406 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 2 Photo 3. Northerly view of the Calle Joaquin wetland area showing tules growing in shallow surface water. Photo 4. Overview of annual grassland and serpentine bunchgrass grassland in the southwest part of the site. Oak/bay woodland can be seen near the confluence of Drainages 1, 2 and 3. Coastal scrub/chaparral habitat is in the foreground with black sage, buck brush and California sagebrush present. 8.j Packet Pg. 407 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 3 Photo 5. View of wetland habitat at seep dominated by sedges and rushes adjacent to Drainage 2. Photo 6. Wetland habitat in the upper reach of Drainage 2 with young Chorro Creek bog thistle plants present. Steep hillside in the distance is composed of coastal scrub/chaparral habitat. 8.j Packet Pg. 408 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 4 Photo 7. View of oak/bay woodland with large eucalyptus present near confluence of Drainages 1 and 2. Native serpentine bunchgrass grassland with associated wildlfowers is in the foreground. Photo 8. Westerly view of the upper reach of Drainage 1 showing purple needlegrass in flower (beige color) on opposite sides of the drainage. Oak/bay woodland and coastal scrub/chaparral is visible on the hillside in the distance. 8.j Packet Pg. 409 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 5 Photo 9. Southerly view of Froom Creek traversing the center of the site. Channel is composed of serpentine cobble and gravel substrate with very little in-‐channel vegetation. Photo 10. Northerly view of the Los Osos Valley Road Roadside Channel showing arroyo willows growing in the constructed channel. Wetland vegetation was also present with poison hemlock visible in the lower right. 8.j Packet Pg. 410 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 6 Photo 11. Calochortus obispoensis observed growing in the upper elevations of the southwestern part of the study area in thin rocky serpentine soils. Photo 12. Castilleja densiflora ssp. obsipoensis growing in serpentine bunchgrass grassland in the southwestern part of the site. Photo to the right shows stigma extending beyond corolla lip. 8.j Packet Pg. 411 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 7 Photo 13. Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii observed in the constructed Home Depot detention basin in the northeastern part of the site. Photo 14. Chorizanthe breweri growing in serpentine gravelly soils along Froom Creek. 8.j Packet Pg. 412 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 8 Photo 15. Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense growing in wetland habitat along Drainage 2. Photo 16. Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae growing in serpentine bunchgrass grassland in southwest part of the site. 8.j Packet Pg. 413 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 9 Photo 17. Serpentine rock outcrop with Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina. Photo 18. Young Dudleya blochmaniae plants observed in small occurrences in the southwest part of the site. 8.j Packet Pg. 414 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 10 Photo 19. Layia jonesii growing in the southwest part of the site. Photo 20. Senecio aphanactis growing along top of serpentine rock outcrop north of Drainage 3. 8.j Packet Pg. 415 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) APPENDIX D Tree Inventory Data Form KMA 8.j Packet Pg. 416 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 1 Tree Survey Monitoring Form Date______2/10/15_____ Surveyor__________Sloan, Block_______ Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 1 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 16, 11, 12 154 large healthy tree 2 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 12, 12, 11, 10 153 one 12” is dead 3 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 13 155 young healthy tree 4 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 9 156 young healthy tree 5 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 8, 8, 11, 7, 12 157 large healthy tree 6 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 14, 10, 9, 14 158 old tree, large burl, poor condition 7 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 12 159 young healthy, edge of channel 8 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 9 160 young healthy, edge of channel 9 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 7, 9, 14, 8 161 some splitting at base, old, large burl 10 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 19, 12 162 old tree 11 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 15 163 young tree 12 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 6, 7 164 young tree 13 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 4, 7, 7, 7 165 young tree 8.j Packet Pg. 417 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 2 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 14 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 10, 8 166 young healthy tree 15 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 11, 11 167 weak crotch on one trunk, main trunk splitting at base 16 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 21, 22, 28 168 very old large tree 17 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 26 169 old, low vigor, small canopy 18 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 7 170 young healthy tree 19 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 5 171 young healthy tree, numerous trunks under 4” 20 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 10 172 Spanish moss, thin canopy, unhealthy 21 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 13 173 healthy tree 22 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 13, 5 174 healthy tree 23 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 14, 7, 11, 9 175 healthy tree 24 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 6, 4, 5 176 Spanish moss on base, stunted, small 25 Umbellularia californica California Bay L 6, 5, 4 177 Spanish moss, 2 trunks under 4” 26 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 13 178 old tree, rotten bark on main trunk 27 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 20 179 old tree, leaning, lichens on bark 28 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 10, 13 180 healthy tree 29 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 12 181 very large burl, in lower creek bank 30 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 22, 23 182 very large burl, old tree 8.j Packet Pg. 418 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 3 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 31 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 12 183 small, split at base 32 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 22 184 hollow, large cavity at base 33 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 18, 23, 22 185 large healthy tree 34 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 27 186 large healthy tree 35 Umbellularia californica California Bay L 9 187 small, sparse canopy 36 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 8 188 small healthy tree 37 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 9, 10, 8 189 sparse canopy 38 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 32 190 splits in bark, old, large tree 39 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 14, 16 191 large healthy tree 40 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 6 192 small tree, 2 stems under 4” dbh 41 Prunus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Cherry M 7 193 very large old specimen 42 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 28 194 large old tree 43 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 31 195 large old tree 44 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 37, 16 196 large old tree 45 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 5, 4, 6, 5 197 one dead trunk, moderate health 46 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 45 198 very large tree, leaning over channel 47 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 23 199 tall, straight, on bank 8.j Packet Pg. 419 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 4 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 48 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 5, 5, 4 200 hollow base, split trunk 49 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 16, 22, 21 201 large, within the channel bank 50 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 23, 34 202 big, old, pruned up from ground 51 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 15, 27, 22 203 big, old, leaning, hollow base 52 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 8 204 young healthy tree 53 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 24, 13, 5 205 largest trunk hollow, others healthy 54 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 16, 4, 15, 21, 28 206 bark damage/cuts from campers 55 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 24 208 large, healthy tree 56 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 24, 15 209 large tree, in channel 57 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 12, 23 210 lower branches pruned up from ground 58 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 17 211 large broken branch, on bank 59 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 39, 30 212 big, old, on bank of channel 60 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 20, 10, 10, 12, 14, 6, 22 213 old, healthy, large burl 61 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 97 215 very large old tree, upland area 62 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 83 216 very large old tree, upland area 63 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 22 217 young tree, upland area 8.j Packet Pg. 420 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 5 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 64 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 16, 16, 8,13 218 upland area 65 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 32, 36 214 old, large, thin canopy 66 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 25 219 old, thin canopy, many burl sprouts 67 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 21 220 thin canopy, hill top 68 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 26 221 thin canopy, hill top 69 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 48 222 thin canopy, hill top 70 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 42 223 hollow trunk, sparse canopy 71 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 8, 10, 15, 8, 21, 26 224 large burl, lichen on trunk, hollow 72 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 20 225 small, sparse canopy 73 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 21 231 lichen on trunk 74 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 5 232 hilltop, young, sparse canopy 75 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 7 233 hilltop, moss, few leaves 76 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 19 234 in channel, thick canopy 77 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 30 in channel, sparse canopy 78 Schinus molle Peruvian Pepper M 34 235 very old, hollow, many new sprouts 79 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 35 236 very large, upland area 80 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 12 236 upland area 81 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 32 237 upland area 8.j Packet Pg. 421 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Froom Ranch Tree Survey 6 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 82 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 51 237 upland area 83 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 22 238 upland area 84 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 36 238 upland area 85 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 53 238 upland area 86 Schinus molle Peruvian Pepper M 12, 12, 8, 9 239 old, moss/lichens, young sprouts at base 87 Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood H 14, 10 277 young, healthy, dormant 88 Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood H 9, 9, 8, 6 278 young, healthy, starting to leaf out 89 Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow H many, 4-‐ 12 inches 279 large base, 10 to 12 trunks 90 Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow H many, 4-‐ 10 inches 280 at culvert, 8 trunks observed 91 Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood H 11 281 starting to leaf out 92 Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow H 11 282 at culvert 93 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 49, 32, 27, 14, 12 303 rock outcrop on hillside, very large tree 94 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore H 18, 6 304 upland area near road base mining / storage activity 95 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore H 16, 14 305 upland area near road base mining / storage activity 96 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore H 16 306 upland area near road base mining / storage activity 8.j Packet Pg. 422 At t a c h m e n t : j - B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I n v e n t o r y ( 1 2 9 5 : M a d o n n a o n L O V R S p e c i f i c P l a n I n i t i a t i o n ) Ci t y C o u n c i l H e a r i n g Ap r i l 5 , 2 0 1 6 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n St a r t e d w o r k e v a l u a t i n g t h e si t e a f t e r L U C E a d o p t i o n To p o g r a p h i c a l m a p p i n g We t l a n d s m o n i t o r i n g , r e p o r t , ju r i s d i c t i o n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n an d m a p p i n g Bi o l o g i c a l m a p p i n g Tr a f f i c a n a l y s i s Hi s t o r i c & A r c h a e o l o g i c a l an a l y s i s Dr a i n a g e & f l o o d i n g s t u d i e s Ai r p o r t L a n d U s e P l a n Ci t y p o l i c i e s & s t a n d a r d s Mu l t i - a g e n c y m e e t i n g re g a r d i n g c r e e k r e a l i g n m e n t (R W Q C B , U S A C E , N F W S , CD F W , a n d C i t y ) Ho m e De p o t Mo u n t a i n b r o o k Ch u r c h 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Ho m e De p o t Mo u n t a i n b r o o k Ch u r c h En t i r e S i t e 11 1 a c r e s Be l o w 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 61 a c r e s Ab o v e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 50 a c r e s Ho m e De p o t Mo u n t a i n b r o o k Ch u r c h Co s t c o Target Hampton Inn PR O J E C T SI T E Ci t y Li m i t s 15 0 ’ 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n LU C E M i n i m u m M i x Co m m e r c i a l 5 0 , 0 0 0 s f = 3 a c r e s Co m m e r c i a l ( 5 0 , 0 0 0 s f ) 3 a c r e s Re s i d e n t i a l ( 2 0 0 d u @ 1 2 d u / a c ) 1 7 a c r e s TO T A L 2 0 a c r e s Re s i d e n t i a l 2 0 0 d u @ 12 d u / a c = 1 7 a c r e s 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Pr o p o s e d P r o j e c t M i x Project Meets th e M i n i m u m LU C E M i x Co m m e r c i a l ( 5 0 , 0 0 0 s f ) 3 a c r e s Re s i d e n t i a l ( 2 0 0 M F , 7 5 S F C , C C R C ) 3 8 a c r e s TO T A L 4 1 a c r e s Re s i d e n t i a l ( 2 0 0 M F , 75 S F D , C C R C ) = 38 a c r e s Co m m e r c i a l ( 5 0 , 0 0 0 s f ) = 3 a c r e s 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n LU C E M a x i m u m M i x LU C E M a x i m u m Mix Exceeds the Project Acreage Re s i d e n t i a l ( 3 5 0 d u @ 12 d u / a c ) = 2 9 a c r e s Co m m e r c i a l ( 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 s f ) = 24 a c r e s 41 a c r e s 12 a c r e s Pr o p o s e d P r o j e c t T o t a l Ma x i m u m E x c e e d s P r o j e c t Co m m e r c i a l ( 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 s f ) 2 4 a c r e s Re s i d e n t i a l ( 3 5 0 d u @ 1 2 d u / a c ) 2 9 a c r e s TO T A L 5 3 a c r e s 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n DE V E L O P A B L E L A N D BE L O W 1 5 0 ’ : 2 7 A c r e s CO N S T R A I N E D L A N D BE L O W 1 5 0 ’ : 3 4 a c r e s Bu i l d i n g s : 1 . 5 A c r e s We t l a n d s : 7 . 0 A c r e s Ba s i n : 2 . 8 A c r e s Sl o p e s : 6 . 0 A c r e s Dr a i n a g e s : 1 1 . 6 A c r e s Ci r c u l a t i o n : 5 . 1 A c r e s Ho m e De p o t 15 0 ’ Mo u n t a i n b r o o k Ch u r c h 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Th e L U C E m a x i m u m m i x w i l l pr o d u c e t o o m u c h t r a f f i c o n L o s Os o s V a l l e y R o a d t o b e v i a b l e . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t ’ s m i x w i l l ge n e r a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s t r a f f i c (e s p e c i a l l y t h e C C R C ) . LU C E M a x i m u m M i x (R e s i d e n t i a l w i t h 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 s f B i g B o x R e t a i l ) 19 , 0 9 9 D a i l y T r i p s Pr o p o s e d P r o j e c t (R e s i d e n t i a l w i t h 5 0 , 0 0 0 s f R e t a i l ) 7, 2 7 2 D a i l y T r i p s 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Ch o r r o C r e e k B o g T h i s t l e (A v o i d a n c e ) Ma t u r e N a t i v e T r e e s (A v o i d a n c e ) Ar c h e o l o g i c a l A r e a s (A v o i d a n c e ) US A C E & C D F W J u r i s d i c t i o n a l W a t e r s (A v o i d a n c e & M i t i g a t i o n O n S i t e ) US A C E W e t l a n d s (M i t i g a t i o n O n S i t e ) Hi s t o r i c a l A r e a s (M i t i g a t i o n O n S i t e ) CD F W L i s t 1 B R a r e P l a n t s (M i t i g a t i o n O n & O f f S i t e ) Se r p e n t i n e B u n c h g r a s s (M i t i g a t i o n O n & O f f S i t e ) 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Th e r e i s e x i s t i n g d e v e l o p m e n t on F r o o m R a n c h t h a t i s a b o v e th e 1 5 0 ’ e l e v a t i o n Da i r y B a r n Gr a n a r y Ce l l T o w e r Co n s t r u c t i o n Y a r d / Q u a r r y Ex i s t i n g Ce l l T o w e r Existing Dairy Barn Ex i s t i n g Gr a n a r y Ho m e De p o t Vi e w s f r o m H o m e D e p o t P a r k i n g L o t Ex i s t i n g Co n s t r u c t i o n Y a r d / Qu a r r y 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Bo t h t h e c h u r c h i m m e d i a t e l y ne x t d o o r a n d K S B Y s t u d i o s ar e l o c a t e d a b o v e t h e 1 5 0 ’ el e v a t i o n . KS B Y i s l o c a t e d a t ap p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 6 ’ e l e v a t i o n Mo u n t a i n b r o o k C h u r c h i s l o c a t e d at a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 3 ’ e l e v a t i o n PROJECT SITE Fr o o m R a n c h De v e l o p m e n t 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n 15 0 ’ Laguna Lake PR O J E C T S I T E Th e 1 5 0 ’ e l e v a t i o n l i m i t w a s on l y a p p l i e d t o t h i s s i t e , a n d do e s n o t a p p l y e l s e w h e r e . Ot h e r d e v e l o p m e n t a l o n g t h e Lo s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d co r r i d o r i s a b o v e t h e 1 5 0 ’ el e v a t i o n . 15 0 ’ a n d A b o v e 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Th e p r o j e c t r o o f h e i g h t s w i l l no t e x c e e d t h e e x i s t i n g r o o f he i g h t o f t h e a d j a c e n t Mo u n t a i n b r o o k C h u r c h 21 0 ’ M a x 230’ Max 23 8 ’ Ma x 238’ Existing 22 5 ’ Ma x 23 8 ’ Ma x Ho m e De p o t Mo u n t a i n b r o o k Ch u r c h 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Ho m e De p o t Mo u n t a i n b r o o k Ch u r c h Li n k s t o E x i s t i n g Pu b l i c T r a i l s Me e t s t h e L U C E U p d a t e mi n i m u m r e q u i r e m e n t s Su p p o r t s p e d e s t r i a n a n d bi c y c l e c o n n e c t i o n s Pr o v i d e s a v a r i e t y o f h o u s i n g In c l u d e s m u c h n e e d e d s e n i o r ho u s i n g Pr o v i d e s n e i g h b o r h o o d co m m e r c i a l r e t a i l Co n t a i n s a m p l e o p e n s p a c e an d p u b l i c p a r k l a n d Ad d r e s s e s e n v i r o n m e n t a l co n c e r n s Re d u c e s t r a f f i c 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n No t e n o u g h u n c o n s t r a i n e d la n d b e l o w t h e 1 5 0 ’ el e v a t i o n t o m e e t t h e mi n i m u m L U C E a n d C C R C de v e l o p m e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s . Al l o w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t ab o v e 1 5 0 ’ m i n i m i z e s en v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t o we t l a n d s . Pr o v i d e s t h e s i t e a r e a f o r cr e e k e n h a n c e m e n t . Wi l l n o t s e t a p r e c e d e n t o r su b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t v i e w s . Ho m e De p o t Mo u n t a i n b r o o k Ch u r c h Ho m e De p o t Mo u n t a i n b r o o k Ch u r c h Co s t c o Target Hampton Inn PR O J E C T SI T E 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n No r t h b o u n d 1 0 1 EXISTINGVIEW 1.1: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n No r t h b o u n d 1 0 1 PROPOSEDVIEW 1.2: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m D a l i d i o P r o p e r t y EXISTINGVIEW 2.1: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m D a l i d i o P r o p e r t y PROPOSEDVIEW 2.2: WI T H 1 5 0 ’ C O N T O U R Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n EXISTINGVIEW 3.1: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n PROPOSEDVIEW 3.2: Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n WI T H 1 5 0 ’ C O N T O U R 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n & L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d EXISTINGVIEW 4.1: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m C a l l e J o a q u i n & L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d PROPOSEDVIEW 4.2: WI T H 1 5 0 ’ C O N T O U R Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d & H i g h w a y 1 0 1 O v e r p a s s EXISTINGVIEW 5.1: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d & H i g h w a y 1 0 1 O v e r p a s s Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n PROPOSEDVIEW 5.2: WI T H 1 5 0 ’ C O N T O U R 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m S o u t h H i g u e r a & L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d EXISTINGVIEW 6.1: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m S o u t h H i g u e r a & L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d PROPOSEDVIEW 6.2: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m M a d o n n a R o a d & H i g h w a y 1 0 1 O v e r p a s s EXISTINGVIEW 7.1: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m M a d o n n a R o a d & H i g h w a y 1 0 1 O v e r p a s s PROPOSEDVIEW 7.2: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m S o u t h b o u n d H i g h w a y 1 0 1 ( a c r o s s f r o m P r a d o R o a d ) EXISTINGVIEW 8.1: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m S o u t h b o u n d H i g h w a y 1 0 1 ( a c r o s s f r o m P r a d o R o a d ) PROPOSEDVIEW 8.2:WITH 150’ CONTOUR Ap p r o x i m a t e 15 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m F r o o m R a n c h W a y & L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d EXISTINGVIEW 9.1: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m F r o o m R a n c h W a y & L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d PROPOSEDVIEW 9.2: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m F r o o m R a n c h W a y EXISTINGVIEW 10.1: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m F r o o m R a n c h W a y PROPOSEDVIEW 10.2: 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Au t h o r i z a t i o n t o p r o c e e d wi t h S p e c i f i c P l a n a n d E I R Al l o w d e v e l o p m e n t a b o v e th e 1 5 0 ’ E l e v a t i o n Ho m e De p o t Mo u n t a i n b r o o k Ch u r c h Ho m e De p o t Mo u n t a i n b r o o k Ch u r c h Co s t c o Target Hampton Inn PR O J E C T SI T E 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n Qu e s t i o n s o r C o m m e n t s ? 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n 04 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 I t e m 8 , P r e s e n t a t i o n 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 1 Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road Specific Plan Initiation Request (12165 and 12393 Los Osos Valley Road) Review of request to initiate preparation of the proposed Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments April 5, 2016 Applicant: John Madonna and Bob Richmond (Villagio Senior Living) Site Information 2 • Zoning: County of San Luis Obispo – Commercial Retail, Agriculture, Rural Lands • City of San Luis Obispo LUE: SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area • Site Area: 111 acres (4,835,160 square feet) 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 2 3 Home Depot Costco Prefumo Commons Auto Park Hotels/Motels Mountainbrook 4 Irish Hills Stormwater Basin Home Depot Stormwater BasinFroom Ranch Historic Complex 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 3 5View of Project Site – Single Family Residential Land Use Area 6View of Project Site – Overview Looking Towards Los Osos Valley Road 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 4 7View of Project Site – Senior Housing Applicant’s Conceptual Project Description 8 Residential housing 200 multi-family apartments 75 attached or detached single-family dwellings Senior housing – Continuing Care Retirement Community Commercial Retail 25,000-45,000 square feet Neighborhood park associated with Froom Ranch Historic Complex Open Space 50% of site Circulation and stormwater management Froom Creek Realignment and restoration 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 5 Key Issues Related to Initiation Request Conceptual mix of uses differ from the vision for this Specific Plan Area: Continuing Care Retirement Community Reduced square footage of commercial retail uses Request to develop above 150-foot elevation LUE Policy 6.4.7.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. Project will adjust location of Urban Reserve Line 9 Key Issue: Mix of Land Uses 10 LUE SP-3 compliant components: Single-family residential Multi-family residential near Los Osos Valley Road Commercial retail near Los Osos Valley Road (less square footage) Park, Open Space Additional component not previously envisioned for SP-3: Development above 150-foot contour including: A portion of single-family residential area (up to 180-foot elevation) Senior Housing/CCRC land use (up to 250- foot elevation) 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 6 Key Issue: Mix of Land Uses 11 Senior Housing (CCRC) (~20 acres). Not previously envisioned in SP-3 276 Independent Living Apartments 66 Independent Living Villas 122-bed Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Long-term Care Facility Common area facilities, outdoor recreation and activities areas, support and maintenance facilities, controlled access and gate house Majority of senior housing component located above 150-foot contour Key Issue: Amendment to 150-foot elevation development limit policy 12 LUE Policy 6.4.7.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”. Purpose of development limits Avoid sensitive habitats or unique resources Avoid public health and safety problems LUE calls for compact mixed-use project LUE, COSE, and Circulation Element viewshed and hillside protection policies 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 7 Key Issue: Amendment to 150-foot elevation development limit policy 13 LUCE EIR identified significant but mitigable visual impacts Specific Plan required to address environmental constraints, resource protection, hillside and open space protection, viewsheds, and views from off-site locations Future development to consider viewsheds, hillside and open space protection, height limits, wetland protection, access to other connections, historic farm buildings, mixed use to accommodate workforce housing, and neighborhood commercial type uses Planning Commission Directional Items December 9, 2015 14 1.Clearly identify constraints warranting development above the 150- foot elevation 2.Provide justification for development above the 150-foot elevation 3.Describe potential impacts to environmental resources as a result of potential development above the 150-foot elevation 4.Amend visual simulations to show elevation contours and graphic simulations 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 8 Planning Commission Recommendation January 27, 2016 15 Authorize initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment application process Provide direction to applicant regarding application package: Resolution: Include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on natural and scenic resources Next steps if initiation is authorized: 16 Submit formal application General Plan Amendments and Pre-zoning Specific Plan Development Plan Modification of Urban Reserve Line Architectural, Cultural Heritage Committee, and Airport Land Use Commission review Initiate CEQA (environmental review) process Prepare Project-level Environmental Impact Report Consideration of Project Approval Annexation 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 9 Summary 17 Scope of initiation only provides authorization for applicant to submit formal application Other Issues to be evaluated upon formal submittal: Froom Creek realignment, restoration, and setbacks Froom Ranch Historic Complex 50% Open Space requirement Special-status plant avoidance and mitigation Determination of appropriate building heights General Plan consistency All environmental issues pursuant to CEQA Summary 18 Consider information provided by applicant Constraints and developable land acreage Justification for project including components envisioned for SP-3 and CCRC component Potential impacts if development above 150-foot elevation is considered in formal application Conceptual visual simulations Provide direction to staff and applicant Mix of land uses Amendment of 150-foot elevation development line policy Other directional items 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 10 Recommendation 19 Adopt Resolution that: Authorizes initiation of Specific Plan and allows formal submittal of requested entitlements, and Includes the following regarding application submittal: Directional language recommended by the Planning Commission (Section 3.1) Directional language recommended by Staff (Section 3.2) Alternatives 20 1.Initiate application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments, but provide a land use mix that more closely correlates with LUE policies for Specific Plan Area 3. 2.Initiate application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, but the formal submittal should not include a General Plan Amendment to develop above the 150-foot contour line. 3.Initiate application process for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, but the formal submittal should be modified to conform to feedback given by the City Council regarding both land use mix and development above the 150-foot contour line. 4.Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include details of additional information or analysis required. 5.Determine that no major amendments should be made to the General Plan and recommend the City Council deny the request for Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Initiation. 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 11 21 22 Flood Hazard 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 12 23View of Project Site – Open Space and Senior Housing 24View of Project Site – Senior Housing and Open Space 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 13 25View of Project Site – Open Space and Senior Housing 26View of Project Site – Open Space and Senior Housing 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 14 27View of Project Site – Park, Open Space, and Senior Housing 28View of Project Site – Park, Retail, Multi-Family, and Open Space Areas 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 15 Applicant’s Conceptual Project Description LUE SP-3 Development Standards 29 LUE SP-3 Development Standards Applicant’s Conceptual Land Use Mix LUE SP-3 Standards Met?Type/Designation Min-Max 2 Approximate Area Conceptual Land Use Mix Approximate Area Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 8 -- 29 acres 275 dwelling units 18 acres Met Applicant’s Conceptual Project Description LUE SP-3 Development Standards 30 LUE SP-3 Development Standards Applicant’s Conceptual Land Use Mix LUE SP-3 Standards Met?Type/Designation Min-Max 2 Approximate Area Conceptual Land Use Mix Approximate Area Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 8 -- 29 acres 275 dwelling units 18 acres Met Commercial / NC, CR 50,000-350,000 sf 3 -- 24 acres 25,000-45,000 sf 2 -- 3 acres Less than Min. 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 16 Applicant’s Conceptual Project Description LUE SP-3 Development Standards 31 LUE SP-3 Development Standards Applicant’s Conceptual Land Use Mix LUE SP-3 Standards Met?Type/Designation Min-Max 2 Approximate Area Conceptual Land Use Mix Approximate Area Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 8 -- 29 acres 275 dwelling units 18 acres Met Commercial / NC, CR 50,000-350,000 sf 3 -- 24 acres 25,000-45,000 sf 2 -- 3 acres Less than Min. Parks / PARK -- 6.5 acres Small neighborhood park including historic structures (education, community use) 6.5 acres Met Applicant’s Conceptual Project Description LUE SP-3 Development Standards 32 LUE SP-3 Development Standards Applicant’s Conceptual Land Use Mix LUE SP-3 Standards Met?Type/Designation Min-Max 2 Approximate Area Conceptual Land Use Mix Approximate Area Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 8 -- 29 acres 275 dwelling units 18 acres Met Commercial / NC, CR 50,000-350,000 sf 3 -- 24 acres 25,000-45,000 sf 2 -- 3 acres Less than Min. Parks / PARK -- 6.5 acres Small neighborhood park including historic structures (education, community use) 6.5 acres Met Circulation and Stormwater management -- 8 acres Circulation and stormwater management 8 acres Met 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 17 Applicant’s Conceptual Project Description LUE SP-3 Development Standards 33 LUE SP-3 Development Standards Applicant’s Conceptual Land Use Mix LUE SP-3 Standards Met?Type/Designation Min-Max 2 Approximate Area Conceptual Land Use Mix Approximate Area Residential (Mixed Use) / MDR, MHDR, HDR 200 to 350 units 8 – 29 acres 275 dwelling units 18 acres Met Commercial / NC, CR 50,000 to 350,000 sf 3 -- 24 acres 25,000-45,000 sf 2 -- 3 acres Less than Min. Parks / PARK -- 6.5 acres Small neighborhood park including historic structures (education, community use) 6.5 acres Met Circulation and Stormwater management -- 8 acres Circulation and stormwater management 8 acres Met Total (approx.) -- 25.5 -- 67.5 acres -- 34.5 -- 35.5 acres PC Review Request #1 “Clearly identify constraints warranting development above the 150-foot elevation” 34 Applicant submitted amended constraints map (Exhibit A.1) Constraints below 150: Froom Ranch Historic Complex (1.5 acres) Wetland habitat (7.0 acres) Stormwater basin (2.8 acres) Slopes 21%+ (6.0 acres) 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 18 PC Review Request #1 “Clearly identify constraints warranting development above the 150-foot elevation” 35 Applicant submitted amended creek corridor map (Exhibit D.1) Constraints below 150: Froom Creek, drainages, and creek setbacks (11.6 acres) PC Review Request #2 “Provide justification for development above the 150-foot elevation” 36 Approximate developable area below 150: 32.1 acres Approximate area needed to meet LUE standards per SP-3 Performance Standards Table: 25.5 - 67.5 acres Land below 150-foot elevation could accommodate LUE SP-3 development standards Continuing Care Retirement Community land needed: 20 acres Inclusion of CCRC land use exceeds developable area below 150-foot elevation by approximately 13.4 - 23.4 acres Thus the proposal to provide the majority of the CCRC above 150-foot elevation Staff: CCRC land use appears to be driving need to build above the 150-foot contour 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 19 PC Review Request #3 “Describe potential impacts to environmental resources as a result of potential development above the 150-foot elevation” 37 Applicant submitted Biological Resources Inventory Kevin Merk Associates Potential Impacts to Special Status Habitats and Plants Wetland habitat: 7,500 square feet Serpentine bunchgrass: 6.68 acres Special-status Rank List 1B plant species: 1.24 acres Chorro Creek bog thistle: 50-foot buffer proposed Upper drainages: avoidance and buffer Steelhead (Froom Creek upper pools) Birds, bats, mammals PC Review Request #3 “Describe potential impacts to environmental resources as a result of potential development above the 150-foot elevation” 38 Applicant submitted Prehistoric and Historic Report First Carbon Solutions Froom Ranch Historic Complex: dairy barn Linear features: rock and stone walls Archaeological resources: proposed to be avoided 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 20 PC Review Request #4 “Amend visual simulations to show elevation contours and graphic simulations” 39 Applicant submitted updated visual simulations Photograph of existing and proposed view Shows approximate location of 150-foot elevation line Comparative views: Entire project Development above 150-foot elevation Development below 150-foot elevation Applicant further revised visual simulations (March 2016) Considered shifting structures off visually prominent knoll Move structures to lower elevation PC Review Request #4 “Amend visual simulations to show elevation contours and graphic simulations” 40 Applicant submitted Conceptual Building Heights Exhibit C.1 Maximum roof heights above 150-foot elevation: SFR Area A: 210 feet CCRC Area B: 230 feet CCRC Area C: 238 feet CCRC Area D: 225 feet CCRC Area E: 238 feet 04‐05‐2016 Item 8, Staff Presentation 21 Correspondence Received 41 California Native Plant Society Development above 150-foot elevation Special-status plants protection Habitat function Froom Creek realignment and restoration Historic structures Consider only CCRC below 150-foot elevation Applicant Response Planning Commission Comments: 42 Key comments during deliberation: CCRC important use in City, requires careful consideration if this is an appropriate site for this use Project consists of two components (compliance with LUE SP-3 performance standards and CCRC) Consider additional modifications to land use density and structural area Provide additional information regarding housing type and inclusion of workforce housing Minimize potential visual impacts through site design and development standards (i.e. reduced massing and building heights) Minimize potential impacts to biological resources through site design