The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/05/2006, BUS 4 - ADOPTION OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR SOUTH HILLS NATURAL RESERVE council Wal, D•1e01 sb(� acEnoA nepoRt t.m Number CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Administrative Officer Prepared By: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR SOUTH HILLS NATURAL RESERVE CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by both the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission, approve a resolution adopting the Conservation Plan for South Hills Natural Reserve, as amended and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project. DISCUSSION Background The "project" is the adoption of a Conservation Plan for the South Hills Natural Reserve (SHNR), to guide the management and development of the site over the next five to seven years. SHNR is an approximately 130 acre area lying within the City of San Luis Obispo with urban development surrounding it on the west, north, and east, and undeveloped agricultural lands to the south, which are proposed for ultimate urban growth (Attachment 1 — Vicinity Map). It consists of portions of a low ridge of serpentine rock extending from near Higuera Street to near the Damon-Garcia Sports Complex. The site is known for its rugged character, views of the surrounding city, interesting wildflowers, and its trail system. The site consists primarily of grassland and sparse brush land, and is well used by both hikers and joggers, and to a limited extent by mountain bikers. The Reserve began with the dedication of approximately seven acres along Exposition Drive to the City in 1981, joined in 1994 by the dedication of approximately 50 additional acres associated with the Stoneridge development. The Reserve reached its current size with the offer and acceptance by the City of a conservation easement on approximately 71 additional acres on the south side of the ridge (this donation is expected to be finalized in early 2007). The easement donation will convert to a fee interest once biological mitigations required for the Margarita development are completed. Overview of the South Hills Natural Reserve and the Protections offered by the Conservation Plan 1. Important Features of the SHNR SHNR contains a number of sensitive or otherwise important natural features, and one notable cultural feature, including: a. Several wetland seeps or springs at scattered locations within the Reserve; G/Havlik/Councilagenda/South Hills CP adoption, �!/ Council Agenda'Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for South Hills Page 2 b. Several plant species of concern, including San Luis Obispo mariposa lily, San Luis Obispo dudleya,purple spineflower, and adobe sanicle; and c. An old rock cistern which once provided water to the agricultural properties below (now developed), and which has been restored for use in wetland enhancement. Z Management Areas of Concern in the SHNR The SHNR presents several areas of concern that are addressed in the Conservation Plan itself. Those issues are as follows: a. Erosion problems associated with a dirt road accessing a communication site on adjacent private property; b. Need for a wildfire preparedness plan or program; c. Protection and enhancement of sensitive resources and habitats;and d. Proper development and functioning of the trail system. 3. How the Conservation Plan addresses the Areas of Concern The management areas of concern presented by the SHNR are addressed in the Conservation Plan as follows: a. Completion of an improvement program for the access road to the communication sites located on private property to the west of the Reserve, using Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) standards commonly applied to farm and ranch roads; b. Development of a formally identified trail system for pedestrians and bicyclists, including certain routes restricted to pedestrians only; c. Placement of protective fencing at identified locations within the Reserve, especially on the southwest, to protect sensitive resources in those locations; d. Development of interpretive and informational signage to assist visitors e. Ultimate removal of livestock grazing on the property; and £ A wildfire preparedness plan, involving management of fuel loading at the urban/wildland interface. 4. Recognition of the Name—the South Hills Natural Reserve In addition to the above physical considerations, the Conservation Plan calls for the formal recognition of the name "South Hills Natural Reserve" for the property, to replace past. references to the site with names such as "Cheapskate Hill", "Exposition Park", and "South Street Hills". G/Havlik/councilagenda/South Hills CP adoption 4/� Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for South Hills Page 3 Environmental and Public Review of the Conservation Plan for the SHNR The thrust of the proposed Conservation Plan is to protect the existing resources at SHNR and to balance recreational use, fire safety, and resource protection. The plan is considered to not have a significant effect upon the environment, except for minor potential associated with certain road and trail work. Therefore a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for the project. In February 2006 a workshop was held on the drafting of the plan. Public input at that workshop focused on the desire to retain the undeveloped, open, and passive character of the Reserve. Following preparation of the draft Conservation Plan, a hearing was scheduled before the City Planning Commission on September 27, 2006. The meeting was attended by about 15 persons, and testimony was received from many of those present. The Planning Commission recommended that the Conservation Plan be approved with certain changes (See Attachment 4). In addition, staff has provided responses to the comments received (Attachment 5) and recommends changes to accommodate neighborhood concerns. The consideration of the establishment of the so-called "Northeast Trail" should occur if use of the trail develops and will include consultation with the neighbors prior to any recommended improvements being presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Additionally, access from Lawrence Drive, would occur with the development of adjacent property. On November 1, 2006, the Parks and Recreation Commission heard the presentation and took public testimony on the matter. However, due to a legal technicality, the 3-0 vote supporting the recommendation was vacated and the Commission heard the matter again in a special meeting on November 15, 2006. At that meeting the Parks and Recreation Commission again took public testimony and concurred in the Planning Commission's recommendation by a 5-0 vote. CONCURRENCES Parks and Recreation Department staff assisted in the inventory of the site and in development of the Conservation Plan. Community Development staff reviewed the Conservation Plan and Initial Study and recommended approval to the Planning Commission, and Parks Department staff assisting in moving the matter forward through the Parks and Recreation Commission. FISCAL UYIPACT The fiscal impact of the project will be minor. Most of the road improvements will be undertaken by King Ventures or its roadway tenants as they undertake corrective measures for the communication site access road. This is by far the largest project that would be undertaken within the Reserve. Other projects such as signing and fencing can be done within existing budgets or will be undertaken as mitigations for the Margarita Area development. G/Havliklcouncilagenda/South Hills CP adoption N/�� Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for South Hills Page 4 ALTERNATIVE The Council could reject the Conservation Plan. This is not recommended, since the plan has been reviewed by both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission in public session, public testimony taken on the plan by both Commissions, and amendments recommended to clarify the plan or to accommodate concerns raised by citizens. Both Commissions then supported the recommended Plan as amended by unanimous vote. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Copy of South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 3. Initial Study 4. Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of September 27, 2006 5. Public Comments and staff responses to those comments from Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2006 6. Draft Minutes from Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of November 15, 2006 7. Resolution to Adopt the Conservation Plan for the SHNR C/Havlikkouncilagenda/Soud:Hills CP adoption �� •r � ,�1NL U11111.1111011111J411P11 • s ly g r �IIPIII'� C �® +rrte.v �� '��, — ��'�=III71�111:a. If,�e.,��V ltr.� Q f �..� NE 911 ��lle'1111:' MEN Man, =d11�,rrir.rlra�rrarrrarrrrr� irarrrarrrrnri�rirLr�ra� �.� �, as !a ® ■,�� -",�.. ,. .,,,;.-.:.:,,,,_ ' - - �-- --.uc =All 1• X11 �� r�qj�rrlh:.� a�� `�� !a e:*ylrrranr`raalDlera,pt��;u rub 1l�Plllm.'1= ��\\,�1 �e �� '•"��rtr -r�r..vc :P Lr., �aAull�ltl. ,\\i•`,� �. ��+Alriie'rrntuD►p m1,®: ur` Cn lur�_II% `a��' ' ��\�� ]o.I►�a�d.��g�� anul U1111aU1111Rallle'o �i\gym ` `in�rr�a1n1a1�► HIF1111ra 1411HI l„=®111_lFs�,' L_ \\ $�a111111111�111[ii111f1911111111J111. z; � ��9g�([Qlr,rrllD�lfllr,u,rip' �: l S d ♦ � _f J . � *ice---':�:C- (=.r••.., ��j'� . b.lUlllrluc J 11uua1vuua� Lnn i�--._.. ...;�� . i l I■ �o....._ IIt to IN.O■ y�rt • � I I I I s I IN, A.ITACHMENT 2 Soutk Hills Natural Kcsc.m,,c Draft con5entation rlan Natural Resources Program Al .................... AT 1p: ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan city of San tins OBISPO is Natural Resources Protection Program www.slocity.org/naturalresources DRAFT South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Neil Havlik, Ph.D. Natural Resources Manager 805.781 .7211 Freddy Otte City Biologist 805.781 .7511 2 �'7 ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan �` may` rk a La + 5o'x'wyk `A� �'�uL�r�:.]Y.S-.,.�..��"'��ti.s:i� �'�+•-�� 'F �z' "�'/".�.-S�S'T-'r-� �---�6Ca' p� 0�4�,..L'�, 4•�l'iI�_`r^-` !�� _t -�-. � ..�.�"t C ` View across the valley from Cheapskate Hill, circa 1940's. �'� �. ai`' �p�o� '.�3 y� '.'i/ ry�`'1.✓•y�yt�I �� -it°`�r�i��0:.`_" �t�� /,t^q* ye " i ,•G`. .r)., r 1 . iY.�i�4C`� `'o`�y It 4 �'� �, �IH � I� _' { i .• I ,�F-.aye .hsi.+.+" , `r�.u}4 i �� ..,�> � r L r Qom. • L.,.t } r 2t' f� "' '�l` d��mM ..0 '4T��.T�._ q �. Nt � -.i �_ r iA Y'rr t �Lt �`s Hr a � '..rp r '.-•t ?+� r� .5•. .^�� ' 1 �7 .. / .r+ r4(,�''T` ✓r:r17� } KYt' '' ..in�q`.!"•< � trk �' .. t�, h e I��,y .=bac '.P' %Fj� t+; r `ALM 1..�C / r.''t'C' i�•pa4 .� '`!tet :. /}e� 1'•o ':tly Ot,l View across the valley from Cheapskate Hill, now South Hills, September 2006. ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Table of Contents Executive summary 1. Introduction 1.1 History 1.2 Background 1.3 Access 2. Inventory 2.1 Physical Features 2.2Cultural/Historic Resources 2.3 Soils 2.4 Water 2.5 Habitat Types 2.6Plants and Wildlife 2.6.1 Plants 2.6.2 Animals 3. Goals and Policies Public Feedback Resource Map Resource Protection Resource Enhancement Development.Mitigation 4. Conservation Plan 3.1 Habitat Area 3.2 Management Area/Trail Corridor 3.3 Restoration Area 3.4 Cultural/Historic Resources 5. Implementation Strategy 6. Fiscal Statement 7. Monitoring Appendix A List of Figures Figure 1 Regional setting for SHNR Figure 2 SHNR Soil Types Figure 3 SHNR Plant Species of Local Concern Figure 4 SHNR Existing and Proposed Trail Alignments Figure 5 SHNR Photo Monitoring Points Appendix B List of Tables Table 1 List of sensitive plants identified within the SHNR Table 2 List of animal species identified within the SHNR 4 ionl;ST I South Hills Natural Reserve Ct51fs a lan Executive Summary How the Conservation Plan Addresses These Issues The South Hills Natural Reserve The balancing of public use and (SHNR) is bordered by the Woodbridge the preservation of sensitive habitats at and Stoneridge developments on the SHNR will be the primary focus of the north and the new Margarita Area Conservation Plan. Main efforts will development will act as a boundary to include: the south. The elevation ranges Correcting erosion problems on between 200 and 575 feet above sea the communication site access road and level. emergency access road on the south side of SHNR; Natural Features Improving the "braided" trails on The SHNR contains several the northeast side of SHNR into a natural habitat types and 8 sensitive and single, pedestrian only trail; rare plant species located on the Discouraging access to the property. Serpentine bunchgrass and western portion of SHNR "saddle area" rock outcrops, annual grasslands, by installation of fencing; wetland seeps (both natural and effecting a variety of habitat artificial) and an ephemeral drainage are improvements within SHNR, especially all found on the property. at the seeps and wetlands. Control non-native vegetation Management Issues/ Concerns which is encroaching in certain areas; Associated with SHNR and. There are Photo- several monitoring points management have been issues that need established for to be addressed baseline condition once the SHNR recording to ensure Conservation Plan the resources are is formally t .. protected. approved. These - 4 Incorporate a include: proper dedicated bicycle level of public , 'i �_. ` trail on the access for > southwest side f which ties into the recreation, erosion problems `" "` existing fire road associated with the communication site and implements what is called for in the access road, protection and Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted by enhancement of sensitive species and the City in 1997. habitats located on the property, Provide for fire protection and encroachment of non-native vegetation, response needs of surrounding and planning for mitigation from new developed properties. developments around the SHNR. 5 _ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 1. Introduction There is potential for more parcels to be added to the.Reserve in the future: 1.1 History The Haley Ranch Cattle Company has The ridge commonly referred to as the leased the property for a number of South Hills or South Street Hills have years for livestock grazing; however, been a popular walking and running this lease will expire when construction destination for San Luis Obispo of the Margarita Area subdivision residents for many years. At one time begins. there was a racetrack at the northern base of the hills. It was known as A four million gallon water tank was Exposition Park and it regularly held installed in 1972 by the City immediately auto racing competitions attended by adjacent to the SHNR and its paved hundreds or perhaps thousands of access road is located on the property. persons. Some, however, did not wish to pay, and those individuals would 1.2 Background climb up onto the first hill above the racetrack to watch, and as a result that As noted above, the South Hills were hill became known as "Cheapskate Hill". acquired by the City in several portions. Exposition Park closed in 1925 and the The first was acquired in 1979 and the property was eventually developed into most recent was a donation from King a residential subdivision, known as Ventures as part of the further Woodbridge. In 1981, as part of that development within the Margarita Area, project, about 7.7 acres of land was and is not yet complete. dedicated to the City as permanent, publicly accessible open space, which Two biological assessments were included Cheapskate Hill. conducted in the area by Althouse and Meade, Inc. in 2005. The first In the early 1990's planning for another assessment was for the King property residential subdivision to the southeast as part of the Margarita Area began, and that project, known as development, including the proposed 71 Stoneridge, included a further dedication acre donation area. The second was of approximately 52.4 acres to the City, specifically for the 60-acre northern thereby increasing the open space to portion of the SHNR property. Floristic 60.1 acres. Finally, as part of the large surveys were performed from April residential development known as the through September 2005. Over 150 Margarita Area, a further 71 acres has plant species were identified on the been offered to the City by the property, with 8 of them being classified developer, King Ventures, first as a as rare species. Animal surveys conservation easement, to be followed revealed 22 different species, mostly within five years by donation of fee title. birds. Three sensitive bird species were This has been accepted by the City observed on the property although only Council and for that reason the entire one was thought to actually nest on the 131 acre site is included in this planning property (Althouse and Meade, Inc., study. 2005). Six different habitat types exist on the property and range from 6 - ,ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan serpentine outcrop to annual grasslands 2. Inventory to wetland seeps. The rare and sensitive species are distributed throughout the 2.1 Physical features different habitat types. Management activities that exist and are proposed for Area— 131 acres the SHNR are public recreation, fire Miles of trails—2.70 miles road management, erosion control, Miles of waterway—0.87 miles sensitive habitat restoration, and Access points—Two official access endangered species enhancement. points; Exposition Drive and Bluerock Drive. Two more access points are 1.3 Access proposed with currently approved Currently, there are two dedicated development. A third is anticipated in access points to SHNR; Exposition the future. Drive and Bluerock Drive. On-street parking is offered at both sites and the Upon first looking at the property, it access point from Bluerock Drive serves would appear barren but based on the as a maintenance road for the City's habitat available, the features and water tank and for emergency vehicle resources on the SHNR property are access. There is a fire road located on extensive. It is a natural outcropping of the property that breaks off the paved serpentine running in a northwest- road to the water tank and bisects the southeast direction and reaching an property to serve as an access road to elevation of approximately 575 feet the communication site located on the above sea level with a "saddle" area in ridge above the "saddle" area on private between the two ridges located on the property. Current City requirements for property. Wetland seeps and the saddle new development in the surrounding area support several different species of area will include three new access sensitive plants. Very few trees are points into SHNR. These include (1) afound on the property due to the poor pedestrian and bike trail access from the soil so the primary habitat types are King property on the south side of coastal scrub and grassland. SHNR, (2) another from the Bridge Street project, and (3) a third, pedestrian 2.2 Cultural/Historic Resources only access from the Lawrence Drive An Environmental Impact Report was project when it is undertaken. completed and certified in 1992 for the Screening of such accesses is difficult Stoneridge II Subdivision. A cultural due to the nature of the habitat and soils investigation associated with that project in SHNR. Both pedestrians and cyclists identified one structure of historical will be able to access from all points but interest within SHNR. This is a cistern once on the property, signs will identify created from native rock pressed trails that will be split and only against a wood form with concrete pedestrians will be allowed on the ridge poured over the rocks to form a trail due to the close quarters and rough 23.5x33x12-foot storage structure (ERC, terrain. On street parking is currently 1992). A second cistern was identified available at the two access points and is below the first but that one was covered expected to also be available at the new to allow the Stoneridge development to anticipated access points. be completed. A pump system was 7 y-i2 - ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan created to keep the water supply intact to deliver water to a nearby seep for and augment the cistern on the hill. enhancement purposes.. Two natural Since the roof on the cistern located on seeps were lost to the development so the hill had fallen into the structure, the wetland vegetation was transplanted to roof from the lower cistern was used to the new enhancement site located replace the other with native materials. immediately behind Stoneridge Park. A cistern under the road, where No prehistoric resources were identified Stoneridge meets Bluerock, collects on SHNR property, however, four water then pumps it uphill to the cistern archaeological sites have been within SHNR; from which point the water identified within 2 kilometers of the site. is distributed by gravity to the enhanced wetland seep approximately 200 yards 2.3 Soils away, mimicking the natural water flow (RRM, 1992). According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Soil Survey of 2.5 Habitat Types San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part (1984), the vast majority of 2.5.1 Serpentine bunchgrass SHNR consists of the Obispo-rock A search of the California Department of outcrop complex. This soil type is best Fish and Game (DFG) Wildlife Habitat suited to wildlife habitat and watershed, Relationship System (WHR) identified having very limited agricultural value serpentine bunchgrass as a sensitive (even for livestock grazing) and natural community. This habitat type is presenting various engineering located scattered around the SHNR problems. The type's capability class is property and in a larger expanse on the Vlle, meaning it is unsuitable for crops "saddle" portion where there is better and characterized by high erosion soil. Purple needlegrass, Nasella hazard. pulchra, dominates this habitat type. The rare plants that are located in this A few areas around the edges of SHNR, habitat are Obispo Indian paintbrush, and in the "saddle" area, consist of Castilleja densitlora ssp. obispoensis, Cropley, Diablo, or Cibo clays. These Cambria morning glory, Calystegia soils support more productive grassland subacaulis ssp. episcopalism, and San vegetation. A soil map is attached as Luis Obispo clay mariposa lily, Figure 2. Calochortus argillosus. ^ A 2.4 Water Water resources on SHNR are sparse. Three large seeps are located on the ,' r property along with several smaller i ones. Per mitigation requirements for the Stoneridge development, one : existing cistern was covered by the development and the cistern on the hill behind the development was upgraded Obispo Indian Paintbrush 8 y-�3 ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2.5.2 Serpentine Outcrops Through tectonic movement over 20 • Foxtail barley (Hordeum sp.) million years ago, serpentine rock was • Ryegrass (Lolium sp.) deposited along a narrow band along • Wild oats (Avena fatua) the property. The chemical properties of • Ripgut (Bromus diandrus) serpentine rock and their associated • Purple needlegrass (Nasella soils, high in magnesium, low in pulchra) calcium, containing large amounts of iron and nickel, and typically deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus, make vegetation establishment very difficult. 2.5.4 Coastal Scrub Only certain plant species which are There is a coastal scrub habitat located serpentine endemic are found here. on the south east portion of the Brewers spineflower, Chorizanthe serpentine ridge that bisects the SHNR breweri, and San Luis Obispo dud.leya, property. The dominant plant is coastal Dudleya abramsh ssp. munna, are two sagebrush, Artemisia califomica, and is rare plants found only on serpentine the most popular shrub located on the outcrops in San Luis Obispo County and property. Palmer's spineflower, are abundant in the SHNR. Chorizanthe palmeri, is a rare plant t - species with a List 4 determination and is abundant in rocky areas and within the coastal scrub habitat. Plant species r commonly noted within coastal scrub habitat during the surveys include: . ' - r • California sagebrush S (Artemisia californica) • Black sage (Salvia mellifera) • Coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) • Chamise (Adenostoma Brewer's Spineflower fasciculatum) • Toyon (Heteromeles 2.5.3 Annual Grassland arbutifolia) Annual grassland habitat is found along • Coast live oak (Quercus the northern portion of the SHNR agrifolia) property. There are small areas where • Deerweed (Lotus junceus) the serpentine outcrop recedes and • Poison oak (Toxicodendron open area has been colonized by wild diversilobum) oats, ryegrass and brome. These habitat • Monkeyflower (Mimulus sp.) types are dominated by Mediterranean • Blue elderberry (Sambucus annuals following farming or grazing. mexicana) Grazing is a practice that will be • Wild buckwheat (Eriogonum removed to allow further restoration on SO the property. Plant species commonly • Morning glory (Calystegia encountered in grassland habitat on macrostegia) the site include: 9 Z/-Ay ATTACKME!HT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan • Saw-toothed goldenbush possible enhancement and increase in (Hazardia squamosa) numbers. • Wild rose (Rosa califomica) Very few trees are found on the propertyj; ;•< Y., ;� ;. and all but very few have been planted by various projects and mitigation _,,,.•, efforts. A list of sensitive plant species found on the property is provided in Table 1 ; r (Appendix b). Palmer's Spineflower w 2.6 Plants and Wildlife 2.6.1 Plants Floristic surveys were conducted from April to September 2005 with over 150 plant species identified on the SHNR property. There are 103 native species, Clay Mariposa Lily with 8 of those considered rare according to the CNPS, and 48 2.6.2 Animals introduced species. The rare plants Animal surveys were conducted on the found on the property have status SHNR property in August 2005. Small recordings of List 1 B and List 4. The mammal trapping was conducted by Cal categories are on a scale of low threat Poly students under the guidance of Dr (List 4) to species that are presumed Francis Villablanca. There were 77 extinct (List 1A). There are 1038 plants different species expected to be on List 1B and are rare throughout their encountered on the SHNR property range. All but a few are endemic to based on literature searches and habitat California and all are judged to be type descriptions;of these, 22 species vulnerable under present were actually found by on-site surveys. circumstances, or to have a high Most of them were birds. potential to be vulnerable. Vulnerability is due to limited or sensitive habitat, low The different habitat types present offer numbers of individuals per population, forage and hiding areas for small or low numbers of populations. The mammals which in tum act as prey for majority of these species are serpentine larger mammals and raptors. Deer mice dependent. Due to the harsh were the most prolific rodents on the environment where most of these plants property apparently feeding coyotes, are found, along with the disturbance resident red foxes, peregrine falcons, from cattle, their distribution classifies and American kestrels. The raptors them for listing as sensitive species. The probably migrate through while foraging protection of the SHNR.leaves these but several smaller birds like sparrows, plants with protection and leads to 10 ��/� South Hills Natural Reserve C�slAMI ANT 2 finches, swallows and doves may release of pollutants, while maintaining actually nest on the property. the drainage systems as a means of conveying storm water into and within Larger animals such as fox, coyote, and urban areas. deer are occasionally seen at SHNR; 3.4 To protect and preserve however cover for these species is native plant and animal species and limited and, except for the foxes, they enhance their habitats, in order to appear to only be visitants. maintain viable wildlife populations within balanced ecosystems. A list of potential and encountered animal species is provided in Table 2 Public Comment and Input (Appendix B). This conservation plan aims to accommodate the wishes and desires of the general public while addressing the 3. Goals and Policies City's goals in the Open Space Element. A public meeting was held as well as The "Conservation Guidelines for Open meetings with other groups for input on Space Lands of the City of San Luis the conservation plan and the following Obispo"describes City-adopted comments were recorded: management guidelines and policies • No public road (e.g. connecting which are outlined in the City's the road by the water tank for "Conservation and Open Space through traffic). Element": • Visual impact of fences, other structures a concern among Management of SHNR will be residents. undertaken by the City with the following • Leave area alone, it is beautiful goals: the way it is. It is "open space" 3.1 To conserve, enhance, and not a park. restore natural plant communities; to . Encourage volunteer programs protect sensitive endangered plant for hikes, upkeep, improvements. species and their habitats; and to • Have restricted access to the maintain biodiversity of native plants commercial radio tower hill. and animals. • Consider trail augmentation from 3.2 To provide the public with a Crystal Springs Co. safe and pleasing natural environment • Concern with bike vs. pedestrian in which to pursue recreational activities, conflicts; small size of property while maintaining the integrity of the not conducive to bike trail. resources and minimizing the impacts • Bike use needs to be controlled, on the wildlife and habitats present in the Reserve. especially on the ridges. • Cross-country riding can be 3.3 To preserve and restore damaging. creeks, wetlands and ephemeral seeps • Keep improvements simple and or springs to a natural state, and provide suitable habitat for all native aquatic and low key. riparian species. To minimize the • Split-use ('/ pedestrian trails, '/ impacts of harmful activities, such as the bike trails) may bring pressure for more bike trails. 11 y�� ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan • Have reasonable/safe access of the SHNR, the plant species present during wet conditions. on the property have adapted to the soil • Bike clubs could build a safe trail and habitat conditions. By limiting and along the north east side of the designating specific trail routes and property to develop a loop trail allowed uses of the routes, the City will system. seek to maintain natural state of the property while allowing the public the 4. Conservation Plan opportunity to enjoy this open space island. In addition, as time and 4.1 Naming resources are available, small plantings of suitable native species will be This area has had the unofficial name of undertaken in and around the s3eeps, South Street Hills, or South Hills, for a springs, and other wet areas of the site, number of years. The City Council has to encourage an increase in plant never designated a formal name for the diversity. Finally, efforts will also be site, and it is considered appropriate to made to remove aggressive exotic do so at this time. Given that the species, chiefly Scotch broom, which property consists of several independent have established in a few areas of the acquisitions, it is consistent with the Reserve. City's Open Space Ordinance (Municipal Code 12,22.30) to identify the 4.2.2 Management Area/Trail site as a "Natural Reserve". Further Corridor more, given the seeming incongruous Currently two access points service the name of"South Street Hills", naming an SHOS property. Three new access ancient natural feature for a road, it is points are proposed with new recommended that the name "South developments around the SHNR. Two Hills Natural Reserve" be declared recreational trail types are proposed for official. use on the SHNR property; pedestrian (passive) and bicycle (active) trails. To 4.2 Land Designations reduce the impact to the sensitive areas of SHOS, mountain bikes will be Four land designations are restricted to roads and the connection recommended for SHNR. These from the "saddle" to Exposition Drive. include Habitat (125.5 acres or 96%), Management/Trail Corridor (4 acres or The entryway at Exposition Drive is 3%); Restorative (1.5 acres or 1%); and suitable for some tree planting to add to Historic/Cultural (0.01 acres or 0.1%). that which has been done there in the past, and this will be done on an "as 4.2.1 Habitat Area time and resources are available" basis. The great majority of SHNR will be designated as Habitat Area. The Pursuant to Council-directed primary purpose of this area will be to requirements for the development of the protect the natural environment that Margarita Area, a Class I bike path is to exists with only limited human be installed connecting those intervention. Due to the serpentine developments to the Damon-Garcia backbone that extends along the ridge Sports Complex: about one-half mile of 12 y'/� ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan this bike path will be within SHNR. In accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo's Bicycle Transportation Plan of Resource Map 1993, this is part of the series of off- The Natural Resources Program and street transportation network to promote the City's GIS Department staff will be alternative transportation. That Plan building a concise detailed map of the formally established a framework of distribution of sensitive plants and goals, policies, procedures, and animals located on the property. Once standards for the development of a these areas are identified, the final trail citywide bicycle transportation network. system and interpretive signage can be Only pedestrian traffic will be allowed on designed in such a way to educate the the ridge trail and northeast trail due to users on the property and also keep the rocky, uneven substrate which these resources protected and allow would make riding there unsafe. them to flourish. With future Appropriate signage will be placed at development still in the future for trailheads and other proper locations to properties on the southern portion of direct users accordingly. SHNR,the resource map will be updated as new property or trails are Finally, the 20 foot perimeter of SHNR added to the system in place now. that abuts developed properties is also placed in the Management Area/Trail Resource protection Corridor designation, due to its highly There are several natural seeps present managed nature, including fuel on SHNR property that could be management and localized storm rehabilitated once cattle are removed. drainage facilities. The cattle use these areas for water and forage, trampling the vegetation and 4.2.3 Restorative Area they roam. Once the cattle are removed, The wetland on the northeast side of the areas can be fenced to prevent SHNR would benefit from additional people from tromping through these wetland and riparian plantings. For that areas and begin restoration of sensitive reason it is designated as a restorative species. Area. Once restoration activities have Erosion is a significant problem on the been successfully completed, this area SHOS property. As the water collects would revert to a Habitat Area and conveyed through small swales that designation. intersect with the fire/access road, significant gully erosion occurs. Some 4.2.4 Cultural/Historic Area remedies that have been implemented The cistern located on the property is a on the property are non-native gravel large structure, but does not require any importation to facilitate access and geo- special management. There is an textile erosion prevention measures. access hatch in the roof of the structure Neither of these two methods has that is locked so the maintenance proved very successful. The gravel is requirement for the system is minimal, now dispersed through the lower and that maintenance is an obligation of drainage areas and the geo-textile has the Stoneridge Homeowners' simply failed to keep the erosion on the Association. road from happening. New techniques 13 �Hr ' ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan need to be researched to decrease the erosion along the road. Obispo Indian Paintbrush (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis). In 2005 Resource Enhancement this species was found in large numbers Potential exists for rare and endangered both within the Margarita area (including plant restoration. Several natural seeps the open space lot) and on the Unocal and an engineered seep exist on the Tank Farm property nearby. Hoover SHOS property that could be used to reports this subspecies as occurring expand the coverage of rare and from about Ragged Point on the endangered plants endemic to SLO northern boundary of San Luis Obispo County. Once cattle are removed from County to the San Luis Obispo area. It the property and some exclusionary is not certain whether the subspecies fencing and/or signage is erected to was observed in the more northerly keep people out of sensitive areas, rare areas or not, but it is reasonable to and endangered species like the Chorro assume so, as conditions in the North Creek bog thistle, Cirsium fontinale County area have not changed much in obispoense, could be transplanted and the 35 years since publication of the encouraged to spread naturally in the Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo seeps present on the property. A County. Section.10 permit would be required to transplant endangered plant species as Miles Milkvetch (Astragalus they are covered under the auspices didymocarpus var. milesianus). This U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the rare variety is reported from locations in Endangered Species Act. coastal San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Hoover reports it as Development Mitigation found in clay soils, usually derived from Several species of concern will be serpentine, from Morro Bay to San Luis impacted by the Margarita Area Obispo. The approximately 25 Development project: these are mostly individuals found in the survey were plant species, but also include one observed within the project development potentially affected animal species. King envelope. property. These are discussed individually below. Obispo dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina). There are eight individuals of Palmer Spineflower(Chorizanthe this species that will be lost to palmed). This species is found development. The species has throughout the South Hills. A small considerable habitat in the South Hills. portion of the population will be lost through development; however, the Obispo Mariposa Lily(Calochortus open space dedication of the project will simulans). Approximately 25 individuals secure a much larger area of occupied of this species will be lost to habitat. development. The species has additional occupied habitat in the South Brewer Spineflower(Chorizanthe Hills. The open space dedication of the brewen). The situation for this species project will secure much of that habitat is the same as for the above. (some is already secured). The bulbs 14 ��/� South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan may be hard to find, could be damaged Start restoration projects for while being searched for, and could be sensitive plant species time-consuming to replant. The impacted by near-by relocation of these individuals may be development. considered and undertaken if it can be • Investigate transplanting of accomplished at low cost. local endangered species for propagation on the SHNR Adobe Sanicle (Sanicula mardima). property. Approximately 500 individuals of this . Produce wildflower guide for species have been found within the the SHNR. project area and they would be lost due to the development. This species is Years 3-4 considered very rare and San Luis . Continue activities outlined Obispo may be the only area where it is above to completion. found, according to the Jepson Manual. . Assess success of introduced A small population is known from a seep sensitive plant species and in Laguna Lake Park within the City. determine if the habitat used is encouraging growth. • Investigate expanding 5. Implementation transplanting potential to The priority and order in which these tasks shall be implemented is detailed increase populations of sensitive plant species. below. Each task has been designated to staff from the City's Natural Years 5-6 Resources Program (NR), Parks and . Continue activities outlined Recreation Department (PR) or other above to completion. City staff as specified. Ongoing Tasks Addressing the Issues General maintenance activities in A functioning loop trail system needs to accordance with the adopted policies be developed that allows for public described in "Conservation Guidelines access but also restricts them from for Open Space Lands of the City of San sensitive or restoration areas. Work Luis Obispo" shall be implemented on a needs to be done on the access roadson the property to reduce the impact regular or 'as needed' basis throughout from the erosion happening on the the years covered by this property. Development of interpretive Conservation Plan (NR/PR). signs to educate visitors about the resources and importance of the SHOS Specific Tasks property should be done. Identification Years 1-2 of the locations of the sensitive plant • Install educational signage at and animal species on the property City sanctioned trailheads. partnered with enhancement actions to • Construct new dedicated loop encourage natural propagation through trail system to support both time and removal of small "islands" of passive and active recreation non-native grasses and shrubs and users. replacement with native vegetation. 15 y � South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Develop ongoing monitoring programs and the implementation of several small- to ensure sensitive areas and scale capital improvements. The latter restoration areas are protected. All include: these actions, goals and Mitigation measures from recommendations will be achieved when development to protect sensitive funds and opportunities become plant species (not a City available. obligation); C Enhancement of existing trails, Wildfire Preparedness Plan designation of a single trail route Since there is basically no brush to be along the north east side of the controlled or modified for fire protection property to form a loop route; purposes at SHNR, wildfire a Installation of educational and preparedness will concentrate on directional signage to identify ensuring that emergency access pedestrian and bicycle trails; and designated in the Conservation Plan will . Fencing of certain sensitive areas be able to serve those needs, and that a as needed to control access and minium 20 foot mowed buffer will be foster habitat restoration and maintained on the perimeter of the enhancement in those areas. Reserve where it is adjacent of None of these projects is considered developed property. Some adjacent costly. The new trail plus the related developments are already required to do closures, would call for expenditures in such work, but in some places this the $1,00042,000 range for materials. requirement is not in effect, and City These couldbe paid out of maintenance staff will ensure that this program is funds from the Natural Resources carried out in those areas. program. The restoration projects may be funded internally or may utilize grant Livestock Grazing fund or mitigation sources. Livestock grazing is currently permitted The fire preparedness plan has certain since SHNR is not separately fenced minor maintenance costs associated from the adjacent private property on with it, specifically, periodic mowing of the south, owned by King Ventures. - the grass areas to form a buffer and Once that property begins to develop, it removal of vegetation litter in a limited is expected that livestock will be area. It is expected that the level of removed from both the private property staffing for the Reserve would not and from SHNR. After that time change unless there was a major livestock grazing will not be permitted as change involving legal access to the top soils on the property are too poor and of Cerro San Luis Obispo, which is on water resources too limited to support a private property and is accessed by the livestock grazing program. public by permission of the landowner. 6. Fiscal Statement 7. Monitoring The fiscal impact of the adoption of the A series of six photo-points have been SHNR Conservation Plan is expected to established at the SHNR which include be minor. It will consist of patrol and areas of exotic species, grasslands, maintenance of the property at a slightly restoration sites, major trails and increased level than currently exists, existing erosion gullies. Figure 5 details 16 ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan where these monitoring points are Area development anticipates use of located. These sites will be visited at this area for grassland mitigation. least biannually and photographs taken from the same perspective. This will Photo-point 5: This point has several give a temporal record of the status of sensitive issues tied to it. This is where the resources present at the SHNR over the erosion of the fire road will be time. Should examination of monitored, transplanting of sensitive subsequent photographs suggest that vegetation from the King development the status of the resource is being will occur in the seasonal creek adjacent negatively impacted (i.e. exceeding to the road, and monitoring of the seeps limits of acceptable change) by visitor on the hillside over time. The area to activity or management decisions, the west (downhill) of the road will be permitted uses and management fenced to discourage access to this strategy will be re-evaluated. steep and sensitive site. Photo-point 1: This point is the main Photo-point 6: This point is for the entrance on Exposition Drive. The City overview of the SHNR. Monitoring of the will realign this entrance to move foot roads and trails can take place here as traffic away from the residences and well as the changing landscape of the also avoid a steep and potentially City of San Luis Obispo. unsafe section of trail. This entry area may be suitable for mitigation plantings; these will be considered on their own merits. Photo-point 2: This is one of the ephemeral seeps located on the SHNR with sensitive species located within it and the City will undertake further enhancing this drainage with plantings such as Chorro Creek bog thistle. Photo-point 3: This point looks downslope on either side of where a new trail would run through on the north east side. There is Scotch broom located on the adjacent property whose seeds are carried onto the SHNR. Close monitoring and regular removal of invading Scotch broom will be done to prevent this species from becoming established. Photo-point 4: This point looks over the saddle area and down into the southern portion of the property. The Margarita 17 AVACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Appendix A 18 ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan } Y�'�� '• I ��„1 + ' �, r, ( �,Y> 1 �,. •err�x� J �--. i�•• ' 'V r � e v - 3 -aY `4y 1..1 "`i�� '-`y.. (^!T' -fin! 1. -u* �^S'1c t•�1.4 v- -...L n` . t'�'�.. wt y r' �I rkf -' r , ,✓�f�rJ �' .1��.': 4 141, f- - :.art/ w •.. r S `- .�"�,t +� ' ��` � �� ra-�""',.A �� '".. —*• J n w.+ , J'[.SSG•. ` i.h ,` 'A - r1 � x e I F� �S•'41..i0 �- �y 'h�` Y � '�. '� �� 9 1 .1'J.c qf.•{I T 14 �, R 6itfr+ �i' ^l. �`-d;<�^..Fl r� � `4 k .,g 1 I� 1 _PK�1..,..C4L Ie 1-a, a r ,� •�" i� Ps.� h�� i 1 Jr, i }f ,�7 rte- � ,.},.'S'• �r I � r W X I Z,` b� _ �� 19 ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan me a ao c aW+We Whoa Wr.oa Ocelm ar � "o R' 1. f'� LL o LL O z ��. .i. a p .,, sL a•- G Q U ' �� '1 .w Y ♦ � y ~'1157 „ir r �..-.fir. - n• St �I .�•t1J^l�J '. CO En LA- 3 ` ry.i _ t '✓ 3 �F O y4 y r r 0 J ISs=i RLC,-r' �.q r O 04 y�f Y co IL i J cw 6[ w6c WOLIt WNOR 20 AMCHM ENT 2 South H►Za Natural RsrveConservation Ra E �i a/ E » e{| � } \ \ \\\ \ 00 z {/\ o < jk e j . 2 E o § f 0 U. N S_ % Ir Ir ` � =\k )/k � � ) \ \ \� a§ kf) / $ � ƒ {j }\ \ - , 7 a [ ) § 0 //k L) U) U) w U o § c9 R U) ] . ƒ r § } ; Z / \ \ , � � . 9 § f - ® 12 cMW LU arm £ f ; }\ \}CL . � 2! �� ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan a�gwoet�ue�exu� aawaapae laa�a.n�. Map Unit Legend Simnmery San Lias Obispo Cotm.-ry,Cal faun,Caasrl Pm V-7!baitSabal 53=t mW= in AM %r.-A=cf.403 CecapcccLc=2m5Paz= a ' S.7 dDpa: iLN �r.4.0lTj'cLz;.?.i.2$ '144 I FwcW dapc: :33, :�.'Jbb ami C50 CIL S„ , j slaps: Lob cky cc.=5-3 B 11 pa—,= 1&0 3.3 153 D: rte 5 Da S p L-rmst 5§,# "0.1 :d2 ;e:D=-MsbID cc= lmr,,5 m? ;315 64 Fccm,sap" dhirpsr: F•mc;. #3_G 13 to 75 PC==r%*; j 'A+c:-a-afar 7D_ 22 ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan South Hills Plant Species of Local Concem ^y zi- Legend 1 ©P'-n Space / s PLANT SPECIES CSl tre mmrdI iac t - +anhrjg TrcZ'J713 ' 23 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Proposed Pedestrian Trails " 0 'fit ��..7 � -°'Fy?� i�• ' •�� ', r. .�� c� �k _ "„•,�,, 1"tea. , y� .,a •. "`-c ;1�t5`Ts�',, 7 v yl IN 'j , .fin - _ _ � �.. •� 'N.3*Y Wv"'7 ♦ - ♦ i �)I - r" •) o Jam^N 'ti- �l � a �\L X`` �'� . Y " LegendIm Cpm Space f O355I PMPD9=d u BIOS OAIin8 �f 24 - �9 A?eACHPAENY 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Ll�; � South Hills Photo Monitoring Points ;44- 1 �`�'� R...••-'��.� �' 1 q �.L �- ,3':r`^s' q - �"��.��f"4a'i' 1� A�� >._ ip �' = i, Vii,, ''� d� t?.,re'�?'b�' •�'�k*+s ,�yr�,"'., -� ,iy�"�- ��:+ ' •p.. • , .. .i . 1 %``; �. ^'.'�. t-! �"-•i'i A.V.- F o�JL,�Q k 7. Ice { y •. �., ' S r i R LG45 Di�visiem 25 � � U - ATTACHMENT 2 South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Appendix B 26 �l ` ATTACHMENT d South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Table 1 Common Name Scientific Name Status Native/ Introduced San Luis mariposa lily Calochortus obis oensis List 1 B Native San Luis Obispo mariposa lily Calochortus simulans List 1 B Native Cambria morning glory Calystegia subacaulis ssp. List 1 B Native e Isco alis Obispo Indian paintbrush Castilleja densiflora ssp. List 1 B Native obis oensis Brewer's s ineflower Chorizanthe breweri List 1 B Native Palmer's s ineflower Chorizanthe palmeri List 4 Native San Luis Obispo dudle a Dudle a abramsifssp. murina List 1 B Native Blochman's dudleya Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. List 1 B Native b/ochmaniae Table 2 Common Name Scientific Name Special Habitat Type Status Pacific chorus frog Pseudacris re illa None Many habitats near water Western fence lizard Sc/oe orus occidentalis None Wide range Rufous-crowned sparrow Aimo hila rufice s None Rocky areas Grasshopper sparrow Ammodrathus BSSC-2 no Grasslands savannarum priority' Red-tailed hawk Buteo 'amaicenst.s None Oen, semi-open country Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna None Oak, riparian woodland, scrub Lesser goldfinch Carduleius psaltria None Riparian, oak woodlands House finch Carpodacus mexicanus None Wide habitat range Turkey vulture Cathartes aura None Open country, oak woodland Peregrine falcon Falco peregrina SE' Nests on cliffs American kestrel Falco s arverius None Oen, semi-open country Barn swallow Hirundo rustica None Oen country,farmyards Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus CSC' Open areas with dense shrubs for nesting Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota None Urban, open areas near water Rock wren Sal inctes obso/etus None Rock outcrops European starling Sturnus vu/aris None Agricultural, urban Violet green swallow Tach cineta tha/asslna None Woodlands, meadows Mourning dove Zenaida macroura None Oen, semi-open country Deer mouse Perom scus maniculatus None All dry land habitats California ground Spermophilus beecheyi None Grasslands s uirrel Valley pocket gopher Thomom s bottae None Variety of habitats Red fox Vulpes fulva None Forest and open country 27 ATTACHMENT==_ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Application#ER/GPI 142-06 1. Project Title: Conservation Plan for South Hills Natural Reserve 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo,990 Palm Street,SLO,CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Freddy Otte, (805)781 7511,or Neil Havlik, (805)7817211 4. Project Location: South Hills, in the area generally bounded by Higuera Street, South Street, Broad Street, and Tank Farm Road,in the City of San Luis Obispo, CA. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo,990 Palm Street,SLO, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Open Space 7. Zoning: C/OS-40 S. Description of the Project: Land use and conservation plan for 131 acres of City-owned and City-controlled easement open space known as South Hills Natural Reserve. The plan provides direction on the management of recreational activities, wildlife protection, wildfire management, and sensitive habitat conservation. The ultimate aim of the plan is to reconcile public use of the land for passive recreation (hiking, mountain biking) with the conservation of natural resources,protection of sensitive species,and wildfire and emergency preparedness. i 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Privately owned residential land with agricultural or open space lands on the west and south. Much of the latter is expected to convert to urban uses within the next 5 to 10 years. 10..- Project Entitlements Requested: City Council approval 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None i r ATTACHMENT_ + t• 11 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact'as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. i X Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Ilazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality li drologY/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources Land'Useand Planning Utilities and Service Systems I Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Ilousin1 Z7 g Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This enviionmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more —X-_ State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). - y-� y ATTACHMENT `3 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X-- there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project Proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on, the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR i or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed u on_the. ro osed project, nothing further is required. i i September 18,2006 Signature It - Date DoHp�ati�5 (>tfrcrer• Neil J2vlik,Natural l{esources nager ,For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director �/ 3S _ ATTACHMENT3 --- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Si0ficant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an E1R is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where;pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where:appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting.Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case;a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. b) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. y-3 Zf ATTACHMENT 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Man No Significant Significani Significant Impact ER/GPI # 142-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 1a orated 1.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a subsian#al adve>ae elfeci on a scenic viista-9 —X— b) Substantially damage sod ic-resources,including but not hnifted —X— to,trees track outs Pptngs,open space and historic buildings within a local or statescenirhighway? c) Substantially degrade tlte.exisft visual character or quality of —X— the site and its stnrotmd`ttigs? = - d) Create a newsource of-sabstaffial light or glutin which would —X— adversely effect,day or iftbalme Vriewstin the atra"I Evaluation a). No actions will be taken that would have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista b) No actions will be taken that would affect scenic resources. c) No actions shall be taken that will substantially degrade existing visual character of the site d) No new light sources shall be created. Conclusion Proposed actions will have no impacts on the aesthetics of the site. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farniland._Unique Farneland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),asshown on the maps ' - pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,totwn-agricultural use?' b} Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a _}f_ Williamson Act contract? c)'-Involve other changes'in the existing Environment which,due to —X— their location or nature,could result in convershm of Farmland. to non-agricultural use? Conclusion Proposed actions will have no effect on agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project- a)': erea).-Violate any air quality standard orcontribute subs)antially to an --X— existing or projected air quality violation?' 61 Conflict with orobstructimplemattauon of-the applicable air 7{__ 9y plan? l c) "Expose sensitive nve%ors to subst�di potlumnr g_ Concentrations? d) Create objecOtable t_ ois aftdig a substantial number of: _X— people? _ e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria —X— pouttlaitt for which thneptoject iegion is non-attainmertt`tmder ad applicable fedesn!or stawambiazair quality staTtIod (including releasing anisslons which exceed quiaU*va thresholds for ozone " ? - Conclusion Proposed actions will have no effect on air quality. ATTACHME'CT_9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Sigaificatn lmpaa ER/GPI # 142-06 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a)_ Have a substantial adverse effect,either directJyor-indirectly of --X— through habitatmodi6cations,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive.&special stitus species-in local or regional - plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game:or!U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have i sat stantial a&cm effect,on guy riparian babiiat or X-- other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,vr regplatiow..or by the California Department of Fish grid Game orU S.Fshand Wildlife Service? C) Corrfl I +with any local polishes or onTinances protecting —X— biological resources.such as a tree preservation policy or otzlinaace to g.licritage Trees)? d) Interfere su$stamially withthe movernerabf any native resident —X-- or migratory fist or wildlife species or with established-native resident or miguarwy wildlife corridom or impede the use of wildlife n=icry sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation —X— Plan',Natural.Community Conse ri mdonlatan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? . f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Fe kmily protpoted —X— wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Bracer Act (including,but not limited to.marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation a)Access road reconstruction and new trail construction could cause minor disturbance to local wildlife or result in the loss of some individuals of sensitive plant species. This would be offset by closure of the southwestern portion of the Reserve which is the most sensitive,and by surveying routs prior to any construction activities in order avoid sensitive plants to the greatest extent feasible. Conclusion Proposed actions will mitigate potential adverse effect on biological resources to a level of less than significant. S.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substa*mial adverse change n: e'significarice of a --X— historiti resourcei(See CEQA Giiidelirtfs 1 Si'164:5) `b)-- Cause a substairm dvetscsbanRe in the signifscxirax of r}n —X— arrhaeologicid resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150643) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource- —X— or site or unique gwWgfc frame? A Disturb.any bun==nams,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?-. Conclusion Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on cultural resources. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro ect: a) Conflict withpdopted emay conser iation plans? .X._ b) Use4oa reaeava rlere> uraxs in a wasteful and inefficient manner? r) Result in theloss.gfavmTability of a ktimm mineral resovice: —X— that would i e of value to*- c region ectal the residents of the: Statee7 ��50 ATTACHMENT 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pacntially Potentially Loss 71ao No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER/GPI # 142-06 h-SULN Unless Impact Mitigation lncoqxxaw 7. GEOLOGY AND SOUS. Would the projece j�ly: Expose people pr stniebtress to potential IiOgtantial9dverae rX— effects;,including risk ofloss,injury,.or;deg1h7inyplvirtg: = I :R tptitrcnf a known eatthquakeJatilt,as delineated in the mestrecent AlquEst-Piiol(rEnctl quake,FaultZoning Map- issued by the State Geologistfor ft area,or based on other :substantialrvidence of a known-fault? IL Strong setsmic ground shaking?. X— III. Seismic-tetate-d ground failure,including liquefaction? —X— IV.Landslides or`.mudflows? _)I_ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? —X— c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that' -: _X— would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off s6lart4dide v,lateral spretiding,subsides, liquefaction,orcollapse? - dy. Be located on expansivesoil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the }[_ Utriform Building Code(1Q94j creating subAtuttial risks todife or property?' Evaluation b) Proposed reconstruction of the access road to the communication site could potentially result in erosion problems. This will be minimized by the incorporation of erosion control techniques into road design corrections and by closure and revegetation of erosion problems associated with existing conditions. Erosion control techniques will include appropriate outsloping of the roadway, and incorporation of waterbars, culverts, and other drainage improvements into roadway design. Conclusion Proposed actions will have a less than significant effect on geology and soils after mitigation. tl. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Pro ect: T:Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment throughilte routine use,transport 6i disposal of hazardous: materialsT - b) Geeta a significant hazard to the pub "r.tbe enviromnent {— Noyo reasonably foreseeableiipsetancl accidentconditions - MV01ving the release of hautidOnsmataiuls into the --environment? - -c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely �g— hazataousmaterials,substances,to warttt wlthiaonerquarter keofmr existing or proposed scijoal?; d} Ettpease peopto or structures to existing souxces of hazardous- —X— emissions or hazardous or acw4y-pazikidods tostaWs, stibsmnces.or;waste? - t) Bead=Bdonasite which isincluded4nalisfofhazardous materials sites compn7ed pursuant to Go've:inmentCodc Section 65942 S.,anti,;$s a result,lt would txeatesa signiFimat hazard to the pablic br the etivimnumnt? -f) For a pMect inrated vatltlaan airport landatm plea,or vtathio two tw7es af;public airport;would lire proj=result b a safety hazard*4u� �wple striding or workQ in the pmjegatea t g) Impaur 6p;k tanon- ol.,eir physica yl nur.rfera ivi -be- = —X_ ;pSedetnergency s"lan or emerg=y.evacuatiod 7 ATTACHMENT3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Ptncntiaay Potentially Less Than n Significant Significant Significant ttnpact ER/GPI# 142-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation - Inc orated h) "E xppsepeopJe orjfiv6tUtj sigmificatrt risk of I se,injury,`; =X- or-doath,'mvolvim�+wilds dd.fires;includingwhere wildlaidr utre i3jacent to urbanized auras or where;iesidents are intermixed rt with wildlands? Conclusion Proposed actions will not create any situation which is a potential hazard to the local populadon.or environment. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect: a) Violate any water gt>O4standards or wait discharge -X- requirements? - :h) - Substantially deplete groundwater suppliei orinterfere -X- substantially with groundwater recharge such that there woutil lie a net defic t in aquifer volume ora lowering of the local groundwatc table level(e.g.The products-o m rate of pre-eitisting nearby wells:would drop to a level whirls would not support existing landases for whichpermits have been-granted)? c)".. Createor contribute runoff water which would the -X- capacny of existing or ph umed stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional.sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter d=xisti ns drainagepanem of the site or- - -X- area ins mannerwhich would result in substantial erosiogor~ - sdtation onsite.or offsite? t) _ Substantially alter the existing drainagepattan itsf the site or --X- am in a manner which wouldcesult in tubstbittial flooding onsite or offsite? i t} Place housing within it 100iw flood hazazd area as snapped an -X- a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Fluid Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?, g) Place within a E00-year flood hazard ares strucuves which -X- would impede or redirect fiood-1lowB? 'W Otherwise substantially degftkde water quality? -X- Conclusion Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on hydrology or water quality. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a)_-Conflict witlz applicable land use plan,policy,yr regulation of -X- an agency with jurisdirrion over the project adopted for the purpose of am"drng or.mitigating an environmental effect? b)-_Physically divide an.astabiisbad community?_ -X- ac) .Conflict wid any applicable habitat constxvatioa plan or manna] -X- community ' ? Conclusion Proposed actions will have not conflict with any other land use plan.nor phystcally divide an existing community. IL NOISE. Would the proJect result In: a)• EXposum ofpeoplctn or generation Of"unacmptabir noise levels e.s defitedb '-San Luis Obispo-General PhmWoise - �Eleme>it,or getienaLnoisealevaLa in efass.of standards° . .. established inthe Nbise Ordinance? _ b) A subsamiat terms,periodic,or peimanent increase in -X- atnbient.00ise levels ittAe project vicinityabnyelevels existing withoufthe project. ; C) Expostu a ofperavns taor genetationzmf r2 groundbortie g- _.v�xrati�orgmimd6tnratsnoise.fevela2-=_-.-__...:___ -• _-. ATTACHMENT -3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially t'otcntiatly Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER/GPI# 142-06 issues Unless Impact Mitigation me orated ,;d_ 1~or a project loaned Oidtin an aiiport land use plan,or within- _X_ two miles of a public airport or public nseairpo rt,would the., project expose pooplefiding or caking lit the project arra to excessive noisedevels? - Conclusion Proposed actions will have no effect on existing noise levels. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growdi in an area, either directly >X= (for- eFample by RropotiS-new_homes or busines'ser) >3r indirectly (for example. tliningh 6=sion of roads or tither infixtstiudure)'t _ . b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people --X— neRwtating the °mnsuiction of replacement. houmiing else►where? - Conclusion Proposed actions will have no effect an population growth or housing in the area. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other rformance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? _X_ b) Police protection? _X_ c) schools? _X_ d) Parks? r}{_ e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? -t) Other public factluies? _X_ Explanation The proposed management plan may add some additional workload to the City's Ranger Service. However, most of the activities proposed fall within the normal daily operations of the Ranger Service. Labor-intensive projects will be completed by volunteers or outside contractors. Conclusion Proposed actions will have no substantial adverse effect on public services. 14.RECREATION. Would the project:- a) ro'ect:a} Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or ti X— other recreational facilities such that substantial physical derekoistiou ofthe fatality would occur orale accelerated? b}_Includii recreational&dlide&or'regdm the construction or _X -expansioliof recteadolW facilitites,which might have an adverse physical affect on the environment? Evaluation The proposed management plan is designed to accommodate passive recreational activities while avoiding or minimizing detrimental effects to the enviromnent. A net increase in recreational activities is expected as a result of new residential development n the south side of the Reserve. Conclusion Proposed actions will not increase recreational use of the site to levels that are detrimental to the physical environment. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the Prolew a} C4tuse in is ii rdTc whiehis subce? atothe ` _X_and capacity of the sueesomeasdtg traffic load b} Sxretd,out ilxlii!iiddtatf3 eT nuaubttivelY;a tavo:l of service X_ 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially a'otcatkily LcuTkum No Significant Sigaifiruu Signiftcant Impact ER/GPI# 142-06 Issues Unless Impar Mitigation In ted standard established by ftcounty congestion management agency for designated roads and biighways? ' =e) Substantially increase linzards due to design leagues(e.g.sharp —X-- carves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm e9 )7d -d)-, Result in inadequate-emergency ztcccs£? —X— er Result in inadequate pwr:ing capacity t Wte or oftsite? —X— J)_ <3onflict with adopted policies supporting-altemative —X— inncportadon(a.&bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g)" Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land —X— Use Plan=dtingint substantial-safety risks from hazerds;.noise, or a change in.air-traffic patteft97 Cnnclusion Proposed actions will have no adverse effect an traffic or transportation. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.. Would theproject: a)- Exceed wasiiv t treatment requirements of the applicable -X— Regional Water Quality Control Board? ; oto); Require or result in the cortstnsetiomor.txpansion of new water --X— treatment w.estbrftte;treatment,or st.drd drainage facilities, the construction of.which could cause significant env`goninetua'1 - - effects? _ cl Have sufl%ieut water supplies avaiiabfe to serve the project —X— ex hitting X— existing entiftments and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d). Result in it dete mmation by the was tewater treatment provider —X — which serves or,aray serve the project that it hos adequate, y capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addifibn io the provider's existirig commitment? ' e) Be served by a-lfftmftll witksufficient permitted capacity to —X accommodate the project"s solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply vnth.federal;state,and local statutes and regulations —X— related to'solid wasteZ - Conclusion Proposed actions will have no adverse effectonutilities or service systems 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have-ihepotential to degradathe duality ofthe —X— environment,substantially a nxk. the habitatof a fish or wildlife , speciescause afisb or wildlife population tvdrop Below self- s s aining levels,tw mien to eliminate a plant of animal. community,reduce the number or restrict the rangcof a ram-or endarign d plant ormfinv]pr e4minate important examples of the ma'orpdiods of Calif=ia hWory or ? b):Does-die project have impacts tharam inchviffulkr Jimited;bit cumtilativeiyconsidcstbk?-(OQ=ulativwy. derabbltn meansttat the increute W effects of a pmject arc considerable when viewed in don with the CF=ts of the past projects, the effectsofotIlier ctkr't=t pmjocts,and the effacfstif probable ftuure'" 'aces - y y� 1 ATTACHMENT 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No SigniLcanl Significant Significant Impact ER/GPI # 142-06 issues Unless Impact Mitigation lincorpotatcd c) Dries the pro)Ea have environmernal effects which will fattryo- -: -X" s6stantial adyerse.effeets on filiman beings.either directly tar indirectly? 4 Conclusion Proposed actions will not degrade the quality of the environment. They do not have cumulative impacts that are significant. They will not have substantial adverse effects on human beings. 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier anaiysic tt>zy be.usad wham,pursuant to the tiering pmgram EIR':tu other;CEQA process,one or more'effocts have br en adequately,*Wyiedin-*4:oarUer EIR or Negative Declaration_ Saxiori-15063 (c) (3)(D). In_this case a discussion should identify the followi ,items: `a al Earlier anal sisused. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. None h) Impacts adequately•addressed.;Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an ewer 3octiai t parsuant to applicable legal:standards.and,state whether-such effects were addressed by mitigation itte =es based on the.eariier analysis.: None c) Mithgatitm-measures,r Pof ef6*-that are'4l ess,,Ihan-Sign3fwant;with Mitigation Imprporated,"describe the mitigation measures which wereimptpoigitdd or refined from the ear4c6d6cument and the extent to which they iddress site-specific conditions of the ro'ea.R Mint tion Measures BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Access road reconstruction and new trail construction could cause minor disturbance to local wildlife or result in the loss of some individuals of sensitive plant species. This would be offset by closure of the southwestern portion of the Reserve which is the most sensitive and by surveying routes prior to any construction activities in order to avoid sensitive plants to the greatest extent feasible. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Proposed reconstruction of the access road to the communication site could potentially result in erosion problems. This will be minimized by the incorporation of erosion control techniques into road design corrections and by closure and revegetation of erosion problems associated with existing conditions. Erosion control techniques will include appropriate outsloping of the roadway,and incorporation of waterbars,culverts,and other drainage improvements into roadway design. y y3 ATTACHMENT 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 27, 2006 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Peter Brown, Andrew Carter, Jason McCoy, Vice-Chair Carlyn Christianson and Chairperson Andrea Miller Absent: None Staff: Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, ,Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The agenda was accepted as written. MINUTES: Minutes of September 13, 2006. The minutes of September 13, 2006 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 350 Woodbridge Street. GPI and ER 142-06; Review of the draft Conservation Plan and environmental review for the South Hills Natural Reserve; C/OS-40-SP zone: City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Neil Havlik) Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the draft Conservation Plan and Initial Study to the City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Barry Frantz, San Luis Obispo, resident near the reserve, would like to see the area Untouched with no trails added to the northeast base near housing, and supports cleaning out the wetlands area. Kathy Cunningham, San Luis Obispo, asked about a possible pedestrian connection from Lawrence Drive. y-yy Planning Commission Minutes - ATTACHMENT 4 September 27,2006 Page 2 George Rosenberger, San Luis Obispo, presented the Commission with a document listing four major concerns. He expressed that some conflicts may exist between proposed pedestrian trail locations and current wildlife movement patterns, and that an adequately mowed buffer zone significantly exceeding 20 feet should be required. Arnold Jonas, San Luis Obispo, felt the proposed trail on the northeast side is ill-advised and does not lead to the crest of the hill. He felt there are problems with water run-off and would like to see other plans with different access points. Shawn McNabb, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with trails, particularly the northeast trail, and other proposed changes to the reserve. Russell Robinson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the northeast trail. Mary Whittlesey, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with water run-off, possible fire threats, and security issues. Mike Cunningham, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of hiking in the area. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Ashbaugh asked staff if a topographic map could be included in the Plan along with added wording on scenic views. He questioned whether wheelchair access and horse trails could be considered in the future, and suggested informational signing and benches be added to the Exposition Park area. Commr. Christianson asked for an explanation of a class 1 bike trail and was informed that would need to be updated since the plan was not to pave the trail. She also discussed the broadness of the Open Space Element in relation to recreation uses. Commr. Carter asked for clarification on access to the bike trails through the Bridge Street project. He voiced agreement with the comments that the trail should lead to the ridge top and discussed access points to the trails. Commr. Miller asked if there were concerns with health risks related to the minerals coming from the serpentine rock. Commr. Brown had several wording corrections to pages 10, 11 and 12 including division of pedestrian and bike trails for safety and for reducing the potential of erosion. He noted support for numerous trails and access points. Commr. McCoy suggested naming the park portion of the reserve "Exposition Park", naming the reserve portion "South Hills Natural Reserve" and possibly naming one trail "Cheapskate Trail" commemorating the historical name applied in that area. It was noted that this could be addressed in comments to the City Council. Commr. McCoy also spoke in favor of a loop trail with numerous access points. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2006 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 3 After discussion with Neil Havlik, the majority of the Commission agreed that continued grazing on the land was impractical given the Margarita Area development and the rocky soils of the South Hills. After statements by Commissioners McCoy and Brown, the majority of the Commission was in support of the trail on the northeast side — the so-called braided trails" to foster connectivity and a loop trail system. Following questions from the public and Commission, staff agreed to confirm the maintenance responsibility of the 20-foot strip bordering the Stoneridge development. On motion by.Commr. Christianson to recommend to the City Council that the Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted as amended.. Seconded by Commr. McCoy. AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Brown, Christianson, McCoy, Carter, Miller, Stevenson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. 2. Staff A. Agenda Forecast No agenda forecast was given. 3. Commission ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday October 11, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Jill Francis Recording Secretary Approved by Planning Commission on October 11, 2006. Diane R. Stuart, CM Management Assistant _ ATTACHMEH TS" South Hills Conservation Plan—Addendum— 11/1/06 Below are the comments and responses to issues raised at the City Planning Commission meeting (9/27/06). Most of the issues related to minor changes in the language used or to modification of graphics. Only the item in Section 5: Implementation; Specific Tasks, Years 1-2 relating to the northeast trail will result in a substantive change in Plan implementation. City staff will monitor conditions on the northeast side of the Reserve for at least two years prior to undertaking any development thereof. In the meantime, however, staff will work with the developers of the Lawrence Drive project to identify a trail route connecting to the Ridge Trail (if the project is approved) to provide an appropriate access into the Reserve from that location that directs users toward the ridge. Further consideration of the balance of the northeast trail would return to the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to taking any further action on that route. Staff Response to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Meeting 9/27/06 1.1 Comment Commissioner Ashbaugh—Please include a topographic map. 1.2 Staff Response Concur. 1.3 Proposed Change A USGS map of appropriate scale will be included in the final version of the document. 2.1 Comment Commissioner Christianson —Bicycle route discussion refers to both 1993 and 1997 Bicycle Plan. Please clarify. Also, is it the intent to install Class I bikeways? 2.2 Staff Response Staff will reference the most recent City Bicycle plan. Also, it is not the intent to have paved routes for all routes open to bicycles. Paving will be only on the proposed connection to the Damon-Garcia Sports Complex, and on the existing access road to the Edna Saddle Water Tank. 2.3 Proposed Changes The above corrections will be included in the final version of the document. 3.1 Comment Commissioner Stevenson—Questioned if more recent archeological work had been done. 3.2 Staff Response During the planning for the Stoneridge project the Reserve had been surveyed by archeologists, and the only site within the Reserve that was considered to be of. archeological significance was the stone cistern. It was therefore felt that the survey done at that time was still valid. 3.3 Proposed Changes None. y117 1 ' South Hills Conservation Plam Addendum— 11/1/06 4.1 Comment (Several Speakers). Opposed to NE Trail, due to visual impacts, possible conflicts with wildlife, and erosion problems. The Ridge Trail is the real destination. 4.2 Staff Response Staff has observed evidence of use on the NE side of the ridge, and expects this type of use to continue and intensify, especially if the development on the adjacent private property at the end of Lawrence Drive is approved, since it required to have a neighborhood access to the Reserve. It is therefore appropriate to plan for such use and direct foot traffic rather than have it form on its own, which may not be the best location from a variety of standpoints. However,this is clearly tied'in to the Lawrence Drive project, approval of which is uncertain. 4.3 Proposed Changes Staff will modify the proposal to be for continued study of the NE trail alignment and for realignment of the access from Lawrence Drive to"angle" uphill to more quickly reach the Ridge Trail, consistent with proper trail construction standards (i.e., 10% grade or less). Staff would return to the Parks and Recreation Commission no sooner than Year 3 for evaluation of further work on the NE Trail prior to initiating such work. Language in Section 5, Implementation: Specific Tasks will be modified for Years 1-2 to reflect further study, and to Years 3-4 to reflect possible reconsideration of the NE trail during that time period. Also that language will be amended to clarify the location of a trail from the end of Lawrence Drive to the Ridge Trail if the Lawrence Drive project is approved. 5.1 Comment (Several Speakers). Fire hazard is a concern. The proposed 20 foot buffer is not large enough, and livestock grazing should be continued. It was also questioned as to who was responsibility for the cutting of the firebreaks. 5.2 Staff Response Mowing or weed-whipping of a 20 foot buffer at the end of the growing season where the Reserve adjoins developed property is consistent with City practices on other open space lands. Livestock grazing has been permitted at SHNR as an accommodation to the neighboring landowner as there is no fence separating the properties and to install one is not desirable. When the Margarita project gets underway, it is expected that the livestock grazing operation will cease,and it is,not practical to continue it on only the steep, rocky, low productivity lands of the Reserve. Staff will double check on the responsibility for fire hazard abatement on the perimeter of the Reserve. 5.3 Proposed Change's Responsibilities for fire hazard abatement will be clarified in Section 5,Wildfire Preparedness Plan. 6.1 Comment (Several Speakers).The potential bicycle connection to the Bridge Street project is unnecessary: Connection can be made a few hundred feet further north. 6.2 Staff Response Concur. 6.3 Proposed Changes A specific task in Section 5 will be added to identify the connection to the Bridge Street project as pedestrian only, and the connection to Woodbridge Street as the bicycle route. 2 AffACHMEM South Hills Conservation Plan—Addendum— 11/1/06 7.1 Comment A steep"short cut"adjacent to homes on Sendero Court is a problem: it should be closed ,and foot traffic routed to the formal trailhead, which is only a short distance away. 17.2 Staff Response Staff will evaluate this unauthorized trail 73 Proposed Changes Closure or realignment of this trail, if warranted,will be included in the Specific Tasks for Years 1 and 2. M Comment Two citizens spoke in favor of the access from Lawrence Drive, stating it had been used for many years informally and was recently cut off by the property owner. &2 Staff Response Staff has anticipated that such an access would be created at the end of Lawrence Drive. &3 Proposed Changes This will added as a specific task in Section 5: Implementation: Specific Tasks for Years 1 and 2 assuming that the Lawrence Drive project is approved within that timeframe. 9.1 Comment The Conservation Flan should reference the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. 9.2 Staff Response Concur. 9.3 Proposed Changes Appropriate reference to the Conservation and Open Space element will be made in the final document. 10.1.Comment The South Hills have been closed to bicycles for years. Why are they suddenly being opened up to them? 10.2 Staff Response Certain bicycle connections are called for in City planning documents. Bicyclists are using certain routes within the open space. The bicycling community has requested that such use be allowed within the open space. Staff feels that allowing bicycle use on existing service roads within the open space (some of them paved), and on the connection to Woodbridge Drive, will not significantly affect the character of the site. 10.3 Proposed Changes See notes in 2.1 to 2.3 above. y-y9 3 ATEACMERT S South Hills Conservation Plan—Addendum— 11/1/06 11.1 Comment IDo not plant trees,the soils are not conducive to such planting. 11.2 Staff Response Certain areas of'and deeper soils within the open space are conducive to tree planting: these include the area near the Woodbridge Street access point and the constructed wetland near Stoneridge Park. Planting of suitable species is proposed in these areas only. 11.3 Proposed Changes :None. 12.1 Comment Clarify access points, especially where derived from a document or plan other than the Conservation Plan. Planning for areas outside of open space lands should not dictate open space planning. 12.2 Staff Response Staff feels that the Bridge Street and Lawrence Drive accesses are logical accesses that will improve accessibility to the open space, and are called for in City planning documents. No other new accesses are proposed or-anticipated at this time. 12.3 Proposed Changes See notes in 4.1 to 4.3 above. 13.1 Comment Under specific tasks, years 1 and 2, add Monitoring, Removal of Livestock, and installation of trail signage.. 13.2 Staff Response Concur. 13.3 Proposed Changes These tasks will be included in Years 1 and 2. 14.1.Comment In the initial study, Item "a" under Land use and Planning and Item "c" in Biology conflict with the Conservation and Open Space element. 142 Staff Response Staff does not agree that the proposed conservation plan conflicts with the Conservation and Open Space Element. 14.3 Proposed Changes None. V 4 - ATTACHIM.ENT DRAFT Parks and Recreation Commission SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Parks &Recreation Administration Office 1341'Nipomo Street Wednesday,November 15, 20061:00 p.m. 805.781.7300 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pyper called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chair Bill Pyper, Commissioners: Richard Kriet, Jill Lemieux, John Knight and Ty Griffin ABSENT: Don Dollar and Gary Clay STAFF: Director Betsy Kiser,Neil Havlik 1. Public Comment None. 2. South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan—Havlik Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik presented a PowerPoint on the South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan project (SHNR) which will guide the management and development of this approximately 130 acre site over the next five to seven years. Havlik pointed out the plan's main focus is to protect the existing resources at SHNR and to balance recreation use, fire safety and resource protection. Havlik highlighted the issues on the sites wetlands, plant species, rock cistern; erosion of dirt road accessing communication site, wildfire preparedness plan, and development of a trail system. The Chair then opened the discussion to public comment. Kathy Cunningham, 640 Lawrence, spoke in support of the plan, preferring to see access to the trail system reestablished from Lawrence Drive and excluding bicycle access as she does not see cycling as.an asset to the area. Barry Frantz, 477 Stoneridge, spoke 1) in favor of the South Hills Natural Reserve stating its scenic value is appreciated by everyone and 2) in opposition to cutting a trail into the hillside for reasons of erosion as well as little available room to do so. He would like to see the area kept as natural as possible by remaining as untouched as possible;feeling off-trail hiking is minimal. Arnold Jonas, 2437 Cumbre Court, discussed access at the site and the existing trail created primarily by cattle. Feels a formal trail would create difficulties and the need for winter maintenance due to rain erosion. A trail would also be intrusive to the viewshed from the immediate neighborhood. Feels Neil's solution to not address a trail system at this time is appropriate. Neighbors currently use an existing trail and are generally polite about not ATTACHMENT � accessing it through the back of someone's property. Supports adoption with Neil's proposed changes, feels speaks for neighbors as well. Recommends Commission support staffs recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Knight spoke in support of the name of the reserve. Knight also discussed the sense of ownership felt by the neighbors and the need to protect their privacy, however supports trail access off Lawrence Drive. Stated he felt bicycle access to be a very important and appropriate use for the area. Commissioner Pyper discouraged the trail location being close to residences, and suggested that access from Lawrence Drive not be publicized out of respect for privacy. Supports monitoring the trail for signs of continued usage. Recommendation: Recommend to City Council that the South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan be approved as amended, including: 1. Formally accepting the name"South Hills Natural Reserve"for the site 2. Completion of an improvement program for the access road to the communication sites located on private property to the west of the Reserve; 3. Development of a formally identified trail system for pedestrians and bicyclists, including certain routes restricted to pedestrians only; 4. Placement of protective fencing at identified locations within the Reserve,especially on the southwest,to protect sensitive resources in those locations; 5. Development of interpretive and informational signage to assist visitors; 6. Ultimate removal of livestock grazing on the property; and 7. A wildfire preparedness plan, involving management of fuel loading at the urban/wildland interface. MOTION: (Knight/Lemieux) 5 yes: 0 no: 2 absent (Clay,Dollar) 3. Adjourned The meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m. to the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on December 6, 2006,at the Council Chambers. Approved by Parks and Recreation Commission on Martha M.S. Reynolds Supervisory Administrative Assistant ATTACHM !T RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING THE "CONSERVATION PLAN FOR SOUTH HILLS NATURAL RESERVE" WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection, management, and public use of open space lands acquired by the City; and WHEREAS, the City of San.Luis Obispo has acquired and manages eleven open space areas totaling approximately 2,500 acres, including the 130 acre South Hills Natural Reserve; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to have the policies for management of City-owned open space lands applied in an appropriate and consistent manner; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the general public have commented upon the plan as it has moved through a Council-directed approval process, and the plan reflects those comments. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby: 1. Finds that the implementation of the Conservation Plan as presented to the City Council this date, and as mitigated, will not have a negative impact on the environment; 2. Adopts as City policy the "Conservation Plan for the South Hills Natural Reserve" as presented to the Council this date, including applying the formal name of South Hills Natural Reserve to the site; and 3. Directs the City Administrative Officer to undertake all actions necessary and appropriate to carry out this resolution. On motion of Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2006. David F. Romero, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk Jon . Lowell, City Attorney �� RED FILE MEETING AGENDA` DATE ITEM # STONERIDGE VILLAGE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 3563 Empleo Street, Suite B, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 544 - 9093 (Fax) 544—6215 December 4"', 2006 San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street La San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Re: South Hills �Ohi COUNCIL ,2'CDD DIR Z.CAO` ., OTIN DIR Honorable Council Members: 4!1�CAO 'FIRE CHIEF • Mayor David Romero ZATTORNEY 2PW DIR • Vice Mayor Allen Settle M'CLERK/ORIG Z POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS. 2rREC DIR • Member John Ewan 1z �� Q UTIL DIR • Member Christine Mulholland P1 :21 E2 2HR DIR • Member Paul Brown CPAO The Board of Directors of the Stoneridge II Homeowners Association on behalf of the membership wish to express our concerns about plans for a new trail on the northeast side of the South Hills directly behind the homes on Bluerock Drive and Stoneridge Court. Although the current management plan has the N.E. trail on hold pending resolution of the Lawrence Drive development and open space access,we would like to see this N. E. trail eliminated entirely from the plan for the following reasons. The existing trail system is adequate. It would simply be unwise to spend money on a trail on a steep hillside for which there is no need or sufficient space. This trail would be a serious violation of privacy for homes backing on the open space. Just as "Cheapskate Hill"was good for viewing the car races at Meadow Park, so is it even better for looking into our backyards and rear windows. The existing ridge trail is not a problem, but a lower trail would be a real intrusion. Residents of Lawrence Drive lobbied for and got set back restrictions on Stoneridge homes behind their property to protect them from overlook. We deserve the same respect for our privacy. There are safety and liability issues with the cistern on the hill. The Stoneridge Homeowners Association is responsible for operation and maintenance of this historic yet functioning structure. We are concerned that a new trail would encourage unnecessary traffic to the site and result in additional vandalism and possibly accidents. The roof access was once pried loose, and if a person were to fall into the water inside there would be no climbing out! We have pipelines on the surface for pumping excess ground water I. to the cistern and overflow lines for safety. These lines could be damages by trail construction vandalism or hiking. The hill is a designated natural preserve, and we think it should stay that way. In addition to the popular foxes, it is a prime feeding area for many species of raptof and other birds, local and migratory. Encouraging traffic in this natural area will disturb the habitat to the detriment of the wildlife it is there to sustain. Finally, the scenic backdrop of a natural hillside is invaluable. The South Hills are nearly the last of the hills famously surrounding our city that are not marked by roads, trails, school insignia or mines. This rocky hillside is especially vulnerable to scarring if a trail were to be cut into the steep slope. Please, let us leave this lovely natural backdrop to our city unchanged for all to view and enjoy, locals and visitors alike. Not everyone is a hiker, but everyone enjoys the beauty of the unspoiled hills surrounding our city. In the case of the N.E. side of South Hills, benign neglect is the best policy. Respectfully, Board of Directors, Stoneridge II, San Luis Obispo