HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-2015 PC Item #4 - 1300 Bishop StreetPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the draft Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan and environmental review for the project.
PROJECT ADDRESS: BY: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Mgr. APN: 003-686-003 Phone Number: 805-781-7211 1300 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo E-mail: rhill@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ER/GENP 1120-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Review draft Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan and Initial Study, and recommend to
the City Council that the Plan and a Negative Declaration be adopted.
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis
Obispo
Representative Robert Hill, Natural
Resources Manager
Zoning R-1-PD
General Plan C-OS
Site Area Approx. 23 acres
Application
ER Status
Complete
Initial Study
determined
Negative Declaration
SUMMARY
The City’s Natural Resources
Program seeks adoption of the
Terrace Hill Open Space
Conservation Plan that will guide the
management and stewardship of the
site over the next ten years. The
Terrace Hill Open Space (“Terrace
Hill”) is a hidden gem located
entirely within the City of San Luis
Obispo, offering spectacular 360°
panoramic views of the City below
and the surrounding region beyond, remarkable plant and wildlife diversity, a rich cultural
resource legacy, and pleasant hiking and passive recreational opportunities. For these reasons,
Terrace Hill is now the subject of a contemporary Conservation Plan process in order for the
Meeting Date: April 8, 2015
Item Number: 4
PC4 - 1
ER/GENP 1120-2015: Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Page 2
property to be managed in accordance with the City’s Open Space Regulations and the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan.
Overview of Terrace Hill Open Space
Terrace Hill offers a full host of both natural and modified landscape features across a site of 23
acres. The site is fundamentally a conical volcano, one of the prized Morros that define our
region. Over the years, however, much of the top of the hill was excavated and removed to
provide fill for construction projects elsewhere in town. In addition, terraced roads were cut
around the hill in anticipation of the planned development of hundreds of individual lots, while
later a small gravel operation extracted the hard dacite, resulting in the fractured bowl feature on
the east side of the hill. These actions resulted in the physical land morphology and elevation of
501 feet that we see today. The site was historically grazed, but has not been used as pasture in
nearly 30 years, allowing for nascent oak woodland and maritime chaparral to establish in
compliment to the annual grassland and rock outcrop features of the site.
Terrace Hill Open Space is a single legal parcel, APN 003-686-003. The primary entry and
access to the site is from Bishop Street, where a locked gate can be opened to a dirt road that
leads to the top of the hill. Terrain ranges from nearly level along the top, to steep side slopes
ranging between 15% and 50%. A second trailhead exists along a narrow, paved path beginning
at the corner of Rachel Street and Jennifer Street facilitated by a public, pedestrian access
easement. A third trailhead has been offered by the developers of 17 new residences along
Rachel Court, but this facility has not yet been constructed and accepted by the City as of March,
2015. There are four memorial viewing benches that have been installed by the City along the
perimeter of the loop trail at the top of the hill. A drainage basin and facility exists near the
Bishop Street entrance, while five-strand barbed wire fence protects the frontage of Terrace Hill
along Bishop Street to prevent unauthorized vehicle access and unsanctioned trails. The City’s
Utilities Department maintains a large water storage tank at the southeast corner along Bishop
Street, but this structure is on a separate parcel and is not considered a part of Terrace Hill Open
Space.
1.0 CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING POLICY
The City’s General Plan has several areas where use and management of open space is
addressed. The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) and the Parks and Recreation
Element (P&R) are where the most pertinent policy direction is found. The list below is not
exhaustive but demonstrates how the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan is consistent
with the General Plan.
COSE Policy 8.5.5: Passive Recreation – The City will consider allowing passive recreation
where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space resources.
The Conservation Plan addresses this policy by improving existing authorized trails, monitoring
trails located in sensitive portions of the site, and other passive uses in a controlled manner.
PC4 - 2
ER/GENP 1120-2015: Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Page 3
COSE Program 8.7.1E: Protect Open Space Resources – The City will manage its open space
holdings and enforce its open space easements consistent with General Plan goals and policies
and the Open Space Ordinance.
The Conservation Plan implements this program by calling for certain actions to restore or
enhance the site, as well as providing for regular patrol and monitoring in accordance with the
City’s Open Space Regulations, municipal code chapter 12.22.
COSE Program 8.7.2J: Enhance and Restore Open Space - The City will… adopt conservation
plans for open space areas under City easement or fee ownership. The plans shall include a
resource inventory, needs analysis, acceptable levels of change, grazing, monitoring, wildlife,
management and implementation strategies, including wildfire preparedness plans.
The Conservation Plan implements this program by following the protocols and addressing the
matters outlined in the COSE Policy described above.
P&R Policy 2.6.9: Open Space shall be managed in such a manner as to allow for habitat
conservation uses, for appropriate public uses and to maintain and enhance its environmental
quality.
By adopting and adhering to a Conservation Plan for Terrace Hill, this policy is directly
implemented.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information/Setting
Site Size 22.96 acres
Present Use & Development Vacant open space held for conservation and passive recreation
Topography Level to Very Steep (slopes often greater than 50%)
Access Bishop Street, Rachel Street, Rachel Court
Surrounding Uses/Zoning Residential
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Management Considerations
The Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan provides a framework to address long-term site
stewardship of the property:
1. Natural Resources Protection. The plan places priority on maintaining the natural
ecosystem, while allowing passive public recreation as appropriate and compatible.
Although Terrace Hill is ostensibly an “island” in the ecological sense (meaning it is not
connected to larger terrestrial or aquatic wildlife migration corridors due to surrounding
urbanization), nevertheless it provides habitat for several avian species of special concern
that shall be protected and monitored over the long-term, as well as 85 different plant
PC4 - 3
ER/GENP 1120-2015: Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Page 4
species. Protective status is given to native plant communities and habitats that persist or
are establishing within the open space area for the functions and values that they provide.
2. Scenic Resources. Terrace Hill is one of the most accessible of all City open space
properties and the nearly level top of about 2 acres provides a pleasant walking loop with
wonderful off-site views of the railroad district, downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods, as well as the South Hills, Irish Hills, Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak,
Cal Poly lands, “High School Hill,” Edna Valley, and the Cuesta Ridge area in the
distance. Conversely, Terrace Hill itself is highly visible from the locations mentioned
above, and shall be managed as a scenic resource.
3. Cultural Resources. The City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed a
community member’s nomination for adding Terrace Hill to the City’s Contributing
Property List of Historic Resources at its meeting on January 28, 2013. In consideration
of the important historic events and people associated with Terrace Hill, the CHC made
an affirmative recommendation to the City Council that will be introduced as counterpart
to the Council’s consideration of the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan.
Improved trailhead signs and a new kiosk and will provide the opportunity to present an
educational panel to the public that details the historic nature of the property.
4. Erosion and Drainage. A Custom Soil Resource Report was prepared for Terrace Hill
using the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) website application. The report reveals that Terrace Hill is comprised
entirely of heavy clay soils known as the Diablo-Lodo Complex and identified as soil
map unit no. 133. This soil is excessively well drained and characterized as having
severe erosion potential, especially given the 15-50% slopes. Both the City and
contiguous private property owners have experienced drainage issues in the past.
Accordingly, ongoing erosion control and water management strategies are necessarily a
part of the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan.
5. Fire Protection. Terrace Hill is entirely surrounded by at-risk residential land uses.
Although it is not large enough to represent a significant wildland fire hazard, Terrace
Hill does have the right “ingredients” to pose a localized fire hazard that could result in
unacceptable safety risk and property loss. This is due to prevailing westerly winds;
presence of annual grassland, chaparral, oak woodland, and mixed ornamental trees and
vegetation; and the potential for human caused fire ignition associated with illicit
smoking, open fire pits, and fireworks. The City has historically mowed the top of the
hill and weed whacked a 20 foot strip behind the adjacent residences; this plan introduces
the need to also attend to annual grassland areas of the steeper side slopes, preferably
through the use of controlled and seasonal grazing with goats, or with mowing if
necessary using specialized rubber track equipment to minimize any associated damage.
6. Trails and Passive Recreation. A well-used system of trails provides access to Terrace
Hill. Some of these trails have been considered formal through the City’s publication of
open space trail maps, while others are informal use trails. Some of the informal trails
are incorporated by this conservation plan due to their utility and location, while others
will be decommissioned or restored. Terrace Hill does not lend itself well to extensive
mountain bike use due to its size and steep slopes, but the flat top does provide a suitable
area for youth riders to begin to gain skills and confidence in an off-road setting. This
conservation plan considers bicycle use on the main access road from Bishop Street and
PC4 - 4
ER/GENP 1120-2015: Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Page 5
around the loop on the top to be compatible with the other overarching conservation
goals, but will be monitored over time by the City’s Rangers.
Goals
The Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan has as its overarching goal to achieve
sustainable conservation of habitat, while also allowing for passive recreational elements. The
plan will accomplish this goal, and address the management issues described, above, through the
following goals.
The City will manage Terrace Hill Open Space with the following goals:
1. Conserve, enhance, and restore natural plant and wildlife communities by protecting their
habitats in order to maintain viable wildlife populations within balanced ecosystems.
2. Provide the public with an opportunity for greater understanding and appreciation for the
cultural and historic resources values associated with the Open Space.
3. Provide the public with a safe, accessible, and pleasing natural environment in which to
pursue passive recreational activities, including hiking and biking, while maintaining the
integrity of natural resources and minimizing the impacts on the wildlife and habitats
present in the Open Space.
4. Actively address sedimentation sources and erosion both within the Open Space, and
from the Open Space.
5. Minimize the impacts of harmful activities, such as off-trail hiking and biking use or
catastrophic wildfire, while maintaining natural drainage systems as a means of
conveying storm water into and within urban areas.
6. Provide signage and interpretive features to enhance user safety, prevent unauthorized
entrance at neighboring private property, and for educational purposes.
7. Maintain, protect, and improve aesthetic views as seen from various locations throughout
the City of San Luis Obispo.
8. Protect and officially designate the important historic and cultural resources associated
with the Open Space.
9. Regularly monitor and patrol the Open Space, establish Levels of Acceptable Change
(LAC), and take action to correct areas or problems that exceed LAC.
Needs
1. Resource Management and Protection
Biological surveys are the basis for natural resource management in Terrace Hill Open
Space. After the initial surveys conducted for the creation of this plan, the City will need
to monitor and protect the habitat areas and sensitive species identified.
2. Resource Enhancement
Enhancement of natural resources will focus on restoration of two denuded areas.
PC4 - 5
ER/GENP 1120-2015: Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Page 6
3. Signage
Signage for Terrace Hill Open Space is currently outdated compared to the standards
used for the City’s other open spaces, and should therefore be upgraded. Signs located at
the trailheads would be used to provide directions, apprise users of open space
regulations, and identify adjacent private property ownership. A three-panel kiosk at the
main Bishop Street trailhead will highlight natural and historic resources with interpretive
features, as well as provide a trail map graphic.
4. Trailhead Amenities and New Trails
A new entry gate and turn-style at the main trailhead at Bishop Street, as well as a
garbage receptacle and “mutt mitt” dispenser are needed. Brief sections of new trail will
be constructed from the other two trailheads at the corner Rachel Street and Jennifer
Street and at Rachel Court. These trails will be constructed by City staff to contemporary
standards for slope and drainage, and shall be designed to minimize any potential impacts
to nearby neighbors.
5. Site Stewardship and “Pride of Ownership”
Additional needs at Terrace Hill include the following items:
• Increase ranger and police patrols
• Promptly attend to and abate graffiti
• Remove trash, refuse, broken bottles
• Maintain drainage facilities
• Remove or cut in place derelict drip tubing
• Remove and replace dead trees and shrubs
4.0 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
While the Planning Commission may opine on any component of the Terrace Hill Open Space
Conservation Plan, staff would like to suggest that the Commission focus especially on matters
pertaining to the establishment of the official open space status, passive recreational uses and
amenities, General Plan consistency and implementation, and review of the Initial Study. The
Conservation Plan does not propose to change any existing passive recreational uses that occur
now, such as hiking, biking, dog walking, etc. although it does specify appropriate methods and
areas for these uses. The Conservation Plan also contemplates new trail sections, trail restoration
activities, updated signs, trailhead amenities, and expanded maintenance / fire protection.
5.0 PUBLIC COMMENT
The Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan seeks to accommodate community preferences
while addressing the City’s goals in the Conservation and Open Space Element. A public
meeting was held on March 11, 2015 in order to gather neighborhood input prior to staff’s
preparation of the Conservation Plan. Both written comments and public testimony received
during the advisory body review process will be considered in the Final Review Draft.
PC4 - 6
ER/GENP 1120-2015: Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Page 7
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Program staff, Parks and Recreation Department
staff, and Fire Department staff have reviewed components of the plan pertinent to their
departments. The item was also be heard by the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission on
April 1, 2015 and will be considered for final adoption by the City Council on May 19, 2015.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may wish to recommend additions or edits to the Conservation Plan, or request
that staff come back to the Commission for further review and deliberation at a later time. The
Commission may also recommend denial of the Conservation Plan. This is not suggested as the
Plan appears to be consistent with the Conservation Guidelines adopted in 2002, and with the
Conservation and Open Space Element update in 2006, and will provide direction as to proper
habitat protection, compatible recreational use, and management activities for Terrace Hill.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Draft Initial Study / Negative Declaration
3. Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan, Planning Commission Review Draft, April
2015. Available on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5917
PC4 - 7
ER/GENP 1120-2015: Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Page 8
ATTACHMENT 1: Location Map
ATTACHMENT 1
PC4 - 8
ER/GENP 1120-2015: Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 2: Draft Initial Study
PC4 - 9
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application # GENP-1120-2015
1. Project Title:
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Robert Hill, (805) 781 7211
Freddy Otte, (805) 781 7511
4. Project Location:
Terrace Hill Open Space is located in the City of San Luis Obispo in the neighborhood
bounded by Bishop Street to the southeast, Florence Avenue and Rachel Court to the
southwest, Ella Street to the northwest, and Sierra Street to the northeast.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, City Administration Department, Natural Resources Program,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Land Use Designation:
Open Space
7. Zoning:
R-1-PD
8. Description of the Project:
The Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan (the “Plan”) will guide the management
and stewardship of Terrace Hill Open Space over the next ten years. The entire property is
approximately 23 acres, The Conservation Plan process will allow for and ensure that the
property is managed in accordance with the City’s Open Space Regulations and the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan. The Terrace Hill Open
Space Conservation Plan proposes a variety of project opportunities to protect, restore, and
enhance the property. In addition to normal management, maintenance, and monitoring of
the property, particular emphasis is placed on the following management considerations:
Natural Resources Protection; Scenic Resources; Cultural Resources; Erosion and
Drainage; Fire Protection; and, Trails and Passive Recreation Uses.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC4 - 10
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Privately owned residential land uses surround Terrace Hill Open Space on all sides, with
only a few individual lots that have remained undeveloped.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
City Council approval
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 2 PC4 - 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.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
-X-
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 Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
-X-
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
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)).
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 3 PC4 - 12
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
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. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or 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 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
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 upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name Community Development Director
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 4 PC4 - 13
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 parentheses following each question. 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.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, 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)). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) 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 the earlier analysis.
c) 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 addressed
site-specific conditions for the project.
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.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 5 PC4 - 14
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1120-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1, 9 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1 X
Evaluation
a) The Plan does not anticipate any new structures that would impede views or have an effect on a scenic vista.
b) The project site is not within a local a state scenic highway area, and does not anticipate any improvements that would
damage scenic resources or historic buildings.
c) The Plan does anticipate brief sections of new trail, as well as using either goats or mowing to keep annual grassland down
for fire hazard reduction. These actions could result in minor degradation of visual character; however, the new trail sections
will be screened and kept to minimum width, and the grazing will be seasonal and will not have a substantial negative
impact.
d) Terrace Hill closes at dusk and no new lighting is anticipated or proposed by the Plan. The City has a night-sky ordinance
that would apply in the event any new safety lighting is installed on the site.
Conclusion
Although the Plan does anticipate some ground level improvements that could change the visual character of a portion of the
site, these actions are considered less than significant because they are very minor and will be screened or seasonal.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1 X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b) and c) The project site does not include any Farmland that is considered prime, unique, or of statewide importance.
There are no Williamson Act contracts that apply to the site, and no changes are proposed to the site that could result in
conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Conclusion
The project site is public land that is part of an existing open space system and no changes in use are proposed.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
3 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
3 X
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 6 PC4 - 15
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1120-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
3 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
3 X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) and e). The Plan does not include any actions that would create air quality impacts or violate any air quality
standard.
Conclusion
The project site is City open space bordered by open land and a residential development, and a park. No changes in land use
or the operations of the facility are proposed that would impact air quality in any way.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 4, 9
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 4,
7, 8, 9
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
1, 4,
7, 8, 9
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
1, 4,
7, 8, 9
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
1, 6
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1, 6 X
Evaluation
a) New trail work and fire hazard reduction work (either goats or mowing) could have an adverse effect on sensitive species.
A Plant Inventory and Wildlife Survey prepared by Terra Verde Environmental found only avian species to be present that
would not be effected by ground activities. There is the possibility that sensitive plant species may exist that were not found
in the survey, however, so the Plan calls for ongoing site surveys to occur in order to ensure that impacts are avoided to the
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 7 PC4 - 16
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1120-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
greatest extent possible.
b) The project site does not contain any riparian areas.
c) The project site does not contain any federal wetlands.
d), e), f) The Plan does not anticipate any improvements that would be considered a barrier or otherwise interfere with
migratory animals. The Plan requires compliance with all local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources in the
area, and there are no other conservation plans that apply to the project site.
Conclusion
The project will have less than significant impacts to biological resources because the Plan requires all anticipated projects to
be designed in a manner that minimizes these effects. The Plan requires compliance with all local ordinances and policies
established for the purpose of protecting biological resources, such as the City’s Conservation Guidelines and the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
1 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
1 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
1 X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
1 X
Evaluation
a) The project site has been recommended by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee to the City Council for inclusion on the
City’s Contributing List of Historic Resources due to findings of important events and persons associated with Terrace Hill ;
however, there are no actions in the Plan that would change the significance of these resources
b), c) The Plan does not anticipate any action that would have an adverse change on archaeological or paleontological
resources.
d) The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a burial sensitivity map that identifies locations of known and likely burials. The
project site falls outside of the area known to be used for this purpose. The City has construction guidelines that would apply
if any human remains are discovered; however, the Plan does anticipate limited excavation activities and only very limited
ground disturbance and no impact to human burials is likely.
Conclusion
The project site has been modified and disturbed in the past, and proposed activities under the Plan are unlikely to disturb any
significant cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. The project site is recommended for inclusion on the City’s
Contributing List of Historic Resources due to findings of important events and persons associated with Terrace Hill and the
Plan calls for an educational kiosk to help the public understand and interpret this history.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
5 X
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
5 X
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 8 PC4 - 17
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1120-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 5 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5 X
IV. Landslides? 5 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 10 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
10 X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
10 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
10 X
Evaluation
a) The Plan does not anticipate any new structures or activities that would expose people or structures to substantial adverse
effects. There is a fault zone mapped outside but proximate to the project site.
b) Maintenance activities have the potential to cause erosion. Any project located in or near a drainage will have permit
sediment and erosion control measures in place. The Plan includes policies that direct projects to be designed in a manner
that minimizes the potential for soil erosion to the greatest extent possible, and some of the projects anticipated by the Plan
are specifically intended to reduce sedimentation.
c), d), e) The Plan does not anticipate the construction of new structures that would be subject to geologic impacts. The
project site does include expansive soils, but paths and other flatwork will be designed in a manner that takes the soil type
into consideration and in no case would involve substantial risks to life or property. The site is served by the City of San Luis
Obispo sanitary sewer system and no use of septic tanks or alternative systems is proposed.
Conclusion
The Plan calls for drainage and erosion control strategies whenever there is any possibility of erosion, although such
maintenance activities are consistent with existing activities and are less than significant.. Although the location is an active
seismic region and located proximate to a mapped Alquist-Priola fault, the Plan does not introduce people or structures to an
area where substantial risk of harm to life or property exists.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1, 11 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1, 11 X
Evaluation
a), b) The City of San Luis Obispo has a Climate Action Plan that requires the City to evaluate actions that would lead to
increased greenhouse gas emissions. The project is a Plan to conserve an open sapce area within the City limits and day to
day operations of the open space will not generate, directly or indirectly, increased greenhouse gas emissions. The Plan calls
for removal of dead trees and shrubs (which emit carbon) and replacing them with native materials (which sequester carbon)
Conclusion
On balance, the long term positive effects of the project for increasing carbon sequestration capacity within the project site
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 9 PC4 - 18
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1120-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
are expected to outweigh any temporary impacts that might occur from the use of equipment during maintenance activities.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
9 X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
9
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The Plan and ongoing preservation of the open space area will not expose people or structures to harm
from hazardous materials because there are no hazardous materials on site, routinely transported through or adjacent to the
site, and no handling of hazardous materials is proposed. The project site is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area, and
there is no private landing strips in the vicinity. The Plan would not impair or interfere with the City’s emergency response
plans.
h) The project site area contains annual grassland, chaparral, and oak woodland, as well as non-native nuisance vegetation
species. A component of the City’s overall conservation planning includes the development of a Wildfire Preparedness Plan
chapter. This chapter identifies the areas needing management. The impacts are considered less than significant and are also
pre-existing and not effected by the Plan.
Conclusion
The project site is a City open space. It is adjacent to residential neighborhoods. There are no uses, past or present, that
involve hazardous materials. Wildland fire impacts associated with maintaining on-site vegetation are minimal, and potential
impacts are addressed through the Plan’s Wildfire Preparedness Plan.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 10 PC4 - 19
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1120-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
9 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
9 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project would not negatively impact water quality standards or discharge requirements, or use groundwater
supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The Plan envisions activities to restore and improve natural systems that
were impacted by past grading and development activities
d), e) and f), Maintenance activities may have the potential to cause erosion. The Plan requires that any project located in or
near a drainage system will address sediment and erosion control, and such activities are less than significant.
g), h), i), j) There are no projects anticipated that would place new structures within a 100-year flood plain, or impede or
redirect stormwater flows. In the event of a significant flood event, the area bordering the lake could be subject to inundation,
but the project would not introduce people or structures to this risk. The project could be beneficial by providing additional
capacity in Laguna Lake for flood control purposes.
Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant effect on water quality, with only minor maintenance activities anticipated.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
1, 6 X
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 11 PC4 - 20
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1120-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
1, 6 X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Conservation Guidelines and would not physically divide
an established community. No land use changes are proposed and there is no habitat conservation plan currently covering the
site.
Conclusion
There are no impacts to land use and planning associated with the project to create a natural reserve conservation plan.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
1 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b) The project does not involve any physical changes to the site that would impact the availability of mineral resources.
Conclusion
No impact to mineral resources is anticipated or likely because the project is an open space conservation plan involving
minimal physical changes to the project site.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
9 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
9 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
9 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
9
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
9 X
9 X
Evaluation
a), b), c) and d) The Plan does not anticipate any new uses or facilities that would generate noise, or expose people to unsafe
noise or ground vibration levels.
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 12 PC4 - 21
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1120-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e), f) The project site experiences frequent overflight, but is outside of the airport land use plan area, and farther than two
miles from of a public airport.
Conclusion
The Plan would involve no day to day increases in noise that would expose people to unacceptable noise levels. The City’s
Noise Ordinance applies to all activities, and ensures that temporary noise impacts are less than significant.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project site is an open space area and there will be no population growth or displacement associated with
adoption of the Plan.
Conclusion
No impacts to population and housing will occur with the adoption and implementation of the Plan because no housing will
be constructed or displaced as part of the project.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 9 X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) The Plan will not result in any increase in demand for public services because it is an open space conservation
plan.
Conclusion
The implementation of the Plan will not result in any new or altered government facilities, or changes to acceptable service
ratios, response times, school enrollment, or park use.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Evaluation
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 13 PC4 - 22
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1120-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a), b) Plan implementation will enhance the natural environment of the project site and potentially attract new users. The
increased usage would be considered less than significant because the City maintains a high ratio of open space parkland per
City resident and regular use would no substantially deteriorate the park or adjacent facilities. No new facilities would be
constructed that would have an adverse physical effect.
Conclusion
The Plan is anticipated to support passive recreational uses such as hiking and scenic enjoyment. However, the project will
not increase the use of the facility in a way that degrades existing or planned facilities, and no impacts are anticipated from
the construction of minor new facilities, such as hiking trails or pathways.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) The project is adoption and implementation of a Plan to enhance the natural environment of the project
site. There are no new uses proposed that would generate new traffic or trips, conflict with traffic management plans, change
air traffic patterns, create hazards due to a design feature, result in inadequate emergency access or conflict with an adopted
transportation plan.
Conclusion
The proposed plan will not increase trips to or from the project site beyond that for which the existing facilities have been
designed to accommodate, and overall will have no adverse effect on traffic or transportation.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
X
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 14 PC4 - 23
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1120-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
X
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project would create no new demands on utilities and service systems that cannot be met with
existing supplies.
Conclusion
The proposed Plan and its implementation will have no adverse effect on utilities or service systems.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
The project is expected to have an overall beneficial effect on the quality of the environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
There are no cumulative impacts identified or associated with the project. All of the impacts identified are less than
significant and temporary in nature.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
The project will not have adverse effects on human being because it is an open space conservation plan for a site that is
currently used for passive recreational and open space management purposes.
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 15 PC4 - 24
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) 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 the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Conservation and Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2006)
2. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html
3. SLO County APCD List of Current Rules and Clean Air Plan: http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/slo/cur.htm
4. Summary and Results of a Plant Inventory and Wildlife Survey at Terrace Hill Open Space, City of San Luis
Obispo, California (Terra Verde Environmental, March 2015)
5. Alquist-Priola Special Studies Zones Map:
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/SAN_LUIS_OBISPO/maps/SLOBISPO.PDF
6. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands, City of San Luis Obispo (2002)
7. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog, USFWS (2002)
8. South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan, NOAA (2013)
9. Public Review Draft Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan. City of San Luis Obispo (2015)
10. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Coastal Part, USDA Soils Conservation Service (1984)
11. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, City of San Luis Obispo (2012)
Attachments:
1. All of the source documents are included by reference and are on file in the offices of the City of San Luis Obispo
2. Site vicinity map with aerial photograph
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 16 PC4 - 25
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Site vicinity map with aerial photograph
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 17 PC4 - 26