HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/2005, BUS 2 - ADOPTION OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR CERRO SAN LUIS NATURAL RESERVE council M'°` S
j Agenda RepoRt
CITY OF SAN LU IS OB I S PO
FROM: Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer k,"6
Prepared By: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR CERRO SAN LUIS
NATURAL RESERVE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by both the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission,
approve a resolution adopting the Conservation Plan for Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve, as
amended, and finding a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact.
DISCUSSION
Background
On September 17, 2002 City Natural Resources Program staff presented the "Conservation
Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo" (the "Guidelines") to the
Council for review and adoption. Council review was favorable and the Guidelines were adopted
by the Council at that meeting. The first Conservation Plan prepared under the umbrella of the
Guidelines, for the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, was adopted by the Council in mid-2003; the
second, for Bishop Peak,Natural Reserve, was adopted in early 2004. The Cerro San Luis
Natural Reserve Conservation Plan is the third such plan to come before the Council.
Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve (CSLNR) is a 118 acre area lying within the City of San Luis
Obispo, with urban development to the northeast and east, and undeveloped agricultural lands to
the south, west, and north. It consists of the easterly slopes of Cerro San Luis Obispo, one of the
Morros, and associated foothills dominated by coastal scrub and grassland. The site is known for
its views, interesting stands of non-native Mission cactus, and its trail system. It is heavily used
by both hikers and mountain bikers, with many persons going beyond the Reserve boundaries
onto private lands to access the summit of Cerro San Luis Obispo. The Reserve is perhaps best
recognized, however, for the large letter M (for Mission High School) that is on the upper
hillside of the site. The property originally included a 43 acre donation from the French family in
1980. 75 acres was purchased from the Maino family in 1997, establishing the current 118 acre
reserve.
The Conservation Guidelines specify that City staff will undertake the necessary inventory to
develop a good understanding of the natural and cultural features of each open space, and prepare
information about the property for a public workshop at which public input is solicited. Staff
will then prepare a draft conservation plan and present that plan to the Parks and Recreation
Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. At each of these meetings, further
C C —1
Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for Cerro San Luis
Page 2
testimony can be taken and the recommendations from each body incorporated into the plan as it
goes forward toward Council adoption.
In the case of CSLNR, a public workshop, attended by about 40 persons, was held in July 2003
in the City-County Library Community Room and numerous ideas and suggestions for the plan
were presented by citizens. Staff incorporated many of these into the plan. Due to other Council
priorities (especially the Coon Creek mitigation project), there was a lengthy period in which the
plan was held in abeyance. The draft was completed in October 2004, and the hearing process
scheduled. Some changes were recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the
Planning Commission at their respective meetings, and these will be highlighted in the staff
presentation on the plan. Several citizens have participated closely in development of the plan.
Important Natural and Cultural Features
CSLNR contains a significant number of sensitive or otherwise important natural features, and
several notable cultural features, including:
1. Significant areas of intact, high quality wildlife habitat
2. The "M", found to be of cultural importance to the community by the Cultural
Heritage Commission;
3. Several animal species of concern, including San Diego desert woodrat; loggerhead
shrike; and western skink; and
4. A strong historical "flavor" to the Reserve, evidenced by the"M", old fencing, an old
lemon grove, a cypress plantation, eucalyptus groves, and the Mission cactus stands.
Management issues or concerns associated with CSLNR include:
1. Erosion problems associated with unauthorized trails accessing the "M";
2. Need for wildfire preparedness;
3. Protection and enhancement of sensitive resources and habitats; and
4. Proper development and functioning of the trail system.
The Conservation Plan addresses these issues by calling for:
1. Completion of a properly graded access to; and care of, the"M";
2. Closure and restoration of the current unauthorized accesses to the"M";
3. A wildfire preparedness plan, involving management of fuel loading, especially at the
urban/wildland interface and in the eucalyptus.groves;
4. Certain changes to the livestock grazing program on the property; and
5. Development of interpretive and informational signage to assist visitors.
The Conservation Plan's thrust is to protect the existing resources at CSLNR and to balance
recreational use, fire safety, and resource protection. The plan is considered to not have a
significant effect upon the environment, except for the potential associated with the new trail;
therefore a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for the project.
G/Havlik/councila/Cerro San Luis CP adoption
C
Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for Cerro San Luis
Page 3
CONCURRENCES
Park and Recreation Department staff assisted in preparation of the Conservation Plan, and other
affected departments have reviewed it. The matter of the historical value, if any, of the "M" was
submitted to the Cultural Heritage Committee and that committee unanimously found the "M" to
be a feature of cultural importance to the community. The plan was then reviewed in public
session by both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. Both
recommend approval to the City Council with certain amendments and/or clarifications.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Conservation Plan will have limited fiscal impact. There will be commitments of staff time
for a certain level of monitoring of recreational use and attendant impacts, and there will be a
need for monitoring of vegetation, particularly on the urban interface of the property. No major
unfunded undertakings are proposed. The long-term management and access for the "M" is
expected to be handled through an arrangement with Mission College Preparatory School at little
or no cost to the City. Fuel management in the eucalyptus groves will be handled through
arrangements with the California Conservation Corps or State Department of Forestry, and the
several restoration projects are expected to be able to use volunteers or to be attractive projects
for mitigation purposes stemming from other, off-site projects in the community. The fiscal
implications of these activities is minor and can be covered in the proposed Natural Resources
Program budget.
ALTERNATIVE
The Council could reject the Conservation Plan. This is not recommended as the Plan appears to
be consistent with the Guidelines approved in 2002, has been supported by the community at
large and by both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission, and the
plan will provide direction as to proper recreational development, habitat protection, and
management of CSLNR.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Summary
3. Initial Study
4. Memo from Cultural Heritage Committee regarding cultural significance of the "M"
5. Notes and Minutes from Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Dec. 1, 2004;
relating to CSLNR, and subsequent clarifications
6. Draft minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 12, 2005, relating to
CSLNR
7. Resolution
Council Reading File and City Clerk's Office:
Complete Draft Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
C/Havlik/councila/Cerro San Luis CP adoption ^
ATTACHMENT I
TOPOI map pHnUd on 09/06=from"Cakft.la.tpo*and"UnWed.tpg"
121°15.000'w 121-04.000'W 120•S3.000'W 120°42.000'W 120-31.000'W 120-20.000'W WGS84 120-01.000'W
< % Z
IN
z IT11 W.R0 _r RA
z
T,
IL
z
rL
z \RucYw` L I YL P1 0 Z
ej
a
<
z
or
P Lmm
-Li
z +
FOREST
a z
2
z
:q Z
'!D A
z
53: w 120.42.000'W 120-31.000,w 120-20-000,W WOS84 120-01.000'W
JO- m
10 13 m z m m mm
CONSERVATION PLAN
E CERRO SAN LUIS NATURAL RESERVE
Regional Setting of Cerro
San Luis Natural Reserve PAGE 2
a - 4
ARACHMENT2
-
s EQ
y O \
-
Z 46f~ �j _
0 CL
tv
00
■ <
° o
C C�
to
to
0.
L L - J•, l
W1766
yo `odslgp sin-I ueS
TOGITS wled 066
odslgp sin-1 ueS to fxlio
mmm3m -c mN mcmNN m -om mN o N
c`vr `mm � � naci $ � � m o ° - � mN -0 $ mid m m
tc6 c Y N Y N y N d 'C C m r .° j 16 d U C CU O � C
C .0 m N a Z O ° O
a O m o 3 m O ccs U O U N tU N tC N ui N m N a N C 9 .mc t Z a
C N E -c U .O N C m a a �_ t N t O j C- -.. O m ' C -` r J U U a)N
C m N C 7 7 0 N C T U 7 - �. C J W U co R O C
g mQ r,-, (m. E m N m � � � 3 � c oa_ cCa of CL CU m o f
> m m m o c cca N y E - 0 CL 0 m • � U � = c ° c O > > a �'
w (m _mcmi � � ca ° m m o o 5 ) o -° o �� 00V U U o
O m ��- � c° m m a M w m m m °- N fC U m O N m ro U O Ccc y r « 'E Q
a C m m C L Q c0 m -0 �d C = 3 Z N U �'- m z
U w ro ° ro ro ° m > m N . am U m E o o m cU U d
CD m mac c E ma a~ rn •_ m y a � ,r � � o o N EO o �'�
y N C -° m mU c c c`a rZ N E � ¢ m " c or m c m H e £ J ri CD 0 U) d0 O cU
oa � c �Umcn � c°- c`�c � •coicacmim ° `-' cE > > cooc�o � smm UE � c� cJi� Nm -Y
a m c° w
cca � ¢ Emo > 0mw � E3 (n 'D-°- o $ m � 'ca � (D o � Ea �a m
E ° � � -0 � -0 m m > `� 0OC ° c ro c c o a Qmt mm (a - yn .c'. � E o c
m m °�= o m m o' > a Z � •E c m 0) o cz u) m .. (�. s U L o Lo y cri o d
c c m m C M —_ m oo Eo o w
m m roti 3a -jm . - m a cn - 'o E 'Fn o m a o . m m �+ cu o
>` E m.E m m v m m y N ca m U cm a 7 C 0 t U � o � C 3 c D: ,= C N v N > >
ca r-O) °. Oa fl-'. N O m a O Q m m '.. +' N Q .0 ° •° N U N C T .� m
m O C •O m � 9 C C O1� 7 ?
mm
fn 'Dois - 3 m3: > > � N Ra c > 0 � cm
aco ._ " a: ca c . c (D CL w m c9 >y ° � .S mU3 C� ani � 0 3 aE N E 'C c`4 U � _m¢
L 0) Q) ao E m a) (D M � E m � ro a 0 0 a) � m o¢ > > Cj 0s E ` 0 m e �a
F- � _ � UO � a7 8m U) ms F m E ' 0 = rn UOC � a U p -� () oo aD d � Uci ""•_
u
m 0
> 41
E
iL ?-%=
m (D 0
W ul to
'a c o m 6&
O I= (1)
CL cl Z
0 x
rLi-� . I LLJ 0 xumm®tai -Z > 0
E
.>
<, M 0 0 tJ
e 0 0) c
U.
0
UR PA >
J2 0
ri III LE
lo 11 m
CIA)
Cl)
0 q ca -0 -0 (D
Cc c c c
a) -53 4) ,— 0) cc
t5 cc
>
0 C>D W> a) > cl
CD Q
rn rn =5 co E
0) a) 0 M a) 0 CD CL
a CL-a — 0 2
C: 0 cc :3 WD E -0 ex
'E r- 4w r- m = 0 w
co cc "a — ca OL o a) 0 0 16 •co
In z m -r- (D m (D
c 0 > a)
a) CD 0)"0 ts aj
0 c t= > -�g .0 (M CL C 75 'D Im a)
X 0) ,r- 4) c w
o z c (D
0 co ca
J'M (D w U)
ca 0 CL E -j 0 E Lm
o CL M " . 'D I ca (D (D
(A .-- '00 0 E 0 u 0 C-
'D Co 0 o 0 m
ca cn CL c 0) a ca w
a) cc z cd o — 0 o L)
C Co cc cc w fA ca
a.) a: -ceq (cDL 0— 0") U: :c 0 0 0
m 0 4) 0 ow ID 3 'a tm (D CD Im
0 aim a) w �E .5; 0 '0 co ca E
(n 3: 0 ED > i� cu N 4) 0 ca 0
3 U) m
Lp (a , 0 41 E 0 z. E c r 2 4) 'a —
ID 0 0 Z 'D CD (D .0 0
L r>L D rn 13 Cc to " a)
M VS c E CD > -0 M U)
rh tv
2 cc cc a: -a-, -0 Ec -0 rO- - cc W FA tm m CL CD
vi
r0aa'CT CL 0 - m >, -M *-- 2 0 C.)
C) w 2 CD 0 IV
-0 Co CD C�a W a)
ca cc 't! � CL c co 4)
E —cz — — CL (D CL 0 o > CL r- Ctl 0 CL
>, cu 0) o r- Q) cc 0 c 0 (D a) 0
Ca T E w — -�'-- — a) >
CL to 2 cD
A cc — — in o In CCOL 4m) (D 0 a) 4.1 a= o
3: co C.) CL 'i004)
70 0 4) 4) 4= a) 0 M r- cc cc
co W to � —
E'= 0 Z .2 c (D = "o 0 Z ->, :3 0 FA COr X
CD w 0 M w c
Z = Z.
U) . -a (U CD V- 0 (D 'D CM
C� CU 'a m 0 >1 CD U) N C C > 0
a) E o a u w o 9L o r- o o CL
c CD CO CM
C (D V; 0 CD 0 r 0 0 'a cc
Z cm >1 E 0)
o = Ca r CD (D (D CD 0
> E ca ca 0 > m a)
0 0 CM CD C -0 0 a) c CO .0 M o 0 w c tm ca
Q) � cn - �c ca a) 0 mom C 0
cm� � -C m al (D
c
(D � cn cc 0 > TEE CL E
cr C m 0 (D
CM.5 CD "FO C n a) ID o a) co :3 C
C: 0- cm CU (D 0 > '0 > c E
0 0 CD "m E 6 .2
-E mc 0— jQ- E Hca CD
0 0) c 0 ca c ma ca
a) ca 9) V) (A (D 0 0 X a) 0 = 2 0
tz X a V a) Z CD 0 c 0 0
C cu 0 c WD CL U)
cn CM c •Q (D ca E —
z 0 .— (D cu a) ,Q— cm 0 a) fn 0 CD
4.6 > a 2 M 0
c 0 0.
c 0 (D
cc (D C CD
U) Ln o a) M .0 CL ca C c
LF = -0 z — (D ca 2 0 0 (D 'E 'D 0.� 0 C C: co
—10 CL (n c �: E Or a) -a c 0 M
(D 0 U)
> (D E cu U) 0 0
Cc , w 0 " a)
Le ut m 'n 0 co r c 3.
L°° CO .5 c cr cc CM z R 'a C CL
a) I a) I CL :3 Cc 0 C 'D
Lw cm a -S c 0
—1 Z �m -��o S2 a) — 0
0 r r- m Z = :3 -Fu -0 -C CL -a LU L) LL m 0 <
-J c m C _j 0 : 75 .2 a)
0 co c; > c c 'a (D CD r- 0 0 0 0 0
u u a) ca L) m C) CL 0 0 ig c U) " 0 �5 (2) 0 -r-
C) U) 0 u cn v u Ch (2) LL m 0=)
C=�
ATTACHMENT 3
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application # 236-04
1. Project Title:
Conservation Plan for the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street,SLO, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Michael Clarke, (805) 781 7511, or
Neil Havlik,(805) 7817211
4. Project Location:
Easterly and southerly slopes of Cerro San Luis Obispo, north of Madonna Road
and west of Highway 101,in the City of San Luis Obispo (vicinity map attached).
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo,990 Palm Street, SLO, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Open Space
7. Zoning:
C/OS-40
8. Description of the Project:
Land use and conservation plan for 118 acres of City-owned open space known as the Cerro
San Luis Natural Reserve. The plan provides direction on the management of recreational
activities, wildlife protection, wildfire management, and sensitive habitat conservation. The
ultimate aim of the plan is to reconcile public use of the land for passive recreation (hiking,
mountain biking) with the conservation of natural resources, protection of sensitive species,
and wildfire and emergency preparedness.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Privately owned agricultural land and some adjacent urban development.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
City Council approval
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None
' l
MACHO 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 Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such,the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
-_X_ and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
_ This 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)).
`� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
l,- ATTACHME93
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant'impact(s) or"potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an.earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I 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.
December 21,2004
Signature Date
Neil Havlik,Natural Resources Manager
For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
111111110/ CITY OF SAN LUIS Odispo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a.,q
ATTACHU 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that,are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported
if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.
the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-
specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue.
should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required..
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist..
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the,staterrient.is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL.STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 02 Q
- ATTACHE 3
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 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 address site-specific conditions for the project.
MACHMENT 3
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenunlly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not `=X
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X-
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a). Proposed minor modifications to the existing trail system could potentially have a minor effect on the scenic vista of the
area.
b) Proposed pruning of vegetation will have a minimal effect on selected trees and.shrubs that may pose a threat to public
safety.
c) No actions shall be taken that will substantially degrade existing visual character of the site
d) No new light sources shall be created.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have a less than significant effect on the aesthetics of the site.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of - X--
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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a '7_X-.
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,.due to X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-a cultural use?.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject;
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to anX
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ?C
quality plan?
c) Expose,sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant —X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable.odors affecting a substantial number of -
people?
e) 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 qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on air quality.
�� CITY OF SAN Luis OsISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
ATTAl1HM S
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenually Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly 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 Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified inlocal.or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting - X J-'
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident �X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation , X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X-
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,eta)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
_ other means.
Evaluation
a)New trail construction could cause minor disturbance to local wildlife and would result in the removal of some vegetation.
However, this would be offset by the closure, and restoration or stabilization of, existing trails which are causing resource
damage. The result should be a net improvement of environmental conditions within the Reserve.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on biological resources.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project-
a) Cause a.substaritial adverse change in the significance of a
`_X
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource -X-=
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on cultural resources.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would therolect:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? i-X__
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource '--,X--'
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on energy and mineral resources.
mar CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST/002
ARAWO
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poti:11"ally Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse -X-=
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving;
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in 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?
11. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X--.
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? _-X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? --R-;
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? --X--
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that -X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the --X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Evaluation
b) The proposed construction of a new trail to the"M"could potentially result in erosion problems. However,this will be
nunimized by the incorporation of erosion control techniques into trail design and by closure and revegetation of
existing erosion problems associated with existing unauthorized trail access to the"M". Erosion control techniques will
include appropriate outsloping the new trail and incorporation of waterbars into the design.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have a less than significant effect on geology and soils after mitigation.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment —X=
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely --X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous --X_-;
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
0 For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within `-X-
two miles of a public airports would the project result in a safety
hazard for;the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 7__X=_`
adopted
X-
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h)—Expose-peopleor structures to_a significant risk of lose,_iniury,_ --X-
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
3,f �.
RTfACW
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
or death,involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands? _
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not create any situation which is a potential hazard to the local population or environment.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere __X
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 for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the --X-
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or -X-`
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100=year flood hazard area as mapped --X
on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? -X--'.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on hydrology or water quality.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of --X--'
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? =-X--'.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural :_X
community conservationplans?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have not conflict with any other land use plan,nor physically divide an existing community.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,.or permanent increase in -X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity-above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome -X
Vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d)_For-a project.located within an airport-land use-plan,or within_
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST'1,(IL72 /
ATTACHMN
I
Issues, Discussion and-Supporting"information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
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?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on existing noise levels.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area;either directly _X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people -X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on population growth or housing in the area.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? —X-
b) Police protection? -X
c) Schools?
d) Parks? =-X'
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? -X-_-'.
Other public facilities? rX--
Explanation
The proposed management plan may add some additional workload to the City's Ranger Service. However, most of the
activities proposed fall within the normal daily operations of the Ranger Service. Labor-intensive projects will be completed
by volunteers or outside contractors.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no substantial adverse effect on publicservices.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or -X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or 11--X--
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
The proposed management plan is designed to accommodate passive recreational activities while avoiding detrimental
effects to the environment. No net expansion of recreational activities is proposed.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not increase recreational use of the site to levels that are detrimental to the physical environment.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the-project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to --X
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a :- 1Ce
MACHMEN
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially PotentiallyLess Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Substantially increase hazards due to designfeatures(e.g.sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? -X-
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite?
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative ;X-1
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land --_X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,
noise,or a change in air trafficpatterns? _
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on traffic or transportation.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water --X--
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project -X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) 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 commitment? _
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to --X--
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations —X
related to solid waste?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on utilities or services stems.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the -X=
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?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but =X
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
futureprojects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause 77--
substantial adverse effects.on human beings,either directly_or_
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ,
MACHO[ 3
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pote...ally Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
indirectly?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not degrade the quality of the environment. They do not have cumulative impacts that are significan]
They will not have substantial adverse effects on human beings.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EER, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration., Section 15063 (e) (3) (D). In this case.a discussion
should identify the following items:
a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier-analyses-an state where they are available for review.
None
6) 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 b mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
None - -
e) 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..
Mitigation Measures
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed construction of a new trail to the "M" could potentially result in erosion problems. However, this will be
minimized by the incorporation of erosion control techniques into trail design and by closure and revegetation of existing
erosion problems associated with existing unauthorized trail access to the "M". Erosion control techniques will include
appropriate outsloping the new trail and incorporation of waterbars into the design.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1.2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a.,tq
- ATTACHMENT 4
City Of SM WIS OBISW Department of Community Development
Planning Division
September 30, 2004
TO: City of San Luis Obispo
Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager
FROM: Michael Draze, Deputy Community Development Directo;�
SUBJECT: Determination of historic significance of the "M" on Cerro San Luis
Obispo
The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of September 27, 2004, determined
that the "M" on Cerro San Luis Obispo is historically and culturally significant, and to
recommend that the Conservation Plan for the Cerro San Luis Obispo Natural Reserve
include its retention, with the following findings:
1. Under Council Resolution No. 6157 (1987 Series); Cultural Heritage Committee
duties include identifying and recommending historical resources of scientific,
aesthetic, educational, cultural, architectural or historical significance; and
2. The "M" on Cerro San Luis is located on city-owned property and has cultural
importance to the community due to its long association with Mission College
Preparatory academic traditions; and
3. Hillside letters have traditionally been used to identify local schools, including San
Luis High School, Cal Poly University, and Cuesta College.
4. Retention of the "M" is consistent with General Plan goals that encourage
conservation of the Community's heritage as well as open space values.
5. Retention of the "M"would be consistent with the management objectives of the
Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve in that said reserve includes several features of
historical or cultural note, such as the "Lemon Grove", Eucalyptus and Cypress
Plantations, the Pepper Tree Groves, the Mission Cactus stands, and remnants of
the 1922 subdivision improvements.
,i
Cerro San Luis Conservad, an—AddMri WNT 5
Below are the comments and responses to issues raised at the City Parks
and Recreation Commission Meeting (12/1/04). Most of the comments were
recommendations for clarification of proposed activities or minor
adjustment thereof.
City Staff Response to Comments Received at the Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting of 12/1/04
Comment
Add Specific Work Items for Years 34, 5-6.
Staff Response
The implementation activities are.fairly limited and it is believed that Some start can be
made on virtually all of them. However, some clarification of ongoing efforts is needed.
Proposed Change
Section 52 Specific Tasks,will be amended as follows:
In Years 1'-2; add: Seek cooperator in maintenance%restoration. of the Lemon Grove;
Complete a Letter Agreement Regarding the "M" with Mission College Preparatory School;
Initiate construction of a new trail to the "M"; Seek grant funds for tree planting along
Highway 101..
In Years 3-4, and 5-6, add: Continue activities outlined.above to completion.
Comment
Assure minimum flows at the Lemon Grove Spring for wildlife.
Staff Response
Concur.
Proposed Change
Language will be added to the bullet point under the Grazing Plan describing the steps that
will be taken to ensure minimum flows at the spring for wildlife, as well as ensuring access
for wildlife to the water at the trough.
Comment -
Establish Standards for Maintenance of the"M" .
Staff Response,
Concur.
Proposed Change
Language in the Needs Analysis, Section 4.6, will be amended as follows: 'The Cultural
Heritage Committee has found the "M" on Cerro San Luis Obispo to_be of cultural
significance to the City of San Luis Obispo. The Committee therefore recommends that the
Conservation Plan retain the "W', and provide for its proper maintenance and access
thereto. City staff shall prepare a letter agreement with the Mission College Preparatory
School for such maintenance that will include agreed upon standards."
1
Cerro San Luis Conservat San—Addendum— 1/61OtA ACHMEW�
Comment .
Work with Cal Trans to plant trees along Highway 101 for screening and noise attenuation.
Staff Response
This is included in the Needs Analysis as Section 4.11.
Proposed Change
None.
Comment
Emphasize control of exotics in order to protect the coastal scrub community.
Staff Response
Concur.
Proposed'Change
The:following language will added.to-the Needs Analysis;,Section-4:10' "City staff will
especially'monitor the:generally exotics-free coastal scrub:community on.the upper
elevations of the Reserve-for appearance of exotic-plant species and will;reinove such.
exotics as they.are discovered.
Comment
Consider cutting all eucalyptus smaller than 12 inches, rather than 6 inches, and include
such cutting of pepper trees as well.
Staff Response
We believe that the requested action may significantly enlarge the scope of any control
efforts, and this may not be desirable in every instance.
Proposed Change
The following language will be added after the last sentence in the Needs Analysis,
Section 4.10: "Eucalyptus trees up to 12 inches in diameter will be evaluated for possible
removal following an initial thinning,and, if considered necessary,will be removed.
General exotic monitoring will also evaluate thinning or removal of pepper trees up to 12
inches in diameter, especially in areas where their growth may contribute to fuel loading."
- 2a21
Cerro San Luis Conservadu,, Plan—Addendum— 1hTOANMENT6
Following the Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning
Commission meetings, Parks Commissioner Don Dollar asked staff to
clarify several additional items. These are discussed below:
Comment
Were any alternative fire management scenarios considered? Such as, making more of the
area Habitat classification? Particularly by expanding the Habitat area southward? Is all the
Management area really needed for effective firefighting? An objective of the City
Guidelines for Open Space is to maximize the amount of area classified as Habitat.
Staff Response
The land classifications are not determined solely by fire management needs. The
Management designation is used by definition where livestock grazing is permitted.
Therefore, changing the designation to Habitat implies the cessation of livestock grazing in
the area so changed. The areas identified as Management are so designated because
they are grassland or open brush amenable to grazing use. At least two areas considered
appropriate to change to Habitat are identified in the Conservation Plan.
Proposed Change
None.
Comment - - -
Where do Items 4.7, 4.9,4.10, and 4.12 fit in the Implementation Strategy?
Staff Response
It is the intention that the activities outlined in those sections will be begun upon approval
of the plan.
Proposed Change
The following language will be added to the Needs Analysis, Section 4.10: "City staff will
especially monitor the generally exotics-free coastal scrub community on the upper
elevations of the Reserve for appearance of exotic plant species and will remove such
exotics as they are discovered."
The fourth bullet point under Implementation Strategy;Specific Tasks will be amended to
read "Start restoration projects identified in Section 4.8, as well as maintenance or
restorative activities identified in Sections 4.7, 4.9, 4.10, and 4.12"
Comment
Clarify standards for maintenance of the Lemon Grove and the"M".
Staff Response
Staff feels that specific maintenance standards are premature at this time as we are
uncertain of the level of interest, particularly for the Lemon Grove. It may be appropriate to
have Park and Recreation Commission review of any agreements made to implement
these recommendations.
Proposed Change
Under Implementation Strategy;As Funds/Opportunities Become Available a third bullet
point will be added as follows: "Any agreement for maintenance of the"M",the trail thereto,
elimination and restoration of the of the unauthorized trails thereto, or any agreement
concerning restoration and maintenance of the Lemon Grove area will be presented to the
Parks and Recreation Commission for approval. Any such agreement will include
measurable or observable standards for such maintenance."
3
, r1 �
Cerro San Luis ConserVafio,r'lan-Addendum- 1/6 'SCHMENT15
Comment
In the Implementation Strategy, emphasize trail linkages to other Morros and to Laguna
Lake Park. Also move from"when funds become available"to Years 1-3.
Staff Response
The Conservation Plan applies only to lands owned by the City of San Luis Obispo or
where the land is reasonably controlled by the City. Therefore, although there is staff and
City interest in such linkages, it is not considered appropriate for the Conservation Plan to
plan out such uses,which are uncertain or speculative in their ultimate form or nature.
Proposed Change
None.
Comment
Under Financial Impacts, add more Ranger funding "when funding becomes available".
Staff Response
Although staff is sympathetic to the concept, it is considered to be beyond the scope of the
Conservation Plan..
Proposed Change
None.
4 �'d�
MACHMEW if
Parks and Recreation Commission
DRAFT MINUTES
City/County Library Conference Room, 990 Palm Street
Wednesday, December l' , 2004 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Peter Dunan called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Chair Pete Dunan, Commissioners: Gary Clay, Bill Pyper, Don Dollar, Ty
Griffin, and John Knight.
ABSENT: Commissioner Jill Lemieux,
STAFF: Director Paul LeSage,James Bremer, and Ashley Blake.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the November 3,2004 meeting were amended and approved as submitted.
1. Volunteer of the Month
Chair Dunan presented Phil Lang as the Volunteer of the Month.
2. Brown Donation
LeSage presented this staff report.
Commission discussed the item.
Reeommendation:
Recommend to the City Council that a donation for the purchase of a shade structure be accepted.
(Pyper/Clay: unanimous).
3. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan.
LeSage introduced Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager, who presented this staff report.
Public Comment:
Carter Collins, SLO resident— being a student at Mission College Prep, he states he is in full support
of keeping the"M".
Pam Hetherington, ECOSLO — supports keeping the "M" for student even though it is not a natural
area/trail to the mountain.
Commission discussed the item.
Griffin—not in favor of the Lemon Grove plan, suggested that eucalyptus be removed.
Knight — questioned the Lemon Grove's historical value, suggested that more Ranger time be used to
patrol the mountain and that a.sign for Cerro San Luis be placed close to the parking lot.
Clay—would like to see guidelines made for the colors/decorations of the "M", asked for a glossary of
terms related to the staff report, and questioned the definition of a"natural species" for the area.
Pyper—would not like to see guidelines made for the colors/decoration of the "M".
Dunan — stated his dislike of the "M" for safety reasons and for the nuisance the "M", "P" and "SL"
bring the city, however, he supports the plan. �
C.'IDOCUME 1JA2u 1LOGLS 11 Temp 1110104-1.DOC I
Parks and Recreation ComL ion ATTACHMENT
6
Minutes for December 1, 2004 Ttl i !JI! 6�6 f
Page 2
Dollar-expressed following general comments: thinks in general it is a good plan, but has some
general comments and questions, and some specific recommendations; Natural Resource
Perspective - the "M" on the side of the mountain is not appropriate..But, since the City Cultural
Heritage Committee found the "M" to be of cultural significance, he will leave that issue alone; Fire
Planning Perspective-questioned if any alternate scenarios were considered, such as, making more
of the area Habitat classification particularly by expanding the large Habitat area southward,
wondered if all the Management area is really needed for effective fire fighting and if an objective
of the City Guidelines for Open Space is to maximize the amount of area classified as Habitat;
Wildlife Report - not included with the Draft Plan, it would be good to have a copy with the Draft to
gain a different perspective; Grazing - would like the quantifiable amount of RDM(residual dry
matter) left at the end of the grazing season, 1,200 lb. per acre. Thinks that is a good number and
would also like if there is a clearly defined season for grazing; Implementation Schedule -
understands the Plan is to cover 5 to 7 years, however,the Implementation Strategy only includes
years 1 and 2. Need to add from page 26 and 27, items#4.7,4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 as they are not
listed in the Implementation Strategy; Page 27, item 4.11 - add noise abatement as another reason to
work with CalTrans on planting trees along US 101 by Cerro San Luis. It is very noisy hiking up
Cerro San Luis; Lemon Grove-clarify the water situation. Will water be available (even in low
flow periods)for native plants and animals, or only for cattle? Clarify standards for private parties
to maintain the area. What are those standards?; "M" - clarify standards for maintenance and care of
the "M". Also, what color?How to handle vandalism? Expressed the following specific
recommendations: Implementation Strategy- work to link trails in Cerro San Luis not only with the
Morros, but with other trails such as Laguna Lake Open Space and Park. Connectivity of trails is
part of the City Parks and Recreation Element. Work discreetly with land owners to gain ROW
(right of way) or easements; Implementation Strategy-move connection of Cerro San Luis to
Morros Project trails, from "When Funds Become Available"to Years 1-3; Spread of exotic
plants -be proactive in native coastal scrub habitat and remove small patches of exotic plants that
are invading, especially mission figs and pepper trees. Native coastal scrub habitat is very valuable
for native wildlife; Spread of exotic trees,page 27,item 4.10 -change the size from 6" DBH to 12"
DBH to help reduce the impact of exotics on Cerro San Luis. When hiking at Cerro San Luis, it is
very noticeable that there are many exotic plants and trees, more so than at other City Open Spaces;
Financial Impacts - add more Ranger funding "when funding becomes available". By being more
proactive in patrol and care of heavily used Open Spaces, such as Cerro San Luis, we may help
prevent the need for large scale resource rehabilitation projects such as on Bishop Peak or the Irish
Hills. Cerro San Luis gets regular heavy use and some of it is very susceptible to high erosion.
Ranger funding provides good benefit for cost.
Recommendation:
Recommend to the City Council:
1. The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan be approved, including:
• Retaining the "M" and providing safe and proper access thereto;
• Eliminating the current unauthorized trails accessing the "M" and restoring their
natural condition;
• Retaining the Lemon Grove and providing for private efforts to restore it;
• Fencing the unnamed drainage near the open space entrance to exclude livestock and
provide for vegetation enhancements there; and
• Undertaking various activities for control of the spread of exotic tree and shrub
species, and fuel management activities in the eucalyptus groves at the site. n
Parks and Recreation Comi.. .sion MANE,Minutes for December 1, 2004 �uI 1,'
Page 3
2. The individual comments and recommendations from Commissioners be forwarded to the
Council.
(Dollar/Clay: unanimous).
4. Directors Report
LeSage briefed the Commission on the following projects:
■ Major City Goals
■ Opening of Damon—Garcia Sports Field
■ Results from Therapy Feasibility Study
■ Use of school district for Department's youth programs
■ Commission Workshop on February 26, 2005—input given
5. Staff Reports
James Bremer,Recreation Supervisor, presented the staff report on the Departmental updates.
Todd Beights,Parks Maintenance, updated the Commission with various park projects.
6. Committee Reports
Commissioners gave reports on Committees they attended.
■ Tree Committee— ■ Joint Use Committee—
■ Mayors Youth Task Force— ■ Jack House Committee—Pyper
■ Open Space—Dollar ■ Golf-
■ Therapy Pool—LeSage a Landscape Parkways-
•. Communications
None.
8. Adjourned
The meeting adjourned at 8:57 pm to the January 5, 2005 meeting.
T',,
Planning Commission Minutes" -- ATTACHMEN �__
January 12, 2005
�a
Page 2 „ .z ' T
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made froZmifted
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Miller pointed out a letter ththe Commission with a concern
about the open space being protectsite does not pose a threat to the
open space land.
Commr. Miller moved to a rovesed on findings and subiect to
conditions and code re uiremen as recommended by staff. Seconded by Commr.
Osborne.
AYES: Commrs. Mill , Osborne, Boswell, Aiken, Christianson, and Caruso
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. h
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carri on a 6 : 0 vote.
3. 1000 Fernandez Road. GPI and ER 236-04; Review of Conservation Plan for the
Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve, and environmental review; C/OS-20-SP; City of
San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik presented the staff report recommending the
Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Conservation Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Amanda Collins, student at Mission College Prep, noted that it has been an ongoing
initiation tradition at Mission School for the freshman class to paint and maintain the "M"
on this hill. She expressed that they are honored to keep this as an ongoing
commitment.
Matthew Richmond, student at Mission Prep, mentioned that he would gladly volunteer,
as a Boy Scout ready to become an Eagle Scout, to help maintain the trail going up to
the W".
Louie Mello, SLO resident, mentioned that he and his wife both graduated from Mission
and that they were the first class to paint the "M", and that the trail going up the middle
was initially a drainage ditch that became a trail.
Ross (inaudible) student at Mission Prep spoke on behalf the girls' and boys basketball
teams that were unable to attend the meetings due to games and practices, and
expressed their support the maintenance of this "M" up on the hill.
There were no other comments made from the public.
a
ATTACHMENT(P'
Planning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2005 ,
Page 3e
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Aiken moved to recommend to the City Council that the Conservation Plan be
approved and that an agreement be instituted with the Mission Prep School in.years 1 &
2 for the maintenance for the "M" on the hill and that better access-from pedestrians and
bicycles under .Highway 101 be-explored as part of the plan. Seconded by Commr.
Christianson.
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Christianson, Miller, Osborne, Boswell, and Caruso
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Loh
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 6 : 0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Director Whisenand gave an agend forecast of upcoming agenda items,
including cancellation of the January 26th m ting and a special start time on February
9th for a presentation with the ARC on Fo ased zoning.
There was some discussion from the ommission on the agenda and some upcoming
items.
5. Commission:
A. Planning Commission ccomplishments.
The Planning Commissio agreed to forward 11 items to the City Clerk with the addition
of a 12th item regard i g a workshop held on the Conservation and Open Space
Element.
ADJOURMENT:
With no furthe business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:30
p.m. to the ext regular meeting scheduled for February 9, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in
Council Chc ber.
Respe Ily submitted by
Iren ierce
Re ording Secretary
a -a
RESOLUTION NO. ATTACHMENT1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING THE
"CONSERVATION PLAN FOR CERRO SAN LUIS NATURAL RESERVE"
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and public use of open space lands acquired by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has acquired and manages eleven open space
areas totaling approximately 2,500 acres, including the 118 acre Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have the policies for management of City-owned
open space lands applied in an appropriate and consistent manner; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the
general public have commented upon the plan as it has moved through a Council-directed
approval process, and the plan reflects those comments.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo hereby:
1. Finds that the implementation of the Conservation Plan as presented to the City
Council this date, and as mitigated, will not have a negative impact on the
environment;
2. Adopts as City policy the "Conservation Plan for the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve"
as presented to the Council this date; and
3. Directs the City Administrative Officer to undertake all actions necessary and
appropriate to carry out this resolution.
On motion of Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT-
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2005.
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'"�2,*"aL// (-)
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk o athan P. Lowell,City Attorney
Page 1 of 1
I
Allen Settle-City Council Meeting Feb. 1,2005
From: "D. &E. Dollar" <ddollar@pacbell.net>
To: John Ewan <jewan@slocity.org>, Christine Mulholland <cmulholland@slocity.org>,Allen Settle <asettle@slocity.org>,
Dave Romero <dromero@slocity.org>, Paul Brown <pbrown@slocity.org>
Date: 1/31/2005 8:18 AM
Subject City Council Meeting Feb. 1,2005
CC: Neil Havlik<nhavlik@slocity.org>
City Council, RECEIVED
Please accept my comments for Cerro San Luis Nature Reserve Conservation FEB U 1 PCO j
Plan
SLO CITY CLERK
Our City has been doing a good job of getting a high quality open space
program going.There is still much to do, but progress is going well and
hopefully we can keep up the momentum. City staff is to be commended for
their progressive approach to open space issues.
Cerro San Luis Nature Reserve Conservation Plan is good and I ask you to
approve it. As you can imagine, I am not thrilled with the determination
of cultural significance of the "M" on Cerro San Luis, but I will defer
to the Cultural Heritage Committee findings on that.
Let's continue to add to our open space program and work to keep their
natural resources functioning well.
Sincerely,
Don Dollar RED FILE
M, TAGENDA
DAT 1ITEM #_&L
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300/Virus Database: 265.8.2 - Release Date: 1/28/2005
COUNCIL %CDD DIR
O
J ACAO —�`IN DIR
2 FIRE CHIEF
r3ATTORNEY ZPw DIR
CLERK/ORIG -2'POLICE CHF
❑ DEP HEADS -i!1'9EC DIR
Zr UTIL DIR
-i]'HR DIR
file:HC:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW IOOOO1.HTM 2/1/2005