HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2015 PC Item 2 - 3 Highland Drive (GENP-1122-2015) Bishop Peak PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Legislative Review Draft, Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update and environmental review for the project. PROJECT ADDRESS: BY: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Mgr. APNs: 052-601-009, 010, 011 and 067-601-009 Phone Number: 805-781-7211 3 Highland Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA E-mail: rhill@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ER/GENP 1122-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the City Council that the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015
Update and an Environmental Determination/Negative Declaration be adopted.
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis
Obispo
Representative Robert Hill, Natural
Resources Manager
Zoning C-OS / 40
General Plan Open Space
Site Area Approx. 352 acres
Application
ER Status
Complete
Initial Study
determined
Negative Declaration
SUMMARY
The City’s Natural Resources
Program seeks adoption of the
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update that will continue to guide the
management and stewardship of the site over the next ten years. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
(“BPNR” or “Reserve”) is one of the most iconic and well-loved landmarks in the entire region
offering spectacular panoramic views of the City below and the surrounding region beyond,
remarkable plant and wildlife diversity, and pleasant hiking and passive recreational
opportunities. The City’s first ever conservation plan was prepared for BPNR and subsequently
adopted by City Council in 2004. A conservation plan is generally intended to have a 7 to 10
year time horizon, at which time it should be updated.
Over a decade has passed since the plan's initial introduction and a number of new challenges
have emerged, including continued natural resources protection; neighborhood compatibility in
the areas around the two primary trailheads; increased use pressure leading to needs for trail
maintenance and heightened levels of enforcement; and, emergency response access and Ranger
Meeting Date: 5/27/15
Item Number:
PC-2 - 1
PJD
ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
Page 2
patrol. With these issues in mind, this Conservation Plan Update serves as an opportunity to
assess the current state of the Reserve, monitor the implementation of the existing plan, and to
establish timely strategies for further protection and enhancement of the Reserve. For these
reasons, BPNR is now the subject of a Conservation Plan Update process in order for the
property to continue to be managed in accordance with the City’s Open Space Regulations and
the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan, while incorporating new
information and addressing the ongoing management concerns that have identified by staff as
well as members of the public.
Overview of Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve is a 352-acre property located in the northwest part of the City of
San Luis Obispo (Attachment 1). It is comprised of three separate open space parcels that were
assembled during a period of over 20 years; in 1977 the heirs of the Gnesa Ranch donated the
land above the 800-foot elevation (approximately 104 acres) to the State Parks Foundation; this
land is now managed by the County of San Luis Obispo. In 1995, an additional 140 acres was
donated to the City of San Luis Obispo as the Ferrini Ranch Open Space. In 1998, 108 acres was
purchased from Ray Bunnell. The property features a trail that goes from the official access
points at Patricia Drive and Highland Drive to the summit, a distance of two miles with an
elevation gain of 1,000 feet. Another trail known as the Felsman Loop traverses several canyons
in the northern part of the Reserve and provides interesting views of oak woodland, chaparral,
and coastal sage scrub, as well as attractive views of the surrounding area. At 1546 feet above
sea level, the three-pointed summit is the tallest and most distinctive of the peaks that make up
the string of Morros known locally as the nine sisters. BPNR is jointly managed by the City and
County of San Luis Obispo.
1.0 CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING POLICY
The City’s General Plan has several areas where use and management of open space is
addressed. The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) is where the most pertinent
policy direction is found. The list below is not exhaustive but highlights a few key policies that
are pertinent to the management and operation of Bishop Peak Natural Reserve relative to the
City’s General Plan.
COSE Policy 8.5.5: Passive Recreation – The City will consider allowing passive
recreation where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space resources and
where there are no significant neighborhood compatibility impacts...
Particular focus and ongoing deliberation pertaining to this COSE policy is warranted. As
evidenced by testimony and correspondence received from numerous neighbors, there are
significant and ongoing concerns about neighborhood compatibility stemming from the operation
of BPNR. Among these reported concerns are overburdened street parking; traffic speeds and
safety; noise, trash, and nuisance factors; and, increasing after-hours use of the Reserve resulting
in safety issues as well as resource protection issues. Ultimately, one of the primary goals of the
Conservation Plan Update is to resolve the tension between resource protection, neighborhood
compatibility, and passive recreational use of BPNR.
PC-2 - 2
ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
Page 3
COSE Program 8.7.1(E): Protect Open Space Resources – The City will manage its
open space holdings and enforce its open space easements consistent with General
Plan goals and policies and the Open Space Ordinance.
The Conservation Plan Update calls for a renewed commitment to adherence with this program
by providing for certain actions to restore or enhance the site, as well as calling for increased
levels of regular patrol and monitoring in accordance with the City’s Open Space Regulations,
municipal code chapter 12.22.
COSE Program 8.7.2(J): Enhance and Restore Open Space - The City will… adopt
conservation plans for open space areas under City easement or fee ownership. The
plans shall include a resource inventory, needs analysis, acceptable levels of change,
grazing, monitoring, wildlife, management and implementation strategies, including
wildfire preparedness plans.
The Conservation Plan Update addresses and includes discussion of each of the areas identified
in this program. In particular, it includes updated resource inventories; identifies a handful of
new site needs to be attended to; acknowledges that levels of acceptable change (LAC) have
been exceeded in some areas and proposes corrective measures; and, it provides detail to a
previously identified grazing management and stream corridor enhancement project in the lower
pasture.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information/Setting
Site Size 352 acres
Present Use & Development Vacant open space held for conservation and passive recreation
Topography Level to Very Steep (slopes often greater than 50%)
Access Highland Drive, Patricia Drive, Highway 1, Bridle Ridge Road (via
easement)
Surrounding Uses/Zoning Agriculture / Ranchette properties; Residential
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Management Considerations
The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update provides a framework to
address the continued long-term site stewardship of the property. In addition to issues identified
in 2004, the Bishop Peak Conservation Plan Update places a renewed emphasis in the following
areas:
1. Natural Resources Protection. In keeping with the principles of the Conservation and
Open Space and Element of the General Plan, the plan prioritizes protection of Natural
Resources, providing for passive recreation where compatible. Many of the issues
addressed in the Conservation Plan Update stem from this objective, seeking to enhance
natural resources while minimizing impacts of recreational uses. An updated biological
PC-2 - 3
ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
Page 4
inventory was completed by the local firm Terra Verde Environmental Consulting,
Summary and Results of a Plant Inventory and Wildlife Survey at Bishop Peak Natural
Reserve, City of San Luis Obispo, California, that identifies 201 botanical species, nine
plant communities, and 54 wildlife species. Of those, two plant species, one plant
community, and seven wildlife species are considered to be under some level of
protective special-status. Of note, Terra Verde identified seven different bat species that
were previously indistinguishable due to the advent of relatively new, full spectrum
acoustic survey technology that was not available in the 2002-2004 timeframe when the
prior conservation plan was underway; three of these are special-status species. In
addition, a Cal Poly senior project undertaken by Ms. Jessica Engdahl under the guidance
of Dr. John Perrine and City Biologist Freddy Otte revealed numerous terrestrial wildlife
species using the Reserve at night with the use of remote sensing wildlife game cameras
deployed at several fixed monitoring stations.
2. Trail Network Maintenance. The existing trail network faces erosion, widening and
trail cutting and expansion of unofficial trails, each presenting a threat to the experience
of recreational users, as well as the protection of natural resources. Weathering and
vandalization of signage and lack of adequate signage may further compound these
issues. Recent counts of users accessing BPNR suggest that over 150,000 visitors a year
enter the Reserve, and most of the trails within BPNR are approaching 20 years or more
of continuous use since they were first installed.
3. Neighborhood Compatibility Improvements. With a high volume of visitors and
access limited to residential trailheads with no off-street parking facilities, some impacts
are felt disproportionately by surrounding neighborhoods. Outreach to neighboring
residents indicates that issues include night hiking, camping, roadway safety, litter and
noise. Lack of consistent enforcement of existing municipal code was also identified as
an area of primary concern.
4. Rock Climbing Management. While climbing is an approved, historic use that pre-dates
the City’s ownership of the Reserve, new fixed anchor “bolted” routes and access trails
have expanded over the last decade presenting a challenge to management objectives.
Recent site visits identified establishment of an unpermitted stone and concrete bench, as
well as unauthorized pruning ad herbicide application to vegetation.
5. Unauthorized Foothill Boulevard Access. The trailhead on Foothill Blvd. is a very
popular access to BPNR and yet it remains an unapproved trailhead that relies on a trail
running through private ranch property. This creates a number of problems in terms of
trespass, safety, aesthetics, resource protection and enforcement.
PC-2 - 4
ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
Page 5
6. Emergency Access and Ranger Patrol Improvements. Current emergency access
points limit the speed and response time with which fire fighters and paramedics can
respond to incidents at the Reserve. With an average of 2-3 calls for emergency response
every month and an increase of fire hazard due to sustained drought conditions, a more
efficient access point may increase safety for visitors to the Reserve and neighbors living
in the wildland-urban interface zone.
Recommendations
Active management of the Reserve is necessary to protect valued natural resources while
facilitating approved activities where compatible. Updated wildlife inventories and photo
monitoring analysis have shown that the BPNR is home to a wide variety of plants and animals
and the Reserve requires continued management to protect these species. With over 150,000
visitors per year and over 200 plant species and 54 wildlife species, protection of natural
resources at the BPNR relies largely on adequate management of human impacts. This entails the
limitation of the recreational footprint by limiting the distribution and nature of uses and
enforcing the laws that articulate these limitations. In addition to the issues and tasks outlined in
the previous conservation plan, the 2015 update calls for the consideration of the following
initiatives to provide for the continued stewardship, restoration, and management of the Reserve.
Natural Resources Protection
Biological surveys are the basis for natural resource management at the Bishop Peak Natural
Reserve. The City has conducted a biological inventory and an evaluation of photo monitoring
points and aerial photography comparing 2004 to current conditions, and will continue to
monitor the Reserve on a regular basis. The City will need to respond to these surveys by
focusing on protection of habitat areas with an emphasis on sensitive species. While the
biological inventory shows the presence of sensitive species such as the Townsend’s big-eared
bat and Pallid bat, further investigation will need to be done to identify their distribution and
abundance throughout the cliffs and cave features within the Reserve. The City should also
consider maintaining additional water in the stock pond by excavating silt that has accumulated
in order to provide a water source for wildlife and insect prey-base for species such as bats.
Garbage and dog feces present an issue for both resource protection and neighborhood
compatibility. While “leave no trace” or “pack it in - pack it out” principles encouraging user-
based management of litter are less resource intensive, they have not proven to be effective in a
municipal open space setting such as Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. In response the City will to
establish wildlife-proof garbage receptacles at trailheads along with “mutt mitt” dispensers for
dog owners.
Neighborhood Compatibility
With no dedicated parking for BPNR, the impacts of visitation volume are felt largely by
surrounding residents. The City will conduct a formal traffic study and will continue to monitor
traffic patterns on Highland Drive and Patricia Drive and apply traffic management strategies
PC-2 - 5
ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
Page 6
where appropriate. In keeping with the mission of reducing impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods and complying with principles of the LUCE, the City will advocate and work
towards improved access by alternative modes of travel including bus and bicycle as a demand-
reduction strategy.
Night hiking creates a disturbance to sensitive nocturnal wildlife within the Reserve and nearby
residents and is expressly prohibited under the City’s Open Space Regulations. Night hiking may
be deterred by a combination of mechanisms including continued enforcement, neighbor and
police partnerships, clearer articulation of fines on signage, and through employment of night
time parking restrictions on Highland Drive and Patricia Drive.
The Conservation Plan Update introduces a Good Neighbor Policy for the first time as a means
of articulating the City’s pledge to both residential and agricultural ranch property neighbors:
1. The City will ensure pro-active outreach and communications with neighbors.
2. The City will promote partnership efforts with neighbors and other citizens to provide
stewardship and care for the land and surroundings.
3. The City will use best practices to educate open space users about the importance of
respecting neighbors and private property, as well as adherence to Open Space
Regulations.
4. The City will actively address citizen concerns in a timely manner.
5. The City will not actively promote Bishop Peak Natural Reserve as destination location
through media outlets, advertisements, and publications.
Trail Network Maintenance
The BPNR is one of the most heavily visited open spaces in the City’s open space network and
the trail system bares much of the resulting pressures. The major issues facing the trail system
are erosion, poor signage and presence of unofficial “use trails.” The City will upgrade existing
signage along the trail network, increase the availability of maps and other technological aids,
and install two new informational kiosks to educate the public and improve wayfinding.
Erosion is a significant problem throughout the Reserve, most notably at trail junctions and near
the summit. The City will continue to implement trail rehabilitation projects and monitor their
effects. Special emphasis should be placed on areas of high conservation value such as riparian
areas and areas of very high use such as the summit trail. Qualitatively, Levels of Acceptable
Change have been exceeded in the upper reaches of summit trail, and a reclassification of this
area from “Management / Trail Corridor” to “Restoration” appears warranted pursuant to the
Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2002; see pgs. 8-
10).
Unofficial use trails are present throughout the Reserve. This may be due in part to lack of clear
signage, as referenced above. Trails that are redundant, unsustainable or that represent a threat to
natural resources will be decommissioned and given proper signage to encourage rehabilitation.
PC-2 - 6
ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
Page 7
Rock Climbing
While climbing is a historic and permitted use within the Reserve, climbing activities should not
interfere with roosting areas for bat and raptors, rare plant protection, and overall management
goals for the Reserve. Climbing areas should be identified, protected and monitored.
Unauthorized installation of climbing bolts and establishment of climbing use trails should be
addressed. For the most part, climbers are outstanding stewards of the rock and surrounding
environment. At present it appears that there are just a few “bad actors” and increased attention
to climbing areas is warranted in order to interact more with the climbing community and raise
awareness of Open Space Regulations 12.22.050(N) pertaining to climbing activities, which are
as follows:
1. Rock-climbing is permitted only within specific designated areas on city open space
lands. Said areas shall be identified by the [Parks and Recreation] director, who may also
make reasonable rules concerning such use, including but not limited to requirements for
waivers of liability as a condition of permission for such use.
2. No person shall set or install climbing bolts in any designated climbing area without the
written approval of the director.
3. The director shall appoint a committee of persons interested in climbing to advise him or
her on matters affecting designated climbing areas, including but not limited to reviewing
requests for new climbing routes, inspections of climbing areas, climbing bolts installed
therein, or other matters pertaining to the operation and maintenance of the area.
The Conservation Plan Update introduces a climbing management policy for the first time as a
way of articulating specifically to the climbing community the City’s expectations for resource
protection and sustainable use of the Reserve’s cliffs and rock faces.
Foothill Blvd. Trail
Due to concerns of roadway safety at the unofficial trailhead at Foothill Blvd., conditions should
be monitored for increases in roadway conflicts. The City will require a formalized trailhead and
parking area consistent with Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (See
Program 8.15 North Side of Foothill [Bishop Knoll]: “Development shall provide a parking lot
and trail access to Bishops Peak.”)
The junction of the bootleg trail originating at Foothill Blvd. continues to erode, presenting
aesthetic concerns and trail management issues at multiple points of intersection with the summit
trail. These junctions should be managed to reduce proliferation of use trails, reduce erosion, and
limit impacts to surrounding vegetation. Ideally, the establishment of a new trailhead at the
Bishop Knoll site would also provide an opportunity to restore and re-route sections of the upper
trail as it approaches the Reserve. Any site work in this area will require close coordination with
the County of San Luis Obispo.
PC-2 - 7
ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
Page 8
Emergency Response and Ranger Access
The prior 2004 conservation plan included the consideration of emergency access as one of its
goals:
3.27 The establishment of a connection road across the site for emergency and
maintenance access that will eliminate the requirement for access through the Brittany
Court development at the end of Highland Drive should be considered.
With an average of 2-3 calls for emergency assistance per month to the Reserve, increasing fire
danger associated with the current drought, and the need for to facilitate enhanced Ranger patrol,
vehicle access improvements for official use are now warranted. This access shall be minimally
invasive, however, with limited impacts to natural resources, aesthetics and surrounding
neighborhoods.
Staff has identified a new trail section to facilitate such access, which is located just below the
stock pond area of the Reserve above Patricia Drive. It would be approximately 580 feet long
and 8 feet wide, while decommissioning and restoring an approximately 620 foot section of
adjacent trail switchbacks that are 4 feet wide, and re-grading a 600 foot section of existing trail
that has become eroded over the years. The project will require a pre-project botanical survey
and will avoid sensitive botanical plant species, or re-locate individual plants if necessary to the
adjacent trail switchback restoration area. Project design will ensure proper drainage and erosion
control, and the emergency access trail will be re-vegetated on the margins with native grass
seed.
Grazing
Mr. Webb Tartaglia has been the long-standing cattle operator at the Reserve in collaboration
with the Ferrini family that enjoys a reserved grazing right. Mr. Tartaglia stocks fourteen mother
and calf pairs each spring season. The current grazing regime has been mostly successful, and
two special status botanical species identified by Terra Verde Environmental (San Luis Obispo
owl’s clover and Cambria morning glory) have been prolific in grazed areas. These species
appear to prefer a disturbance regime created through grazing impact, as well a decrease in
competition from annual grasses and other forb species, as well as thistles and other weedy
species. The prior 2004 conservation plan called for a fencing project to protect and restore the
riparian area in the lower pasture. This plan includes a more clearly defined project area and
planting palette in order set the stage for project implementation. Lastly, the excavation of the
accumulated silt in the stock pond would not only be beneficial from a natural resources
management perspective, as above, it would provide more reliable stock water supply from
season to season, as well as a potential water supply source for active firefighting when aerial
water drop tactics are employed.
4.0 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
While the Planning Commission may opine on any component of the Bishop Peak Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update, staff would like to suggest that the Commission focus
PC-2 - 8
ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
Page 9
especially on matters pertaining to passive recreational use and amenities, General Plan
consistency and implementation, and review of the Initial Study. The Conservation Plan Update
does not propose to change any existing passive recreational uses that occur now, such as hiking
and climbing, etc. although it does specify appropriate methods and areas for these uses. The
Conservation Plan Update also contemplates a new emergency response and Ranger patrol
access trail, trail restoration activities, updated signs, trailhead amenities, and expanded
maintenance / fire protection.
5.0 PUBLIC COMMENT
The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update seeks to accommodate
community preferences while addressing the City’s goals in the Conservation and Open Space
Element. Public meetings were held on May 7 and 14, 2015 in order to gather neighborhood and
community input prior to staff’s preparation of the Conservation Plan Update. Approximately 50
neighbors of the Reserve attended the May 7 meeting, many of whom expressed significant
concern for neighborhood compatibility and safety, as discussed above. Approximately 12
people attended the May 14 meeting that included a much broader discussion of overall
management concerns facing the Reserve. Both written comments and public testimony
received throughout the public review process will be considered in the final draft.
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Program staff, Parks and Recreation Department
staff, Public Works staff, Fire Department staff, and Police Department staff have been involved
with outreach efforts and components of the plan pertinent to their departments. The
Conservation Plan Update will also be heard by the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission on
June 3, 2015 and is presently scheduled to be considered for final adoption by the City Council
on July 7, 2015.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may wish to recommend additions or edits to the Conservation Plan Update, or
request that staff come back to the Commission for further review and deliberation at a later
time. The Commission may also recommend denial of the Conservation Plan Update. This is
not suggested as it appears to be consistent with the Conservation Guidelines adopted in 2002,
and with the Conservation and Open Space Element update in 2006, and will provide direction as
to proper habitat protection, compatible recreational use, and management activities for the
Reserve into the future.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Draft Initial Study / Negative Declaration
3. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update, Legislative Review Draft.
Available on the City’s website: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/city-administration/natural-resources/bishop-peak-natural-reserve
PC-2 - 9
ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
Page 10
ATTACHMENT 1: Location Map
PC-2 - 10
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application # GENP 1122-2015
1. Project Title:
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Robert Hill, (805) 781 7211
Freddy Otte, (805) 781 7511
4. Project Location:
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve (the “Reserve”), north of Foothill Blvd. and west of Hwy 1, in
the City and County of San Luis Obispo (vicinity map attached).
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, City Administration Department, Natural Resources Program,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Land Use Designation:
Open Space
7. Zoning:
C/OS-40
8. Description of the Project:
The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update (the “2015 Plan”) will
continue to guide the management and stewardship of Bishop Peak Natural Reserve over
the next ten years. It is an update of the prior Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation
Plan (the “2004 Plan”); as such, this Initial Study considers new projects that were not
previously evaluated with the 2004 Plan. The 2015 Plan requires that the property is
managed in accordance with the City’s Open Space Regulations and the Conservation and
Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan. The 2015 Update proposes a variety of
project opportunities to protect, restore, and enhance the property. In addition to normal
management, maintenance, and monitoring of the property, particular emphasis is placed
on the following management considerations: Natural Resources Protection; Scenic
Resources; Erosion and Drainage; Fire Protection; and, Trails and Passive Recreation
Uses.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 11
A new project that was not previously evaluated in the 2004 Plan is the completion of the
previously identified “continuous loop” for emergency access and Ranger patrol purposes.
The new section, located just below the stock pond area of the Reserve, will be
approximately 580’ long and 8’ wide, while decommissioning and restoring an
approximately 620’ section of adjacent trail switchbacks that are 4’ wide, and re-grading a
600’ section of existing trail that has become eroded over the years. The project requires a
pre-project botanical survey and will avoid sensitive botanical plant species, or re-locate
individual plants if necessary to the adjacent trail switchback restoration area. Project
design will ensure proper drainage and erosion control, and will be re-vegetated on the
margins with native grass seed. A map exhibit that depicts this project is attached.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Privately owned agricultural land and adjacent urban development.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
City Council approval
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 2
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 12
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
-X-
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
-X-
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 3
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 13
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name Community Development Director
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 4
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 14
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved
(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed
site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 5
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 15
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1122-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1, 9 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1 X
Evaluation
a) The 2015 Plan does not anticipate any new structures that would impede views or have an effect on a scenic vista;
however, it does propose a new emergency access trail above Patricia Drive in-lieu of an existing set off trail switchbacks.
The project description entails the decommissioning and restoration of the switchbacks so that only one trail alignment will
exist when complete.
b), c) The project site is not within a local a state scenic highway area, and does not anticipate any improvements that would
damage scenic resources or historic buildings.
d) Bishop Peak closes at dusk and no new lighting is anticipated or proposed by the 2015 Plan. The City has a night-sky
ordinance that would apply in the event any new safety lighting is installed on the site.
Conclusion
Although the 2015 Plan does anticipate some ground level improvements that could change the visual character of a portion
of the site, these actions are considered less than significant because they will be vegetated and an adjacent section of trail
switchbacks will be decommissioned and restored.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1 X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b) and c) The project site does not include any Farmland that is considered prime, unique, or of statewide importance.
There are no Williamson Act contracts that apply to the site, and no changes are proposed to the site that could result in
conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Conclusion
The project site is public land that is part of an existing open space system and no changes in use are proposed.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
3 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
3 X
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 6
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 16
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1122-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
3 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
3 X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) and e). The 2015 Plan does not include any actions that would create new air quality impacts or violate any air
quality standards or existing plans.
Conclusion
The project site is City open space bordered by open land and residential development. No changes in land use or the
operations of the facility are proposed that would impact air quality in any way.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 4, 9
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 4,
7, 8, 9
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
1, 4,
7, 8, 9
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
1, 4,
7, 8, 9
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
1, 6
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1, 6 X
Evaluation
a) New emergency access trail work/construction could have an adverse effect on sensitive species. A Plant Inventory and
Wildlife Survey prepared by Terra Verde Environmental found there is the possibility that sensitive plant species according
to the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) may exist along or near the proposed alignment of the trail. In particular, the
species Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis subsp. Episcopalis) was identified in the project site area in the Terra
Verde Environmental survey, which is ranked rare 4.2 by CNPS. The 2015 Plan calls for ongoing site surveys to occur in
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 7
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 17
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1122-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
order to ensure that impacts from the proposed alignment are avoided to the greatest extent possible. If necessary, the project
description calls for any sensitive plant species that cannot be avoided to be re-located to the adjacent trail switchback
restoration area.
b) The project site contains limited riparian areas but will not be impacted by the 2015 Plan.
c) The project site does not contain any federal wetlands.
d), e), f) The 2015 Plan does not anticipate any improvements that would be considered a barrier or otherwise interfere with
migratory animals. The 2015 Plan requires compliance with all local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources
in the area, and there are no other conservation plans that apply to the project site.
Conclusion
The project will have less than significant impacts to biological resources because the 2015 Plan requires all anticipated
projects to be designed in a manner that minimizes these effects. The 2015 Plan requires compliance with all local ordinances
and policies established for the purpose of protecting biological resources, such as the City’s Conservation Guidelines and the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
1 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
1 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
1 X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
1 X
Evaluation
a) The project site is not considered a historic resource.
b), c) The 2015 Plan does not anticipate any action that would have an adverse change on archaeological or paleontological
resources.
d) The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a burial sensitivity map that identifies locations of known and likely burials. The
project site falls outside of the area known to be used for this purpose. The City has construction guidelines that would apply
if any human remains are discovered; however, the 2015 Plan does anticipate limited excavation activities and only very
limited ground disturbance and no impact to human burials is likely.
Conclusion
The project site has been modified and disturbed in the past, and proposed activities under the 2015 Plan are unlikely to
disturb any significant cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. The 2015 Plan calls for an educational kiosk to
help the public understand and interpret the history of the site and the surrounding area.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
5 X
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
5 X
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 8
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 18
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1122-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 5 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5 X
IV. Landslides? 5 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 10 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
10 X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
10 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
10 X
Evaluation
a) The 2015 Plan does not anticipate any new structures or activities that would expose people or structures to substantial
adverse effects. There is a fault zone mapped outside but proximate to the project site.
b) Maintenance activities have the potential to cause erosion. Any project located in or near a drainage will have sediment
and erosion control measures in place. The 2015 Plan includes policies that direct projects to be designed in a manner that
minimizes the potential for soil erosion to the greatest extent possible, and some of the projects anticipated by the 2015 Plan
are specifically intended to reduce sedimentation. The new emergency access trail will consider proper drainage in its design
and configuration, while installing erosion and sedimentation measures during the course of construction and until the site
becomes revegetated.
c), d), e) The 2015 Plan does not anticipate the construction of new structures that would be subject to geologic impacts. The
project site does include expansive soils, but paths and other flatwork will be designed in a manner that takes the soil type
into consideration and in no case would involve substantial risks to life or property. The site is served by the City of San Luis
Obispo sanitary sewer system, but no sanitation facilities are proposed including septic tanks or alternative systems.
Conclusion
The 2015 Plan calls for drainage and erosion control strategies whenever there is any possibility of erosion, although such
maintenance activities are consistent with existing activities and are less than significant. Although the location is an active
seismic region and located proximate to a mapped Alquist-Priola fault, the 2015 Plan does not introduce people or structures
to an area where substantial risk of harm to life or property exists.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1, 11 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1, 11 X
Evaluation
a), b) The City of San Luis Obispo has a Climate Action Plan that requires the City to evaluate actions that would lead to
increased greenhouse gas emissions. The project is a plan to conserve an open space area mostly within the City limits and
day to day operations of the open space will not generate, directly or indirectly, new increased greenhouse gas emissions. The
2015 Plan calls for removal of dead trees and shrubs (which emit carbon) and replacing them with native materials (which
sequester carbon).
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 9
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 19
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1122-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conclusion
On balance, the long term positive effects of the project for increasing carbon sequestration capacity within the project site
are expected to outweigh any temporary impacts that might occur from the use of equipment during maintenance activities.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
9 X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
9
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The 2015 Plan and ongoing preservation of the open space area will not expose people or structures to
harm from hazardous materials because there are no hazardous materials on site, routinely transported through or adjacent to
the site, and no handling of hazardous materials is proposed. The project site is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area,
and there is no private landing strips in the vicinity. The 2015 Plan would not impair or interfere with the City’s emergency
response plans.
h) The project site area contains annual grassland, chaparral, and oak woodland, as well as non-native nuisance vegetation
species. A component of the City’s overall conservation planning includes the development of a Wildfire Preparedness Plan
chapter. This chapter identifies the areas needing management. The impacts are considered less than significant and are also
pre-existing and not effected by the 2015 Plan.
Conclusion
The project site is a City open space. It is adjacent to residential neighborhoods. There are no uses, past or present, that
involve hazardous materials. Wildland fire impacts associated with maintaining on-site vegetation are minimal, and potential
impacts are addressed through the 2015 Plan’s Wildfire Preparedness Plan.
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 10
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 20
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1122-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
9 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
9 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project would not negatively impact water quality standards or discharge requirements, or use groundwater
supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The 2015 Plan envisions activities to restore and improve natural systems.
d), e) and f), Maintenance activities may have the potential to cause erosion. The 2015 Plan requires that any project located
in or near a drainage system will address sediment and erosion control, and such activities are less than significant.
g), h), i), j) There are no projects anticipated that would place new structures within a 100-year flood plain, or impede or
redirect stormwater flows.
Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant effect on water quality, with only minor maintenance activities anticipated.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
1, 6 X
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 11
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 21
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1122-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
1, 6 X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Conservation Guidelines and would not physically divide
an established community. No land use changes are proposed and there is no habitat conservation plan currently covering the
site.
Conclusion
There are no impacts to land use and planning associated with the project to create a natural reserve conservation plan.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
1 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b) The project does not involve any physical changes to the site that would impact the availability of mineral resources.
Conclusion
No impact to mineral resources is anticipated or likely because the project is an open space conservation plan involving
minimal physical changes to the project site.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
9 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
9 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
9 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
9
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
9 X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
9 X
Evaluation
a) The 2015 Plan does anticipate a potential new use of an Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV) for emergency access and Ranger
Patrol purposes; however, this piece of equipment would be muffled and only used at low speeds so that its use would not
exceed applicable noise standards.
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 12
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 22
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1122-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b), c) and d) The 2015 Plan does not anticipate and other new uses or facilities that would generate noise, or expose people to
unsafe noise or ground vibration levels.
e), f) The project site experiences frequent overflight, but is outside of the airport land use plan area, and farther than two
miles from of a public airport.
Conclusion
The 2015 Plan would involve no new day to day increases in noise that would expose people to unacceptable noise levels.
The City’s Noise Ordinance applies to all activities, and ensures that temporary noise impacts are less than significant.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project site is an open space area and there will be no population growth or displacement associated with
adoption of the 2015 Plan.
Conclusion
No impacts to population and housing will occur with the adoption and implementation of the 2015 Plan because no housing
will be constructed or displaced as part of the project.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 9 X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) The 2015 Plan will not result in any increase in new demand for public services because it is an open space
conservation plan.
Conclusion
The implementation of the 2015 Plan will not result in any new or altered government facilities, or changes to acceptable
service ratios, response times, school enrollment, or park use.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
9 X
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 13
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 23
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1122-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Evaluation
a), b) Plan implementation will enhance the natural environment of the project site as a municipal open space property, while
providing for passive recreational use. While the level of use of the project site appears to have increased since the 2004
Plan, there is nothing in the 2015 Plan that is intended to increase new use of the project site.
Conclusion
The 2015 Plan is anticipated to continue supporting passive recreational uses such as hiking and scenic enjoyment. However,
the project will not increase new use of the facility in a way that degrades existing or planned facilities, and no impacts are
anticipated from the construction of minor new facilities, such as pathways.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) The project is adoption and implementation of a conservation plan to enhance the natural environment of
the project site. Although existing traffic and parking concerns have been brought forward during the review process for the
2015 Plan, there are no new uses proposed that would conflict with traffic management plans, change air traffic patterns,
create hazards due to a design feature, result in inadequate emergency access or conflict with an adopted transportation plan.
Conclusion
The 2015 Plan does not propose new uses that will further contribute to adverse effects on traffic or transportation.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 14
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 24
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-1122-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
X
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project would create no new demands on utilities and service systems that cannot be met with
existing supplies.
Conclusion
The proposed 2015 Plan and its implementation will have no adverse effect on utilities or service systems.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
The project is expected to have an overall beneficial effect on the quality of the environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
There are no cumulative impacts identified or associated with the project. All of the impacts identified are less than
significant and temporary in nature.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
The project will not have adverse effects on human being because it is an open space conservation plan for a site that is
currently used for open space conservation and passive recreational purposes.
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 15
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 25
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2004) is available on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/natural-resources/bishop-peak-natural-reserve
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Conservation and Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2006)
2. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html
3. SLO County APCD List of Current Rules and Clean Air Plan: http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/slo/cur.htm
4. Summary and Results of a Plant Inventory and Wildlife Survey at Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, City of San Luis
Obispo, California (Terra Verde Environmental, May 13, 2015)
5. Alquist-Priola Special Studies Zones Map:
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/SAN_LUIS_OBISPO/maps/SLOBISPO.PDF
6. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo, City of San Luis Obispo (2002)
7. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog, USFWS (2002)
8. South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan, NOAA (2013)
9. Legislative Review Draft, Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update. City of San Luis
Obispo (2015)
10. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Coastal Part, USDA Soils Conservation Service (1984)
11. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, City of San Luis Obispo (2012)
Attachments:
1. Site vicinity map with aerial photograph
2. New Emergency Response and Ranger Patrol Access
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 16
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 26
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
ATTACHMENT 1: Site vicinity map with aerial photograph
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 17
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 27
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
ATTACHMENT 2: New Emergency Response and Ranger Patrol Access
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 18
ATTACHMENT 2
PC-2 - 28