HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-2015 PH1 Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation PlanCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Cultural
Heritage Committee, approve a resolution (Attachment 1) in order to:
1. Adopt the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan;
2. Adopt a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the Project; and
3. Add Terrace Hill Open Space to the City’s Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
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. 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 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.
The preparation of this Conservation Plan implements several policies of the City of San Luis
Obispo to ensure that natural resource protection of City-owned open space lands and compatible
passive recreation uses, where appropriate, are undertaken in a manner that conforms to the
highest standards. This approach was memorialized in 2002 with the adoption by the City
Council of Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo that
sets forth a procedure for staff to follow in order to document and protect the natural resources of
a City-owned open space property, and the specific uses that are appropriate on those lands.
The Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan introduces the site by describing its history and
physical characteristics; inventories its natural resources and plant and animal species; sets forth
goals, policies, and land use designations; and, makes recommendations for protective measures,
needed improvements, wildfire preparedness, and ongoing monitoring and implementation
strategies.
Terrace Hill Open Space was also the subject of a recommendation from the Cultural Heritage
Committee that the property be added to the City’s Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources due to the locally important persons and events associated with the property in the
City’s history.
PH1 - 1
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan Page 2
DISCUSSION
The primary objective of the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan is to ensure protection
of Terrace Hill’s natural and cultural resources, while also guiding passive recreation uses, fire
safety, and restoration and management activities. The Conservation Plan was developed
pursuant to prior Council direction; both existing and new technical information and analysis;
and, a public outreach effort that included numerous individual meetings with community
members, neighbors, and neighboring homeowner’s associations, a neighborhood public
workshop, and two advisory body hearings. In addition to the City’s customary public meeting
noticing procedures, a review draft of the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan was
posted on the City’s website. The Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan is the ninth such
plan to be developed and brought forward for public review and City Council consideration.
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, that has been owned by the
City since 1986 when it was dedicated as a part of Tract 926. 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 April, 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.
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
PH1 - 2
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan Page 3
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
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.
PH1 - 3
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan Page 4
Goals
The overarching goal for the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan is 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:
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
The following needs have been identified in furtherance of the Conservation Plan’s goals:
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.
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
PH1 - 4
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan Page 5
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:
a. Increase ranger and police patrols
b. Promptly attend to and abate graffiti
c. Remove trash, refuse, broken bottles
d. Maintain drainage facilities
e. Remove or cut in place derelict drip tubing
f. Remove and replace dead trees and shrubs
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study has been prepared that identifies several areas where potential impacts exist are
in the areas of Aesthetics; Geology and Soils; and, Hydrology and Water Quality. These
potential impacts are characterized as de minimis and are less than significant.
Staff recommends that with the findings of the Initial Study, together with incorporation by
reference into the Project Description that the property will be managed in accordance with
policies found in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element of its General Plan (2006),
the Conservation Guidelines for Management of Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis
Obispo (2002), and the City’s Open Space Regulations (Municipal Code 12.22), the issuance of
a Negative Declaration is appropriate (Attachment 2).
CONCURRENCES, ADVISORY BODY REVIEW, AND PUBLIC COMMENT
City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Program staff, Parks and Recreation Department
staff, Community Development Department staff, and Fire Department staff have reviewed
components of the plan pertinent to their programs and departments and have provided their
concurrence.
The Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan also seeks to accommodate community
preferences while addressing the City’s goals in the Conservation and Open Space Element. To
that end:
A public meeting was held on March 11, 2015 in order to gather neighborhood input prior to
staff’s preparation of the Conservation Plan that was attended by sixteen members of the public.
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the plan at its April 1, 2015 meeting and
recommend adoption by a unanimous 7-0 vote. Draft minutes are included as Attachment 3. One
member of the public provided testimony to the Commission.
The Planning Commission reviewed the plan and Negative Declaration at its April 8, 2015
meeting and recommended adoption by unanimous 7-0 vote. Draft minutes are included
as Attachment 4. One member of the public provided testimony to the Commission.
Throughout the course of the public workshop and advisory body hearings, Natural Resources
Program staff received numerous written comments from members of the public that are
included in the plan as Appendix D. Written comment were primarily centered around the
following concerns: the need for increased Ranger Service and Police Department patrol and
PH1 - 5
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan Page 6
adherence to Open Space Regulations; ongoing fuel reduction for fire protection; protection of
Terrace Hill Open Space to prevent structures from being built; protection of scenic views; not
allowing bicycles; and, drainage problems being experienced by downhill neighboring
properties. These comments are addressed and are reflected in the goals and policies proposed
within the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan itself.
Lastly, the recommendation to the City Council from the Cultural Heritage Committee that
Terrace Hill Open Space be included on the City’s Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources occurred at their meeting on January 28, 2013. The staff report and minutes from that
meeting are included as Attachment 5.
FISCAL IMPACT
Day-to-day management of Terrace Hill Open Space will continue to be supported through the
operating budgets within the Natural Resources Program and Ranger Service. City staff has
developed a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) program for major maintenance activities and
improvements that is under consideration as part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan’s Open Space
Preservation Major City Goal; this work program includes funding for signage, trail maintenance
work, and trailhead amenities at Terrace Hill Open Space, among other locations. City staff will
also pursue grants and volunteers to augment funding for this plan’s identified projects. Overall,
the fiscal impact of the conservation plan and its implementation is considered relatively minor
given opportunities to phase projects and leverage modest investments of City funds.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could:
1. Approve the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan and adopt the Negative
Declaration with amendments.
2. Deny the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan and not adopt the Negative
Declaration, although this is not recommended given numerous opportunities for public
input and unanimous advisory body recommendations.
3. Continue the item with specific direction if more information or discussion time is
required before taking action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution to adopt the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan and Negative
Declaration, and add Terrace Hill Open Space to the City’s List of Contributing Historic
Properties
2. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
3. Minutes from Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of April 1, 2015 (Draft)
4. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 2015 (Draft)
5. Staff Report and Minutes from Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of January 28, 2013
PH1 - 6
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan Page 7
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AND ONLINE
1. Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan - Final Review Draft
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-05-19\Terrace Hill Open Space (Codron-Hill-Otte)
PH1 - 7
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN,
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND ADDITION OF TERRACE HILL
OPEN SPACE TO THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and public use of open space lands and cultural resources acquired by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo manages twelve open space areas totaling
approximately 3,500 acres, including the approximately 23-acre Terrace Hill Open Space; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the
general public have commented upon the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan as it has
moved through a Council-directed approval process, and staff has considered and incorporated
those comments where appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has recommended that Terrace Hill Open
Space be added to the City’s Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources due to its
association with locally important historic people and events in San Luis Obispo’s history.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
1. Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan. The City Council hereby adopts the Terrace
Hill Open Space Conservation Plan, an official copy of which shall be kept on record with the
City Clerk, based on the following findings:
a. The Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan is consistent with General Plan goals
and policies relating to the oversight and management of City open space areas,
specifically Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.5.6 that calls for the
development of conservation or master plans for open space properties to protect and
enhance them in a way that best benefits the community as a whole;
b. Implementation of the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan will provide
protection of identified natural resources and appropriate public access to the site while
maintaining a majority of the site for habitat protection and enhancement; and
c. Adding Terrace Hill Open Space to the City’s Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources will provide protection of the cultural resource values associated with the site,
as identified and recommended by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee.
2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration for the
project, an official copy of which shall be kept on record with the City Clerk, finding that it
adequately identifies all of the potential impacts of the project and that those potential impacts
identified in the areas of Aesthetics; Geology and Soils; and, Hydrology and Water Quality are
de minimis and less than significant.
Attachment 1
PH1 - 8
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of May, 2015 at a duly noticed public
hearing.
_______________________________
Jan Howell Marx, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ _______________________________
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Attachment 1
PH1 - 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
PH1 - 10
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 2
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 11
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 3
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).
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
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)).
Attachment 2
PH1 - 12
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 4
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 13
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 5
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 6
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 7
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) is unlikely to have a substantial adverse effect on
sensitive species. A Plant Inventory and Wildlife Survey prepared by Terra Verde Environmental found two sensitive avian
species to be present, but they would not be affected 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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 8
that impacts are avoided to the 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 not have significant impacts to biological resources because the Plan requires all anticipated projects to be
designed in a manner that avoids and 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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 9
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 10
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 11
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 12
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.
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 13
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 14
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 15
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.
Attachment 2
PH1 - 24
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 16
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 25
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN 17
Site vicinity map with aerial photograph
Attachment 2
PH1 - 26
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
1
City Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Wednesday, April 1, 2015, 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Whitener called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Jeff Whitener and Commissioners Ryan Baker, Susan Olson,
Michael Parolini, Ron Regier, Douglas Single and Susan Updegrove
ABSENT: None
COUNCIL: None
STAFF: Shelly Stanwyck, Melissa Mudgett, Bob Hill, Bridget Fraser, Anthony Mejia,
Leif McKay (RRM)
Public Comment
None
1. OATH OF OFFICE (City Clerk)
City Clerk issued Oath of Office to Susan Olson and Douglas Single.
2. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES of Regular Meeting of March 4, 2015 deferred to May
5, 2015.
3. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR (Committee)
MOTION: (Parolini/Updegrove) Election of Parks and Recreation Commission Chair, Jeff
Whitener, and Vice Chair, Ron Regier.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
4. SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND APPOINTMENTS FOR 2015-16 (Committee)
Director Stanwyck presented new subcommittees focused on areas of interest for the Commission;
Jack House, Tree Committee, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Youth Services Association, City
Facilities. The five committees will allow for a commissioner to be available for adhoc committees
throughout the year. She added that the increased community input effort and regular attendance by
Natural Resources staff will hopefully provide a forum for discussion at Commission Meetings.
Commissioners recommended adding a subcommittee for Adult & Senior representation.
City Facilities - Parolini
Jack House - Updegrove
Adult & Senior Programming - Baker
Youth Services Association - Single
Bicycle Advisory Committee – Regier
Tree Committee - Olson
Meeting Minutes
Parks and Recreation Commission Attachment 3
PH1 - 27
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
2
5. BYLAWS REVIEW AND REVISIONS (Chair)
Director Stanwyck reminded the Commission that the last Bylaws revision was to move the meeting
time to an earlier time in the day. The Commission discussed the option of removing the Parks and
Recreation Commissioner as a voting member of the Tree Committee. The Commission
recommends no changes to the Bylaws.
6. TERRACE HILL CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN REVIEW (Bob Hill)
Director Stanwyck introduced Natural Resources Manager, Bob Hill, and City Biologist, Freddy
Otte, for the presentation. Director Stanwyck recused herself from the discussion for potential
conflict of interest.
Staff Hill presented the Terrace Hill Conservation and Open Space Plan. There has been no
conservation plan to guide open space management of Terrace Hills which include 23 acres of land
surrounded by residential neighborhoods. The historical nature of Terrace Hill is due to the advent
of the railroad. He noted the most prominent features of Terrace Hill being the outstanding views.
Staff Hill shared that conservation guidelines the management of open space properties including
policies and wildfire preparedness. Staff Hill reminded the Commission that the Rachel Court trail
easement at the base of Terrace Hill was recently accepted by Council.
Staff Otte said that a biological inventory was taken of Terrace Hill which identified various plants
and animal specifies. A Needs Assessment of Terrace Hill identified improved trailhead
enhancements, signage and trail circulation, identified invasive species control, a fire protection
program, increased patrols, maintenance of drainage facilities, storm water and soil erosion control,
drainage basin maintenance, wildfire preparedness (goats), allowed active uses of this open space
(such as bikes), removal of old antiquated irrigation and dead trees/shrubs.
The management goals are Terrace Hill are to conserve and enhance habitat, encourage recreational
activities, address sedimentation issues, minimize impacts, protect aesthetic views, designate as
historical and cultural resources and provide for regular monitoring. Staff reminded the Commission
about the emphasis on maintenance as part of the Open Space Major City Goal.
Commission Comment
Commissioner Updegrove asked about trail maintenance at Bishop Street entrance to the left of the
Jennifer Street trail. Staff Hill said this trail area is currently overgrown with chaparral and would be
a good location area for goats to provide weed abatement. Staff Hill continued that contract services
would be used at Jennifer Street trail to overturn soil, add water bars and reduce future erosion in this
area. He added that there will be improved access and trailhead control at Bishop Street to allow for
strollers.
Vice Chair Regier said he would support bicycle use of Terrace Hill. He also supports exploration of
Rachel Court trailhead relocation with developers to minimize impacts to adjacent neighbors.
Chair Whitener concurred with Vice Chair Regier. He was complementary of Staff Hill and Otte’s
presentations.
Attachment 3
PH1 - 28
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
3
Public Comment
Don Wiggan, resident of Paul Lane, said he borders Rachel Court where new trailhead is proposed.
His property is not fenced and visually exposed to the new trail placement between their residence
and a 12 ft. retaining wall. He asked the Commission consider the trail relocation on the other side
near a fenced residence. Staff Hill acknowledged the privacy issues and an impact to the residence.
Staff Hill said he would be willing to approach other properties owners to explore a realignment to
give some protection to the property owners. Staff Hill continued that he would discuss this
potential realignment of Rachel Court trailhead with the developers and to Council on May 16, 2015.
MOTION: (Regier/Updegrove) Recommend to City Council adoption of the Terrace Hill
Conservation and Open Space.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
7. REVIEW PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT LAYOUTS FOR SINSHEIMER PARK
(Bridget Fraser, Lief McKay)
Director Stanwyck introduced Senior Civil Engineer, Bridget Fraser, and Consultant, Leif McKay
(RRM), for the presentation of the revised conceptual design of the Sinsheimer Park Playground
Replacement project. Consultant McKay provided the Commission with a brief recap of the process
and project goals. In summary, the playground design utilizes existing slopes, provides signature
features, improves accessibility and offers a variety of new play experiences. Individual elements
were recommended through both student and community feedback. The project schedule is
estimated to have a final design in the Spring and construction to begin in the Fall. Completion of
the playground is estimated for late 2015/early 2016.
Commission Comments
Commissioner Single asked about opportunities for disabled access to enjoying the playground park.
Consultant McKay responded that the design address the physical disabled access with fully
accessible paths, bridge feature, slides and ground level activities. This design provides a variety of
elements to accommodate a range of experiences.
Commissioners thanked the Consultant RRM for incorporating ADA accessibility and stakeholder
feedback into the design.
Commissioner Parolini asked about additional project funding should contingencies be needed. Staff
Fraser felt confident with current budget estimates.
MOTION: (Single/Baker) Recommend to City Council to approve the Sinsheimer Park Playground
conceptual design.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
8. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Director Stanwyck presented a summary of budget items to present to City Council on April 21,
2015 Strategic Budget Direction. Budget requests for Open Space and Maintenance are in support of
the Major City Goal. A Golf Course reorganization is within existing resources and focusses on two
programming elements of golf course maintenance and operations/programming. Capital
Improvement Projects for Public Art Funding, Laguna Lake ADA Accessible Trail and Tennis Court
lighting at Sinsheimer Park have also been submitted for Council consideration.
Attachment 3
PH1 - 29
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
4
Director Stanwyck reminded the Commission about upcoming Parks and Recreation events; such as
Spring Break Camps, the Pool is currently open for recreational swim, Saturday 4/4/2015 is the
annual Egg Hunt at Mitchell park, Pickelball is being played at Meadow Park and Ludwick
Community Center. Lastly, the SLO Triathlon registration opens on April 25th.
Public Comment
Scott Cleare, tennis advocate, urged Commission to continue to support the lighting of public tennis
courts for increased play. He added that the Commission consider seeking corporate sponsorship
opportunities to assist with funding.
9. SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS
Bicycle Committee: Vice Chair Ron Regier reported on the Major City Goal for Bicycle and
Pedestrian facilities. He added that the Committee is considering a project for bike lane
extension on California Street towards Monterey Street to the Railroad.
Tree Committee: Commissioner Baker had no report.
Jack House: Commissioner Updegrove said there was no meeting. No report.
School District: Commissioner Parolini said he had no report.
Damon-Garcia: Commissioner Parolini reported he was waiting to hear back from the
Utilities Department regarding potable water use. He added that Field A and C are closed for
turf maintenance. He noted that the bridge is dark in the evening and that there are transient
issues in park.
Golf: Chair Whitener said that golf rounds and revenues were both up 7%. He added that
more patrons were using the ADA golf cart. Chair Whitener shared that staff was
researching various staffing models for upcoming retirement of the Golf Supervisor, Todd
Bunte.
Director Stanwyck said she would email Commissioners for their preference on electronic or printed
Commission Meeting agendas.
10. COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Baker said that he will be absent for the May 6, 2015 meeting.
Director Stanwyck reminded the Commission that the next meeting community input will focus on
Ranger Program and Open Space.
Adjourned at 7:50pm to the May 6, 2015 Regular Meeting located in the Council Chambers at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo at 5:30pm.
Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on __________________.
________________________________________________
Melissa C. Mudgett, Parks and Recreation Department Manager
Attachment 3
PH1 - 30
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 8, 2015
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Chair Larson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
OATH OF OFFICE: Swearing in re-appointed Commissioner John Fowler.
City Clerk Mejia administered an Oath of Office to Commissioner Fowler.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim
Murry, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Interim Assistant City
Attorney Anne Russell, Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula,
Associate Planner Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner Rachel
Cohen, Transportation Operations Manager Jake Hudson, and
Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to appoint Chair Larson
to continue serving as Chair.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Malak, seconded by Commr. Draze, to appoint Vice-Chair Multari
to continue serving as Vice-Chair.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
Attachment 4
PH1 - 31
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 2
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of March 25, 2015, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City-Wide. GENP-1054-2015: General Plan Annual Report for 2014; City of San
Luis Obispo—Community Development Department.
Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that
the Commission forward the General Plan Annual Report to the City Council for
acceptance, with additional directional items if desired.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Vice-Chair Multari commented on the importance of valuing all General Plan elements
and policies equally; stated that recent drought conditions may warrant a reanalysis of
report items relating to water supply.
In response to Vice-Chair Multari, Deputy Development Director Murry noted that
information could be added regarding the Utilities Department’s update of the Water
Projection Model.
In response to Chair Larson, Deputy Development Directory Murry clarified that the
report presented reflects the General Plan as it existed last year and does not reflect
recent policy updates.
Chair Larson noted desire to have the City focus attention on the following programs:
construction of a community center, and the Laguna Lake Park and Sinsheimer Park
Master Plans.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Fowler, Deputy Community Development Director
Murry confirmed that a paragraph could be added to the report addressing the passage
of Measure Y and utilization of the funds therefrom. In response to inquiry from Fowler,
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson stated that recent software
improvements will allow better reporting of Building Division activity in future reports.
Attachment 4
PH1 - 32
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 3
Commr. Fowler noted a desire to have the City continue to focus on the development of
affordable housing; requested that staff consider the possibility of analyzing the ratio of
commercial square-footage constructed to jobs created, similar to the analysis done
with residential construction.
Commr. Riggs noted a desire to have staff continually evaluate the effectiveness of the
City’s new Odor Nuisance Ordinance; continue to focus on non-motorized
transportation; work toward creating more sophisticated parking policies.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to forward the 2014
General Plan Annual Report to the City Council for acceptance, with additional
directional items as noted.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
2. 3761 & 3987 Orcutt Road. GP/R 95-13 / TR/ER 114-14 / SBDV-0067-2014:
Request to amend the General Plan and Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP),
including adjustment of the Urban Reserve Line (URL), rezoning of approximately
0.85 acres of Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) zoning to Single-Family
Residential (R-1-SP), reorientation of 2.8 acres of residential and parklands,
reorientation of wetlands mitigation sites, rezoning of 0.38 acres of R-1-SP to R-2-
SP, addition of text to the OASP to “track” amendments, adjustments and
clarification to development standards; review of a new residential subdivision
(Tract 3063) adjacent to Righetti Hill with 304 new homes; review of a new
residential subdivision (Tract 3066) including 61 new homes and 5 existing homes
on 11.56 acres; and consideration of the Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, tiering off the OASP Final EIR (2010); R-1-SP zone; Ambient
Communities, applicant. (Continued from March 25th Planning Commission
meeting.)
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere announced his recusal due to a professional
conduct conflict of interest and left the staff table. Interim Assistant City Attorney Russell
assumed his seat at the staff table.
David Watson, Consulting Planner, and Jake Hudson, Transportation Operations
Manager, presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission adopt
resolutions recommending that the Council adopt the project environmental document
and approve General Plan and Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) amendments as
outlined; approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Righetti Property; approve the
Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Jones property, based on findings and subject to
Attachment 4
PH1 - 33
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 4
conditions which he outlined. Watson summarized revisions made to the proposal since
the last hearing.
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson noted public comment received
from neighbors, a memorandum from the applicant dated April 8, 2015 requesting
further review of particular conditions, and a memorandum from staff dated April 8, 2015
proposing amendments to conditions, findings, and mitigation measures.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Riggs, Transportation Operations Manager Hudson
clarified the rationale for construction a portion of the bike trail as Class II rather than
Class I; clarified that staff is seeking Commission input on dispersal versus clustering of
affordable housing units.
Chair Larson thanked staff for proposing an alternative realignment for the intersection
of E-2 Street and Hansen Lane; noted that the grading required may render it infeasible.
Travis Fuentez, Ambient Communities, applicant, requested that the Commission take
action and allow staff to work with the applicants on unresolved issues such as phasing
of improvements before the request is heard by City Council.
Todd Smith, Cannon Corp, project planner, summarized changes made to the proposal
in response to Commission comment, gave an overview of a possible 3-phase plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jean Knox, nearby property owner, spoke in support of the project; commented that
more affordable units should be constructed; noted concern about mitigation of noise
from the train tracks adjacent to the project site.
Byron Grant, Arroyo Grande, spoke in support of the project; commented that the Urban
Reserve Line was originally intended to be flexible; noted concern that this development
is bearing more than its fair share of the burden of constructing and financing the
improvements prescribed by the OASP.
Ernest Jones, property owner representing the Jones Ranch, spoke in support of the
project; urged the Commission act; noted concern that affordability decreases over time.
William Vega, San Luis Obispo, noted a desire to see more affordable units proposed;
stated that project is a step toward the City better-accommodating young professionals;
commented on the importance of project connectivity.
Jeanne Helphenstine, property owner representing Righetti Ranch, noted concern that
current applicants are being asked to bear an increasingly larger share of the required
plan area improvements, in apparent conflict with OASP Chapter 8.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Attachment 4
PH1 - 34
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 5
In response to Chair Larson, Deputy Community Development Director Davidson and
Travis Fuentez confirmed that proposed “homesite” lots are subject to policies included
in the adopted OASP, will be served by City utilities and will be subject to the same
conditions as other tract map lots.
In response to inquiry from Chair Larson, Ernest Jones confirmed that the family has no
intent to split the homesite lots; Commr. Draze clarified that the lots could not be split
without a tract map amendment in any case.
Commr. Draze noted concern about the amount of liberty that could be taken if
applicants and staff work together to resolve issues such as utility undergrounding;
commented that caution should be exercised when conditioning specific technologies
for long-term area plans, as best-available-technologies change from year to year.
Draze expressed readiness to recommend approval if language requiring OASP
consistency is added to the conditions.
Commr. Riggs noted concern about the lack of a complete, commuter-friendly
circulation plan, specifically the lack of connectivity between the proposed project’s bike
trail and that along Industrial Way, and the inclusion of a section of Class II bike trail;
noted concern about the minimal dispersal and integration of affordable units.
Vice-Chair Multari expressed readiness to recommend approval to Council; stated that
greater dispersal of affordable units would be ideal but perhaps not feasible; requested
that language such as “… consistent with the OASP” be added to conditions with
potential conflicts.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Malak, staff confirmed that use of gray water is
required for common area irrigation only, but will be included as a mitigation measure to
encourage residential use.
Commr. Fowler disclosed direct communication with applicant Travis Fuentez;
concurred that affordable unit dispersal presents a dilemma; noted readiness to
recommend approval to Council if staff can provide assurance that outstanding issues
can be resolved.
Chair Larson expressed a comfort level with allowing staff to work with the applicant to
determine utilities will be undergrounded. Travis Fuentez stated that the applicants
intend to underground overhead lines except along Bullock Lane, which is offsite and
presents topographical challenges.
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson noted that adding language such
as “… or as approved by the Director of [the department]” can allow the Commission to
proceed with recommending existing conditions.
Vice-Chair Multari expressed readiness to proceed with staff’s recommendation, with
the addition of language requiring OASP consistency and approval of Community
Development and Public Works Directors in subjective situations. Multari opined that
Attachment 4
PH1 - 35
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 6
transit is a Citywide problem and that the proposed development will still make
significant connectivity contributions.
Commr. Dandekar noted her absence from the previous hearing; opined that the
affordable and multi-family units do not appear overtly segregated and may allow
creation of workforce housing; spoke in support of recommending approval to Council.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
Commr. Riggs commented on the importance of construction of continuous Class I bike
trail in meeting the City’s multi-modal goals; Commr. Draze expressed concern that
consideration of creek impacts may hinder the development of the bridge as a Class I
trail.
Interim Assistant City Attorney Russell clarified that the increased trail intensity has yet
to be analyzed for environmental impacts.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Vice-Chair Multari, to amend the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan to prescribe a continuous Class I bike trail, subject to staff determination
of no environmental impact.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Fowler, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: Commrs. Larson, Draze
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 5:2 vote.
On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Vice-Chair Multari, to adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Orcutt
Area Specific Plan amendments, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration therefor,
based on findings and subject to conditions contained in the staff report, with the
following revisions:
1. Revise the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Appendix A-2 map to show the
configuration of homesite lots.
2. Revise findings and mitigation measures as outlined in staff’s
memorandum dated April 8, 2015, on file with the Community
Development Department.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
Attachment 4
PH1 - 36
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 7
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3063 for the
Righetti property, based on findings and subject to conditions contained in the staff
report, with the following revisions:
1. Revise findings, conditions and mitigation measures as outlined in staff’s
memorandum dated April 8, 2015, on file with the Community
Development Department.
2. Add the language “ …consistent with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan” to
Conditions 5, 7 and 8 relating to maintenance responsibilities.
3. Add the language “ […] subject to approval by the Director of [Community
Development or Public Works, as appropriate]” to conditions relating to
phasing of improvements, underground of utilities, and any other
conditions specifying that the applicant work further with staff.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari
NOES: Commr. Riggs
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 6:1 vote.
On motion by Commr. Malak, seconded by Vice-Chair Multari, to add a condition to
Tentative Tract Map #3066 requiring the addition of electric vehicle charging stations to
those mixed use portions of the project where no covered parking is proposed, in a
manner acceptable to staff following research regarding standards.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Multari
NOES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Riggs
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 4:3 vote.
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Fowler, to adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3066 for the
Jones property, based on findings and subject to conditions contained in the staff report,
with the following revisions:
1. Revise findings, conditions and mitigation measures as outlined in staff’s
memorandum dated April 8, 2015, on file with the Community
Development Department.
2. Add the language “…subject to approval by the Director of [Community
Development or Public Works, as appropriate]” to conditions relating to
Attachment 4
PH1 - 37
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 8
phasing of improvements, underground of utilities, and any other
conditions specifying that the applicant work further with staff.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari
NOES: Commr. Riggs
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 6:1 vote.
The Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. with all members
present. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere resumed his seat at the staff table.
3. 3680 Broad Street. USE-0809-2015: Review of a mixed-use, 100% affordable
housing project with 4,400 square feet of commercial space and 46 residential
units, including a height exception as an affordable housing incentive, and review
of a master use list with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-S-S
zone; For The Future Housing, applicant.
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
Commission adopt a resolution allowing approval of the mixed-use project based on
findings and subject to conditions, which she outlined. Cohen noted that staff is
recommending the addition of a condition restricting extremely-low-, very-low-, and low-
income units from conversion for 55 years.
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere noted that because the proposed project includes
100% affordable units, the Commission may not add any conditions rendering the
affordability of the project infeasible.
In response to inquiry from Commr., Fowler, Associate Planner Cohen clarified that no
elevators are proposed for the site, and that all affordable units are proposed for the
ground floor.
Jim Rendler, For the Future Housing, applicant, summarized the project; noted that
target resident incomes are 30-60% of area median income; requested that the
Commission take action due to time constrains upon project financing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In response to inquiry from Commr. Malak, Jim Rendler stated that reclaimed water will
be used to irrigate the site if a stub exists; clarified that that proposed parking exceeds
statutory requirements due to a lack of parking in the vicinity.
Attachment 4
PH1 - 38
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 9
Commr. Dandekar spoke in support of the project. In response to Commr. Dandekar,
Associate Planner Cohen clarified that street trees will be required at back of sidewalk
along anticipated pedestrian routes.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Riggs, staff clarified that the South Broad Street
Area Plan (BSAP) does not encompass the project site, therefore sidewalk buffering is
not necessarily required. Riggs expressed desire to add a condition requiring that staff
work with the applicant to implement sidewalk buffering measures consistent with the
BSAP; Chair Larson noted concern that the need for sidewalk relocation may be cost-
prohibitive.
In response to Commr. Riggs, staff clarified that the retail component of the mixed use
proposal is required, as residential uses cannot be the primary use in the Service
Commercial zone.
Commr. Fowler spoke in support of the project; noted concern that the single shared
laundry may be a long way to travel for some tenants.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Draze, to adopt a resolution
allowing approval of the mixed-use project based on findings and subject to conditions
contained in the staff report, with the following revision:
1. Add a condition to read as follows: “Applicant shall work with staff to
implement sidewalk buffering measures by replicating, as closely as
possible, the design sections articulated in the South Broad Street Area
Plan, subject to approval by the Public Works Director.”
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
4. 1300 Bishop Street. GENP-1120-2015: Review of the Terrace Hill Open Space
Conservation Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, and Freddy Otte, City Biologist, presented the
staff report, recommending that the Commission review the draft Terrace Hill Open
Space Conservation Plan and Initial Study, and recommend to the City Council that the
Plan and its Negative Declaration be adopted.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to continue the meeting past
11:00 p.m.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
Attachment 4
PH1 - 39
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 10
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Buzz Kalkowski, Buena Vista HOA President, noted concern about the apparent
inconsistency of the site’s R-1 zoning with the General Plan and the impact of drainage
from the hillside on the surrounding neighborhoods; commented that the space is being
misused by the transient population and others.
There were no further comments from the public.
In response to public comment, Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that rezoning
could be implemented as a Plan action item.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Riggs stressed the importance of enforcement against illicit uses.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Draze, to recommend that the City
Council adopt the draft Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan and Initial Study/
Negative Declaration, with the following revision:
1. Staff shall add an action item addressing the inconsistency of the site’s
zoning with the General Plan.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
Commr. Draze departed the meeting at 11:13 p.m.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
5. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson gave a summary of
Attachment 4
PH1 - 40
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 11
upcoming agenda items.
b. Bylaws
Community Development Director Davidson presented the staff report,
recommending that the Commission review the Bylaws and offer any desired
updates to staff to carry forward for Council consideration.
There were no comments or suggested revisions from the Commission.
6. Commission
There were no comments from the Commission.
ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary
Attachment 4
PH1 - 41
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
PH
1
-
66
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
January 28, 2013
ROLL CALL:
Present: Committee Members Thom Brajkovich, Hemalata Dandekar, Jaime Hill,
Buzz Kalkowski, Patti Taylor, and Chairperson Enrica Costello
Absent: Vice-Chair Bob Pavlik
Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Assistant Planner
Marcus Carloni, and Recording Secretary Dawn Rudder
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of December 17, 2012, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Dean Miller, San Luis Obispo, requested the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) to
place the following concerns as soon as convenient if not at the next CHC hearing:
1) The Barneberg house at 550 Dana to discuss the removal from the City’s Master
List properties.
2) Staff to comment on the findings which determined the modifications at
Barneberg house to be “minor” and exempt from review by the CHC and ARC.
Joseph Carotenuti, San Luis Obispo, voiced his opinion that the historic resources in the
city are being compromised due to unclear guidelines. Mr. Carotenuti agreed with Mr.
Miller to place the Barneberg House on the next agenda.
Randal Cruikshanks, San Luis Obispo, endorsed the public comments. He encouraged
the effort to investigate where the CHC is failing the heritage of the community.
Bob Vesselly, San Luis Obispo, endorsed comments made. The change made to the
Barneberg house has changed the whole façade of the house.
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, welcomed the public and the CHC to be present at the
public meeting for the Historic Context Statement to be held at 5:30 p.m. on February
6th at the Senior Center at Mitchell Park.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 75 Higuera Street. ARC 108-12; Review of new storefront windows along the
Higuera Frontage of the Pacific Coast Center; C-S-MU zone; SLOP CC, LP,
applicant (Pam Ricci)
Attachment 5
PH1 - 67
CHC Minutes
January 28, 2013
Page 2
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, introduced Graduate Intern Rachel Cohen, who assisted
with the project, and then presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the
Draft Resolution which recommends approval of the project to the Architectural Review
Commission, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined.
In a response to a question from Committee Member Taylor, Mr. Dunsmore reiterated
that the site is on both the City’s Master List and the National Register. He noted that
most of the original structures on site were demolished, but that a few character-
defining features of the reconstructed front building were retained. The site is significant
because of its ties to the Pacific Coast Railway and new contemporary structures
borrow from the architectural character and history of earlier site development.
Committee Member Brajkovich questioned why the larger windows were requested.
Ms. Ricci indicated that it was to add light to the interior and to add street presence.
Rob Rossi, applicant, noted that the larger windows were requested to increase
visibility for retail tenants.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Committee Member Kalkowski supported the need for the larger windows, noting that
he preferred a more open design with the head lowered below the eaves. He
suggested a plaque to commemorate the historic significance of the site.
Committee Member Taylor concurred with Committee Member Kalkowski regarding the
historical plaque and supported staff’s recommendation.
Committee Member Brajkovich supported the larger windows with a cross mullion.
Committee Member Dandekar supported the staff’s recommendation. She mentioned
that the reconstructed building honors the site in a contemporary way and that the ARC
should decide on final design details of the windows.
Committee Member Hill stated that the height element of the warehouse elevation is
affected by the addition of the larger windows and that she did not support the
requested changes. She added that a historian should have been consulted regarding
the changes since the building is on the National Register.
Committee Member Dandekar questioned the basis that the site was on the National
Registry list.
Chairperson Costello supported reducing the size of the windows to make them in
better proportion with the building wall.
Attachment 5
PH1 - 68
CHC Minutes
January 28, 2013
Page 3
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
On motion by Committee Member Brajkovich, seconded by Committee Member
Kalkowski, to recommend approval of the proposed windows in the façade of the
Higuera Street elevation with the following conditions: 1) The proposed new storefront
windows shall be modified to lower the head of the windows so that they are smaller in
scale and more proportional to the building wall. The ARC shall determine the
appropriate grid detail for windows. 2) The applicant shall add a historical plaque or
monument to the property to commemorate that historical significance of the site.
AYES: Committee Members Brajkovich, Dandekar, Kalkowski, Taylor and
Costello
NOES: Committee Member Hill
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Vice-Chair Pavlik
The motion passed on a 5:1 vote.
2. 736 Higuera Street. ARC 57-12; Review of a remodel to the Master List Carrisa
building as part of the SLO Brewing Company relocation project; C-D-H zone; San
Luis Downtown Management, applicant (Marcus Carloni)
Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval
of the project to the Architectural Review Commission based on findings of consistency
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s and Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines, and subject to the conditions of approval.
Mr. Carloni addressed the points made by the Committee which consisted of:
1. Historic background information provided by qualified historian in regard to the
wood portions at the rear of building
2. Maintain existing historic building features on the exterior of the building
3. Maintain skylights in existing locations
4. Coordinate front façade features with historic building features
Carol Florence, applicant representative, and Brian Ridley, applicant architect,
discussed the modifications made to the design based on the Committee’s direction at
the October 22, 2012 Conceptual CHC review hearing. Mr. Ridley, in response to CHC
question, stated the central post at the Higuera Street elevation is the existing structural
support for the upper floor. Mr. Ridley also stated an interior routing of the proposed
rear staircase was explored but deemed infeasible due to space constraints and
building code requirements.
Chairperson Costello asked for clarification of the proposed material below the rooftop
patio glass surround. Brian stated it was concrete.
Attachment 5
PH1 - 69
CHC Minutes
January 28, 2013
Page 4
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, made a general comment that decisions made that
compromise historical preservation is because ground rules have not been set for the
committees. He stated that making changes to the creek area which effect architectural
details are important; the history is the entire area. He is not supportive of the proposed
staircase at the rear of the building.
Sandra Lakeman, San Luis Obispo, commented that each panel should come down to
be symmetrical to the columns on the front facade. She is not in favor of the proposed
staircase. She stated it is modern and it should be located on the interior.
Elizabeth Abrams, San Luis Obispo, stated the original staircase is historical ly
significant. She concurred with David Brodie’s comment that the ambiance is the entire
area.
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, could not say when the wood building features were
added and several in the community believe the staircase was original to the building.
He stated the proposed stair is contemporary and will compromise the building.
Linda Groover, San Luis Obispo, stated the building is on the Master List and putting a
modern staircase on the rear of the building is a character-defining feature.
Dixie Cliff, San Luis Obispo, does not support the proposed staircase.
Joe Abrams, San Luis Obispo, stated that the Committee will need to be scrupulous
honoring history and be attentive to all items.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, stated the Historian can phrase and interpret in different
ways, especially when the developer is paying the bill.
Committee Member Hill commented that the Historians hired by the applicant will not
jeopardize their reputation by going in favor of the applicant for this project.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Committee Member Dandekar questioned the height of the proposed staircase. Mr.
Carloni stated the height is labeled at 41 feet and the maximum height of adjacent
building can be 50 feet.
Committee Member Costello stated that the existing staircase had been reconstructed
as of 1986.
Chairperson Costello was concerned with the front façade; specifically the second floor
entrance doors. She concurred with the public that it should be symmetrical. Mr.
Carloni indicated that shifting the second floor entry doors for symmetry was not
proposed because the doors are proposed to remain in their existing location.
Attachment 5
PH1 - 70
CHC Minutes
January 28, 2013
Page 5
Committee Member Brajkovich is in favor of the front façade. He indicated that the rear
elevation is what should be discussed.
Committee Member Hill is supportive of the proposed building.
Committee Member Dandekar is concerned about the staircase being proposed. She
stated it will set the tone for any other proposed buildings in the area which will cause a
discord to the creek area. She is supportive of the front façade.
Committee Member Taylor concurred with Committee Member Dandekar’s concern.
There was a general discussion between staff and committee members on whether the
staircase is a character-defining feature and if the design of the stair should be left to
the Architectural Review Commission.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
On motion by Committee Member Dandekar, seconded by Committee Member Hill, to
recommend approval of the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions, with
an added condition for the ARC to review alternate design possibilities for the rear
staircase that will be compatible with the scale of the building and with the transition to
the public creek-walk area. The staircase design should consider added symmetry while
increasing the visibility of the building’s brick façade.
AYES: Committee Members Brajkovich, Dandekar, Hill, Kalkowski, Taylor, and
Costello
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Vice-Chair Pavlik
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
3. 1300 Bishop Street. CHC 2-13; Review of Terrace Hill for placement on the
Contributing List of Historic Resources; R-1-PD zone; Buzz Kalkowski (CHC),
applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the City
Council add Terrace Hill to the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources, based
on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined.
Buzz Kalkowski, Committee Member of the CHC, highlighted detailed points from
presentation as to why Terrace Hill should be placed on the Contributing Properties list.
Committee Member Kalkowski recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest
because his residence is located on the side of Terrace Hill.
Committee Member Brajkovich questioned what the purpose was to bring it into
historical context if it’s designated as open space. Mr. Kalkowski stated the property is
Attachment 5
PH1 - 71
CHC Minutes
January 28, 2013
Page 6
zoned as R-1 and including the property on the Contributing List will allow for further
review in the histories of the site.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Karen Randall, San Luis Obispo, questioned Mr. Kalkowski that because he lives in the
neighborhood if he will be benefiting in any way. Mr. Kalkowski indicated there is no
relation based on where he lives. It’s another 100 feet above his residence.
Chairperson Costello stated that placing this property on the Contributing List will not
affect neighboring property it will be an additional protection on what can be built on the
property.
Will Powers, San Luis Obispo, stated that he has continuing objection to the process of
the committee because there is no mediator from the City versus public comments.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the Committee.
On motion by Committee Member Brajkovich, seconded by Committee Member Taylor,
to recommend that the City Council add Terrace Hill to the City’s Contributing Properties
List of Historic Resources, based on findings and subject to conditions.
AYES: Committee Members Brajkovich, Dandekar, Hill, Taylor, and Costello
NOES: None
RECUSED: Committee Member Kalkowski
ABSENT: Committee Member Pavlik
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff
a. Phil Dunsmore presented the agenda forecast.
5. Committee
Chairperson Costello was confused about the anger from the public at the beginning of
the meeting and the item that was discussed. She asked how things can be done at the
City level without the committee knowing about it.
Phil Dunsmore stated that staff will bring this matter back to the next CHC meeting.
There was a general discussion between staff and committee members in regard to the
public comments at the beginning of the meeting.
Attachment 5
PH1 - 72
CHC Minutes
January 28, 2013
Page 7
Committee Member Taylor pointed out the history center is going to have Tuesday talk
on February 12th at 11:15 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Dawn Rudder
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee on February 25, 2013.
Ryan Betz
Supervising Administrative Assistant
Attachment 5
PH1 - 73
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Required Conservation Plan Chapters:
[pursuant to Conservation & Open Space Element (2006) and Conservation
Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2002)]
Site history & project background (existing plans and studies)
Inventory – physical, cultural/historic, soils, water resources,
habitat types and species lists
Goals & policies
Needs analysis; land use designations; photo points
Wildfire Preparedness Plan
Implementation – strategy and project development, timeline,
adaptive management, monitoring & evaluation
Fiscal impact & financing
Amendments & updates
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
north
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
west
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
south
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
east
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
1877
History Center
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
1887
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
1887 Map with 2011 Aerial Photo
115 +/- lots are
within the present
day Open Space
boundary
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
1907
History Center
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Mixed vegetation and rock outcrop
Terra Verde 2015
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Western blue eyed grass in flower
Terra Verde 2015
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Flannelbush in flower
Terra Verde 2015
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Anna’s hummingbird perched on black sage
Terra Verde 2015
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Other sensitive avian species observed were prairie falcon & oak titmouse
Terra Verde 2015
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Stormwater erosion
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Stormwater erosion
Planning Commission ~ April 8, 2015
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Stormwater erosion – short term solution
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Stormwater erosion – longer term solution
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Dated and faded entry signs and gate
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
High school party spot by the water tank
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Faded, missing, graffiti on fire danger sign
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Goats at a nearby location
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Central Coast Green Goats
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Goats at a nearby location
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Central Coast Green Goats
Needs Analysis Section:
Improved trailhead beautification and facilities
Directional and educational / interpretive signage
Improved trail accessibility and circulation (new trailhead and
access from Rachel Court; new trail around the water tank;
decommission steep trail to Jennifer Street on west side
Invasive species control
Ongoing fire protection regime
Increase ranger and police patrols
Maintain drainage facilities
Remove or cut in place derelict drip tubing
Remove and replace dead trees and shrubs
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Management Goals:
The City will manage Terrace Hill Open Space with the following goals:
Conserve, enhance, and restore natural plant and wildlife
communities by protecting their habitats in order to maintain viable
wildlife populations within balanced ecosystems.
Provide the public with an opportunity for greater understanding and
appreciation for the cultural and historic resources values associated
with the Open Space.
Provide the public with a safe, accessible, and pleasing natural
environment in which to pursue passive recreational activities, while
maintaining the integrity of natural resources and minimizing the
impacts on the wildlife and habitats present in the Open Space.
Actively address sedimentation sources and erosion both within the
Open Space, and from the Open Space.
Allow bikes along access road and loop trail where it is conducive to
young riders gaining skills and confidence in an off-road setting.
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Management Goals (continued):
The City will manage Terrace Hill Open Space with the following goals:
Minimize the impacts of harmful activities, such as off-trail hiking and
biking use, catastrophic wildfire, and utility access, while maintaining
natural drainage systems as a means of conveying storm water into
and within urban areas.
Provide signage and interpretive features to enhance user safety,
prevent unauthorized entrance at neighboring private property, and for
educational purposes.
Maintain, protect, and improve aesthetic views as seen from various
locations throughout the City of San Luis Obispo.
Protect and officially designate the important historic and cultural
resources associated with the Open Space.
Regularly monitor and patrol the Open Space, establish Levels of
Acceptable Change (LAC), and take action to correct areas or
problems that exceed LAC.
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Wildfire Preparedness Map
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Fiscal Statement:
Ongoing program budgets for Natural Resources, Ranger Service,
and Public Works Parks Maintenance program
City Open Space Maintenance CIP funding (Measure G)
Project specific grants (conservation, restoration, access)
Adaptive Management, Monitoring & Evaluation:
Adaptive management is methodology to deal with long term
management decisions and uncertainty
Requires baseline data and ongoing monitoring of sedimentation
rates and species inventory
Make adjustments based on what we learn
Updates and Amendments
Updates are anticipated in the 7-10 year time horizon
Amendments may be requested by formal written correspondence
addressed to the attention of the City Manager
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
General Plan Consistency and Points of Authority:
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 and where there are no significant neighborhood compatibility
impacts.
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.
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.
P&R Element 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.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.22 et seq.
Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Planning Commission ~ April 8, 2015
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, Parks and
Recreation Commission, and Cultural Heritage Committee,
approve a resolution in order to:
Adopt the Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan;
Adopt a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the
Project; and
Add Terrace Hill Open Space to the City’s Contributing
Properties List of Historic Resources.
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Presentation Format:
Conservation Planning
Site Description
Site History
Biological Inventory
Needs Assessment
Management Goals
Fiscal Statement
Monitoring, Updates, &
Amendments
General Plan Review
Recommendation
City Council ~ May 19, 2015
Robert A. Hill
Natural Resources Manager
(805) 781-7211 or rhill@slocity.org
Freddy Otte
City Biologist
(805) 781-7511 or fotte@slocity.org
City of San Luis Obispo
City Administration
Natural Resources Protection Program
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
Technical Assistance
Terra Verde Environmental Consulting
Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
Judith Hildinger
City Council ~ May 19, 2015