HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2008, BUS. 4 - ADOPTION OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR JOHNSON RANCH OPEN SPACE council a� 6Y
j AgenaA Report
C ITY O F SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Administrative Officer
Prepared By: Neil Havhk, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR JOHNSON RANCH
OPEN SPACE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission:
1. Approve a resolution adopting the Conservation Plan for Johnson Ranch Open Space, as
amended; and
2. Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project.
DISCUSSION
Background: Johnson Ranch Open Space Area
In 2003 the City Council approved the document called "Conservation Guidelines for City-
Owned Open Space Lands" to provide consistent policy direction for the management and use of
city-owned open space lands. Since that time, City Natural Resources staff have been preparing
and implementing "Conservation Plans" for those lands. The Johnson Ranch Open Space
Conservation Plan is the fifth plan of this type to be prepared and submitted to the Council.
The adoption of the Conservation Plan for the Johnson Ranch Open Space will guide the
management and development of the area over the next five to seven years. Johnson Ranch is an
area of about 242 acres lying about one mile southwest of the City of San Luis Obispo. It has
agricultural lands adjoining it on the south, west, north, and east, and Highway 101 on the east
(Attachment 1 —Vicinity Map). It consists of the southern end of a ridge of serpentine rock
which extends northerly from the Johnson Ranch to the vicinity of Prefumo Creek, and contains
much of the City's open space acreage in the Irish Hills. It was a private ranch used mainly for
livestock grazing for many years, and prior to City acquisition had no public use.
The property consists mostly of grassland, with,some areas of oak woodland and chaparral. The
underlying rocks are mostly serpentine, which has allowed the persistence of many notable and
unusual plant species. A partly perennial, partly seasonal creek (known as Dry Creek) and pond
(which was once a small quarry, and is now known as Forbes Pond) are located on the property.
A wide array of animal species use the property by virtue of its relatively undisturbed character
Glkavlik/Councilagenda/Johnson Ranch CP adoption //
Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for Johnson Ranch Open Space
Page 2
and connection to surrounding ranch lands. There is a small acreage of wetland on the site in
several locations.
There are several ranch house buildings (a small house and several barns and storage buildings)
that are believed to have been built in the late 1800's or early 1900's. They are currently
maintained by City staff to ensure structural integrity, and to keep the ranch house in a decent;
safe and sanitary condition. The house currently is occupied under a rental agreement by the
City's Senior Park Ranger. The City also maintains another lease agreement for livestock grazing
on the Ranch.
Important Natural and Cultural Features
Johnson Ranch Open Space contains a number of sensitive or otherwise important natural
features, and several notable cultural features, including:
1. An open landscape of grassland, scattered "oak groves, and chaparral typical of much of
central California;
2. The Forbes Pond and portions of a partly perennial, partly seasonal coastal stream, known
as Dry Creek;
3. A population of the threatened South Central Coastal Steelhead Trout, Oncorhynchus
nzykiss, known to reside in Dry Creek;
4. Small but valuable wetlands; and
5. The historical value of the old quarry site (now a wildlife pond); the ranch buildings, and
the site of a former rural school (Bellevue School).
Management issues or concerns associated with Johnson Ranch:
The Conservation Plan process is designed to evaluate the natural and cultural resources of a City
open space, identify any legal or other matters affecting the property, identify opportunities,
problems, or challenges that exist on the property, and propose a course of action to address the
issues that are found to exist. In the case of the Johnson Ranch, three significant management
concerns or issues were found, and are discussed below.
The City acquired the Johnson Ranch in 2001 as part of the City Greenbelt, and ultimately to
serve as a publicly accessible open space-area. Since the property historically was not open to the
public, several management issues need to be addressed. The first and most important issue is
the determination of building a trail system that provides for enjoyable access as well as
environmental protection. A second concern involves a road on an existing easement providing
access for the adjacent property located to the west of Johnson Ranch. The road is a concern due
to its location and recent change of ownership on the adjacent property, known as the Miramonte
Ranch. The road bisects the creek and pond, and if the owners propose upgrading of the road; it
will require filling of portions of either the creek or pond. The road traverses the most important
part of the property from a wildlife habitat standpoint, given the roosting areas provided by oaks,
sycamores, willows, and other vegetation in that location, and the permanent water supply
G/HaWildcouncilagenda/Jolnuon Ranch CP adoption Z
Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for Johnson Ranch Open Space
Page 3
provided by Forbes Pond. This situation made the easement the most controversial issue
affecting development of the Conservation Plan..
A third condition involves the wetlands on the property. Livestock grazing on the property has
been conducted on a year-round basis, which has resulted in impacts to the wetlands of the
property, due to soil compaction and heaving grazing pressure on wetland vegetation.
The Conservation Plan addresses these and other significant issues by:
1. Identifying the amount and frequency of usage of the property to properly address the
impacts to the property and needs of the community.
2. Designing, installing and maintaining a functional trail system that allows for safe and
environmentally appropriate access to the property.
3. Working with the neighboring landowners and regulatory agencies to ultimately realign
the road out of the sensitive habitats it now traverses and limit its scope to those which do
not constitute overburdening of the easement.
4: Establishing a rotational grazing regime for the cattle which will be allowed to stay on the
property on a seasonal basis.
5. Installing fencing to create a "riparian pasture", which will normally not be grazed by
livestock but can be if necessary for fire hazard control or other special purposes.
6. Installing educational signage to inform visitors about the natural and.cultural resources
of the property.
Environmental Review
The goals of the proposed Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan are to protect the existing resources
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 for minor erosion
problems that would associated with the new trails if not properly installed; therefore a mitigated
negative declaration has been prepared for the project.
A future road realignment, if undertaken, would be by the easement users and will be subject to
separate environmental review at that time. It is significant to note that, during the Conservation
Plan adoption process, a meeting with representatives of the Miramonte Ranch was held (on
December 6, 2007), and at that meeting it was agreed that the City and Miramonte Ranch owners
would jointly apply for a grading permit from the County to permit the relocation of the roadway.
Staff felt that this was an important step that would lead to a more positive and clearly articulated
relationship between the parties.
In summary, the primary environmental impact of the project is the potential for increased
erosion and vegetation damage during installation of the new trail system. This will be mitigated
C/Havlikkouncilagenda/Johnson Ranch CP adoption U`
Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for Johnson Ranch Open Space
Page 4
by utilizing best management practices (BMPs), such as erosion control materials, and avoiding
excessively steep trail segments, in the installation process, and reseeding with locally occurring
species after construction.
ADVISORY BODY REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan process began in February 2007 with a public workshop
held at the Meadow Park Community Room. It was not well attended but several concerns and
desires of citizens were made, and these have been addressed in the proposed plan. The Planning
Commission (on November 14, 2007) and Parks and Recreation Commission (on December 5,
2007)reviewed the proposed Conservation Plan and both bodies have recommended that the City
Council adopt the Conservation Plan with minor modifications discussed at their respective
meetings (Attachments 4 and 5). The main items of controversy were the Miramonte easement
and the billboards on the property; these were discussed extensively at the two meetings and
consensus among Commissioners was achieved in both circumstances. Essentially,
Commissioners felt that the road easement diminished the values for which the property had been
acquired by the City and should be relocated if possible; also Commissioners felt strongly that
the billboards should be removed at the end of the lease term (2013) or as soon thereafter as
practical.
Community Development Department staff assisted in preparation of the environmental review
for the Plan and concurs in the appropriateness of the outlined activities and in the proposed
negative declaration of environmental impact. Parks and Recreation staff also participated in
Plan preparation and concur in the recommendations.
FISCAL IMPACT
Anticipating the adoption of the Conservation Plan in the current year, the City Council last June
included in the 2007-2009 Financial Plan an allocation of$75,000 to implement many of the
activities expected to be included in the Plan. In addition, certain activities (most notably
including the construction of the riparian pasture fence by the Miramonte Ranch owners) have
been undertaken at outside expense; this will significantly stretch the City funds already
allocated. In addition, the Dry Creek and Forbes Pond area appear to be very attractive as
potential mitigation sites for the Los Osos Valley Road interchange project; this may result in an
additional appropriation of funds to facilitate the restoration effort contemplated there. Thus staff
feels that the Johnson Ranch is in very good shape with regard to capital improvement funding.
The opening of the Johnson Ranch had been expected to create demand for at least one additional
part time Ranger. However, that is no longer certain, as the Ranger staff has grown in the time
since the purchase of the property and may be capable of accommodating public use at the
Johnson Ranch without an increase in Ranger staff specifically for this site. This matter will be
discussed further with the Council as part of the normal budget review and update processes in
2009.
G/Havlik/councilagenda/Johnson Ranch CP adoption
Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for.Johnson Ranch Open Space
Page 5
ALTERNATIVE
The Council could reject the Conservation Plan. This is not recommended, since the plan has
been reviewed by both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission in
public session, public testimony taken on the plan by both Commissions, and amendments
recommended to clarify the plan or to accommodate concerns raised by citizens. Both
Commissions supported the recommended Plan as amended by unanimous.vote..
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Copy of Johnson Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan
3. Initial Study
4. Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 2007
5. Minutes from Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of December 5; 2007
6. Comments and staff responses to comments received during the review process
7. Resolution to Adopt the Conservation Plan for the JROS.
G/HavUlcouncilagenda/Jolinson Ranch CP adoption
ATTACHMENT
Regional view of the Johnson Ranch Open Space.
P.
TN.
t
St L'A
Do
Do
Ispo
FFF
4:4
T
— W
Pa-
-rV
J
j
Johnson Ranch
Open Space
A-y-
j .r�f
jj I jr -k
tk
- 2. .
lv�
2-5
pp
A77ACHP)PEN ' 2
(VA'n5a . )"?,anck 0 em :I?acs
Praft
( > 6 i ✓J; n
O
� 9G
I
0
o
Natural Resources Protection Program
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
d San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Draft Johnson hanch Conservation Plan
ATTACHMENT 2
city of San tuts OBISPO
i
Natural Resources Protection Program
www.slocity.org/naturalresources
DRAFT
Conservation Plan
forthe
Johnson Punch Open Space
Neil Havlik, Ph.D.
Natural Resources Manager
805.781 .7211
Freddy Otte
City Biologist
805.781 .7511
•� ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Johnson lunch Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................3
5. Implementation Strategy .........13
1. Introduction ............................4
History 6. Fiscal Statement ......................15
Background
Access 7. Monitoring ................................15
2. Inventory..................................5 Appendix.A
Physical Features List of Figures ..................................17
Cultural/Historic Resources
Soils Figure 4 JROS Soil Types
Water Figure 5 JROS Habitat Map
Habitat Types Figure 6 JROS Land Use Map
Plants.and Wildlife Figure 7 JROS Photo Monitoring Points
Plants
Animals Appendix B
List of Tables ....................................24
3. Goals and Policies ................ 10
Public Feedback Table 1 List of sensitive plants identified
Resource Map within the JROS
Resource Protection Table 2 List of animal species identified
Resource Enhancement within the JROS
Development Mitigation
Appendix C
4. Conservation Plan .................11
4.1 Habitat Area Text of Miramonte (Avila) Ranch
4.2 Management Area/Trail Easement.....................................30
Corridor
4.3 Restoration Area Appendix D
4.4 Cultural/Historic Resources
Draft Conservation Plan Comments...34
3
-1 ATTACHMENT 2
- Draft Johnson t4anch Conservation Plan
Executive Summary enhancement of the Dry Creek
waterway and Forbes Pond area.
The Johnson Ranch Open Space
(JROS) is a 242 acre natural area How the Conservation Plan
located about 1.5 miles south of the City Addresses These Issues
of San Luis Obispo, on the west side of The balancing of public use and
US Highway 101. Elevations on the the preservation of sensitive habitats at
property range from 80 feet above sea JROS will be the primary focus of the
level at the southeasterly corner of the Conservation Plan. Main efforts will
property to 761 feet above sea level include:
atop the hill on the northern portion of • Developing a system of loop trails
the site. to permit visitors to enjoy different
parts of JROS and the views
Natural Features therefore;
JROS contains several natural • Controlling distribution and timing
habitat types and 8 sensitive and rare of use of the site by domestic
plant species. Serpentine bunchgrass livestock;
and rock outcrops, Encouraging or requiring the
annual : x� j relocation
grasslands, oak
.:�"' `. -� "' ���,`-> of the
woodland, `�_ y z easement
chaparral, wetland away from
seeps and both t5 Dry Creek
ephemeral and r " M; '' and Forbes
Pond;
seasonal Y; '§�
drainages are Discouragi
found on the ng access
property. to the
Forbes
Management Pond area
Issues/ by trail
Concerns `" location,
Associated with signage,
JROS and fencing;
There are several management • Restoration of the riparian
issues that need to be addressed by the corridor of Dry Creek, and
JROS Conservation Plan. These enhancement of Forbes Pond
include: proper location and level of and adjacentseasonal wetlands;
public access for recreation, issues Maintaining the existing ranch
associated with the access easement buildings and grounds; and
crossing a portion of the property, Providing for fire protection for
protection and enhancement of sensitive the ranch complex and
species and habitats located on the neighboring properties.
property, management of non-native Photo-monitoring points have been
vegetation, and restoration and established to ensure the resources are
protected and monitor change over time.
4 y—/D
ATTACHMENT 1
CDraft Johnson ranch Conservation Plan
1. Introduction current access road to the Johnson
Ranch farm house. That knoll is largely
1.1 History gone today, having been removed as
part of the construction of Highway 101.
The property commonly known as the It is not certain when the school itself
Johnson Ranch Open Space (JROS) is was removed, but it was consolidated
a 242 acre ranch that was in the with the neighboring Santa Fe School to
ownership of a local family for 100 the south, which shows on USGS maps
years, being purchased in 1901 by Mark in 1952 as the Bellevue Santa Fe
Johnson from the Sinsheimer family. School.
The property included a small farm or
ranch house, other outbuildings, In 2000, members of the Johnson family
vegetable garden, and some approached the City of San Luis Obispo
landscaping including fruit trees and regarding their interest in selling the
several other larger trees including property for conservation purposes. An
eucalyptus and at least one coast option agreement was reached and the
redwood. Many of these buildings City successfully raised the $1.6 million
remain today. The property was a small purchase price. The property was
dairy operation for some years, but formally transferred from the family to
eventually this gave way to a beef cattle the City in December 2001. Since that
raising operation. For a short time in the time the site has been held in a land
early twentieth century a small rock bank status, pending the preparation of
quarry, known as the Dougherty Quarry, a Conservation Plan to guide its use and
operated on a portion of the property development.
along Dry Creek, and this quarry was
accessed by a spur line from the narrow Given the scale and nature of historical
gauge Pacific Coast Railway, which uses at JROS, an archeological
connected Port Harford (now called Port inventory has not been undertaken, as it
San Luis) with the City of San Luis was believed that the effect of historical
Obispo from about 1876 to 1938. The uses would likely have removed traces
property fronted on the railroad and the of prehistoric uses in those areas.
San Luis Obispo-Avila County Road
until the establishment of freeway 1.2 Background
standards on Highway 101 in that
location. At that time (about 1950). the As noted above, the Johnson Ranch
county road became South Higuera had historically been a working ranch
Street and the property accessed this but since the City took ownership,
street and its southerly continuation, nothing significant has changed. There
Ontario Road, at a point on the southern is an active cattle lease on the property
boundary of the property. That is the with limited public access. The
reason for the long driveway paralleling balancing of a more open public access
the highway in this location. with resource protection is the major
focus of this conservation plan.
At one time a rural school, known
originally as the Belle View School, was A biological inventory of the property
located on the knoll just east of the was completed in the summer of 2007
5 y-//
- ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Johnson t4anch Conservation Plan
and the results are summarized in 2.2 Cultural/Historic Resources
Appendix B. Table 1 contains plant
species encountered and Table 2 A structural and cultural assessment of
contains animal species encountered. A the buildings at the Johnson Ranch was
search of the California Natural Diversity completed in 2002 by Robert Vessely.
Database(CNDDB) sponsored by the There were five sheds, two barns, and
California Department of Fish and Game one house still remaining on the
(CDFG) revealed 1 sensitive species to property. A second house was removed
have been reported on the property. due to poor structural condition. This
This is not surprising since this property collection and the general use of the
was in private holdings for so long and property could have lead to the name of
the City of San Luis Obispo has not a "rural farmstead". The ranch house
conducted many in-depth surreys since was built in the late 19th or early 20th
the acquisition in 2001. A biological century and is still leased as a residence
survey was completed for the property by the City. This use is to preserve the
and several others were identified and historic quality of the ranch and prevent
as occurrences are documented, they damage of the buildings. The "Old" and
will be submitted to the CDFG for "New" Barns were built around 1900 and
inclusion in the CNDDB. are still used for typical "barn" functions
such as hay storage and. housing of
1.3 Access livestock. There are five sheds on the
property ranging in use from a garage to
Currently, JROS is accessed from the water-tank storage, to a dairy
public road system at the intersection of processing shed. The water tank shed
South Higuera Street and Ontario Road, burned down during the freeze of early
about 1.5 miles south of the City of San 2007 due to a water pump that seized
Luis Obispo. One partially paved road and caught fire. The other sheds still
accesses the farmhouse that has been remain on the property. There is an
located on this property for over 100 ongoing cattle lease on the property and
years and which is still used as a this retains the historic cultural feel of
residence; another provides legal the property even as public land.
access to a neighboring property to the
west. This access is discussed in more 2.3 Legal Agreements
detail in Section 2.3 below.
One important legal agreement has a
2. Inventory significant bearing on the Johnson
Ranch: this is an easement dated 1883
2.1 Physical features which permits vehicular access from
Ontario Road across the Johnson
Area—242 acres Ranch to the Miramonte (or Avila)
Miles of roads — 1.3 miles Ranch to the west. At the time of its
Miles of waterway— 0.87 miles creation this easement allowed for three
Access points —The access to JROS property owners to cross the Johnson
will be at the junction of South Higuera Ranch to access their respective
Street and Ontario Road, about 1.5 properties. (The three ownerships have
miles south of San Luis Obispo.
6 ,/-/a-
ATTACH EMT
Draft Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan
Figures 1. Regional view of JROS.
/'y,���.,�\ �y.ice H^ y�/ .>'�'� d 16; w� J • � ,+,'� !\ 1M`'�° A'�•. \ }3 Y � 'ova I r '
l a�.ti �Y.+ a.� ,•''�7���'a r� J J✓ 7i r7 S v a / �Y` ,i 11 1 l/ � '� ..,`„a�� pa\��r �y � a� 1'4}'7<2R''� ,�(I � , `�
�``\/�`y-'i'x11+�`a`�Y" �, .fG {y('�7,J .L �r {i I I� '\��-.J}J,,��„ lr �\`'��a J)"�4V r` ,s / � .1�.�"'�tea(i'��.) 4�'' _'I✓'n
�':�.o.,., a ()1 �. �„+p if I l r 'ti - ... » \'^. r `�y q�\�, '`�:.,4a-( -"4^,J^S� r- 'ri♦ Y y�a"✓� '*4y
'.: 'r✓ 5 �rrL.{{'rr t"v7 r Sy„��*.4�! \ ,�ti,i r�a ��"'r�m�w:<, Za lllla�i�� l 1 ro: t\� �
'N4 a I •. 7l i ,U ,��1�'l✓-'��) h'r�J' i((�..r.r � �A _"�.'Sj'�j1C t' i(I Jt'��l:rt J-v1\ji 9a"�'I r'1
-
"', � J� `i / H ,..t,F I. I z , 1 �` Ufa_ ���`. .. ✓ ` -+.-
> yIlgtt lA \ r( L1 ya \.l- r- I~Y :7t"°7, ;C8• ,his ri
'.�' I ¢a.- t a ! � y/t• wi � (.. ._� \A,T-L t S/ tj. �{.:wy'k""'\�,�ty G /
Downtown San Luis Obispo \
[ L, r ItI...P
4K,
t
o!S ,� J r /,t \ r'`�i\1.,��4F.-�-,,,J���,•wi� / � 7' `:,..� � ✓f�r h y , � �a
;_�^ c--- Al l e• :\ r i .. �!( Jr/F�� 1J i. .r • •4 ,•r(j`'+t. ifff7Zr.��. ) /......�'r
� y t\y i'` � �' i I' `V\ Ix�, „4 / a, ,Py1�:f .L�af"�i• / '` '1 }
_ Com_ �{ t r � ,: �1 � a� � �_ nl1eGY '. ,y� u �"..I"„i✓ ��9y I..ra.—
`�
r' �`1. If � 'a'+'(+ �,'� ✓I'y ,��'.�1. --y r U' •�i'C.:fay .� .
✓� �y x,r• •'�'"C 'av�Y. ' 'St1M1 �dV +�J, r � � A� _ w'\ s}i ' rt. l a �,r
kk` r` y r 3 1
r/--L.o- � t, ti \ `� !,y u� ,, J/ .�r41 �! \s \ �1\'�.!.t. i \\.\I]I �'�y+:� �
4n �'.tr. �t \:'� ",•} - P /lit :.,r i /,!.�, �• L II
e� -,...4
^s '`..\J , ) \tea. }3t ('< i �'v \S �'� a �^��\y ■}.QY� � (` � Jrbl 1\
A •,•�J ,�1,.,,,� '\ 1"Y,\ .r£ r(� I J�N�p, Y Ir n .✓ 1.
-' .�.-+^.,•'Y?>r t �'. > >�+ r'y. ''{' I n�•.+L`. t.H r 5 I 1 a`.... 'k
_'r t �. ( M1t�.\ if•r��.rdZ'�t.T� r`��+m r �Wtl�-.-'+-�- � JfT� �;. .�...iw _
i7'
.% ,•M1� ''�. �l i r ""1'
_ I ..d / fid\' • is �(J 11/` m' },, _�tla¢ � �[�
j
.^� 5 7 , �a� l \r ll, �/F�'y 1 '��� '� _ ,l,. Ai4 •+.!�I �- ` , / F
Johnson Ranch
Open Space s
.r( F t'n 7a/sr , '•" taf"" r `J'� y,r5 1 .... r �-. j
• I r(Q yrD� ' d]� J ,�1a t� 51�' � V (�.� � � uG`> �"^t \ 1
—'t�. 4 � a 9� (Z � u.:C. /, ` '_ � ...•.++moi 1 . �� � 'r � a
,""'��'�y'�t�.�...��.'�+.'-?, a� .,1 s� .v. if I'll � l �^'yP °'l.^..�1'j1r r ,'a�Ct,_� C."'•:J�' ¢r r � ^t ,
s\d �fil+4 �s aA ya,\ r r'"ta 1 5� aw.`1 J; is\�,rJ� i •- , A � -
^�1.L 1 [ski �fva1 1-'r 1•+"'y,
"`a y�8 t r^.L' r f Jim\. li �. a , 1 r 1 trL.. •'
\ !l4 L'; sJ 1� "4 �'S.`•r/ y"`,t'
{,�,, , /�Irarl:fdlff�,t,i�l.,•,'"1�7�L^`�`�'`y"`;r-s Fc,�l�'r c" \�+'_�1f�a,� >�) � `� .: t _}I� ; j ;�, � �
J `�, ''��`:ti,���r^'i.��j /J�)�yy� 4 ( 4"'`"',-: J.'�s.v<.� J���(`�i i�!}�\i 4 I r f / 1 '•��'ktr �(` may, �'-I.,..e-'
y-%3
A YACHM'IENT 2
Draft Johnson', finch Conservation Plan
Figure 2. Topographic view of JROS.
<:+v '< `^^1.•. \\+.+ if I
IP
""filkk
l. �_ � \ ��\�;.f`"•.,/�� .
l 1"+', ���� tC �•
+'v�}� •� 4G8 `tel. "�.��.••� � ����.
\l ,�5 ��•--.t'i'p`. � � �
` .r 1;{')�`..' �J11�' r• ^�t- Figure 3. Aerial view of JROS with property line.
K•`
�dr e L ��. � 1 1 � ♦`
1C01
VVI
V T' +�TY F. ,,},rw. lam. .: •'^N
. r
`rte • �
s y-iy
I
Draft Johnson ranch Conservation Plan
since merged into one.) The easement (even for livestock grazing) and
goes along the edge of Dry Creek a presenting various engineering
distance of approximately 0.75 miles to problems. The type's capability class is
the western boundary of the Johnson Vile, meaning it is unsuitable for crops
Ranch. In one location it occupies the and characterized by high erosion
bed of the former Dougherty Spur of the hazard.
Pacific Coast Railroad, which lay
between the creek and a small quarry A soil map is attached as Figure 4 in
that operated in the early 1900's. This Appendix A.
quarry is now an attractive pond, and
the presence of the roadway has a 2.5 Water
deleterious effect on the pond, and the
presence of the pond and creek Water resources on JROS are limited.
constrain the ability to undertake The primary water source is Dry Creek,
widening or other improvements to the a small stream which enters JROS from
roadway. In 2005, new owners took the adjacent Miramonte. Ranch on the
control of the Avila Ranch and they are west, and flows in a southeasterly
desirous of undertaking such widening direction for about 0.75 mile to the
and possibly increasing the level of use easterly boundary, where the stream
of the road. It remains to be seen then flows through four box culverts
whether such use is allowed under the before reaching San Luis Obispo Creek.
terms of the easement, and whether Dry Creek appears to actually be a
widening of the road will be permitted by perennial stream in a portion of JROS,
regulatory agencies such as the but only seasonal further downstream.
California Department of Fish and Game The Dougherty Quarry, which operated
or the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. along Dry Creek for a short time in the
The full text of the easement is included early twentieth century, is now an
in Appendix D. attractive pond, which is filled
seasonally from flows of Dry Creek.
There are also two billboards on the During the summer and fall, the level of
property which were installed when the the pond may drop significantly. The
property was still in private ownership. pond has been named Forbes Pond by
The leases on these billboards run until the City Council, in honor of Bert and
2013, at which time it is expected that Candice Forbes, who made a major
the leases will not be renewed. cash contribution to the City of San Luis
Obispo in 2001 to secure the purchase
2.4 Soils opportunity for JROS.
According to the Natural Resource Several small springs and seeps occur
Conservation Service's Soil Survey of to the northwest of the former Johnson
San Luis Obispo County, California, family home on the property, and these
Coastal Part (1984), about one-half of water sources provide very limited flow
JROS consists of the Obispo-rock to a small unnamed stream in that area.
outcrop complex. This soil type is best
suited to wildlife habitat and watershed,
having very limited agricultural value
9 y-�s
ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan
2.6 Habitat Types
• Milkweed (Asclepias spp.)
The wildlife survey for the JROS • Mustard (Brassica spp.)
identified five habitat areas on the • Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon)
property. They included grassland, • Soft chess (Bromus mollis)
coastal scrub, mixed broadleaf • Needlegrass (Nasella spp.)
woodland, riparian woodland, and non- . Lupine (Lupines densiflorus)
native eucalyptus woodland habitats.
Figure 5 in Appendix A identifies the 2.6.3 Coastal Scrub
locations of each habitat type.
There is a coastal scrub habitat located
2.6.1 Mixed Broadleaf on the south east portion of the
Woodland serpentine ridge that bisects the JROS
property. The dominant species within
Mixed broadleaf woodland covers this community were low growing trees
approximately 21 acres and is found on and shrubs. Spineflowers, Chorizanthe
the northern slope of the unnamed peak spp., are rare plant species with a List 4
and in several gullies that run through determination and are found in rocky
the property. Large toyon trees, a few areas in serpentine sites within the
oak trees, and several coastal scrub coastal scrub habitat. Other plant
species comprise this habitat. Here is a species noted within coastal scrub
list of common species encountered: habitat during the surveys include:
• Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) • Black sage (Salvia mellifera)
*California bay-laurel (Umbellulana • Chamise (Adenostoma
californica) fasciculatum)
Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) • Toyon (Heteromeles
• Poison oak (Toxicodendron arbutifolia)
diversilobum) • Mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus
•Coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica) betuloides)
• Coast live oak (Quercus
2.6.2 Annual Grassland agrifolia)
• Deerweed (Lotus junceus)
Annual grassland habitat is found • Poison oak (Toxicodendron
covering a significant portion of the diversilobum)
JROS property. With 153 acres covered, • Bush monkeyflower (Mimulus
it is the predominant habitat type on the aurantiacus)
property. These habitat types are • Brewer's spineflower (Chorizanthe
dominated by non-native Mediterranean brewen)
annuals following farming or grazing; • Palmer's spineflower (Chorizanthe
however, the JROS property still palmen)
includes a significant cover of native
bunch grasses, particularly needlegrass 2.6.4 Riparian Woodland
(Nasella spp.). Plant species commonly
encountered in grassland habitat on the As the drainage known as Dry Creek
site include: crosses the property, and there is a
10 •y"14�0
ATTAC H fir#ENT 22
Draft Johnson kanch Conservation Plan
riparian corridor which has been on the property. Fifty four species of
impacted by the cattle operation. Typical birds have been recorded on the
species associated with riparian property; fifteen species of mammals,
systems are present but once riparian eight reptile and amphibian species, and
fencing is installed, the development will a large palette of plant species are
dramatically improve which will improve located on the 242 acre property.
conditions for Steelhead trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss, which inhabit the 2.7.1 Plants
creek. A small band of riparian habitat
surrounds Forbes Pond as well. Typical A list of sensitive plant species found on
riparian species along the corridor are: the property is provided in Table 1
(Appendix B). The botanical survey was
• Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) completed in the summer which is not
•Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) the optimal time for recording presence.
• Hummingbird sage (Salvia spthacea) More detailed floristic survey work will
• Sedge (Carex spp.) be ongoing.
2.6.5 Eucalyptus Woodland 2.7.2 Animals
The eucalyptus woodland area is A list of encountered animal species is
around the living area. It may have been provided in Table 2 (Appendix B).
planted by the founders as these are
non-native trees but have become a
significant part of the landscape of the 3. Goals and Policies
property. There is the potential for these
trees to be used by monarch butterflies The "Conservation Guidelines for Open
to overwintering. More study will be Space Lands of the City of San Luis
completed as part of this conservation Obispo"describes City-adopted
plan to determine the inhabitants of this management guidelines and policies
area. This is the smallest habitat area of which are outlined in the City's
the five identified occupying only 3 acres "Conservation and Open Space
of the property. Due to the allelopathic Element'.
properties of the leaves and bark, the
understory is quite bare. Other species Management of JROS will be
are prevented from becoming undertaken by the City with the following
established under the eucalyptus trees. goals:
This limits the amount of diversity in 3.1 To conserve, enhance, and
cover and available habitat for other restore natural plant communities; to
animals and is considered.undesirable. protect sensitive endangered plant
species and their habitats; and to
2.7 Plants and Wildlife maintain biodiversity of native plants
and animals.
Due to the fact that the Johnson Ranch 3.2 To provide the public with a
is disconnected from the urban safe and pleasing natural environment
environment, there is a significant in which to pursue recreational activities,
amount of wildlife that can be observed while maintaining the integrity of the
11 y—�,
Draft Johnson Hanch Conservation Plan
resources and minimizing the impacts Restorative (12 acres or 5%); and
on the wildlife and habitats present in Historic/Cultural (5 acres or 2%).
the Reserve.
3.3 To preserve and restore 4.2.1 Habitat Area
creeks, wetlands and ephemeral seeps
or springs to a natural state, and provide The area designated as habitat is
suitable habitat for all native aquatic and essentially the brushland in or
riparian species. To minimize the little used by livestock. It covers 91
impacts of harmful activities, such as the acres or about 38% of the property. No
release of pollutants, while maintaining trail construction or other land
the drainage systems as a means of modifications are envisioned in this
conveying storm water into and within area.
urban areas.
3.4 To protect and preserve 4.2.2 Management Area/Trail
native plant and animal species and Corridor
enhance their habitats, in order to
maintain viable wildlife populations The Management Area/Trail Corridor is
within balanced ecosystems. designated because it is primarily open
grassland or oak woodland readily
Public Comment and Input accessible to grazing livestock. Under
This conservation plan seeks to the policies of the Conservation
accommodate the wishes and desires of Guidelines, such areas are given this
the general public while addressing the designation. At JROS this unit covers
City's goals in the Open Space Element. approximately 134 acres or 55% of the
A public meeting was held in April 2007 property. It is anticipated that livestock
as well as meetings with other groups grazing will continue in these areas;
for input on the conservation plan, and however, the timing of grazing use will
comments received during the be modified to become seasonal,
review/approval process will be placed designed generally to avoid the winter
into Appendix D. months and to terminate in the summer
or early fall when cover has been
4. Conservation Plan reduced to an appropriate level.
4.1 Naming The easement accessing the
neighboring property and the roadway
The name Johnson Ranch Open Space accessing the farmhouse complex are
was agreed to by the City Council as also designated as management areas.
part of the purchase agreement with the
Johnson family. 4.2.3 Restorative Area
4.2 Land Designations The length of Dry Creek, the Forbes
Pond area, and a small wetland area
Four land designations are identified for near the farmhouse (referred to as
the JROS. These include Habitat (91 Poison Oak Spring") are identified as
acres or 38%), Management/Trail restorative areas in the Conservation
Corridor (134 acres or 55%); Plan. These areas total about 12 acres
12
f la�i f. ENT 2
Draft Johnson Hanch Conservation Plan
or 5% of the property. The intent of this system and interpretive signage can be
designation is to enhance the riparian designed in such a way to educate the
corridor of Dry Creek, and the wetlands users on the property and also keep
at Forbes Pond and Poison Oak Spring, these resources protected and allow
all of which are currently impacted by them to flourish. With future
grazing livestock. Once their restoration development still in the future for
has been completed, these areas will be properties on the southern portion of
redesignated as habitat areas. JROS, the resource map will be updated
as new property or trails are added to
It is also a goal of the Conservation Plan the system in place now.
to relocate the easement accessing the
neighboring property outside of the Resource management and
creek corridor. This may take some protection
time, but is expected to occur as a part
of requested upgrading of the access by There are several natural seeps present
the neighboring landowners. on JROS property that could be
rehabilitated once cattle are excluded.
4.2.4 Cultural/Historic Area The cattle use these areas for water and
forage, sometimes damaging vegetation
The farmhouse complex, covering 5 as they do so. Riparian fencing has
acres or 2% of the property is been proposed for the property which
designated as a cultural/historic area. will allow for the riparian corridor to be
For the life of the Conservation Plan (5- restored. Evidence that there would be a
7 years) no change in the use of the quick establishment of vegetation is
complex is anticipated. Activities present all along the creek. Additional
designed to prevent or slow down gates are proposed to allow cattle to
deterioration of the buildings will access the southern portion of the
continue to be undertaken, as will property for grassland management.
maintenance or restoration activities, as This is why that area will stay in
time and resources for such efforts are management and not be habitat.
available. Another consideration is that a trail is
proposed to run along the southern
Signage denoting the former site of the property line and ultimately link up with
Bellevue School and site of the a loop system from the northern portion.
Dougherty Quarry will be installed; Additional plantings are proposed for the
however no further efforts beyond such property from mitigation work on another
signage are proposed. City project. These plantings will be
monitored for 5 years according to the
Resource Map mitigation plan to ensure their
establishment and continued growth.
The Natural Resources Program and
the City's GIS Department staff will be Resource Enhancement
building a concise detailed map of the
distribution of sensitive plants and . The JROS has been a working ranch to
animals located on the property. Once date and the cattle lease will continue to
these areas are identified, the final trail be allowed. Two major opportunities are
13 J_�/
i y
U$M lS.N
Draft Johnson kanch Conservation Plan
present for enhancing the resources on easier. There is the potential for some
the property. Dry Creek is a partly enhancement work to expand the size of
perennial, partly seasonal creek that the pond/wetland area on the property
runs through the property and does with some,minor grading. An expanded
contain steelhead trout. A riparian marsh planting area could be easily
fencing project will exclude the cattle created, would be free from cattle
from the creek channel and allow the intrusion, and greatly expand the
natural plant community to re-generate. riparian woodland. Local agency permits
It is expected that within a short amount will be researched to determine what is
of time the riparian corridor will undergo required for this project.
significant regeneration. Some
augmentation using native riparian Mitigation
species will be undertaken to speed this
process. JROS has significant potential as a
mitigation site since it is already
The second opportunity is to seek to protected and is somewhat removed
expand the occurrence of oaks on the from the urban environment. The fact of
site. Both coast live oak (Quercus this remoteness may limit the number of
agrifolia) and valley oak (Quercus users of the property which would add to
lobata) are present on the property, and the natural preserved setting.
their reproduction has likely suffered
from many years of continuous livestock 5. Implementation
grazing. Indeed, there are no seedling
valley oaks on the property at all. A The priority and order in which these
program will be initiated to establish tasks shall be implemented is detailed
young oaks of both species and provide below. Each task has been designated
protection for them when young to to staff from the City's Natural
provide for a new generation of trees on Resources Program (NR), Parks and
the property. This effort will presumably Recreation Department (PR) or other
benefit from the controls proposed on City staff as specified.
the grazing program: however,
additional protections such as tubing, Ongoing Tasks
gopher protection, and some
supplemental watering will be needed General maintenance activities in
for three to five years as these plants accordance with the adopted policies
are established. described in "Conservation Guidelines
for Open Space Lands of the City of San
As Forbes Pond fills during winter storm Luis Obispd' shall be implemented on a
events and ultimately begins spilling, regularor 'as needed' basis throughout
there is a small finger of water that runs the 5-7 years covered by this
across the field and ties back into Dry Conservation Plan (NR/PR).
Creek. The City is proposing
realignment of the access road to Specific Tasks
reduce the impacts to the creek and Years 1-2
pond area and also make passage to • Construct a new dedicated
the adjoining properties safer and loop trail system and trailhead
14 y_��
— va*—
Draft Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan
to support appropriate natural propagation through time and
recreational uses. removal of small "islands" of non-native
• Install educational and grasses and shrubs and replacement
informational signage at the with native vegetation. Develop ongoing
JROS trailhead. monitoring programs to ensure sensitive
• Complete archaeological areas and restoration areas are
survey of the property to protected. All these actions, goals and
determine existence of recommendations will be achieved as
prehistoric cultural resources. staff and resources are available.
• Install riparian fencing to limit
impact of cattle in the Dry Wildfire Preparedness Plan
Creek and Poison Oak Spring
areas. Due to the fact that the JROS iis outside
• Install mitigation plantings of the developed area of the City, if
along Dry Creek. wildfire is to break out, the most
• Begin oak planting program. attention would be to protecting the
buildings on the property. Approximately
Years 3-4 60% of the property is grassland and is
• Continue activities outlined grazed which limits the fuel available for
above to completion. fire, but there is chaparral located at the
• Monitor new trail alignment to top of the ridge and a grove of
ensure resource protection eucalyptus trees is located adjacent to
and adequate utilization. the buildings. An active fire hazard
• Monitor mitigation plantings to abatement program is underway around
ensure success criteria are the buildings and forest litter from the
met. eucalyptus trees is periodically removed
to reduce the fuel loading in the area.
Years 5-6 Mechanical control of fires within the
Continue activities outlined chaparral areas (i.e., Habitat Area)
• above to completion. would not be undertaken, due to the
steepness and relatively small size of
Addressing the Issues the area. Rangeland fires can be easily
contained on the borders of the
A functioning loop trail system will be chaparral.
developed that allows for public access Livestock Grazing
but also discourages or restricts access
to sensitive or restoration areas. Work Livestock grazing is currently permitted
will be done on the access roads on the at JROS, and this program is proposed
property to reduce their impact on to continue. This is currently a month to
erosion. Development of interpretive month lease and at this time the cattle
signs to educate visitors about the have access to the entire property. An
resources and values of JROS will be old pasture fence will be rehabilitated to
installed. Identification of the locations of create two pastures, and a new fence
the sensitive plant and animal species constructed to prevent livestock from
on the property partnered with accessing the riparian corridor. A third
enhancement actions to encourage
15 7
7A—e� to TH
�a— 9 F p�`� ']
C
Draft Johnson kanch Conservation Plan
pasture will be established in the the current photo-points. These sites will
triangular area south of Dry Creek. be visited at least biannually and
Water troughs will be installed as photographs taken from the same
necessary to provide water for livestock perspective. This will give a temporal
and wildlife. The general season of use record of the status of the resources
for livestock will be from on or about present at the JROS over time. Should
March 1 to November 1 of the year, examination of subsequent photographs
adjusted as necessary due to water suggest that the status of the resource
supply and forage conditions. is being negatively impacted (i.e.
Vegetation management objectives for exceeding limits of acceptable change)
JROS will be to control the amount of by visitor activity or management
residual dry matter (RDM) at the end of decisions, permitted uses and
the growing season to approximately management strategy will be re-
1,200 - 1,400 pounds per acre. evaluated.
Numbers of livestock will be based upon
recommendations from Natural Photo-point 1: This location is from the
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) southern ridge on the property looking
Soil Survey data for the area. east and north to determine the effect of
the southern pasture and the restorative
zone.
6. Fiscal Statement
Photo-point 2: This photo-point was
Adoption of the conservation plan for the established to monitor the western fence
JROS will lead to implementation of the line and compare this portion of the
Capital Improvement Funds approved pasture and may ultimately show the
for the property by the City Council in effect from the start of a loop trail
June 2007. Restoration actions like system.
educational signage, riparian fencing,
restoration of the creek corridor and Photo-point 3: The view from this
Forbes Pond and installation of an location will provide baseline pictures to
integrated trail network are ready to go. record the potential road re-alignment
Other infrastructure such as a parking and expansion of the pond into new
area and directional signage are also marsh/wetland area.
planned.
Photo-point 4: This location is looking
7. Monitoring upstream from the road and will likely be
the area where cattle will be allowed to
A series of eight photo-points have been cross the creek to access the southern
established at the JROS which include pasture.
areas of degraded habitat, grasslands,
restoration sites, proposed trail locations Photo-point 5: The creek downstream
and existing erosion gullies. Figure 7 from the pond has historically been a
details where these monitoring points trail for cattle but with the new fencing,
are located. New photos will be taken of this location will be monitored to record
improvements that are completed on the the riparian restoration.
property if they are not evident in any of
AT eAamHIM,!, NT
Draft Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan
Photo-point 6: This location is another
view of Dry Creek downstream of the
pond which has been impacted by the
presence of cattle and will provide
baseline photos for future riparian
growth and enhancement opportunities.
Photo-point 7: This photo-point is
looking upstream from where Dry Creek
leaves the property from the access
road that serves the ranch buildings.
This location is a prime candidate for
enhancement projects.
Photo-point 8: This location is to record
the ranch buildings and the northern
pastures and also the restoration
potential from fencing off the small un-
named drainage that flows through the
ranch house area.
.14 2
Draft Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan
Appendix A
Draft Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan
Figure 4. Soil map of JROS.
Soil Map-Son Luis Obispo County,Calltomla,Coastal Part
(Johnson Ranch Open Space)
700990 70100To loo 709000 709Eoo rt 71 TO
. t
cr
IL
V1,C�Z>yam,
��T r ♦� .,,,,K I �' 'i4'
�4.
� �•_
1 �..
t A\r Ap
r
l r* 61
g
I'
} Lin_ ♦ �� � ' r5 C - 9
� b
o 7006T 709100 709900 709900 -,1060 71
N o 150 300 roo 1O0
A o we ileo zmo z000
LWA Neutral ResWRes Web Soil Survey 20 9252007
2n Conmrvation Service National Cooperative Sol]Survey Pape i of 3
19
7-mss
kip 226£\T 2
Draft Johnson Ranch Cne?aro Plan
§ �!/
ƒ k \ | °!
!
\ �k `
. . |�! ! § ' ! ` ` Ei
U.
; Z-
# !}; . Ia\
! `_ E
U
� �«�! !■! ;! !!! ! k �l, .
\ { f | \ fk \ $f] k | k ) i| \ k \/ kk .
/ § e - , lEy \ = 70 \ g � 2 \7Q
ƒ . .
. � . .
CL
. � � | { • |
. ! a ® ® - • - ! ! � !
. | Efg ^ * - x • , < 4NeebL . �
|)
20 ���
VT
Draft Johnson Branch Conservation Plan
I
Soil Map-San Luis Obispo County,Cafdomla.Coastal Pan Johnson Reach,Open Space
j I
Map Unit Legend
Sao Wht Obispo County,Ca6totnia,Coastal Pmt(CA684) 1
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name A.in AOI _ Petaerd of AOI !
.131 Diablo and Me clays,15 to 311 153.61 35.6%
Percent slopes j
132 Diablo and Cibo days,30 to50 73.0 17.0%
ce
! pernt slopes
144 Gazos•Lodo day loom.30 to 67.1 15.6%
50 percent slopes
148 Lod*clay loam,15 to 30 54.3 12.7%
percent sbPo c ............
._
149Lodo clay loom 30 to 50 12.1 2.8%
porrnm elopes
! 164 Loa Ows-Diablo complas:15 be 1.7 0.4% i
30 percent slopes
169 Monmoi sandy day loom, 2.3
y ooce_abrwly flooded l
178 Nocbnlonto sihy day loam,30lo.1 0.9 01%
50 permre slopes
183 Obispo-Rock outcrop dompbz, 469 10.9%
115 to 75 0 cunt slopes
j197 Solitus airy doy loam,0 to 2. 17.2 4.0%
I
percent slopes
jI Totals for Area of Intorost(AOO �. 429.01 1009%
i
I I
i
I
I
i
i
i
Natural Resources Web Sail Survay 2.0 9252007
ConaervHbn.Service .Nadonal CooporalNe Soil Survey Papa 3of3
21 �2�
• ( Off �L w a""Ell ZENI 2
Draft Johnson rianch Conservation Plan
Figure 5. Vegetation habitat areas of JROS.
r, �7-1 }'
(774: Vegetation Communities
Grassland
Coastal Scrub
t ,
Mixed Broadleaf Woodland
t Riparian
Eucalyptus Woodland
Roads
1 �
y
C �
� r I
0 500 1,000 r
Feet
22 y-z�
G/, •`7•av i,e L'tf�
'te `d lic6J_m.Ca
Draft Johnson rianch Conservation Plan
Figure 6. Landuse Map of JROS.
Johnson Ranch Landuse Map f�
y = = e Creeks
Johnson Ranch Boundary
3. Ee V — Existing Road
�1
.S o Proposed Road Alignment
Management Zone
- Q Cultural/Historical Zone
��zJn Habitat Zone
(4.,
Restorative Zone /
7, J
t.
4
6
8'
4o�a,peo�� S;
L
I.
E �G,.o140
t,�ry 40 G IAV.
J
mo -
of a,1ni LuIS OLiISP4 z j
0 125250 500 750 1,000
Feet
23
Draft Johnson ranch Conservation Plan
Figure 7. Aerial view with photo-monitoring points identified.
REY
Z
N,
5P
71-Nip V M
th,
44
40
n2
14
'
24 Z/-3
1
Draft Johnson rranch Conservation Plan
Appendix B
25
I
Draft Johnson rlanch Conservation Plan
Table 1. Sensitive plant species encountered on JROS*.
Common Name Grassland Coastal Scrub Mixed Broadleaf Riparian
Scientific Name _ Woodland
Palmer's spineflower
Chorizanthe palmeri
Brewer's spineflower
Chorizanthe breweri
* - Plant surveys were not conducted during the appropriate blooming times for most
sensitive plant species. Updated information will be added to this plan as new species
are encountered.
Table 2. Animal species encountered on JROS.
Common Name Grassland Coastal Scrub Mixed Broadleaf Riparian
Scientific Name Woodland.
Pacific-slope flycatcher
Em idonax di cilis
Brewer's blackbird
Eu ha us cyanocephalus
American kestrel
Falco s arverius
American coot
Fulica americana
Common yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas
Barn swallow
Hirundo rustica
Dark-eyedjunco
Junco h emalis
Acorn woodpecker
Melanerpesformicvorus
Northern mockingbird
Mimus polyglottis
Ash-throated flycatcher
M iarchus cinerascens
Black-crowned night heron
N cticorax n ctic_orax
Lazuli bunting
Passerina amoena
Cliff swallow
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Phainopepla
Phaino a la nitens
26
Draft Johnson rianch Conservation Plan
Downey woodpecker
Picoides pubescens
Nutall's woodpecker
Picoides nuttallii
California towhee
Pipilo crissalis
Spotted towhee
Pipilo maculatus
Bushtit
Psaltri anus minimus
Black phoebe
Sayomis nigricans
Western bluebird
Sialia mexicana
Western meadowlark
Sturnella ne lecta
European starling J
Sturnus vulgaris
Bewick's wren
Thryomanes bewickii
California thrasher
Toxostoma redivivum
Red-winged blackbird
A elaius phoeniceus
Rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimo hila ru ce s
Sage sparrow
Am his iza belli
Mallard duck
Anas platyrhynchos
Western scrub jay
A helocoma califomica
Great blue heron
Ardea herodias
Plain (oak) titmouse
Baeolophus inornatus
Great homed owl
Bubo vir inianus
Red-tailed hawk
Buteo 'amaicensis
California quail
Calli ala calf omica
Anna's hummingbird J
Caly to anna
Lesser goldfinch
Carduelis psaltria
27
y�
Draft Johnson rtanch Conservation Plan
American goldfinch
Carduelis tristis
Great egret J
Casmerodius albus
Turkey vulture
Cathartes aura
Brown creeper
Certhia americana
Wrentit
Chamaea asciata
Killdeer
Charadrius voci erus
Lark sparrow J
Chondestes grammacus
American crow
Corvus brach rh nchos
Yellow-rumped warbler
Dendroica coronata
Townsend's warbler
Dendroica townsendi
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
Western kingbird
T rannus verticalis
Mourning dove
Zenaida macroura
Golden-crowned sparrow
Zonotrichia atrica illa
Golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
Ringneck pheasant
Phasianus colchicus
North American Wild Turkey
Meleagris gallopavo
Coyote
Canis latrans
Bat
Order: Chiroptera
Bobcat
Felis rufus
Striped skunk
Mephitis mephitis
Dusky-footed woodrat
Neotomafuscipes
Mule deer J J
Odocoileus hemionus
28
4y-3�1
� � 1 1.
Gs. d.".a c e�. c
Draft Johnson Manch Conservation Plan
California pocket mouse
Pero nathus calf ornicus
Brush mouse J
Perom scus bo lii
California mouse
Perom scus call ornicus
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Western harvest mouse
Reithrodontom s me alotis
California ground squirrel
S ermo hilus beecheyi
Brush rabbit J
S lvila us bachmani
Botta's pocket gopher
Thomom s bottae
Gray fox J
Uro on cinerioar enteus
Pacific rattlesnake
Crotalus viridis
Southwestern pond turtle
Emys marmorta pallida
Southern alligator lizard
El aria multicarinatus
Gopher snake J
Pituo his melanoleucus
Western fence lizard
Scelo orus occidentalis
Black-bellied slender
salamander
Batrachose s ni riventris
Pacific treefrog
Pseudacris re illa
Bullfrog
Rana catesbeiana
Honey bee
A is mellifera
Monarch butterfly J
Danaus plexippus
Pacific coast tick
Dermacentor occidentalis
Stink beetle
Eleodes spp.
Chotro shoulderband snail
Helminthoglypta morroensis
29 U ��
i
Draft Johnson Hanch Conservation Plan
Big Sur shoulderband snail
Helminthoglypta umbilicata
Field cricket
Gryllus pennsylvanicus
Tarantula hawk wasp J
Hemi a sis s
Tarantula
A hono elma spp.
Red swamp crayfish
Procambarus clarkii
Callippe fritillary J
S e eria callippe
30
Draft Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan
Appendix C
Text of Miramonte (Avila) Ranch Easement
31
��7
1
Draft Johnson-r-anch Conservation Plan
Charles McEntee et al to Antonio Stannicich et al.
This indenture made and entered into on this 2nd day of March, AD 1883 between Charles
McEntee the party of the first part, (J.B?) Bandy the party of the second, Andrew
Peterson the party of the third part, and Antonio Stannacich (?) the party of the fourth part.
Witnesseth , that whereas the parties hereto are the owners of land lying and being on a creek
known as dry creek in Township 31 South of Range 12 East of Mount Diablo Meridian in San
Luis Obispo County California and whereas they have laid out and constructed a private road
commencing on the line of the public road leading from the City of San Luis Obispo to Avila
nearly opposite the place of E. A. Atwood and running thence up dry creek westerly across the
lands of the parties hereto of the first, second, and third parts to the line of the lands of the party
of the fourth part. Now in consideration of twenty five dollars to him in hand paid by the other
parties hereto the said party of the first part hereby grants to the said parties of the second, third,
and fourth parts the right of way for a private road over and across his said land owned by him as
aforesaid and along the route of the private road constructed as aforesaid and the said party of the
second part hereby grants to the parties of the third and fourth part the right of way for a private
road over and across the said lands owned by him and along the route of the road constructed as
aforesaid and the said party of the third part hereby grants to the party of the fourth part the right
of way for a private road over and across the said land owned by him as aforesaid along the line
of the said road constructed as aforesaid. It being distinctly understood that each of the parties
hereto shall have the right to construct and maintain such gates across the said road as are
necessary for his own lands. The intention hereof being to make and dedicate the said road
constructed as afore-said as a private road for the use of the said parties hereto. In Witness
Whereof the said parties have hereunder set their hands and seals this day and year first above
written.
The document is then signed and witnessed.
32 7
Draft Johnson Kanch Conservation Plan
Scan of the actual deed language.
_ f ,
�.: %IMV..rf �."��•-J l-_7'lT.l�-_.. L 1.OI r/Jf/./'+..lr FYI/—
,�' 'r♦../�t+..•./fi,. ,r"W...a.a�t�?..e/1..�.�./.1 n..RIA+q Pub w.4vLtfj�441
q.',��},,,�reea�,�..s.-...
��•.I✓ :ate/ •.. .! Il�:.. 'I_'
'r
33
Draft Johnson Manch Conservation Pian
} _ r � gra 4 •;E,.aG:�r
S• ` ell,,.iy. .i � (YO'�T/�^L�ra� .MrG,��lr..•�_
..
.'1 —._ �..�icr4�w..�.A►6,o�I1. gaf—' Ise+[�.r+ lJ.► +ca'a�w.r�..•'w q..aA �
_ _ ...,.._ �/ �.G.�ar,a..n.ti�li.�Yfi. 'J�u-.�,�caidG•aw•._•1r+a�'�_.�y 1
GG�cc alr �si o..o..e+7.-+.:.r 4 r•. -A r It s✓
' ._ f.[rl.Iul� W/�!•�/I.���S d+firf ✓�J rLY/1� •Y 2L,L� _
'_l�.oe�o w.l Jdsay,[i.�'�• .dor.r.. y//��(a�tyd'S✓/—ja�Js��.•14�'• �.
�aY��..�aa �p.r a. ��3o...�rrw (C.aRrs�. j •�•' �.
... ��j�y J�CJ!�'�//+'//�9t M•a .�.J.r�/c.i. f-A'��f�r�����.C'u.6er+..�...�����`
&-deawlly .•�/a/"m.�A�a`aac!/.' ��/.G�Gy..�i.�}�
I"�Lr..�i. o..rrLl".!Karr�"�'i/r•.�f/.'r-w�•,.av£� .hce_.6��F•i Fd:•
•..1.. _ �wfF�Y'..�.i.$//N1}L--raw..._✓ a.i/_(/..1r.+�8,��•OP�/a//►// i.w��.��
�.•� _ _ • rsw\ CA! ///�y) IMAc ao.I/aw+•.'a+r..q y6aV.rCY �r4. ✓ fF1✓
77
.:s.�ii1..,•. �L :.'�r..aGlA.i�-�-�+�/�a�r���'a..tt.,•....�./ls.:` ��/J'�f.�.�
ACL ,J"r..���R'�' •�_ju ��.�CrI�PGtd W•'KQ1.wJY�d�wL/�ef�.V'itia�.w�•f¢..
�'��I. _ � 24...t.�a.'3- ai—,5.:...�-G=I',.�.rr'12.a.�•.-yi%�'�r�.
34 ,��
Af
Draft Johnson Hanch Conservation Plan
Appendix D
Initial Study
(Included as Attachment 3)
35 y_y�
ATTACHMENT 3
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application # 169-07
1. Project Title:
Conservation Plan for the Johnson Ranch Open Space
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, SLO, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Freddy Otte, (805)7817511, or
Neil Havlik, (805) 7817211
4. Project Location:
5182 Ontario Road, approximately 1 mile south of the City of San Luis Obispo on the
west side of Highway 101 (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:
Property is in the County,and is zoned Agriculture
8. Description of the Project:
Land use and conservation plan for 242 acres of City-owned open space known as the
Johnson Ranch Open Space. 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 Highway 101 (on the east).
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
City Council approval
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None
ATTACHMENT 3
Issues, Discussion and Sulpp ortin
y oforrnation Sources Sources Potenuauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless hnpact
Mitigation
incorporated
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
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
__X__ State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
y y3
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potenn .,y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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, 11---X--,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I 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.
January 10,2008
Signature Date
Neil Havlik.Natural Resources Manager
For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
y��
Al 1ACHY41HT 3
Issues, Discussion and Suppofting,nforriiation Sources Sources Potenna.ry Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
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 statement is.substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) 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.
ATTACHMENT 3
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potenti.ty Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? —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?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of i-X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would '-X-'
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 the` ro'ect:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmlandi 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 -
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-agricultural 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 an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant !'X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X_
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 ozoneprecursors)? _
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on air quality.
y-yam
ATTACHMENT 3
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentia„y 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 X=
L_J
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 LX
other sensitive natural community identified in local 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
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
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,venial pools,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
Evaluation
a) New trail construction could cause minor temporary 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(mainly livestock) trails
which are causing resource damage in certain areas,and by anticipated habitat enhancement programs. The result should be a
net improvement of environmental conditionswithin the Reserve.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
-X-
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significanceof an Lu
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 !
formal cemeteries?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on cultural resources. The Plan calls for the retention of the existing ranch
buildings in their current residential and agricultural uses. Trail installation involves only minor grading,and, in the event of
any uncovering of archeological resources, the City's standards for stopping work and calling in professional assistance to
evaluate the situation will be invoked.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 'X-j
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource —X-
5 �Y7
ATTACHMEN'T 3
Issues, Discussion and Supportin formation Sources sources Pote iti -J Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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.
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 `X-'
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?
H. Strong seismic ground shaking? ,`--X--',
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? --X-'
IV. Landslides or mudflows?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X.
c) Be located on a geologic tacit or soil that is unstable,or that `X i
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 ro ?
Evaluation
b) The proposed construction of new trail and especially realignment of the access road could potentially result in erosion
problems. However,this will be minimized by the incorporation of erosion control techniques into trail and road design
and by the removal of the road from its existing location immediately adjacent to Dry Creek and Forbes Pond. Erosion
control techniques will include appropriate outsloping of the trails and incorporation of waterbars into the design. Trail
construction will also be timed to avoid the rainy season.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have a less than significant effect on geology and soilsafter Mitigation.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS,MATERIALS. Would the r( 'ect:.
a) Create a significant Hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment -X-
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 —X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous :LA-I
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?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within '-X_;
two miles of a public airport;would the project result in a safety
ATTA C H 7,1 E N1 T 3
i
Issues, Discussion and Supporting-information Sources Sources Potenn...,y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
hazard for the people residing or working in the project.area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose;injury,
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. City policies
and regulations provide among other things restrictions on smoking while in the Open Space, and also provide for closure of
the property if the Director of Parks and Recreation determines that a high fire hazard exists.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would thero ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge _ =L X
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 X--'
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 XJ
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 on '-�X-1
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 LXJ
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? __. -. _X__;
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not have an adverse effect on hydrology or water quality as questioned above.
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 conservation Tans?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have not conflict with any other land use plan,nor physically divide anexistin 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
y-y9
ATTACH#t IEp 3
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potenua.,y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 groundborne ,'-_X i
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within '-:X=2
two
- X-
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 ANDMOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(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 insubstantial 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? i,---X-;
b) Police protection? `--X=
c) Schools? `-X_
d) Parks? -X--',
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? -X--
f)_ Other public facilities? ;--X
Explanation
The proposed management plan will add additional workload to the City's Ranger Service, and is expected to result in the
addition of one half-time-equivalent Ranger staff position. Labor-intensive projects will be completed by volunteers or
outside contractors, or other outside parties. City rules will provide reasonable protection against fire danger both to
individuals and to property.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no substantial adverse effect on public services.
14.RECREATION. Would the roject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood orregional parks or LX
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
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
ATTACHMENT 3
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentm.,y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Evaluation
The proposed management plan is designed to accommodate,passive recreational activities while avoiding detrimental effects
to the environment,by protecting wetland areas and by trail route selection designed to avoid sensitive locations. It will result
in a minor expansion of recreational activities; however, as mitigated, this is not expected to have an adverse effect on the
environment
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not increase recreational use of the site to levels that are detrimental to the physical environment.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the '-, X-;
existing traffic load and.,capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individualy or cumulatively,a level of service X-j.
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads arid.highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharpX--'-'
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? `e) ResultResult in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? -X-;
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative LX-'
transportation(e.g.bus turnoutsi bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
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
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 —X
which serves or may servetheproject 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 p;oject have thepotential 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..___ .._.:
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..iformation Sources sources Poteno,...y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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.historyor 'rehisto ?-
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
futureprojects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not degrade the quality of the environment. They do not have cumulative impacts that are significant.
They will not have substantial adverse effects on human beings.
M 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 sis-used. Identify,earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
None
b) Impacts adequaWl.y'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.
None
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.
Mitigation Measures
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed construction of new trails,and the realignment of the existing road could potentially result in erosion problems.
However, this will be minimized by the incorporation of erosion control techniques into trail and road design. Erosion
control techniques will include appropriate outsloping of the new trails and incorporation of waterbars into their design. The
road realignment will move the road away from a sensitive site where it is now located, and will incorporate proper drainage
and erosion control features per City,County,and NRCS road grading and drainage standards.
- J ATTACHMENT 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 14, 2007
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Dan Carpenter, Michael Multari, Amanda Brodie,
Diana Gould-Wells, John Ashbaugh, Vice- Chairperson Charles
Stevenson and Chairperson Carlyn Christianson
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Natural
Resources Manager Neil Havlik, City Biologist Freddy Otte, and
Recording Secretary Jill Francis
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended.
MINUTES: Minutes of September 26, 2007. Approve or amend.
The minutes of September 26, 2007 were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 2963 So. Higuera Street. U 103-07; Request to allow a mixed-use development
and a 30% parking reduction in the C-S zone; Dean and Linda Powers, applicants.
(Phil Dunsmore)
This item was continued to a date uncertain to allow more research into the Airport Land
Use Plan and its effect on the proposed project.
2. 5182 & 5190 Ontario Street. GPI and ER 169-07; Review of a Draft Conservation
Plan for the Johnson Ranch Open Space Area for property located outside (but
adjacent to) the City of San Luis Obispo city limits (APN 076-114-012 and 019);
AG/Rural Lands zone with a Geologic Study Area and Sensitive Resource Area
overlay; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Neil Havlik)
Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik and City Biologist Freddy Otte presented the
staff report, recommending the Commission recommend approval of the Conservation
Plan to the City Council. They described the site's natural features, including native
grasslands, oaks, creek, and a pond. Issues of the Conservation Plan include erosion
control, public access, and resource protection/enhancement.
Draft Planning Commission M.,jtes ATTACHMENT 4
November 14, 2007
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Gary Axleson, representative for the adjacent Miramonte Ranch owners, stated that
they were against.the Plan, and particularly concerned about protecting their easement
rights. He summarized the other issues as contained in their letter to the Commission
dated November 14, 2007.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Ashbaugh inquired about the role of the Planning Commission on this plan. He
noted his main concern is the road easement, and voiced strong concerns with the
right-of-way of the neighboring property owners and their responsibility to maintain the
road. He suggested an addition to the Goals and Policies section for maintaining and
improving the aesthetics as seen from Highway 101.
Commr. Stevenson discussed the road width, noting it has increased from 12 feet to 20
feet, and that any future improvements of the road would be done by the neighboring
land owners. He felt there should be limitations on public usage because of the wildlife
and vegetation abundance, and would Like to see the Billboard removed.
Commr. Carpenter discussed the guided tours currently offered and the issue of
parking.
Commr. Brodie had questions regarding the grading and road realignment.
Commr. Christianson discussed the current situation of cattle grazing as it relates to
fencing and access to water.
Commr. Multari asked if dogs would be allowed and was informed that they would be
allowed on leashes no more than 6 feet long. He discussed the location of hiking trails
and the public's tendency to want to go down to a creek or up to the top of a knoll or hill.
Commr. Gould-Wells agreed with Commr. Multari with the need to clearly deifine trails
and taking into account the public's patterns of behavior.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson to approve the Conservation Plan with a change to
language on Billboards and regulatory agencies. Seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh.
AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Brodie, Gould-Wells, Christianson, Multari,
Ashbaugh, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 7:0 vote.
s�
Draft Planning Commission M„.utes ATTACHMENT 4
November 14,2007
Page 3
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Director Doug Davidson gave the agenda forecast of upcoming events.
4. Commission
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to
the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday, November
28, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted by
Jill Francis
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on December 12, 2007.
j%we, lF c'taa,-e
Diane R. Stuart, CM
Management Assistant
S/-.s�s
ATTACHMENT S
Parks and Recreation Commission
DRAFT MINUTES
Council Cambers, 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
Wednesday, December 5, 2007, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Wolf called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Bob Wolf, Commissioners: Craig Kincaid, David Hensinger, Don
Dollar and Kylie Hatch
ABSENT: Chair Jill Lemieux,Rick May
STAFF: Director Betsy Kiser,Doug Carscaden and Ashley Lopez
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:
MOTION: (Kincaid/Hatch) Approve the November 7, 2007 minutes as submitted.
Approved 5 yes: 0 no: 2 absent(Lemieux,May)
1. Public Comment
None.
2. Volunteer of the Month-October
This month's volunteer of the month is Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers (aka 3CMB). Joe
O'Donnell, a representative for 3CMB, accepted the award. Parks and Recreation receives a great
deal of support from the 3CMB in the open space of the City of San Luis Obispo. 3CMB organizes
trail workdays throughout the Central Coast and contributed to the building and maintenance of the
"M"Trail, Lemon Grove Loop, King, Mariposa, Stenner and Morning Glory trails.
Hours and hours of time are spent flagging, designing, building and maintaining the open space
trails. Each workday draws from 2 to 100 people to assist with the 14 miles of fabulous mountain
bike trails. With 3CMBs help,the Ranger Service trail maintenance workload is alleviated
allowing them to focus on other equally important projects.
3CMB has been formally organized since 1989 to support and encourage local mountain bike trails,
ensuring access and sustainability for those that enjoy the activity.
y-sI,
i
Parks and Recreation Commission—Minutes ATTACHMENT
December 5, 2007
Page 2 of 4
3. Johnson Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan—Havlik,Ottie
City Biologist Neil Havlik and Freddie Ottie delivered a presentation to the Commissioners on the
Johnson Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan. Amendments to the plan based on previous
committee reviews include the development of a formally identified trail system for pedestrians and
bicyclists; recommending to the City Council a policy to encourage or require the ultimate
realignment of an existing access easement benefiting the Miramonte Ranch; placement of
protective fencing, especially along Dry Creek; development of interpretive signage to assist
visitors; retention of seasonal livestock grazing; and a wildlife preparedness plan involving
management of fuel loading.
Commissioners entered into discussion with Havlik and Ottie on the existing road,permits that
would be needed to repair or widen it, potential trails, seasonal grazing or potential livestock
removal and resultant resurgence of riparian vegetation, water rights and Santa Rosa Creek,
easement between property owners to the west, and pond and creek management. Also discussed
was retaining billboards as a revenue source but staff pointed out it could set a bad precedent and
perhaps lead to open space properties being looked at more for their revenue potential than other
values.
Commissioners then strengthened the following recommendations from the Planning Commission:
1. Manage pond and creek for native aquatic species.
2. Monitor flows in Dry Creek.
3. Remove billboards at conclusion of their leases.
4. The Miramonte Road easement diminishes the value for which the property was acquired by
the public; therefore efforts to relocate and limit it to appropriate uses are warranted.
MOTION: (Dollar/Hatch) Recommend to the City Council that the Johnson Ranch Open Space
Conservation Plan be approved as amended, and changing Item 6 to be read "wildfire" rather than
"wildlife".
Approved 5 yes: 0 no: 2 absent(Lemieux, May)
4.Staff Report
Ranger Service Supervisor Carscaden provided a presentation on the Ranger Services program and .
highlighted recent maintenance projects, such as Damon Garcia creek maintenance, WRF, the Bob
Jones Pathway, Sterner Springs/Railroad, the new Ranger Maintenance Headquarters, Johnson Ranch
Creek Day, Bowden Ranch, the Madonna Trail, Jr. Ranger camp, Irish Hills, Froom Road, winter
preparation and the rangers involvement in the skatepark.
1-2
ATTACHMENT �
Johnson Ranch Conservation F-,an—Addendum— 1/22108
Below are the comments and responses to issues raised at the City
Planning Commission meeting of November 14, 2007. Most items related
to clarifications or minor changes or additions to activities proposed within
the Conservation Plan, proposed by various Commissioners. The only
substantive public comment came from public testimony from a co-owner
of the adjacent Miramonte Ranch, a letter from Ms. Pamela Denney, General
Counsel to JB Enterprises, owners of Miramonte Ranch, and a letter from
Don Dollar. Most discussion centered around the Miramonte Ranch access
easement; other comments were minor.
Staff Response to Comments received at the Planning Commission
Meeting of November 14, 2007, are presented below.
1.1 Comment
Commissioner Ashbaugh — Recommend inclusion of a discussion and course of action
addressing the road at the northern edge of the property.
1.2 Staff Response
Concur. This ranch road has been in that location for a long time, and is believed to
represent an accommodation between the previous owners of the Johnson Ranch and the
owners of the adjacent property, Herb and Diane Filipponi, and Jo Anne(Filipponi) Denbow.
This will be researched and a recommended course of action put forward.
1.3 Proposed Change
The use of this road will be memorialized in appropriate fashion; and this task will be
included in the tasks to be accomplished in Years 1 and 2 of the Plan.
2.1 Comment
Commissioner Multari— People want to go to the highest point; so perhaps the Plan should
allow for that with a trail to the top of the hill.
2.2 Staff Response
Building a trail to the top of the hill would involve considerable brush removal and grading,
so staff does not see it as necessary or desirable at this time. However, if monitoring
reveals that an unauthorized trail is developing, steps will be taken to address that impact.
This may include blockage of the unauthorized trail, or construction of a proper trail.
2.3 Proposed Changes
Language reflecting the above will be included in the final version of the document.
3.1 Comment
Commissioner Carpenter—Questioned the nature of the entrance.
3.2 Staff Response
The open space entry area has adequate room for parking of privately owned vehicles with
only minimal changes, including laying a gravel base, realigning fencing, and installing
informational signage. Staff does not anticipate installation of either restroom facilities or
garbage cans; these have generally not been installed at such locations within the City's
open space system.
3.3 Proposed Changes
None.
y—�We
ATTACHMENT �
Johnson Ranch Conservation t,.,,n-Addendum- 1/22/08
4.1 Comment
Commissioner Ashbaugh - Requested that the policy regarding the billboards be stronger,
stating that they will be removed at the conclusion of the lease term.
4.2 Staff Response
Staff notes that there may be relocation obligations involved in such an action; however,
staff concurs in the goal.
4.3 Proposed Changes
Language reflecting the goal of eliminating the billboards at the end of the lease term or as
soon as practical thereafter will be included in the final version of the document.
5.1 Comment
Commissioner Stevenson-Noted that the easement road leads to a house and may not be
exempt from County regulations as an agricultural feature.
5.2 Staff Response
Noted.
5.3 Proposed Changes
None.
The following items summarize comments or suggestions from Don Dollar.
6.1 Comment
Work to clarify easement conditions.
6.2 Staff Response
This is a recommendation of the Plan.
6.3 Proposed Changes
None.
71 Comment
Seek early annexation of the property, to ensure that City open space regulations apply.
7.2 Staff Response
Concur; however, such an action requires annexation of the intervening landowner, and is
not a matter that the City can undertake on its own.
7.3 Proposed Changes
None in the document.
8.1 Comment
Identify as much as possible of the property as Habitat designation.
8.2 Staff Response
The primary difference between the Habitat and Management Area designations at
Johnson Ranch is the occurrence of livestock grazing. This is identified largely by
changes in vegetation that are not conducive to livestock utilization. Therefore, the areas
designated as Habitat are primarily those which livestock do not enter, or which are or will
be fenced off, such as the Dry Creek riparian pasture. Thus the Habitat designation may
have an importance more perceived than real.
8.3 Proposed Changes
None.
2 y-�'9
ATTACHMENT �
Johnson Ranch Conservation r ,n—Addendum— 1122108
9.1 Comment
'Be cautious in opening the property to the public.
9.2 Staff Response
Concur;staff feels that this is what the Plan is doing.
9.3 Proposed Changes
None.
10.1 Comment
Install a single loop system; prohibit mountain bikes and horses.
10.2 Staff Response
Staff has anticipated a double loop system in the basic outline of a figure eight. This does
not entail much more than a single loop and provides reasonable access to more of the
open space. Staff feels that the site is appropriate for mountain bikes, but is too small to
be attractive to equestrians.
10.3 Proposed Changes
None.
11.1 Comment
Grazing should not be an objective.
11.2 Staff Response
Concur; however, there is an issue of fuel management over such a large area of fine
fuels. Therefore, staff feels that some livestock grazing remains desirable at the site. This
will, however, be reduced in area, and converted to a seasonal operation.
11.3 Proposed Changes
None.
12.1.Comment
Protect and restore the creek, riparian, and wetland areas.
12.2 Staff Response
Concur; staff feels that this is what the Plan is doing.
12.3 Proposed Changes
None.
13.1 Comment
Plant trees for noise abatement purposes along the highway.
13.2 Staff Response
Concur.
13.3 Proposed Changes
This will be added as a Task in Years 1 and 2.
14.1 Comment
Refer the fate of.the Farmstead to the Cultural Heritage Commission regarding the long-
term future of those structures.
142 Staff Response
Concur.
ATTACHMENT �
` -- Johnson Ranch Conservatio,11 n -,dn—Addendum— 1/22/08
14.3 Proposed Changes
This will be added as a Task in Years 5 and 6, as a new or updated Plan is prepared.
The following items summarize comments or suggestions from a Miramonte Ranch
representative and a letter from attorney Pamela Denney,general counsel for the
Miramonte Ranch owners.
15.1 Comment
The plan as proposed inappropriately implies and concludes thatrestriction in the use of
the easement is allowable.
15.2 Staff Response
The commenter seems to suggest that there is no limitation on what the easement holder
may do. The easement agreement itself, however, is clearly a contract between four
parties, each one allowing the party(ies) beyond it to cross its property, and is limited to
those four parties. It is also stated in the easement that it applies to the road"constructed
as aforesaid", since it was evidently built before the easement agreement was completed.
This appears to restrict both the scope and the nature of the easement. Nothing contained
within the agreement suggests that it maybe enlarged or added onto, or that new parties
may be served,without.agreement of all concerned.
15.3 Proposed Changes
None.
16.1 Comment
The plan as proposed inappropriately implies and concludes that restrictions to repair or
restore the roadway are allowable.
16.2 Staff Response
Staff bases its recommendations on the fact that, in the very restricted area between the
bed of Dry Creek and the Forbes Pond, it is not possible to"repair or restore"the roadway
without impacting one or the other or both of the natural resources mentioned. As
landowner, the City does not see such impacts to its lands as desirable. Furthermore, in
order to undertake such repair, permits from the California Department of Fish and Game,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers would be
needed. These permits could conceivably be denied. Staff therefore feels that it is in the
best interest of all parties to work together to relocate the easement into a less sensitive
alignment that does not entail such risk.
16.3 Proposed Changes
None.
1-7.1 Comment
The plan as proposed inappropriately implies and concludes that the City can require the
easement holders to relocate the easement at their costs.
172 Staff Response
:If the easement did not pass through such a sensitive site, the statement above might be
true. However, the ability of superior agencies to require such relocation would seem to be
unquestionable. Furthermore, changes to the physical roadway, or a development request
on the Miramonte Ranch, may trigger other approval requirements,for example from the
County of San Luis Obispo. That is what City staff anticipate, based upon past
experience, and is a primary basis for the recommended policy statement.
ATTACHMENT fa
Johnson Ranch Conservation t.an-Addendum- 1/22/08
17.3 Proposed Changes
None.
18.1 Comment
The plan as proposed inappropriately implies and concludes that the easement road has a
deleterious effect on the pond and the creek.
18.2 Staff Response
Staff bases its observations on the obvious presence of fill in the creek bed, placed
presumably in order to stabilize the road bed and repair past damage or failure.
18.3 Proposed Changes
None.
19.1 Comment
The plan as proposed inappropriately implies and concludes that public use of the
easement is allowable in violation of the expressed exclusivity of the easement.
19.2 Staff Response
The Conservation Plan makes no statements about the use of the easement either as a
trail or a public right of way. Minor public use is likely for a short distance near the
entrance where there is no alternative. It is possible that some incidental use by visitors
might occur elsewhere; however, this is not the intent of either the Plan or its
.recommended activities.. Moreover, so long as such use doesn't interfere with or otherwise
negatively affect the easement,the City retains the rights of ownership of its property not
:inconsistent with the easement. This includes the right to invite other to cross over or upon
its lands.
19.3 Proposed Changes
None.
20.1 Comment
The plan as proposed inappropriately implies and concludes that the cause of the road
failure as something other than as poor maintenance and cattle.
20.2 Staff Response
The Plan observes that there are problems with the road, without speculating as to causes.
However, it seems likely that the high energy creek bed area is a major contributor simply
on the basis of location. This is supported by evidence of past fill placement as well.
20.3 Proposed Changes
None.
21.1 Comment
The plan as proposed inappropriately implies and concludes that there are no impacts on
adjacent property owners.
21.2 Staff Response
Staff is not aware of any potential impacts on adjacent property owner by legal use of the
Johnson Ranch. Unauthorized or illegal uses will be dealt with accordingly by the City.
21.3 Proposed Changes
None.
�. ATTACHMENT
Johnson Ranch Conservation, ,an—Addendum— 1/22108
22.1 Comment
The plan as proposed inappropriately implies and concludes that the conclusions
regarding rights and obligations under the agreements are legal.
22.2 Staff Response
The plan sets forth no legal conclusions, but merely sets forth policy recommendations for
the proper management of City lands. Staff is not recommending any affirmative action
that rests upon the presumed legalities of the rights or obligations of any parry to the
referenced agreements.
22.3 Proposed Changes
.None.
23.1 Comment
The plan as proposed inappropriately implies and concludes that the legal documents
referred to in the Plan are correct.
23.2 Staff Response
Staff has only recited the existence and.content of legal documents attached to the subject
property and does not intend for the policy to reach any conclusion regarding the legality or
correctness of any such document.
23.3 Proposed Changes
None.
24.1 Comment
There is no discussion as to when, how, or by whom the site was surveyed for identified
habitats or sensitive species.
24.2 Staff Response
Qualified City Natural Resources staff, and a qualified consultant undertook the surveys
over a period of about one year prior to publication of the Plan, plus additional inventory
work done at various times since the property was acquired in 2001.
24.3 Proposed Changes
A brief explanation of the preparation of this report and supporting materials will be
included in the final document.
25.1 Comment
There is no consideration of restoration of the road as opposed to realignment.
25.2 Staff Response
The plan calls for the ultimate relocation of the road to a location that is not in the middle of
a sensitive habitat and which is not regularly threatened with damage or disruption by
natural forces. Retaining the road in this location exposes the road to both of these
problems. Furthermore,work done on the road by the Miramonte Ranch owners to date
seems to indicate a desire not to"restore"the road to some presumed earlier condition,
but to widen it considerably. This is not consistent with the language of the easement, with
goals of the City, or with the goals of superior agencies with jurisdiction over such areas.
Therefore realignment of the road out of this problematic location is considered an
appropriate policy recommendation. Notwithstanding that policy, staff is not recom-
mending any affirmative action regarding such relocation without a negotiated agreement
with affected parties or proper legal authority to act in the absence of such an agreement.
25.3 Proposed Changes
None.
ATTRCIJMENT
- Johnson Ranch Conservation!-,an—Addendum— 1/22/08
26.1 Comment -
There is no establishment of baseline thresholds of significance.
.26.2 Staff Response
The standard Initial Study form used by the City of San Luis Obispo in all matters of
environmental compliance allows for the writer, who is presumably qualified to make such
.judgments,to determine whether the Plan will result in either no effect; an effect of less
than significant; an effect significant unless mitigated; or an effect of significance that
cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. In this instance such judgment was
done by qualified City personnel in the preparation of the Plan.
26.3 Proposed Changes
None.
Staff Response to Comments received at the Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting of December 5, 2007, are presented below.
27.1 Comment
Commissioner Dollar--Dry Creek and Forbes Pond should be managed for native aquatic
species.
27.2 Staff Response
Concur.
27.3 Proposed Changes
Elimination of exotic species within Forbes Pond, and an ongoing control effort for such
species in Dry Creek shall be included in the final Conservation Plan.
28.1 Comment
Commissioner Dollar--Monitor flow of Dry Creek,to observe for unnatural changes.
28.2 Staff Response
Concur
28.3 Proposed Changes
:Monitoring of the flow of Dry Creek in an appropriate qualitative fashion will be identified as
one of the regular activities of the Plan's monitoring program,_ _
29.1 Comment
Commissioner Wolf--The billboards should be removed at the end of the lease terms for
them.
29.2 Staff Response
Staff notes that there may be relocation obligations involved in such an action; however,
staff concurs in the goal.
29.3 Proposed Changes
Language reflecting the goal of eliminating the billboards at the end of the lease term or as
soon as practical thereafter will be included in the final version of the document.
30.1 Comment "
Commissioner Dollar--The Miramonte easement acts to diminish the values for which the
property was purchased, namely, environmental conservation and appropriate_public use
- . - 'TT"CHIWENT
Johnson Ranch Conservation`rrdn—Addendum— 1/22/08
and enjoyment. This constitutes adequate justification to seek the relocation of the
easement and limitation.of its scope.
30.2 Staff Response
Concur.
.30.3 Proposed Changes
The final version of the Plan document will include the above statements as part of the
rationale for seeking relocation and limitation of the scale of the easement.
Staff Response to Written Comment from the Native American Heritage
Commission is presented below:
31.1 Comment
The Native American Heritage Commission recommends several steps to be taken to
adequately assess and mitigate project-related impacts to archeological resources.
31.2 Staff Response
Concur. An archeological survey is planned as one of the first actions of the Plan once
approved. Historical and archeological conservation and interpretation are one of the main
goals of the Conservation Plan.
31.3 Proposed Changes
None.
8 i SJ�
I
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING THE
"CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE JOHNSON RANCH OPEN SPACE"
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 242 acre Johnson Ranch Open Space; 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 Johnson Ranch Open Space" 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 2008.
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk P. Lowell, City Attorney
I RECEIVE®
JAN 2 2 2008
JB Ventures, LLC SLO CITY CLERK
1350 East Grand
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
805-994-1841
January 17, 2008
RED FILE
City of San Luis Obispo ME ING AGEND
DA I a. ITEM # `1'
RE: Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan and Easement
Dear Council and Staff Members:
The Sanders Family members,collectively as JB Ventures LLC, own the 1340-a6re ranch
commonly known as the Miramonte Ranch, which shares a property boundary with the
Johnson Ranch. The Miramonte Ranch ownership carries with it an express right of
access over the Johnson Ranch. Over the years this roadway has eroded and is in much
needed repair in areas near the Dry Creek and Forbes Pond.
As an alternative, both City staff and JB Ventures LLC, are interested in exploring the
relocation of the road easement. In December of 2007 representatives of both ranches
met and discussed an alternative route for the road. As a result of that meeting the parties
agreed that City staff would inquire with the County Planning Department as to the
viability and review of such an endeavor. Once City staff had obtained information the
parties agreed they would meet again and review the County's requirements and costs to
implement the relocation versus restoration of the current access. Should the parties
agree to relocate the easement both landowners will be co-applicants for the road permit.
Even though issues, such as, scope and who shall bear the cost of relocating the road have
not been agreed upon,the owners of the Miramonte Ranch are hopeful both property
owners can reach a consensus absent legal intervention.
The Sanders look forward to working with City staff to pursue a mutually agreeable and
permanent solution to the roadway issue. Please address any questions to me at the above
address and phone number.
A., P1 couNCIL CDD DIF'
amela Denney; fd CAO J�'FIN DIR
P1ACA0 �FIRE CHIEF
JB Ventures, LLC ATTORNEY �'PW DIR
General Counsel O CLEPK/ORtG $POLICE CHF
EADS REC DIR
�-E; DIR
R DIR
j. CAO