HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-2015 Open Space Mgt Plan - Initial Study checklistCOUNCIL READING FILE
Item - Open Space Management Plan
12 -15 -2015
CITY OF SHII LUIS OBISPO
f qtr �; ca
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application # GENP 2347 -2015
1. Project Title:
City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Robert Hill, (805) 7817211
Freddy Otte, (805) 7817511
4. Project Location:
Various City of San Luis Obispo open space properties 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:
Open Space
8. Description of the Project:
The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan (the "Plan ") will guide the
day -to -day maintenance and stewardship activities undertaken at City of San Luis Obispo -
owned open space properties. These activities include the following: enhancement and
maintenance to existing trailheads and trails, maintenance and construction of approved
and sustainable trails and open space facilities for passive recreation purposes only,
removal of illicit materials and trails, improved user and natural resource safety, land
restoration and stewardship projects, invasive species treatment and control, erosion
control and stabilization, education of users via patrols and community outreach, and
management of the wildland -urban interface areas.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Privately -owned agricultural lands and adjacent urban developments.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
City Council approval
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None
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.
FISH AND GAME FEES
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Po ulation / Housin
Agriculture Resources
X
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
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
INITIAL STUDY 2 Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
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
X
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
X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
INITIAL STUDY 2 Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
DETERMINATION Jo 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,
X
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be re ared.
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 2ro2osed 2roject, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
Printed Name Community Development Director
INITIAL STUDY _ Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved
(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project - specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well
as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross - referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed
site - specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
Issues
with
Impact
X
buildin gs within a local or state scenic hi hwa ?
Mitigation
ER # GENP- 2347 -2015
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
1,9
Incorporated
X
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
1
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
X
buildin gs within a local or state scenic hi hwa ?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
1,9
X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
1
X
adversely affect day or ni httime views in the area?
Evaluation
a) The Plan does not anticipate any new structures that would impede views or have an effect on a scenic vista; however, it
does propose new kiosks, trail restoration, improvements and decommissioning efforts that may alter the character and
appearance of existing trailhead areas and trail sections within City Open Space.
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) City Open Space closes one hour after dusk and no new lighting is anticipated or proposed by Plan. The City has a night-
sky ordinance that would apply in the event any new safety lighting is installed.
Conclusion
Although the Plan does anticipate some ground level improvements and minor structures that could change the visual
Character of a portion of the various open space sites, these actions are considered less than significant because the trail
corridors will be vegetated and restored over time, and any potential impacts accruing from the installation of new trailhead
kiosks and improvements are considered de minimis as they are relatively small and are constructed of natural wood materials
intended to compliment the natural back round.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
2
X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
1
X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
1
X
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non -a cultural use?
Evaluation
a), b) and c) The Plan does not propose to convert 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 sites that could result in
conversion of Farmland to a non - agricultural use. City Open Space includes 17 acres of class I prime farmland that will be
maintained in agricultural production pursuant to the City's adopted Agricultural Master Plan for the Calle Joaquin
Agricultural Reserve (see section 19, Earlier Analyses).
Conclusion
City Open Space that will maintained pursuant to the Plan is part of an existing open space system and no changes in use are
proposed that would affect agricultural resources.
INITIAL STUDY _ Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Issues
with
Impact
X
Mitigation
ER # GENP- 2347 -2015
Incorporated
3
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
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 folio win determinations. Would the ro'ect:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
3
X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
3
X
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
3
X
pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
3
X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
3
X
people?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) and e). The 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 sites are City open space properties bordered by open land and residential development. No changes in land use
or the operations of existing facilities are proposed that would impact air quality in any way.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the pEo 'ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
1, 4,
X
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
7, 8,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
9, 12,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
13, 14
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
1, 4,
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
7, 8,
X
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
9, 13
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
1, 4,
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
7, 8, 9
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
X
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
1, 4,
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
7, 8, 9
X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nurser sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
1, 6,
X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
12
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
1,6
X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
b) The project sites contain riparian areas but these areas will not be impacted by implementation of the Plan.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
area, as well as other published conservation / recovery plans that apply to the project site (sources 4, 7, and 8).
Conclusion
Issues
with
Impact
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, and the City's Open Space Regulations, and applicable state and
federal agency ublished recovery plans.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the p rooect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
Mitigation
ER # GENP- 2347 -2015
X
historic resource as defined in § 15064.5.
Incorporated
Evaluation
a) A Plant Inventory and Wildlife Survey has been prepared for each open space property (see section 19, Earlier Analyses).
There is the possibility that sensitive plant species according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) may exist near various alignments
of the trail system that will be maintained. These resources could also be compromised by Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) practices and wildland fuel reduction projects; however, botanical site surveys will occur prior to commencement of
work in order to ensure that impacts from these activities are avoided. City policy prohibits off -trail use.
b) The project sites contain riparian areas but these areas will not be impacted by implementation of the Plan.
c) Some of the project sites contain State and Federal wetlands but these areas will not be impacted by implementation of the
Plan.
d), c), f) The Plan does not anticipate any improvements that would be considered a barrier or otherwise interfere with
migratory animals. The Plan requires compliance with all local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources in the
area, as well as other published conservation / recovery plans that apply to the project site (sources 4, 7, and 8).
Conclusion
The project will not have significant impacts to biological resources because the Plan requires all anticipated projects are to
be designed in a manner that avoids or minimizes these effects. The Plan requires compliance with all local ordinances and
policies established for the purpose of protecting biological resources, such as the City's Conservation Guidelines, the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, and the City's Open Space Regulations, and applicable state and
federal agency ublished recovery plans.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the p rooect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
1
X
historic resource as defined in § 15064.5.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
1
X
archaeolo ical resource pursuant to §15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
1
X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
1
X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a) There are approximately 11 acres of City open space (0.3% of the total land area) that categorized as a cultural or historic
resource; however, there are no activities in the Plan that was represent a substantial adverse change to these resources.
b), c) The Plan does not anticipate any action that would have an adverse change on archaeological or paleontological
resources.
d) The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a burial sensitivity map that identifies locations of known and likely burials. The
project site falls outside of the area known to be used for this purpose. The City has construction guidelines that would apply
if any human remains are discovered. The Plan does anticipate limited excavation activities and very limited ground
disturbance and no impact to human burials is likely.
Conclusion
The project site areas that will be maintained pursuant to the Plan have been modified and disturbed in the past, and proposed
INITIAL STUDY _ Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Issues
with
Impact
X
Mitigation
ER # GENP- 2347 -2015
Incorporated
activities under the Plan are unlikely to disturb any significant cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. The Plan
calls for educational kiosks to help the public understand and intelEret the history of the sites and the surrounding area.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
5
X
effects, including the-risk of loss, injury or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
5
X
most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
I1. StroEE seismic ground shakin ?
5
X
111. Seismic - related yround failure, includin 2 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
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
10
X
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
10
X
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Evaluation
a) The Plan does not anticipate any new structures or activities that would expose people or structures to substantial adverse
effects.
b) Some 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 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 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 Plan does not anticipate the construction of new structures that would be subject to geologic impacts. The
project site does include expansive soils in some locations, 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 Plan calls for drainage and erosion control strategies whenever there is any possibility of erosion, although such
maintenance activities are consistent with existing activities and are less than significant. Although the location is an active
seismic region and located proximate to a mapped Alquist - Priola fault, the Plan does not introduce people or structures to an
area where substantial risk of harm to life or property exists.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
1, 11
X
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Evaluation
Issues
with
Impact
increased greenhouse gas emissions. The Plan calls for removal of dead trees and shrubs (which emit carbon) and replacing
them with native materials (which sequester carbon).
Conclusion
On balance, the long term positive effects of the project for increasing carbon sequestration capacity within the project site
Mitigation
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pr Ject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
ER # GENP- 2347 -2015
Incorporated
X
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
1, 11
X
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
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 projects contemplated in the Plan are to maintain existing open space areas mostly
within the City limits and day to day operations of the open space properties will not generate, directly or indirectly, new
increased greenhouse gas emissions. The Plan calls for removal of dead trees and shrubs (which emit carbon) and replacing
them with native materials (which sequester carbon).
Conclusion
On balance, the long term positive effects of the project for increasing carbon sequestration capacity within the project site
are expected to outweigh any temporary impacts that might occur from the use of equipment during maintenance activities.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pr Ject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
X
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter
mile of an existin or pr2posed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
X
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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
X
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
9, 14
X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
9, 14
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
INITIAL STUDY _ Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
h) The project site area contains annual grassland, chaparral, and oak woodland, as well as non - native nuisance vegetation
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Conclusion
The project sites are existing City open space properties. Most are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. There are no uses,
Issues
with
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
Mitigation
X
requirements?
ER # GENP- 2347 -2015
Incorporated
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The Plan and ongoing maintenance of open space areas 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 sites are mostly outside of the Airport Land Use Plan
area, and there are no private landing strips in the vicinity. The Plan would not impair or interfere with the City's emergency
response plans.
h) The project site area contains annual grassland, chaparral, and oak woodland, as well as non - native nuisance vegetation
species. A component of the City's overall conservation planning includes the development of Wildfire Preparedness Plans
within each adopted Conservation Plan (see section 19, Prior Analyses) that identify the areas needing wildland fuel
reduction management. The impacts are considered less than significant and are also pre- existing, and are therefore not
affected by the Plan.
Conclusion
The project sites are existing City open space properties. Most are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. There are no uses,
past or present, that involve hazardous materials. Wildland fire fuel reduction project impacts associated with maintaining on-
site vegetation are minimal, and potential impacts are addressed through the existing Wildfire Preparedness Plans.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre- existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses 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?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
9
X
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?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
9
X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
fl Otherwise substantially de rade water quality?
X
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on
X
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
Eli by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
INITIAL STUDY 10 Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
redirect stormwater flows.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
l
Issues
with
Impact
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
1,6
Mitigation
X
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
ER # GENP- 2347 -2015
Incorporated
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project would not negatively impact water quality standards or discharge requirements, introduce new
groundwater extraction, or interfere with groundwater recharge. The Plan envisions activities to restore and improve natural
systems.
d), e) and 0, Some maintenance activities may have the potential to cause erosion. The Plan requires that any project located
in or near a drainage system will address sediment and erosion control, and such activities are less than significant.
g), h), i), j) There are no projects anticipated that would place new structures within a 100 -year flood plain, or impede or
redirect stormwater flows.
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?
l
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
1,6
X
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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
1,6
X
natural community conservation plan?
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Conservation Guidelines and would not physically divide
an established community. No land use changes are proposed and there is no habitat conservation plan currently covering the
site.
Conclusion
There are no impacts to land use and planningassociated with the prcject to create an Open Space Maintenance Plan.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the rp oject:_
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
1
X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral
1
X
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
s ecific plan or other land use plan?
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 Maintenance Plan involving
minimal physical changes to the project site.
INITIAL STUDY 11 Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
standards established in the local general plan or noise
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Issues
with
Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
9
Mitigation
ER # GENP- 2347 -2015
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
Incorporated
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
9
X
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
9
X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
9
X
roject vicinity above levels exists without the roject?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
9
X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
9
X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
9
X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a) The Plan does not anticipate any potential new uses that would exceed applicable noise standards.
b), c) and d) The 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), 0 Some of the project sites experience frequent overflight, but are mostly outside of the airport land use plan area, and
farther than two miles from of a public airport.
Conclusion
The 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
X
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project sites are existing City open space properties and there will be no population growth or displacement
associated with adoption of the Plan.
Conclusion
No impacts to population and housing will occur with the adoption and implementation of the Plan because no housing will
be constructed or displaced as part of the project.
INITIAL STUDY 72 Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Issues
with
Impact
Mitigation
d) Parks?
ER # GENP- 2347 -2015
Incorporated
e) Other public facilities?
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
a Fire protection?
9
X
b) Police protection?
X
C) Schools?
X
d) Parks?
X
e) Other public facilities?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) The Plan will not result in any increase in new demand for public services because it involves maintenance of
existing City open space properties.
Conclusion
Implementation of the Plan will not result in any new or altered government facilities, or changes to acceptable service ratios,
response times, school enrollment, or park use.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
9
X
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
X
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a), b) Plan implementation will enhance the natural environment of the project sites as a municipal open space property,
while providing for passive recreational use. There is nothing in the Plan that is intended to increase new use of the project
sites.
Conclusion
The Plan is anticipated to continue supporting passive recreational uses such as hiking and scenic enjoyment. However, the
project will not increase new use of existing open space property in a way that degrades existing or planned facilities, and no
impacts are anticipated from the construction of minor new facilities, such as trails or kiosks.
16. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
X
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?
_
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
X
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?
INITIAL STUDY 13 Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
substantial safet risks?
Issues
with
Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
Mitigation
X
ER # G E N P- 2347 -2015
incorporated
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
X
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safet risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
X
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) The project is adoption of an Open Space Maintenance Plan to enhance the maintain the natural
environment of the project sites. 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 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
X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
X
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
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
X
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?
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project would create no new demands on utilities and service systems that cannot be met with
existing supplies.
Conclusion
The proposed Plan and its implementation will have no adverse effect on utilities or service systems.
INITIAL STUDY 14 Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sources
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
Issues
with
Impact
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
Mitigation
ER # GENP- 2347 -2015
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
Incorporated
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
X
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
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
X
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of 2robable future ro'ectsl?
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
X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
The project will not have adverse effects on human beings because it is an Open Space Maintenance Plan for sites that is
currently used for open s ace conservation and passive recreational purposes and will enhance user awareness and safety.
INITIAL STUDY 15 Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
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. Identif earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
An environmental document was previously adopted for the following Conservation Plans:
1. Agricultural Master Plan for the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve
2. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan, 2015 Update
3. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
4. Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
5. Johnson Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan
6. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
7. Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
8. South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
9. Stenner Springs Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
10. Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
(see: http : / /www.slocity.oriz/govcrnment /department- dircctory/ city - administration /natural - resources /open- space - plans)
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.
Impacts described as Less than Significant in the Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards, and
Hydrology and Water Quality section were also previously analyzed in the earlier documents identified in section 19, above.
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.
N /A.
20. SOURCE
REFERENCES.
1.
Conservation and Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2006)
2.
Farmland Mapping and Monitorin Pro ram: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cif`f/ciff.html
3.
SLO County APCD List of Current Rules and Clean Air Plan: http://www.arb.ca.gqv/drdb/slo/cur.htm
4.
Recovery Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail and Four Plants from Western San Luis Obispo County,
California. USFWS 1998).
5.
Alquist -Priola Special Studies Zones Map:
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/guad/SAN LUIS OBISPO /ma s /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 or the California Red -le ed Frog, USFWS (2002)
8.
South- Central Cali fornia Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan, NOAA (2013)
9.
Public Review Draft, City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan. City of San Luis Obispo
(2015)
10.
Soil Surve o San Luis Obispo County, Coastal Part, USDA Soils Conservation Service 1984
11,
Ci 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)
13.
Integrated Vegetation Management Plan for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo. The Land
Conservancy of San Luis Obispo Count (2015)
14.
City of San Luis Obispo Vegetation Management Plan: The Wildland- Urban Interface. Althaus, D. (2014)
Attachments:
Vicinity map with aerial photograph
INITIAL STUDY 16 Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)
ATTACHMENT 1: Vicinity map with aerial photograph
Natural Reserve ap;
jr
Bishop Peak
Natural Reserve
o
Cerro San Luis .• �j '' r it
',► + f
Natural Reserve
San Luis Obispo Creek
rd Natural Reserve
Reservoir Canyon
Natural Reserve
Laguna Lake`
Natural Reserve
Terrace Hill
Open Space
Irish Hills " `r! "
Natural Reserve ,� t = South HiNs
,t Natural Reserve
Islay Hill
Calle Joaquin Open Space
' �+r Agricultural Reserve Easements ,
Johnson Ranch
i
Open Space �-
! G, Bob Jones Trail and Wetland
Filipponi Ecological Reserve
f C 4�.
Map Key: City of San Luis Obispo 2015
Greenbelt Boundary Open Space Maintenance Plan
City of SLO Municipal Boundary Scale:
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
IM
City of SLO Open Space Properties — Miles
INITIAL STUDY 17 Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347 -2015)