HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-2015 PH1 Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation PlanCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN
2015 UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission, adopt a
resolution (Attachment 1) in order to:
1. Approve the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update.
2. Approve a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the Project (Attachment 2).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City’s first ever conservation plan was prepared for Bishop Peak Natural Reserve 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. The 2015 Update process
included two public workshops, as well as both Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning
Commission review and recommendations.
A number of new and ongoing challenges emerged through the 2015 Update process, which are
now addressed in the 2015 Update. These include 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 Ranger patrol and
enforcement; and, evaluation of emergency response access.
In response to these issues, the primary recommendations found in the 2015 Update are:
1. Additional biological surveys to better understand the rare bat species that have been
identified, habitat enhancement at the stock pond area, wildlife-friendly garbage
receptacles at trailheads along with “mutt mitt” dispensers for dog owners, and rock
climbing management guidelines;
2. Implementation of neighborhood traffic management strategies, trip-reduction
strategies, and transportation mode-split goals identified in the LUCE, as well the
adoption of a Good Neighbor Policy;
3. Reclassification of two areas from “Management / Trail Corridor” to “Restoration” in
accordance with the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of
San Luis Obispo and deployment of the expanded Ranger Service staffing available
with the adoption of the 2015-17 Financial Plan;
4. Continued assessment and evaluation of emergency response access following the
Planning Commission’s recommendation for staff to prepare an emergency access
alternatives study
PH1 - 1
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update Page 2
The 2015 Update also calls for the Reserve 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. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The fiscal impact of implementing the 2015 Update is
substantive, but has been planned for in advance through the Financial Plan process
DISCUSSION
The primary objective of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update is to
ensure protection of the Reserve’s natural and scenic resources, while also guiding passive
recreation uses, fire safety, and restoration and management activities. The Conservation Plan
Update was developed pursuant to prior Council authorization; both existing and new technical
information and analysis; and, a public outreach effort that included numerous individual
meetings with residents, community members and neighbors; a neighborhood public workshop
held at Bishop Peak Elementary School; a more broadly focused City-wide public workshop;
and, two advisory body hearings. In addition to the City’s customary public meeting noticing
procedures, the legislative review draft of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
2015 Update was posted on the City’s website on a special webpage dedicated to Bishop Peak.
The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update is the first update of a
conservation plan to be developed and brought forward for public review and City Council
consideration.
Overview of Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve is a 352-acre property located in the northwest part of the City and
County of San Luis Obispo. 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 jointly by the City and County of San Luis Obispo. In 1995, an additional
140 acres was donated by Mr. Felton Ferrini to the City of San Luis Obispo as the Ferrini Ranch
Open Space. In 1998, a 108 acre parcel was purchased from Mr. 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 1,546 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.
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
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
PH1 - 2
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update Page 3
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 conflicts and
concerns, 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 and 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 that are largely outside
of City jurisdiction and control.
6. Emergency Access and Ranger Patrol Improvements. Current emergency access
points limit the speed and response time with which City fire fighter-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, to be considered separately in the future, may increase safety for
visitors to the Reserve and neighbors living in the wildland-urban interface zone.
2015 Update 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
PH1 - 3
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update Page 4
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 consideration of the following
initiatives to provide for the continued stewardship, restoration, and management of the Reserve.
The facilitation of these recommendations will be significantly enhanced with expanded Ranger
Service staffing supported by the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
1. 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, and consistent with the tasks outlined in the 2015-17 Major City Goal regarding
Open Space, Rangers will install wildlife-friendly garbage receptacles at trailheads along
with “mutt mitt” dispensers for dog owners and Public Works staff will provide trash
pickup. Funding for trailhead enhancements are programmed in the CIP.
2. Neighborhood Compatibility. With no dedicated parking for BPNR, the impacts of
visitation volume are felt largely by surrounding residents. City staff will study and
monitor the traffic patterns in the neighborhood and apply traffic management strategies
where appropriate, consistent with the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
policies found in Chapters 7 and 8 pertaining to residential street design standards, levels
of service, and neighborhood traffic management. In keeping with the mission of
reducing impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and complying with principles of the
LUCE, the City will advocate and also 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.
PH1 - 4
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update Page 5
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 with appropriate
application of City policies and procedures .
5. The City will not actively promote Bishop Peak Natural Reserve as a tourist
destination location through media outlets, advertisements, and publications.
3. 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 (LAC) have been exceeded in the upper
reaches of the summit trail, and a reclassification of two areas 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.
4. Rock Climbing. While climbing is a historic and permitted use within the Reserve,
climbing activities should not interfere with roosting areas for bats 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:
PH1 - 5
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update Page 6
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 climbing management guidelines 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.
5. Foothill Boulevard Trail. Due to concerns of roadway safety at the unofficial trailhead
at Foothill Blvd., conditions should be monitored for 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 Bishop 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.
6. 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 the current average of 2-3 calls for emergency assistance per month to the Reserve,
increasing fire danger associated with the current drought, and the need to facilitate
enhanced Ranger patrol, vehicle access improvements for official uses were evaluated as
part of this planning process. The range of emergencies in the Reserve managed by City
firefighter-paramedics spans the spectrum from twisted ankles and mild dehydration to
limb threatening fractures and heart attacks. At the same time, emergency access should
PH1 - 6
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update Page 7
be minimally invasive, with limited impacts to natural resources, aesthetics and
surrounding neighborhoods.
With these goals in mind, staff identified a new trail section to facilitate emergency and
Ranger access located just below the stock pond area of the Reserve and above Patricia
Drive. This proposal entailed a new drive-able trail section that 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. This proposal was
reviewed at the public workshop meetings, as well as by the Planning Commission.
Numerous neighbors expressed strong concerns for this proposal, however, and the
Planning Commission agreed. Their recommendation to the City Council is that this
Conservation Plan Update should not reflect the Patricia Drive emergency access; rather,
a study of different potential emergency access locations should be provided to the City
Council that compares alternatives using evaluative criteria.
In summary, the Emergency Access Alternatives Study looks at six different options that
are evaluated using six separate criteria. The preferred alternative appears to be formally
establishing the Brittany Court access that the City has historically used by permission
from the controlling property owner, Mr. Felton Ferrini. Both Fire Department and
Natural Resources staff have met with Mr. Ferrini in the past year and he has been clear
that he is no longer willing to accommodate emergency access through Brittany Court by
permission. The City does have an access easement for utilities maintenance purposes
only (to access the water tank above the pond), and it appears at this time that the City
would need to pursue a real property negotiation to expand the scope of the existing
easement, pursuant to future City Council authorization and direction regarding price and
terms. The Emergency Access Alternatives Study is included as Attachment 3.
7. 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 animal grazing impact and 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study has been prepared that identifies several areas where potential impacts exist are
in the areas of Aesthetics; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and, Hydrology
and Water Quality. These potential impacts are characterized as de minimis and are less than
significant. It should be noted that the Initial Study only considers new projects that were not
PH1 - 7
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update Page 8
previously evaluated with the 2004 Plan.
Staff recommends that with the findings of the Initial Study, together with incorporation by
reference into the Project Description that the property will be managed in accordance with
policies found in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element of its General Plan (2006),
the Conservation Guidelines for Management of Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis
Obispo (2002), and the City’s Open Space Regulations (Municipal Code 12.22), the issuance of
a Negative Declaration is appropriate.
CONCURRENCES, ADVISORY BODY REVIEW, AND PUBLIC COMMENT
City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Program staff, Parks and Recreation Department
staff, Community Development Department staff, and Fire Department staff have reviewed
components of the plan pertinent to their programs and departments and have provided their
concurrence. It should be noted that the Fire Department’s concurrence is with the caveat that
the City continue to pursue enhanced emergency access.
The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update also seeks to accommodate
community preferences while addressing the City’s goals in the Conservation and Open Space
Element. To that end:
A neighborhood public meeting was held at Bishop Peak Elementary School on May 7, 2015 in
order to gather neighborhood input prior to staff’s preparation of the Conservation Plan Update
that was attended by approximately fifty members of the public, as well as Natural Resources,
Parks and Recreation, Fire Department, and Transportation Engineering staff. A second public
meeting was held on May 14, 2015 that was attended by approximately 16 members of the
public, including Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation, Fire Department, and Cal Poly staff.
The Planning Commission reviewed the plan and Negative Declaration at its May 27, 2015
meeting and recommended adoption, with revisions, by unanimous 6-0 vote. Draft minutes are
included as Attachment 4. The Planning Commission’s final motion that reflects their
recommended revisions is as follows:
Multari moved, Riggs seconded, to approve the plan with these additions: address [emergency]
access alternatives; do not consider a Patricia Drive-side [emergency] access; emphasize intent
to encourage [transportation] mode shift in general terms consistent with the LUCE; work with
neighbors on parking control solutions; clarify intent to reduce use as a tourist destination; and
before the next budget is adopted, advise the City Council that the Planning Commission
considers additional ranger staffing be to be a priority (Carried 5:0).
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the plan at its April 1, 2015 meeting and
recommend adoption by a unanimous 6-0 vote. Draft minutes are included as Attachment 5. The
Parks and Recreation Commission also included with their motion the following
recommendation:
The Parks and Recreation Commission strongly encourages the City to hire more than one new
full time ranger in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. (Reiger/Baker 6-0)
Throughout the course of the public workshops and advisory body hearings, Natural Resources
Program staff received numerous written comments from members of the public that are
PH1 - 8
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update Page 9
included as Attachment 6. Written comments were broad in their range of discussion points and
suggestions, but were primarily centered around the following concerns: the need for increased
Ranger Service and Police Department patrol and adherence to Open Space Regulations;
increased adherence and enforcement of parking regulations and potential new parking solutions;
and, concern for the staff proposal for emergency access from Patricia Drive. Both written
comments and advisory body comments and recommended revisions are addressed and are
reflected in the goals and policies proposed within the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan 2015 Update itself.
FISCAL IMPACT
Day-to-day management of Bishop Peak Natural Reserve will continue to be supported primarily
through the operating budgets within the Natural Resources Program and Ranger Service.
Additional support is expected from Public Works Parks Maintenance and Parking Service, the
Fire Department and the Police Department. City staff developed a Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) program for major maintenance activities and improvements that are part of the 2015-17
Financial Plan’s Open Space Preservation Major City Goal; this work program includes funding
for increased Ranger patrol, signage, trail maintenance work, and trailhead amenities at Bishop
Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update, among other locations. City staff will
also pursue grants and volunteers to augment funding for this plan’s identified projects. Overall,
the fiscal impact of the Conservation Plan Update and its implementation is substantive, but has
been planned for in advance through the Financial Plan process, and these investments of City
funds are seen as critical to ensuring the long-term stewardship of the Reserve and avoidance of
future costs associated with deferred maintenance and upkeep.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could:
1. Approve the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update and adopt the
Negative Declaration with amendments.
2. Deny the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update and not adopt
the Negative Declaration, although this is not recommended given numerous
opportunities for public input and unanimous advisory body recommendations.
3. Continue the item with specific direction if more information or discussion time is
required before taking action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution to adopt the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update
and Negative Declaration
2. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
3. Emergency Access Alternatives Study
4. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 2015 (Draft)
5. Minutes from Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of June 3, 2015 (Draft)
6. Written Public Comments
PH1 - 9
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update Page 10
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AND ONLINE
1. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update - Final Legislative Review
Draft
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-07-07\Bishop Peak Natural Reserve (Codron-Hill-Otte)
PH1 - 10
Attachment 1
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN
2015 UPDATE AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and public use of open space lands and cultural resources acquired by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo manages twelve open space areas totaling
approximately 3,500 acres, including the approximately 352-acre Bishop Peak Natural Reserve;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the
general public have commented upon the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015
Update as it has moved through a Council-directed approval process, and staff has considered
and incorporated those comments where appropriate; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
1. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update. The City Council hereby
adopts the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update, an official copy of
which shall be kept on record with the City Clerk, based on the following findings:
a. The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update is consistent with
General Plan goals and policies relating to the oversight and management of City open
space areas, specifically Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.5.6 that calls for
the development of conservation or master plans for open space properties to protect and
enhance them in a way that best benefits the community as a whole;
b. Implementation of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update will
provide protection of identified natural resources and appropriate public access to the site
while maintaining a majority of the site for habitat protection and enhancement; and
2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration for the
project, an official copy of which shall be kept on record with the City Clerk, finding that it
adequately identifies all of the potential impacts of the project and that those potential impacts
identified in the areas of Aesthetics; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazarous Materials; and,
Hydrology and Water Quality are de minimis and less than significant.
PH1 - 11
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 1
Page 2
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of July, 2015 at a duly noticed public hearing.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of __________, _________.
_______________________
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC
City Clerk
PH1 - 12
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. The 2015 Plan also identifies a need to evaluate options for enhanced emergency
access on the north side of the Reserve in order to optimize response times and logistics.
Several alternatives have been identified for enhanced emergency access; the preferred
alternative would use existing infrastructure on neighboring property and would not result
in any new impacts compared to implementation of the 2004 Plan.
Attachment 2
PH1 - 13
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 2
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 14
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Attachment 2
PH1 - 15
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 4
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name Community Development Director
Attachment 2
PH1 - 16
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 5
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved
(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed
site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 6
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1, 9 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1 X
Evaluation
a) The 2015 Plan does not anticipate any new structures that would impede views or have an effect on a scenic vista;
however, it does propose trail restoration, improvements and decommissioning efforts that may alter the character and
appearance of existing trail sections within the Reserve..
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 and restored over time.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1 X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b) and c) The project site does not include any Farmland that is considered prime, unique, or of statewide importance.
There are no Williamson Act contracts that apply to the site, and no changes are proposed to the site that could result in
conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Conclusion
The project site is public land that is part of an existing open space system and no changes in use are proposed.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
3 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
3 X
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 7
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
3 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
3 X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) and e). The 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, 12
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,
12
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) 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 near various alignments of the trail system.
The 2015 Plan calls for ongoing site surveys to occur in order to ensure that impacts from trail use are avoided to the greatest
extent possible, and City policy generally prohibits off-trail use.
b) The project site contains limited riparian areas but will not be impacted by the 2015 Plan.
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 8
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 not have 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, the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, and the City’s Open Space Regulations.
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
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 10 X
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 9
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
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 and runoff to the greatest extent possible, and some of the projects anticipated by the
2015 Plan are specifically intended to reduce sedimentation. All activities will consider proper drainage in their 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).
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.
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 10
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.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 11
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
9 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
9 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) 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
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 6 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
1, 6 X
Evaluation
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 12
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 not anticipate any potential new uses that its use would not exceed applicable noise standards.
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.
Attachment 2
PH1 - 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
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 13
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
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
Attachment 2
PH1 - 25
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
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 14
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
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
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
X
Attachment 2
PH1 - 26
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
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 15
effects?
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.
Attachment 2
PH1 - 27
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 16
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
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)
12. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Open Space Regulations, 12.22 (1998)
Attachments:
1. Vicinity map with aerial photograph
2. Topographic site map
Attachment 2
PH1 - 28
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 17
ATTACHMENT 1: Vicinity map with aerial photograph
Attachment 2
PH1 - 29
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY BPNR CONSERVATION PLAN 2015 UPDATE 18
ATTACHMENT 2: Topographic site map
Attachment 2
PH1 - 30
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
Emergency Access Alternatives Study
Prepared for:
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
Prepared by:
Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
In consultation with:
Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Jeff Gater, Deputy Fire Chief
Doug Carscaden, Senior Ranger
June 2015
Attachment 3
PH1 - 31
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve – Emergency Access Alternatives Study
1
Background
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve (“the Reserve”) is a 352-acre property located in the northwest part
of the City and County of San Luis Obispo. Management of the Reserve as municipal open
space has been guided by the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2004) in
accordance with policies set forth in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s
General Plan, as well as the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San
Luis Obispo (2002,) in order to ensure the best long-term stewardship and protection of the
Reserve’s natural resource conservation values, while also accommodating passive recreational
uses where compatible and appropriate. At the same time, the City’s Safety Element, at Policy
9.1 regarding Emergency Preparedness and Response, states: “There should be adequate
planning, organization, and resources for emergency preparedness and emergency response.”
The City Council-adopted Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2004) called for the
creation of what was called “the continuous loop” through the Reserve that would connect the
northern side of the Reserve to the primary trailhead access areas taken from Highland Drive
and Patricia Drive for emergency access and maintenance purposes. Today, the continuous
loop utilizes the City’s access easement from Bridle Ridge Road located off of Highway 1, the
Felsman Loop trail, and a newer section of drive-able trail that was installed in 2005 leading from
the junction of Felsman Loop and the Bishop Peak summit trail down past the water tank to the
stock pond area. The continuous loop was also considered for an extension down from the
stock pond area to the Patricia Drive trailhead, but this portion of the alignment was not
adopted in 2004 as the City had historically been able to utilize access through the private
Brittany Court cul-de-sac located at the top of Highland Drive by permission from the controlling
owner, Mr. Felton Ferrini. It appears that the City recognized at that time that this arrangement
was intended to be temporary since it relied on permission-based access, based on the
following goal statement contained in the 2004 plan:
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.
In the subsequent years, the City’s use of Brittany Court increased as calls for emergency
response increased to the present level of 2 to 3 calls per month. In the past year, Mr. Ferrini has
let us know that he no longer intends to allow access through Brittany Court for emergency
medical response. Staff has evaluated the deeds, resolutions, and conditions of approval by
which the Brittany Court parcel map was created, and finds no record that Mr. Ferrini has any
obligation to provide access for this purpose (the City does have an access easement for utilities
maintenance purposes only). At the present time, emergency response companies from both
City Fire and CalFire rely on two access points which are often used in tandem; these are the
Bridle Ridge Trail access easement, and access through the Madonna Ranch located off of
Foothill Blvd. Bridle Ridge is considered sub-optimal due to the length and terrain resulting in
substantive additional response time, while the Madonna Ranch access used for incidents on
the south side is currently effective, although as trail conditions have deteriorated above this
point, extrications have become increasingly more challenging from a logistical standpoint. The
range of emergencies contemplated for response by City firefighter-paramedics spans the
spectrum from twisted ankles and mild dehydration to limb threatening fractures and heart
attacks. Subjects with head, neck, or back trauma or immediately life-threatening injuries will
typically be extricated by helicopter, while active fire-fighting will take any available access, as
well as utilize aerial suppression tactics when available through the City’s mutual aid
arrangements with the State of California.
With this background in mind, as staff began preparation of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan 2015 Update, a proposal for a new trail section to facilitate emergency and
Ranger access located just below the stock pond area of the Reserve and above Patricia Drive
Attachment 3
PH1 - 32
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve – Emergency Access Alternatives Study
2
was brought forth for consideration. This proposal was reviewed at the public workshop
meetings, as well as by the Planning Commission, that were associated with the 2015 Update
process. Numerous neighbors expressed strong concerns for this proposal, however, and the
Planning Commission agreed. Their recommendation to the City Council was that the
Conservation Plan Update should not reflect the Patricia Drive emergency access; rather, a
study of different potential emergency access locations should be provided to the City Council
that compares alternatives using evaluative criteria. This brief study is intended to respond to the
Planning Commission’s direction.
Study Methods and Evaluative Criteria
City staff consisting of Natural Resources Manager Robert Hill, Fire Chief Garret Olson, Deputy
Fire Chief Jeff Gater, and Senior Ranger Doug Carscaden met on several occasions to discuss
potential emergency access alternatives. This included both mapping review in the office, and
field reconnaissance in order to “ground truth” the various alignments that had been identified.
Field conditions such as slope, soils, obstacles, and sensitive resource values were identified
where possible. From these field visits, a series of maps were created using Geographic
Information Systems software in order to depict the proposed alignments cartographically, as
well as to calculate total distances and areas of potential disturbance. The intent of this study is
to provide a high level look at potential alternatives, while recognizing that ultimately additional
analysis should be provided such as visual impact analysis, site-specific biological analysis, and
detailed cost estimates. It is also recognized that this study, for the most part, relies primarily on
subjective, qualitative assessments.
The following evaluative criteria were identified:
1. Uses existing infrastructure. Does the alternative utilize existing roads, gates or other
previously improved areas, in whole or in part?
2. Project cost. Are project implementation costs, including real property land tenure,
expected to be in the range of less than $50,000, between $50,000 and $100,000, or
more than $100,000?
3. New environmental impacts. Are environmental impacts expected to be potentially
significant in one or more areas, e.g. aesthetics, biological, soils and hydrology, etc.?
4. Land tenure. Does the City enjoy land tenure necessary to implement the project
alternative, or will it have to rely on a successful real property negotiation with another
party? How likely is a successful outcome to be?
5. Optimizes response times. Does the alternative substantially improve response times
compared to status quo?
6. Geographic location. Does the alternative result in emergency access located at a
portion of the Reserve that is desired?
7. Multiple benefits. Does the alternative accrue other benefits, such as Ranger patrol,
maintenance utility, or improved trail experience for the recreational user?
Attachment 3
PH1 - 33
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve – Emergency Access Alternatives Study
3
Summary Evaluation Matrix
The table below highlights the alternatives that were identified by staff and provides a “snap
shot” comparison of those alternatives for the purposes of this study. Each alternative is then
described and mapped on the following pages. As noted above, the ranking of the
alternatives presented here is subjective, and should any of them be deemed to warrant further
consideration, additional technical studies and cost estimation should be completed, as well as
separate environmental review. Ultimately, inclusion of a new emergency access point other
than the status quo or Brittany Court would also require an amendment of the Bishop Peak
Natural Reserve Conservation Plan through an appropriate public review process.
Attachment 3
PH1 - 34
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve – Emergency Access Alternatives Study
4
Status Quo, Map 1 of 2
This access enters through a locked gate off of Foothill Blvd. through the private Madonna
Ranch. It is considered to be a functioning access point for emergency response to incidents on
the south side of the Reserve. Both City and CalFire emergency response companies are well-
acquainted with this access point, which provide a staging area off of Foothill, as well as the
ability to reach the approximately 800’ elevation at the brush line with a Type III engine. It should
be noted, however, that foot travel from the high point of the access to the Bishop Peak summit
trail is difficult and awkward for response personnel when utilizing various extrication techniques
due to the steep and erosive terrain. This access is by accommodation permission from Mr. John
Madonna, although this appears to be a stable circumstance at present.
Attachment 3
PH1 - 35
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve – Emergency Access Alternatives Study
5
Status Quo – Map 2 of 2
This access point is deemed to be functional, although sub-optimal due to the substantially
longer response times (approx. 15 minutes longer) compared to other alternatives. It utilizes an
access easement provided by Mr. Ray Bunnell that was acquired along with the 108-acre parcel
that is now part of the Reserve. Geographically this access point is further away, while it also
requires entry through two separate gates and it is narrow and at times steep terrain requiring
slow travel. Access becomes unfeasible following substantial rains. Aside from emergency
medical response, this access point has proven to be very important for fire response with
several localized fire events having occurred in recent years in the back portion of the Felsman
Loop area.
Attachment 3
PH1 - 36
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve – Emergency Access Alternatives Study
6
Patricia Drive Trail Re-Route Alternative
This alternative involves a new section of new drive-able trail located just below the stock pond
area of the Reserve. It would 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. Of the new
alternatives presented in this study, this alternative entails the shortest length of new access
alignment. It would traverse across an area that has been identified to contain the rare plant
Cambria morning glory, and it was also noted by neighbors to potentially have an aesthetic
impact that warrants further study and analysis. The City enjoys all necessary land tenure, and
could implement the project at a cost between $35,000 and $50,000 based on preliminary
contractor estimates. It would provide guaranteed access and improve response times
compared to the Bridle Ridge status quo access, although it still requires entry through two
separate gates.
Attachment 3
PH1 - 37
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve – Emergency Access Alternatives Study
7
Brittany Court Alternative
This alternative is located entirely on private property controlled by Mr. Felton Ferrini. As Mr.
Ferrini has indicated to staff that he is no longer willing to allow the City to use Brittany Court for
emergency response purposes, it is assumed that a real property negotiation would be required
(subject to City Council authorization and direction regarding potential price and terms) to
expand the scope of the City’s existing access easement that allows for utilities maintenance
access only. Should such a negotiation be successful, however, this access is clearly preferred
as it entails use of existing infrastructure in its entirety and would have no new significant
environmental impacts.
Attachment 3
PH1 - 38
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve – Emergency Access Alternatives Study
8
Highland Drive Alternative
This alternative involves a new section of drive-able trail and an expansion of existing trail
beginning near the top of Highland Drive. It would be approximately 830’ long and 8’ wide. It
would provide response times similar to the Brittany Court alternative, although it would likely
require a real property negotiation with Mr. John Madonna (subject to City Council authorization
and direction regarding potential price and terms) in order to make it accessible to emergency
vehicle use. It is deemed to be one of the more expensive and environmentally impactful
alternatives. Ostensibly, it is a side route to the Brittany Court access with the same start point
and the same end point.
Attachment 3
PH1 - 39
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve – Emergency Access Alternatives Study
9
Foothill / Bishop Knoll Alternative
This alternative relies on the Bishop Knoll project contemplated in the City’s Land Use and
Circulation Element (see Program 8.15 North Side of Foothill [Bishop Knoll]: “Development shall
provide a parking lot and trail access to Bishop Peak.”). It would also require a real property
negotiation with Mr. John Madonna (subject to City Council authorization and direction
regarding potential price and terms) for the portion that would cross his family’s private ranch
property. Although bringing forward and formalizing this access may be desirable from a
trailhead and parking standpoint due to its ability to spread the impacts of trailhead use in other
areas of the Reserve, it doesn’t improve emergency access compared to status quo options
(see Map 1 of 2).
Attachment 3
PH1 - 40
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve – Emergency Access Alternatives Study
10
“Tank to Junction” Alternative
This alternative involves a new section of drive-able trail beginning above the water tank
proximate to Anacapa Circle and Patricia Drive. It would be approximately 1,600’ long and 8’
wide. Although it would provide guaranteed access and response times similar to the Patricia
Drive Re-Route alternative, it is deemed to be the most expensive alternative, as well as the most
environmentally impactful.
Attachment 3
PH1 - 41
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH1 - 42
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 27, 2015
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Ronald Malak, William Riggs
(arrived 6:09 p.m.), Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson
John Larson
Absent: Commissioners Michael Draze and John Fowler
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Senior
Planner Phil Dunsmore, Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula,
Transportation Operations Manager Jake Hudson, Assistant City
Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of May 13, 2015 were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 250 Tank Farm Road. TR 62-14: Review of a tract map to create 35 commercial
lots, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; CS-SP
zone; Coker Ellsworth Development, LLC, applicant.
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution
approving the tract map subject to findings and conditions including the adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review, which he outlined.
Commr. Riggs arrived at 6:09 p.m.
Transportation Programs Manager Hudson and Natural Resources Manager Hill
responded to Commission inquiry regarding transit stops and open space conservation,
respectively,
Coker Ellsworth, owner, summarized the history of the project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, noted concerns about the project relating to construction,
particularly on agricultural land, during the drought, and about Caltrans and the Airport
Attachment 4
PH1 - 43
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2015
Page 2
Land Use Commission’s known issues with the City’s Land Use and Circulation
Element.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Dandekar noted concerns relating to construction upon agricultural land and the
apparent inability of the City to achieve 1:1 offset of compromised open space or
agricultural lands under current policy structures; requested the addition of a condition
requiring the developers to preserve farm land of equal size and quality in a permanent
conservation easement, or pay in-lieu fees.
Vice-Chair Multari commented that the amount of any such fees would be subject to
evaluation by the Natural Resources Manager.
Commr. Malak noted concern about the percentage of lot coverage by hardscape;
spoke in support of increased open space in landscaping within the project.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the tract map subject
to findings and conditions including the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Review, with the following revisions:
A. Findings Section 1., Item 3., shall be amended to read: “[Larson’s wording
with 3 shorter sentences. Wording at 7:45].”
B. Planning Condition 9. shall be added, to read “[language regarding “all new
uses,” in accordance with the ALUC Handbook.]”
C. Planning Condition 10. shall be added, to read “[Hemalata’s language,
requiring 1:1 preservation in a conservation easement, or payment of in lieu
fees to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager]. Something along
the lines of… Developer shall submit a plan consistent with the AASP to
preserve farm land of equal size and quality in a permanent conservation
easement, or pay in-lieu fees, to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources
Manager.” Exact wording at 7:46
AYES: Commrs. Multari, Dandekar, and Larson
NOES: Commrs. Malak and Riggs
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Draze and Fowler
The motion passed on a 3:2 vote.
Attachment 4
PH1 - 44
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2015
Page 3
On motion by Commr. Malak, seconded by Chair Larson, to eliminate Planning
Condition 10.
AYES: Commrs. Malak and Larson
NOES: Commrs. Dandekar, Riggs, and Multari
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Draze and Fowler
The motion failed on a 2:3 vote.
The Commission recessed at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:06 p.m. with all
Commissioners present.
2. 3 Highland Drive. GENP-1122-2015: Review the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan update, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact; C/OS-40-PD zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, and Freddy Otte, City Biologist, presented the
staff report, recommending that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update and an Environmental
Determination/Negative Declaration be adopted, based on findings which he outlined.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Carolyn Huddleston, ECOSLO Board Member, Templeton, summarized activities of the
Natural San Luis and SLO Stewards program; commented that overuse, and lack of
enforcement and education, have key negative impacts upon the open space.
David Blakely, neighboring property owner, SLO, noted concern about the planned
location of emergency access routes and the lack of available ranger staff.
Joanne Ruggles, neighboring property owner, SLO, commented on her experience
constructing a home in the vicinity of Bishop Peak; spoke in opposition to the location of
the proposed emergency access road.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, neighboring property owner, SLO, commented on the need for
effective signage and emergency procedure education; spoke in opposition to the
proposed emergency access road.
Barry Epperson, neighboring property owner, SLO, commented on the importance of
emergency access for the Peak, particularly on the Foothill Boulevard side; spoke in
opposition to the proposed location of the emergency access road.
Carol Hall, neighboring property owner, SLO, commented on negative impacts
experienced in the neighborhood from disrespectful trail patrons.
There were no further comments from the public.
Attachment 4
PH1 - 45
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2015
Page 4
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Riggs spoke in support of adding parking/traffic controls to the "good neighbor"
section of the Plan, attempting demand reduction, and incentivization of public transit;
requested clarification of language relating to discouragement of tourism, removing the
reference to “publications”; suggested that night hiking be allowed in other areas of the
City to satisfy demand.
Transportation Operations Manager Hudson responded to Commission inquiry
regarding traffic calming measures.
Commr. Dandekar spoke in support of staff exploring all options for emergency access
in the Plan.
Vice-Chair Multari spoke in opposition to the proposed road location; spoke in support
of additional ranger staff, clarification of language relating to discouragement of tourism,
and encouragement in general terms of transportation mode shift over time.
Commr. Malak concurred; noted support for parking controls, additional ranger staffing,
and allowing night hikes in certain areas.
Natural Resources Manager Hill clarified that allowing night hikes under a City pilot
program would require a municipal code amendment.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Riggs, to recommend to the City
Council that the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update and an
Environmental Determination/Negative Declaration be adopted, with the following
revisions:
A. Address emergency access alternatives in the Plan, analyzing the pros, cons,
costs and constraints of each in a matrix;
B. Do not consider a Patricia Drive-side access;
C. Emphasize the City’s intent to encourage transportation mode shift, in general
terms, consistent with the LUCE;
D. City staff shall work with neighbors on parking control solutions;
E. Clarify the intent to reduce the site’s use as a tourist destination;
F. Prior to adoption of the next budget, advise the City Council that the Planning
Commission considers additional ranger staffing be to be a priority.
Attachment 4
PH1 - 46
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2015
Page 5
AYES: Commrs. Multari, Riggs, Dandekar, Malak, and Larson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Draze and Fowler
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Deputy Community Development Director Davidson gave a forecast of
upcoming agenda items, noting that the June 10, 2015 meeting will be
cancelled.
4. Commission
Chair Larson noted for the record the importance of addressing the Commission’s
role in water conservation planning and policy in the near future.
ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary
Attachment 4
PH1 - 47
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH1 - 48
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
1
Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Wednesday, June 3, 2015, 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Whitener called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Chair Jeff Whitener, Vice Chair Ron Regier and Commissioners Ryan Baker,
Susan Olson, Michael Parolini, Douglas Single and Susan Updegrove
ABSENT: Michael Parolini
COUNCIL: None
STAFF: Shelly Stanwyck, Melissa Mudgett, Rich Ogden, Bob Hill, Doug Carscaden,
Freddy Otte
Public Comment
Cathy Marvier, San Luis Obispo Resident and regular senior user of the Sinshiemer therapy pool
several times per week, addressed her concern about younger children interfering with water therapy
sessions during the midday hours. She asked the Commission to consider a dedicated time for deep-
end therapy and adjust slightly the hours of therapy pool during the time of year that Rec Swim is
open and an alternative for children and their parents is available. Director Stanwyck responded that
a temporary change to the hours, on a pilot basis, could be accommodated for a several weeks at the
start of the summer session. During the pilot will solicit user feedback about the change and will
report back to the Commission.
1. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES (Committee)
Motion: (Olson/Updegrove) Approve Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2015 as amended.
Approved: 6 yes: 0 no: 1 absent
2. CONSIDERATION OF AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING:
UPDATE OF BISHOP PEAK CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN (Hill)
Natural Resources Manager (Bob Hill) and City Biologist (Freddy Otte) presented to the
Commission an update of the Bishop Peak Conservation and Open Space Plan. Staff Hill reminded
the Commission that there were two public meetings held in May for community feedback. Last
week review with the Planning Commission resulted in additional Commission recommendations as
follows;
Address emergency access alternatives
Remove consideration of Patricia Drive access location
Encourage transportation mode shift
Continue work with neighbors on parking control
Do not promote Bishop Peak as a tourist destination
Meeting Minutes
Parks and Recreation Commission Attachment 5
PH1 - 49
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
2
Add additional Ranger staffing as a priority
Hill noted that the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve has several unique features such as historic rock
climbing areas; grazing rights, horseback riding, single-use trails for hiking only (no mountain
biking), memorial benches, two water tanks and a stock pond. He emphasized that the 2015 plan is
an update of the existing 2004 conservation plan. Currently there is a total of 7,000 acres in the
City’s open space program. Bishop Peak open space is comprised of 352 acres and has
approximately 4.1 miles of trails with two authorized trailhead access points. Staff Hill reported that
on an average weekday, Bishop’s Peak has 400 users and increases to 1,000 users on the weekends.
Staff shared photo monitoring comparisons from 2004 to current.
City Biologist, Freddy Otte, presented to the Commission an overview of animal and species habitat
that occupy Bishop Peak open space.. The updated plan addresses erosion and widening issues of
Bishop Peak trails, added trail signage along trails and at trailheads. . Hill added that Natural
Resources staff will continue to work with Transportation City staff and neighbors to address traffic
calming issues and parking circulation in accordance with transportation standards. He clarified for
the Commission that the future designation of Bishop Knoll property, should future develop occur,
would be the consideration of a special project area for trailhead parking along Foothill Blvd. Staff
will continue with a proactive outreach and promotion of partnership efforts through City’s Good
Neighbor Policy. Staff Hill reminded the Commission that rock climbing is only allowed in specific
areas and there will be a continued outreach and education effort with the climbing community.
Commission Comment
Commissioner Olson asked for clarification of emergency response times. Staff Hill responded that
most incidents occur on south side and that the Fire Department’s (Station 3) historical access has
been at top of Highland Drive (through Brittany Court, access through with has recently been
revoked by the property owner). He continued that the Planning Commissions’ recommendation
was to remove Patricia Drive as an improved emergency access point.
Commissioner Single asked of there was a sign at Foothill Boulevard informing users of the
unauthorized entrance and if there was any plans to close this location to access. Staff Hill
responded that property owner’s sign informing users of trespassing on private property often gets
removed. He added that there could be a future opportunity for the development of the Bishop Knoll
property which would designate the Foothill Boulevard location as an approved access point.
Vice Chair Regier asked Staff Hill to further explain Planning Commissions’ recommendations.
Staff Hill responded that he will continue to work with neighbors on parking controls and demand
reduction alternatives through a transportation mode-shift, such as provided bike racks at trailhead
and transit-to-trails phone application. He added that he believed parking districts limits two parking
spaces per property.
Vice Chair Regier asked about additional Ranger staffing recommendation by the Planning
Commission. Staff Doug Carscaden shared that, as part of the City’s Major City Goal for Open
Space Maintenance, staff is proposing one new full-time Ranger position and temporary staffing.
City Council will be receiving this recommendation as part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan budget
hearings in June. The current Ranger staff positions are focused on patrol of open space, 35 parks,
creeks and illegal encampments. Staff Carscaden said that citations are focused on education and
compliance.
Attachment 5
PH1 - 50
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
3
Public Comment
Dave Blakey, a San Luis Obispo resident, thanked staff for their efforts. He asked the Commission
to receive the community’s feedback and strongly advocate for additional Ranger staff. He shared
his opinion in support of removing the Patricia Drive location as an access point.
Barry Epperson, a San Luis Obispo resident and a self-described “outdoor addict”, said that trail
incidents mainly occur on the south side and he encouraged the development of the Bishop Knoll
property for trail access and parking to be included in the 2015 Conservation Plan update. He asked
Commission to recommend to Council additional Ranger staffing.
Carolyn Huddleston, resident of Templeton and Board of Directors for EcoSLO, communicated with
Commission about the existing partnership with the City and EcoSLO for docent led hikes and
workdays for trail maintenance. She offered the use of the SLO Stewards newsletter as a way to
promote education of users and good trail stewardship. She would like to see the Commission seek a
goal of one Ranger staff for every 1,000 preserved open space acres. She added that optimally she
would like to see 7-8 Ranger staff for the program.
Phillip Ruggles, Patricia Drive resident, thanked Staff Hill for his Conservation Plan efforts. He
asked the Commission to support institution of a hiking program to better track trail use and hold
users accountable. He asked Commission to recommend to Council additional 7-8 Ranger staff.
Harry Busselen, Skyline Drive resident, said that having 100,000 users annually and the future
expansion and development of Cal Poly is having a significant impact on the City’s open space. The
impact is diminishing this open space asset as the community is “loving it to death”.
Commission Comment
Vice Chair Regier said he comfortable with Planning Commission recommendations and supports
the increase of more than one additional of Ranger staff. He would like to see the City pursue
options for parking to relieve current pressures on the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Olson said she is concerned about the timely response of emergency responders to
incidents. She would support additional parking options as well as the addition of Ranger staff.
Commissioner Updegrove supports addition of Ranger staff and improved trail signage. She is
concerned with trash receptacles and doggy bags as this is not in support of ecological mindset of
“pack in – pack out”. She would like to see better programs on community education.
Commissioner Baker said he supported additional Ranger staff and improved trail signage.
Director Stanwyck shared with the Commission an overview of the Major City Goal budget request
which is recommending one additional Ranger staff
Chair Whitener expressed that the City has been successful in acquiring open space without
additional staff for maintenance. Director Stanwyck responded that current and future land
acquisitions will include the identification of additional staff resources.
Motion: (Regier/Updegrove) The Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council
adoption of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 update.
Attachment 5
PH1 - 51
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
4
Approved: 6 yes: 0 no: 1 absent
Motion: (Regier/Baker) The Parks and Recreation Commission strongly encourages the City to hire
more than one new full time ranger in the 2015 -17 Financial Plan.
Approved: 6 yes: 0 no: 1 absent
3. COMMUNITY INPUT FOCUS: LAGUNA LAKE GOLF COURSE UPDATE
(Stanwyck, Mudgett, Ogden)
The Director of Parks and Recreation (Shelly Stanwyck), Recreation Manager (Melissa Mudgett)
and the Recreation Supervisor (Rich Ogden) presented to the Commission an update on the Laguna
Lake Golf Course. Director Stanwyck reminded the Commission about the reasons for the Golf
Program reorganization, which included preparation for a key retirement, a sharing of resources, an
increase of services offered to seniors, an intended focus on maintenance and programming, an
increase to new programming efforts and providing effective and sustainable operations of the
course. Staff Mudgett said the final phase of the reorganization and approval of the proposed
additional Golf Programs Coordinator position would be presented to the City Council in June as
part of the City’s budget hearings. She added that if the proposed position is approved, recruitment
would begin in July-August with hiring anticipated in September.
Staff Ogden shared with the Commission an update about the current Golf Course Operations
Survey. The intent of the survey is to learn more about the Pro Shop operations and identify user
needs and desires. Staff Ogden presented to the Commission an overview of survey questions and
early survey results received thus far. The operations survey will remain open until the end of June.
Public Comment
Ruth Starr, long-time resident of the Laguna Lake Golf Course and former course employee,
communicated with the Commission her past work experiences and her love of the golf course
program. She asked the Commission to allow her to continue the sale of used golf club merchandise
at the course while staff continues to analyze survey feedback and decisions are made about future
course merchandising.
Commission Comment
Chair Whitener thanked Ms. Starr for her continued service and support of the Laguna Lake Golf
Course.
4. UPDATE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL
RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN COMMUNITY INPUT (Hill)
Hill provided the Commission an update on the implementation of the Council approved Laguna
Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan. Years 1-3 are the implementation phases and include
dredging and sediment management strategies. The early implementation program includes
improved signage and ADA accessible trail path as recommended by City Council. Key components
of the early implementation work program includes work to create sediment basins and repair
erosion, update of soil samples, sediment removal plan, disposal of sediment, eradication of non-
native invasive species (salt cedar). Hill added that there will be continued meetings with Friends of
the Laguna Lake who have expressed concerns that funding not allocated in the out years of the
Capital Improvement Program for these projects. Hill reiterated Council’s commitment for the
implementation of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan.
Attachment 5
PH1 - 52
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
5
Commission Comments
Vice Chair Regier asked if there have been any unforeseen concerns. Hill shared that there have
been some issues with the dry basin and people getting stuck in the mud.
Public Comment
None
5. DIRECTOR’S REPORT (Stanwyck)
Director Stanwyck provided a brief update, in the interest of time, on current Parks and Recreation
programs. She said that this is a great time of year for Parks and Recreation with school ending and
readying for summer camp. Last day of school is June 11th. Recreation Department highlights are as
follows:
Recreation Sports have Jr. Giants starting this summer. This program allows youngster to
play baseball for free. Practices are weekdays at Emerson Park with Saturday games at
Throop Park.
So far, Triathlon has over 800+ participants registered. Triathlon is on July 26th
The City is hosting its first Friday Skate Night at SLO Skate Park which is geared towards
youngsters (12 years and under) during the summer.
6. SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS
Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Baker reported 77 teams have registered for
Adult Summer Softball and practice started Monday. The Santa Rosa ballfield netting is
anticipated for installment this summer. He added that Pickleball is being played at the
LCC and Meadow Park. The Senior Center Active Exercise class had a record number of
participants. He shared that the Senior Center was advising of increased transient activity in
Meadow Park. In addition, the Senior Center Executive Board was awarded the Senior
Programs for 2015 by the Area Agency on Aging.
Bicycle Advisory: Vice Chair Regier said he did not attend the meeting and there was no
report.
City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner Parolini
was absent. No Report.
Jack House Committee: Commissioner Updegrove left early. There was no report provided.
Tree Committee: Commissioner Olson reported on 3 tree removals and shared an interesting
proposal where the Home Owner’s Association recommended tree removal but the
Homeowner opposed. She reminded the Commission about the purpose of Tree Committee
reviews as trees may be located on private property but really considered a City tree.
Youth Sports: Commissioner Single reported about discussions on field use and scheduling.
He noted that the group works together cohesively. He said the group recommended some
field improvements for Damon Garcia Sports Complex.
7. COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Whitener said the Water Response Strategy was provided by the Utilities Director, Carrie
Mattingly. He would be happy to share this information with the Commission.
Commission Single asked if Meadow Park softball field could be watered during drought
restrictions. Director Stanwyck said conservation strategy was to continue watering play areas.
Attachment 5
PH1 - 53
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
6
Adjourned at 8:30 pm to the July 1, 2015 Regular Meeting located in the Council Chambers at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo at 5:30pm.
Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on __________________.
________________________________________________
Melissa C. Mudgett, Parks and Recreation Department Manager
Attachment 5
PH1 - 54
Attachment 6
Written Public Comment
Attachment 6
PH1 - 55
James A. (Jack) Cashin & Felicia M. Cashin
One Highland Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 748-4883
March 22, 2015
San Luis Obispo City Council:
It is once again time to write to my City Council for San Luis Obispo on the happenings at upper
Highland Drive and Bishop Peak.
It seems there are more hikers than ever before. Even worse, they are families, which mean more
children and pets. Total lack of any concern about the danger of the blind curves. Following is
some of my observations over the last few weeks.
1. A woman walking up the street with a two wide baby stroller complete with babies.
2. I understand there was a traffic incident last week. Someone took off the door of a parked
car. There has been a tremendous increase in the number of doors lift open of late.
3. People are not walking facing the traffic. The up side of the road offers very little space.
As the driver, if I do not want to cross over the yellow line, I must hug the curb. There is
no room for people. In spots, there is no room for the walkers to step up on the curb to get
out of the way because of vegetation.
4. As I came around the curve at 2 Highland directly in front of me were three young boys
walking on the street. Thank goodness I was driving slow and they moved fast. Just luck.
5. A few days later, I experienced three different groups of people walking up the hill going
with traffic. When they realized a car is coming they disbursed in all directions. Several
ran in front of a car coming down the hill.
6. Because these are younger families, they are starting to have one person drive them up to
the cul de sac. Then they stop and start to unload. Meanwhile other cars are coming up.
I observed four cars in a row waiting to unload or pick up hikers. That created a
dangerous traffic jam.
7. Now they get back down to the bottom of the path and someone goes off to get the car.
We now have standing hikers, bored kids and loose dogs waiting for the car to get back. th
8. On my way down this morning, there was a family of four standing directly past the blind
curve between 2 and 1A Highland. Naturally, on the street. I stopped and pointed out to
them that was dangerous because of the blind curve. They were polite, realized what I
said and thanked me. I hope that they moved.
9. Several days ago, two girls were looking in their trunk while their two dogs wandered into
the street. The dogs were on flexi leads so they had room to wander. A car coming up the
hill was paying attention and able to stop before hitting the dogs.
10. Yesterday I was following a slow moving car up the hill. For whatever reason they
stopped to talk to someone on the down side of the hill. I waited and waited. We were
going into a blind curve and it was dangerous for me to go around them. Soon they
started waving me around them. I refused to go, as I could not see that far ahead. One of
the standing talkers came towards me and I called out to him I was not passing on a blind
Attachment 6
PH1 - 56
City Council Page 2 of 2
Highland Drive March 22, 2015
curve. The car must have heard me because he lurched forward and then pulled a U-turn
using the red vacant area of the road. It took him two angry tries.
11. Please note that your garbage and clean up man, Bob Neal, is picking up several bags of
garbage a week along the street. Can you imagine what a health hazard this would be if
he were not picking up the beer cans, condoms, food bags and bags of dog poop? Can you
imagine how much more attractive this area would be to hungry predators if this food was
left lying around. What would the Health Department say?
12. I will also make note that the Neal’s have at least two knocks a week on their door asking
to use their toilet. How would you like strangers knocking on your door expecting you to
let them use your bathroom or give them water?
I am afraid that any action you promised to take about curbing hikers up here is not working. It
is almost as if more people are hearing about this trail.
One serious accident and you know what the news is going to make of it. I, as a driver at the top
am terrified every time I go up or down the hill. I drive slowly, I am aware of the danger, I am
alert, but what if that is not good enough and I hit someone?
You must take steps to cut the brush back and make a space for hikers to step up on for their
safety. I would think the neighbors with overgrown brush would be concerned about an accident
outside their house. Any smart lawyer is going to look at the brush issue and state it contributed
to the accident. A serious accident is waiting to happen.
Since you are adamant about not making the entire street no parking or permit only, perhaps you
should consider the top area where most of the traffic and blind curves are. Perhaps down to 22
Highland. It would be a start with safety.
Keep in mind three new two-story homes have been approved and eventually build. That is
going to create even more daily traffic, much less during the building process. Also, I can imagine
a lot more complaints about the noise of the hikers who scream and yell as they get to the bottom
of the hill…..that is day or night.
Another thought, this summer is going to be one of the worst for fires. What is going to be done
to keep the area safe? I see people getting out of their cars and tossing cigarettes down. Can this
be declared a non-smoking area?
So sorry to keep bothering you, but the problem is not going away, it is only getting worst.
Attached are some photos to look at. Note, I have someone else taking them while I drive.
Regards,
Felicia M. Cashin
Felicia M. Cashin
Highland Drive Resident
felicia@uslinc.com
Attachment 6
PH1 - 57
Lomeli, Monique
Subject: FW: Residents of Bishop Peak Residential Neighborhoods and your April 21st City
Council meeting
RECEIVED
COUNCIL MEETING:_'2i
APR 21 2015 ITEM NO.:_
From: Carol Hall [mailto:caro[Caslohall.com] SLO CITY CLERK_
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 9:09 PM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan; Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Residents of BishopPeak Residential Neighborhoods and your April 21st City Council meeting
April 19, 2015
From: Residents of the Bishop Peak Residential Neighborhoods
Subject: "STRATEGIC BUDGETDIRECTION AND MAJOR CITY GOAL WORK PROGRAMS"
April 21, 2015, City Council Meeting)
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council,
We strongly support your Council's commitment to "Protect and Maintain Open Space" as a MajorCity
Goal. We wantyourefforts to be successful, especially as it affects The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve and our
residential neighborhoods near the Reserve's Highland Drive and Patricia trailheads. Thereforewe offer the
following;
1. THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATIONPLAN UPDATE: The City's update of
The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan" will take place very shortly AFTER your April 21, 2015
initial approval of "Work Programs" to implement the GENERAL Major City Goal of "Protecting &
Maintaining Open Space ". We ask that you leave adequate flexibility in adopting general " Open Space Work
Programs" so as NOT to preclude additional "Work Proeram" oDtions (and their fnancini) that may come out
of the "The BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN" UPDATE.
2. THE DEFINITION & PURPOSE OFOPEN SPACE: These were not clearly stated in the format of the
Staff report, but are as follows;
Open Space is land or water which remains in a predominantlynatural or undeveloped state, and is
izenerally free of structures. Such lands protect and preserve the community's natural and historical
Attachment 6
PH1 - 58
resources, define the urban boundary, and provide visual and phIsical relief fromurban development ",
General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo)
The first sentence in the City's "Open Space Ordinance" states, "_Purpose of open space lands: The city of
San Luis Obispo has developed a system of,oeen space lands "....,_for theenioyment of the natural
environmentby our citizens ".
The 2006 "Conservation & Open Space Element" of the City's GeneralPlan states: "The City will consider
allowing passive recreation (in open space) where it will not degrade or siLniticantly impact open space
resources_ and where there are no significant neighborhood compatibility impacts ".
Themain goal is to protect open space and wildlife habitat, with a secondary goal ofproviding passive
recreation where it will not harm the environment." (2006 COSE)
3. THE FUNDAMENTAL OPEN SPACE. PROBLEMS TO BE ADDRESSED:
A. Lack of enforcement of the City's Open Space Ordinance.
The Open Space Ordinance provisions protect both wildlife and their habitats in the City's Natural,
Reserves including the BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE) and the "quality of life" in adjacent
residentialneighborhoods. These protective provisions include;
1. Noni httime use of O en Space. This is important as wildlife moves through the Natural Reserve at
ni htg ,and residents of the adjacent neighborhoods try to sleep at night):
2. Sta on trails thisprotects the natural resources of the Natural Reserve);
3. Dogs must be on leashes. This prevents unleashed dogs from "running" the Natural Reserves' wildlife &
degradation of their habitats.
Unfortunately, through "word of mouth" it is wellknown that the City's Open Space Ordinance is rarely
enforced. In the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, dogs routinely run off- leash; reserve "users" (city word) go off -
trail; and groups of people nightly enter and use the reserve. (The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation
Plan notes that night use of the Natural Reserveincreases the danger of wildfires in this "veryhigh fire danger"
area.)
It is important to note that the residents o the Bishop Peak trailhead neighborhoods did NOT move into
neighborhoods adjacent to a publicly owned trailhead. Public trailheads were PUT INTO our well - established
residentialnei hborhoods with the understanding that there would be rules Lor the use of the ci -ac uired
natural reserves• that those proteetive provisions would be en breed . and the general `level of use " of the
natural reserve would be by the Citizens of our City.
Attachment 6
PH1 - 59
THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION TO "LACK OF ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT;
Hire adequate Ranger Staff to provide meaningful enforcement of the City's Open Space Ordinance. The level
of City Ranger Staffing should be proportionately within the range of staffingin the communities listed in the
staff report chart.(pg.BI -29 )
As clearly noted in the staff report chart, the proposed addition of only one position to the ranger staff is
woefully inadequate , and would not bring the City anywhere near the lowest standards of ranger coverage in
comparison to the other cities. (staff report, pg BI -29 ) .
The Staff Report notes that the 4,000 volunteer hours per year are primarily forbuilding and maintaining
TRAILS, not enforcement of the City's Open Space Ordinance.
FUNDING: We note that in the 2012 LUCE SURVEY of City residents and business owners, "Acquiring
and Maintaining Open Space to Protect Peaks & Hillsides" was THE highest budget priority.
OTHER SOLUTIONS:
We support Staffs recommendations for new trailhead signage which clearly emphasizesthe specific
Open Space Ordinancerequirements that are routinely violated, and statesthe fines associated with
them (no night use of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve; dogs must be on leashes; and visitors to the
reserve must stay on trails).
2. Wesupport Staff's recommendation for regularly emptied, garbage containers at Natural Reserve
trailheads where littering is a significant problem ( Bishop Peak Natural Reserve).
3. We also support "Mutt Mitts" at trailheadswhere there are correspondingproblems with dogs.
4. The term "Natural Reserve" immediately conveys the purpose of the City's protected Open Spaces . It
would be tremendously educational (andinexpensive) to use the term "NATURAL Open Space",
rather than lust "Oven Space ", in the City `s descriptions of the Open Spaces preserved primarily
for that purpose.
5. It is very important that all surveys, staff proposals, etc. be made within the framework of
clearlyallowed, "open Space uses" in the City's COSE. Proposalsthat are not within this
framework of clearly allowed "open spaceuses" should go through the public process of a general
plan amendmentto the COSE.
B .INCREASING OVERUSE OF THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE. A FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEM:
Attachment 6
PH1 - 60
Overuse of the relatively smallBishop Peak Natural Reserve is a fundamental problem;
Residents of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Bishop Peak Natural Reserveandthe Highland &
Patricia Drive Trailheadsreport ever - increasing overuse of the Natural Reserve, and resulting,
proportionately increasing conflicts with the residential neighborhoods. These conflicts include;
increasing numbers of cars speeding through family neighborhoods ; increasingly severe parking
issues on narrow residential streets; increasing day and night trespass onto private property; littering
of front yards ; graffiti ; increasing noise , etc..
The increasing overuse and crowding of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve is degrading the very
purpose this land was "protected " by the City - -- "for enjoyment of the natural environment by our
citizens "(1998 Open Space Ordinance). Natural Reserves canbe "loved to death" by overusing
them.
A City survey recently acknowledged this increasinglyveryhigh. "level of use ", finding that there
are about 1,000+ daily "users" of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve at peak times, and there can be
500+ "users" of the Natural Reserve on an "average day" (probably more if usersat all of the
Reserve's trailheads were counted).
A February 2014 Staff report stated, "In the case of Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, the more
fundamental issue seems to be that this open space amenity has become very popular, it is in strong
demand, and the effects of the level of use it receives are evident. "( Lichtig, Codron, Hill ; Staff
Report)
The City's 2004 "Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan " states;
It is a concern of the public that the Reserve is not publicized in such a way as to attract large
numbers of additional, non local, tourists to an already heavily used resource. CityNatural
Resources staff are of the opinion that the (educational) information currently available strikes
the appropriate balance between public education and active promotion of the Reserve ". (the
natural resource educational materials referred to were a natural resource focused brochure, a natural
resources focused website, and trailhead signage).
NOTE: The above concern seems to be increasingly ignored as an unwritten City " vision" appears
to have emerged which views the BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE more and more, as a
commercial "asset" to be "capitalized on " as it relatesto the "touristindustry ", withlittle or no
acknowledgement of the increasing "costs" to the impacted residential neighborhoods.
Attachment 6
PH1 - 61
SOLUTIONS TO OVERUSE OF THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE;
1. ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OVERUSE OF THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE IS A
PROBLEM & ADDRESS IT.
2. THE OBVIOUS FIRST STEP;
The City should not .make this overuse problem even worse by Mecif calls advertising for even
more use of the already overused BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE.
Despite some assurances that specifically soliciting for even more use of the already overused
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve in the City- supported tourism campaigns could be "downplayed ",
the latest SanLusObispoVacations tourism campaign on the City's Website ( "copyright, City of
SLO, 2015 ") includesobvious inducements for new users to come to the City and specifically
use The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. ( In the accompanying video, the only sign identifying
a_y 1paceisaclearlyemphazied "Bishop Peak Trail" sign; there is new emphasis on the
excitement of rock climbing on Bishop Peak ; new users are encouraged to specificallybring
their dogs to Bishop Peak and hike; etc.)
We look forward in the next few months to the meaningful involvement of the Bishop Peak residential
neighborhoods in seeking more specificsolutions through the Update of THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL
RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN.
Sincerely,
Carol F. Hall
Michael Morris
Sandy Morris
James R. Hall
Carla Saunders
James F. Hall
Leah Forsythe
Tim Caldwell
Manuel f. Quezada
Sabina Quezada
Felicia Cashin
JackCashin
RichardFleming
Maureen Fleming
Sylvia C. Soto
Dawn Janke
James M. Agee
Danika Stokes
Attachment 6
PH1 - 62
Miriam Martin
Rachelle Paragas
Bradford Caligari
Nancy Caligari
Aron Schroder
Delores M. Quezadar
Pam Copeland
Tom Copeland
Robert Neal
Mary Neal
Angela Donath
GaryDonath
Harold Segal
Robert Duncan
Gloriann Liu
Judith A. Hiltbrand
Rush Hiltbrand
Gayle Cekada
D Elaine Patrick
Phillip Ruggles
Joanne B. Ruggles
Attachment 6
PH1 - 63
Date: May 5, 2015
To: City of SLO Natural Resources Program
Cc: Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager (781‐7211) rhill@slocity.org
From: Peter & Gail Karacsony (542‐9403), 162 Twin Ridge Court, SLO, 93405
slokaracsony@att.net
I, Peter Karacsony and my wife Gail, live on Twin Ridge Court. As such, we transit Patricia
Drive often during various times of the day since we are retired. Given that, we have had ample
opportunities to observe the activities and ongoings at the Patricia entrance to the Bishop Peak
trail, and as hikers on the trail.
You may notice that I did not call it “trail head” since to us hikers (who have hiked many
trails in California and in the Western U.S.), such term has a specific meaning. That is, for a true
“trail head,” a sign will indicate the location and direction where people can enter a parking area,
gather their hiking gear out of their cars, change shoes, prepare for hiking, etc. That is not the case
at the Patricia entrance to the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. What people have is the ability to
park on a residential street without any control. Some people treat this stretch of the city street as
a special parking lot for the trail, and I believe this has major consequences.
First of all, this creates a major nuisance for the nearby residents and others who transit
Patricia Drive at the trail entrance. While both sides of the street are already full of parked cars,
newly arriving additional hikers will obstruct traffic by:
‐ Stopping their cars in the middle of the street to look for additional parking spots, talking
to other hikers in their group, exiting their cars, letting their dogs out, etc.
‐ Making illegal U‐turns, such as driving back and forth on the street to turn around, or
pulling into private driveways and backing out without checking for street traffic.
Secondly, the situation at the Patricia trail entrance is dangerous. Patricia Drive has a
substantial curve at that spot. Even without many cars parked there, one has to drive cautiously
because of limited visibility into the curve. With so many cars parked there (especially on the east
side) this stretch of road becomes virtually a blind curve where two cars traveling the opposite
direction barely can pass one another. Meanwhile, here are some ongoing activities that make this
stretch of road perilous:
‐Often, hikers will leave their doors open facing the street to gather their hiking gear,
change into their hiking boots, etc.
‐ Slowly meander across the street (with or without their dogs) at any location in the street.
‐ Stand next to their vehicles (alone or in groups) to socialize.
‐ Leave their car stationary in the middle of the street for loading or unloading gear,
passengers, or dogs, etc.
Given the extremely limited visibility and the narrowness of the street due to mega parking
on both sides of the street, this creates a serious danger to property and/or people. Even traveling
at the legal speed of 25 MPH, it is very difficult if not impossible to stop if one can only see street
obstacles a few feet ahead of you. And these major issues are being amplified as the utilization of
the trail is ever increasing.
Yet, the City Administration has not addressed these major concerns; for example; traffic
law enforcement, special parking facility and limited parking on the street, warning signs,
pedestrian walkways, etc. Are we waiting for the first disaster before we act?
Attachment 6
PH1 - 64
1
Hill, Robert
From:Robert Duncan <iambobd@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:15 PM
To:Hill, Robert
Subject:Bishop Peak meeting feedback
Hello Mr Hill,
Thank you for the excellent presentation on the Bishop Peak open space plan this evening. It was very informative and I
appreciate the opportunity for public input.
I have 2 small items I would like to mention.
First, you mentioned the access to the trail from highway 1, but indicated there were reasons that it was not being
considered for emergency use. You said something about the center barrier on highway 1 preventing its use. I am
thinking ‐ the intersection / street light for CMC is just down the road, seems like a reasonable place to do a U turn or
otherwise turn around, to get to the Bishop Peak access road if one existed there. Half of Felman’s Loop is a very
navigable road, and It clearly continues to Highway 1, so using it or connecting to it seems like a good solution. I very
much disapprove of the plan you presented for building a road from the Patricia side ‐ this is a very beautiful area and
such a road, even one just used by fun quads, would be, well, unfortunate.
Second, a small improvement that I think would make Highland much safer for pedestrians and cyclists:
The downhill lane of Highland is twice as wide as the uphill lane. In straight sections, the extra space is used for parking,
but around the corners the curb is red. There is no line defining the driving lane vs the parking lane, so cars coming
down the hill naturally cut the corners. Because of this, on those blind corners there is no place for a pedestrian to safely
walk. When walking on Highland, one often has to jump into the bushes to avoid the cars cutting the corner. A solution
is to simply paint a white line defining the downhill lane to be the same width as the uphill lane, and leaving the rest of
the street as a reasonably safe walking / cycling area.
An extension of this would be to mark the extra space of the downhill lane clearly as a bicycle / pedestrian lane (perhaps
still with parking in appropriate areas). This would win points with those who actively promote bicycling paths in SLO, so
could be a good “political” move as well…
If you are not the right person for this second suggestion, could you please forward it?
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
‐Robert Duncan
77 Highland Drive, SLO
Attachment 6
PH1 - 65
1
Hill, Robert
From:Janice Elliott <janiceholly@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 08, 2015 11:27 AM
To:Hill, Robert
Subject:Bishop Peak
Bob,
My husband and I were at your thought provoking meeting last night. We live near the Patricia. It seems that
enforcement is the key element in finding solutions to the problems of the area. We moved from the bay area
and would take our dogs on hikes in that area.A lot of people liked to take their dogs hiking there off
leash. They had a person who would hang out up on the hill and when people would arrive with their dogs off
leash they would get a ticket which was over $200. Believe me, people stopped doing that. I am sure the same
could be done here especially concerning the people who are night hiking. It seems strange that the city will
pay to rescue people 2-3 times a week yet will not pay to have someone handing out tickets.
Also, we lived near a high school that made parking on our street impossible. They just put up a sign making it
illegal to park at certain times of the day (during a three hour time slot when the school was in session) and that
solved the problem easily. What is wrong with painting some of the curb red up at the Highland Street
entrance? What is wrong with managing parking at all of these entrances and when the parking has been used
up, then people cannot use the open space. That would manage how many people can be on the hill.
I really believe that your idea to put in a wider entrance from Patricia to allow emergency vehicles to go up that
hill to the pond area would make the problem even worse and would definitely scar the land and my view.
Sincerely,
--
Janice Elliott
Attachment 6
PH1 - 66
1
Hill, Robert
From:Bruce Judson <bjudson@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Friday, May 08, 2015 10:07 AM
To:Hill, Robert
Subject:Bishop Peak
Bob;
Thanks for the meeting last night. I know it is a sensitivite issue with a lot of folks. A few points I'd like to bring
up;
- Many residents in the Highland Trailhead area don't share the opinions of the vocal folks. Please don't assume
the vocal's represent all of us.
- Why did the city not follow it's own guidelines then developing Bishop Peak. All the issues being brought up
could have been forseen. The Planning dept has process to address parking for all new projects. Why does the
city not follow it's own processes?
- I think the only option is to develope a approprate trailhead in a non-residential area. It's much bigger than
what has been previously discussed, but its the only path fowrad I can see.
Thanks You...Bruce
Attachment 6
PH1 - 67
1
Hill, Robert
From:C Saunders <csslo@att.net>
Sent:Friday, May 08, 2015 10:02 AM
To:Hill, Robert
Hi Bob,
Thank you for arranging last night’s meeting….and this opportunity for City residents to give input on the update.
I also applaud your choice of a “legislative draft” approach to the conservation plan update, as this approach makes it
much easier for City residents to understand the specific changes being proposed to the existing Conservation Plan.
When you have a minute, I would appreciate being emailed a copy of that page in the slide show which had a few
preliminary recommendations based on input from residents, including one which addressed advertising Bishop Peak
specifically for more tourist use. I would also appreciate being included on the email list based on last night’s meeting.
Thanks,
Carla
Attachment 6
PH1 - 68
1
Hill, Robert
From:David Blakely <4385956@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2015 4:45 PM
To:Hill, Robert
Subject:RE: Bishop Peak
Robert,
Thanks for the very speedy and complete response to my questions. The residents of SLO are well served with such a
professional staff. One last series of questions about the land between Bishops Peak and Highway 1‐
Is there access from Bishop Peak to Highway 1 that has a trail on it?
Can I hike on that piece of land that goes from the Peak to Highway One?
Thanks
David
From: Hill, Robert [mailto:rhill@slocity.org]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 5:21 PM
To: David Blakely
Subject: RE: Bishop Peak
Hi David,
Thank you for your email and for your time taken to attend the meeting last Thursday.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments and will consider them seriously. I’d agree that expanding the Foothill
side holds promise to alleviate concerns of closer neighbors. There is a pending proposal for a development in
between Los Cerros and City limits, but it has not yet been formally submitted. This property is identified as
“Bishop Knoll” in our recent Land Use and Circulation Element in Chapter 8, Page 1-95 of the Land Use
Element. Here is a quick link: http://www.slo2035.com/images/final/1_slo_gp_land_use_2015_05_web.pdf
Attached is a map showing the Highway 1 access, per your request.
And here is a link to Google Maps that shows the street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.307889,-
120.680858,3a,75y,173.99h,80.35t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szznoRss6AXs9aPekkQuFyQ!2e0
Please let me know if I haven’t addressed your questions or if you have others. My contact information is
below.
Kind regards,
Bob
Robert Hill
Natural Resources Manager
Attachment 6
PH1 - 69
1
Hill, Robert
From:Daniel Blanke <dan.blanke@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2015 3:28 PM
To:Hill, Robert
Cc:Tom and Mary Kay Eltzroth; Sidney Bartholow; Jerry Crane; Kathy ApRoberts; Hella
Heatherton; Sheila Tiber; Judd and Nara Clark; Barbara Blanke
Subject:Bishop Peak Plan Update
Dear Mr. Hill:
I’m writing regarding the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update. I was unable
to attend the May 7th meeting. I am trying to adjust my schedule to be at tonight’s meeting at City Hall.
In any case, I want you to have written input from my wife and me, because we live at 871 Patricia
Dr., almost directly across from the Patricia Dr. Trailhead. For background, I will tell you that I retired
5 years ago as a captain with San Luis Obispo PD, after a 31-year law enforcement career. I think it
is fair to say that I understand the community and I understand human behavior. My undergraduate
degree from Cal Poly was in Natural Resources Management and I have a master’s degree in
Education.
Our biggest issue is any suggestion of a parking lot at the Patricia Drive Trailhead. Our property has
275 ft. of frontage along Patricia, almost all of which is accessible to hikers for parking, which is much
more than most or all other people impacted by parking for the Reserve. On most days, the street in
front of our house contains lots of parked cars. THIS IS NO PROBLEM, WHATSOEVER! When the
trailhead was first officially established, a neighbor and I discovered City employees investigating the
location for the possibility of a parking lot. Our reaction then, that I will repeat now was,
“ABSOLUTELY NOT!!” A parking lot is an entirely unacceptable alternative to the existing street
parking. None of us owns the street in front of our house. Streets are publicly owned and publicly
maintained for public use. About once a week, I have to pick up someone’s trash that was left in the
gutter and I roll my eyes at the rudeness of some people, but it just isn’t that big of a deal. There will
always be a percentage of people who show little regard for the rights and enjoyment of others, but it
is just a human condition that, in this case, I see no need to try to resolve by extraordinary and
expensive means. It just isn’t practical.
A parking lot would absolutely ruin the appearance and nature of the trailhead, thereby also devaluing
the properties of those of us who live nearby. Even on the busiest hiking days, the streets in the area
surrounding the trailhead have always had room for more cars, so a parking lot is in no way
necessary for accessibility. I can tell you from my professional experience that parking lots, especially
those associated with parks and open space are magnets for loitering and illegal activity, particularly
at night. If a parking lot were constructed, it would be necessary to close the entrance to after-hours
access, and re-open it each morning – an added expense. When people are required to park on the
street, their suspicious activities are more visible, more likely to be immediately reported, so less
likely to occur in the first place.
Thank you for your interest in receiving input from neighbors of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve! If
any efforts to create a parking lot at the Patricia Drive Trailhead gain momentum, I will work as hard
as necessary to stop those efforts dead in their tracks.
Sincerely,
Dan Blanke
Attachment 6
PH1 - 70
1
Hill, Robert
From:Sidney Bartholow <bart4254@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2015 5:34 PM
To:Daniel Blanke
Cc:Hill, Robert; Tom and Mary Kay Eltzroth; Jerry Crane; Kathy ApRoberts; Hella
Heatherton; Sheila Tiber; Judd and Nara Clark; Barbara Blanke
Subject:Re: Bishop Peak Plan Update
Hey Bob,
I concur with what Dan has said and I have heard other neighbors say the same thing.
Speaking as a former police officer of many years, I feel that the laws and rules for the open space are not being
obeyed. Studies have shown that when you have no law enforcement, eventually no one will obey the laws. I
enjoy the Bishop Peak open space very much and I am very thankful that it is practically in my front yard. As
you know, I also own the property at 841 Patricia that has a drainage creek that flows through it. When we get
rain, most of the water flow feeds onto my property runs off Bishop Peak. There have been times when I can fill
up a five gallon bucket of trash that came off Bishop Peak. Several occasions, I have seen suspicious looking
people coming out of the trail head at Patricia. One late afternoon, Kathy ApRoberts called me and stated that
there was a suspicious person making camp about a hundred yards up from the Patricia trail head. Kathy called
the Park Ranger number and had to leave a message, and no response. I walked up to the location to check it out
and found the person and in fact, he was setting up camp for the night and not too far from the houses near the
area. From a distance, I ask this man what he was doing there, he did not respond, gave me a very mean look. I
started to call the police non emergency number, and while I was waiting to be prompted to proper extension,
this suspicious person, grabbed all of his gear and ran out of the area. Other neighbors have told me that almost
every night they can see people with lights coming down the peak.
I run the Felsman Loop, at least twice a week If the weather is good. I can honestly say that about ninety
percent of the people with dogs don't have them on a leash and over the years I have noticed new trails all over
the open space. I have also seen people in the creek areas. I have also noticed that about half of the other
runners and hikers are lone females. Coupled with the fact that I have seen some suspicious looking men up
there, I feel it is just a matter of time before there will be a Rape and or murder, because it is so secluded in
places and no one patrolling for safety and law enforcement..... I don't want to sound negative, but these are my
concerns and I am truly thankful for this beautiful open space.....Sid Bartholow
Sent from my iPad
On May 14, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Daniel Blanke <dan.blanke@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dear Mr. Hill:
I’m writing regarding the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update.
I was unable to attend the May 7th meeting. I am trying to adjust my schedule to be at
tonight’s meeting at City Hall. In any case, I want you to have written input from my wife
and me, because we live at 871 Patricia Dr., almost directly across from the Patricia Dr.
Trailhead. For background, I will tell you that I retired 5 years ago as a captain with San
Luis Obispo PD, after a 31-year law enforcement career. I think it is fair to say that I
understand the community and I understand human behavior. My undergraduate
degree from Cal Poly was in Natural Resources Management and I have a master’s
degree in Education.
Attachment 6
PH1 - 71
2
Our biggest issue is any suggestion of a parking lot at the Patricia Drive Trailhead. Our
property has 275 ft. of frontage along Patricia, almost all of which is accessible to hikers
for parking, which is much more than most or all other people impacted by parking for
the Reserve. On most days, the street in front of our house contains lots of parked cars.
THIS IS NO PROBLEM, WHATSOEVER! When the trailhead was first officially
established, a neighbor and I discovered City employees investigating the location for
the possibility of a parking lot. Our reaction then, that I will repeat now was,
“ABSOLUTELY NOT!!” A parking lot is an entirely unacceptable alternative to the
existing street parking. None of us owns the street in front of our house. Streets are
publicly owned and publicly maintained for public use. About once a week, I have to
pick up someone’s trash that was left in the gutter and I roll my eyes at the rudeness of
some people, but it just isn’t that big of a deal. There will always be a percentage of
people who show little regard for the rights and enjoyment of others, but it is just a
human condition that, in this case, I see no need to try to resolve by extraordinary and
expensive means. It just isn’t practical.
A parking lot would absolutely ruin the appearance and nature of the trailhead, thereby
also devaluing the properties of those of us who live nearby. Even on the busiest hiking
days, the streets in the area surrounding the trailhead have always had room for more
cars, so a parking lot is in no way necessary for accessibility. I can tell you from my
professional experience that parking lots, especially those associated with parks and
open space are magnets for loitering and illegal activity, particularly at night. If a parking
lot were constructed, it would be necessary to close the entrance to after-hours access,
and re-open it each morning – an added expense. When people are required to park on
the street, their suspicious activities are more visible, more likely to be immediately
reported, so less likely to occur in the first place.
Thank you for your interest in receiving input from neighbors of the Bishop Peak Natural
Reserve! If any efforts to create a parking lot at the Patricia Drive Trailhead gain
momentum, I will work as hard as necessary to stop those efforts dead in their tracks.
Sincerely,
Dan Blanke
(805) 440-8171
Attachment 6
PH1 - 72
1
Hill, Robert
From:shanbrom@aol.com
Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2015 6:16 PM
To:Hill, Robert
Subject:Emergency access to Bishop's Peak
Dear Mr. Hill,
I live in the Ferrini Heights neighborhood and am so grateful to the farseeing city government for the green belt
surrounding our city. I often use the Felsman Loop/Bishop's Peak, a unique two-hour hike that gives you a chance to see
the entire scope of economic activity in our county--tourism, Calpoly, the prison, agriculture, transportation, power lines
leading from Diablo, etc.
As prevention of accidents should be the primary concern, emergency access notwithstanding, I would like to see the city:
1) Write expensive citations for people using the trail outside of regular hours, civil twilight to civil twilight, or for going off-
trail.
Specific times could be posted weekly at trailheads. For example, for the coming week, nearly summer solstice, the legal
hours of use would be: 5:20am-8:40pm. 6:40am-5:20pm in December. There is seldom a pleasant night where I don't
see people coming down the mountain long after all light is gone from the sky.
QUESTION: How many rescues occur at non-legal periods or for off-trail use?
2) Make extensive trail improvements. There are several areas that could greatly benefit from the installation of hand rails
and some areas that might even benefit from manufactured staircases.
QUESTION: Which five spots have the greatest number rescues. What are the special hazards there? How might they be
fixed?
3) While I agree that charging people for evacuation even for improper usage questionable, I do believe that consideration
should be given as to whether to issue citations for use after hours or for use while intoxicated. Same approach as traffic
accidents.
4) I would guess that if actions 1 and 2 were taken, necessary in their own right, it would greatly reduce the number of
rescues needed. At that point emergency access would become something of a cost-benefit question.
QUESTION: How many fewer rescues might we expect if actions 1 and 2 were taken?
QUESTION: If there were only a handful of rescues necessary in a year would it be worth it or necessary to provide an
access road?
5) As most of the rescues occur above the Foothill spur junction, it seems to me that any access road should come from
that approach, both as to the ease of building, ease of fast evacuation and a host of other reasons. Especially useful
would be the Blue Granite private road which goes very high up the mountain.
Thank you for you attention to this issue and for being part of this great community.
Bob Shanbrom
364 Montrose Drive
234-1410
Attachment 6
PH1 - 73
Attachment 6
PH1 - 74
Attachment 6
PH1 - 75
Attachment 6
PH1 - 76
Attachment 6
PH1 - 77
Attachment 6
PH1 - 78
Attachment 6
PH1 - 79
Attachment 6
PH1 - 80
Attachment 6
PH1 - 81
Attachment 6
PH1 - 82
Attachment 6
PH1 - 83
Attachment 6
PH1 - 84
Attachment 6
PH1 - 85
Attachment 6
PH1 - 86
Attachment 6
PH1 - 87
Attachment 6
PH1 - 88
Attachment 6
PH1 - 89
1
Hill, Robert
To:Codron, Michael
Subject:RE: Bishop Peak Management Plan Update
‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: "James Smith" <jimtheloanguy@gmail.com>
To: "E‐mail Council Website" <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Bishop Peak Management Plan Update
Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2015 9:18 PM
Dear Council Members:
As you know, the 2015 Bishop Peak Management Plan update is on your agenda this week. This letter is regarding
emergency access and a plea for more resources on patrol.
1. The proposed new emergency access road from Patricia Dr. would be costly to build and maintain, and would scar a
City landmark.
2. It would help to erect larger well lit easy-to-read signs explaining the rules. This inexpensive improvement would help
prevent illegal use and reduce the number of injuries and rescues.
3. Allocate more money to management of the open space (ie: additional staff to enforce existing ordinances), since our
City has been adding 1000’s of acres but no new Rangers.
4. The City should negotiate with John Madonna for an easement for parking and hiking from the Foothill Road access to
Bishop Peak.
5. We believe that if the City could restrict parking along upper Highland Drive, emergency access would be restored to
the stock pond across property owned by Felton Ferrini.
Jim and Jan Smith
940 Pasatiempo Drive, San Luis Obispo
C 805-543-8800
Attachment 6
PH1 - 90
1
Hill, Robert
From:Kathy apRoberts <kaproberts@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 07, 2015 11:59 AM
To:Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan
Cc:Hill, Robert
Subject:City Budget Meeting, Tuesday, June 9
Dear City Council Members,
I attended all four of the recent City meetings regarding the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
Update, and I urge you to consider the following:
The City’s Planning Commission and the City’s Park & Recreation Commission “strongly recommended” adding
additional City Ranger Staff which is necessary to enforce the City’s Open Space Ordinance. It was a totally
unanimous recommendation of both Commissions! Both Commissions reached the same conclusion… City Staff’s
preliminary recommendation in April that there be only a single addition to the Ranger staff was clearly inadequate
for meaningful enforcement of the City’s Open Space Ordinance.
“Open Space Preservation “ was the first funding priority listed on the Measure G Ballot when residents voted to tax
themselves. Among your three Major City Goals, you have identified “Protect and Maintain Open Space” as
the goal with the highest priority.
Major City goals “represent the most important, highest priority goals for the City to accomplish over the next two
years, and as such, resources to accomplish them should be included in the 2015-2017 Financial Plan”. (Council
Minutes, January 24, 2015 )
Adding one additional ranger to the City's Ranger Staff is not sufficient to enforce the City's Open Space Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Kathy apRoberts
San Luis Obispo
Attachment 6
PH1 - 91
1
Hill, Robert
From:Philip Ruggles <philipkruggles@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:53 AM
To:Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan
Cc:Hill, Robert; apRoberts Kathy
Subject:Park ranger funding and city open space protection
Dear Mayor Jan Marx, Vice Mayor John Ashbaugh and Councilpersons Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson and Dan
Rivoire,
Given the ever‐increasing use of the city’s 3,500 acres of Open Space, including the disproportionately high use of
Bishop Peak, we feel there should be far more than the single additional park ranger allocated in this years budget.
Bob Hill has indicated that Bishop Peak receives about 80 percent of open space hiking traffic, with approximately
150,000 users from the Highland and Patricia trailheads annually; at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting he
stated that when the Foothill Road (unauthorized) trailhead users are added, estimated usage could conceivably double
to as high as 300,000 user per year!
With that in mind, it seems reasonable for the city to be supporting the addition of five to six additional positions, not
one. This is in line with the city’s major goal to “protect and maintain open space."
We also must point out that the City’s General Plan clearly ranks its priorities for the management of open space land as:
Number 1 priority: PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES Number 2 priority: PASSIVE RECREATION.
Given that hierarchy, all park rangers currently employed as well as any new park rangers should work FIRST for the
enforcement of the City’s Open Space regulations as their NUMBER ONE PRIORITY with trail expansion and maintenance
‐ passive recreation support ‐ as their second priority.
In speaking before the meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission on June 3, one of our current rangers declared
that there was inadequate staff to pursue enforcement of existing open space regulations. He said that rangers are
primarily used for maintenance. This focus is in direct conflict with not only the city’s General Plan prioritization but also
the priority of city residents.
We appreciate your consideration of the above.
Philip and Joanne Ruggles
Attachment 6
PH1 - 92
1
Hill, Robert
Subject:RE: SLO open space hiking by permit
> From: Philip Ruggles [philipkruggles@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:23 AM
> To: Hill, Robert
> Cc: hbussele@calpoly.edu
> Subject: SLO open space hiking by permit
>
>
> Hi Bob ‐
>
> Hope all is well . . .
>
> Some preliminary research shows that there are many open space hiking by permit programs within California as well
as other states to protect their open space.
>
> Given this, it is reasonable to assume that an “open space hiking by permit program” could be modeled after one or
more of these for San Luis Obispo, that would cover all 12 of our open space properties including Bishop Peak, the most
important since it gets approximately 80 percent of the action.
>
> A couple questions:
> Has city staff looked into an “open space hiking permit program” (or similar program) in the past, and, if so, can you
share the results of their work with us?
>
> Who on city staff would be the best person to contact relative to discussing an “open space hiking permit program” for
SLO open space?
>
> Thanks. Appreciate your time as I know you are busy.
>
> Philip Ruggles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Attachment 6
PH1 - 93
Public Comments from Workshop #1 at Bishop Peak School May 7, 2015
Night Hiking and plan for enforcement
Pre-dawn hiking and plan for enforcement
Compare cost of enforcement with cost of rescues
Limited room on Highland Dr. with cars parked there, ingress/egress, safe travels
(blind corners with pedestrian use on the street)
Trailhead upgrades coming – trash cans and mutt mitt dispensers
Meaningful enforcement or failure to enforce – Speed, Parking, Night Hiking
Educate users – Don’t know what to do (we have education campaign but it might
not be effective)
Traffic/Parking/Speed – state standards that are not defensible if someone is
issued a citation (like if we lower the speed to 5 MPH, won’t hold up in court)
Institute limited use to prevent over capacity at trailheads (Highland/Patricia)
Constriction of access with new Caltrans safety barrier at HWY 1
500 people per day with Eco-Counter at BP
Restrooms should be installed to prevent users from using the outdoors. How/
where to install?
Integrate metrics from monitoring to support community partnership (citations
[Rangers, PD], use patterns [day vs. night use], trailhead use
Be sure to address the long-range problems in the update. Existing
problems/issues will get worse as use increases in the future with more residents
Invite collaboration with Cal Poly staff to address student use at BP
Consider emergency access from Patricia, this would create more congestion and
scar the land (since Brittney Cr. Is no longer access point)
Emergency vehicle access at Oakridge could be restricted as well as Highland too
with parked cars, traffic. Consider painting curb on one side red to ensure one side
is free for emergency vehicle access
Consider Foothill access as trailhead – Dream big since this is our opportunity
with the cons plan update
Consider safe alternatives for HWY 1 access
Fire danger from smoking and fire rings in open space. Residents concerned for
homes to be in danger from wildland fire and potential lack of access for
emergency vehicles
Dogs off leash
Parking district at Highland, restrictions for parking after 6 PM
Advisory speed limits for blind corners/curves
Trimming of trees along Highland Dr. on private property to offer better visibility
Red curbs
No parking
Sidewalks are not used
Think/consider bigger picture of compatibility with issues presented
Dedicated enforcement of open space regulations
Statistics of code enforcement in staff reports (Rangers, Traffic, PD citations) as
Update moves forward
Attachment 6
PH1 - 94
Public Comments from Workshop #2 at Council Chambers, City Hall. May 14, 2015
Paint curbs red to address parking at Highland
Integrate bus stop at Patricia and Highland and promote hiking access to Bishop
Peak; Transit to Trails to promote open space access without driving cars
Install sidewalk at Highland
Eliminate parking for addition of protected lane for pedestrians
“Maintenance of Open Space” should refer to trails and enforcement
The public owns the streets, they are maintained for safe access of the public
Continue to explore opportunities at Bishop Knoll development
Explore Foothill access
Address erosion at tank above pond, dangerous trail condition
Benchmark comparison of trail miles per city
Work with / outreach to professors about open space rules when they have classes
at Bishop Peak
Neighborhood officer available to meet with residents to address concerns/issues
For evident off time use (i.e. full moon and surrounding times), call police
Add citation price on signage
Designate Patricia/Highland at the Bishop Stop for bus route
Collaborate with residents to identify/locate “camping” spots
More Ranger funding
Attachment 6
PH1 - 95
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH1 - 96
city or San WIS OBISpo:
city council, meetinc notice
The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all interested persons to attend a public meeting,
relative to the following:
What: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update. The Planning
Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission have reveiwed the plan and
recommends that the City Council adopt the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan 2015 Update and Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for the plan
Where: City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
When: July 7, 2015 at 6:00 P.M
For questions, contact:
Robert Hill - (805) 781 -7211 - rhill @slocity.org
Written comments are encouraged. If YOU challenge the above proposed action in court you may be limited to raising those
issues you or someone else raised or the public hearing described in rhos notice, or in written correspondence delivered to rope
City Council of, or prior to the Public hearrng. The Agenda and Reports far this meeting are available In the City Clerks office
and online at wwrw.slocity arafaaendrrs.
Cit of San Lu s` ispo 3ia
City Clerk's Office -11—IN .21.01 s
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE
� wax` mr
Iii' 9:3411
fir. r 011D116_6476
OCCUPANT
sl�l. 41 ZM 12 HIGHLAND
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1p:1
NIXIE 917 5E 1009 0006/271/115
RETURN TO SENDER
NO SUCH NUMBER
UNABLE TO FORWARD
934613Z4999 2552- 19795-24 -36
IpIIII�tIIItJ111�II111,d d IIII1I, 1,1LLII ,t.��ll.11l�l�jl�i =111i11t