HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-15 PRC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Parks and Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2015 @ 5:30 p.m., Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Whitener
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Ryan Baker, Susan Olson, Michael Parolini, Ron Regier, Douglas Single,
Susan Updegrove and Jeff Whitener
Public Comment Period. At this time, you may address the Commission on items that are not on the agenda but are of interest to the
public and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission may not discuss or take
action on issues that are not on the agenda other than to briefly respond to statements made or questions raised, or to ask staff to follow
up on such issues.
PRC Meeting Agenda
1. Consideration of Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 4, 2015
2. Review and Recommendation of Approval of the Open Space Maintenance Plan
(60 minutes – Carscaden & Stephenson)
3. Director’s Report (5 minutes - Stanwyck)
4. Subcommittee Liaison Reports
Committee Liaison
Adult and Senior Programming Baker
Bicycle Advisory Regier
City Facilities (Damon, golf, pool, joint use) Parolini
Jack House Committee Updegrove
Tree Committee Olson
YSA Single
5. Communications
Adjourn to Regular Meeting of January 6, 2016
APPEALS: Administrative decisions by the Parks and Recreation Commission may be appealed to the City Council in
accordance with the appeal procedure set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and activities.
Please contact the Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
1
Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Wednesday, November 4, 2015, 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Whitener called the meeting to order at 5:32 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: None
COUNCIL: None
STAFF: Shelly Stanwyck, Melissa Mudgett, Bob Hill, Lindsey Stephenson, Devin
Hyfield, Marcus Carloni, John Rickenbach (Contract Planner), Pam Ricci
(Consultant)
Public Comment
None
1.CONSENT AGENDA
A. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES (Committee)
Motion: (Regier/Updegrove) Approve Meeting Minutes of September 2, 2015 as amended.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
B. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES (Committee)
Motion: (Regier/Updegrove) Approve Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2015 as amended.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
C. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH
SCHOOL DISTRICT (Shelly)
Motion: (Regier/Updegrove) Recommend to Council approval of the amendment to the Joint
Use Agreement with the School District.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
D. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ACHIEVEMENT HOUSE
CONCESSIONAIRE AGREEMENT (Mudgett)
Motion: (Regier/Updegrove) Recommend to Council approval to extend the term of the
agreement with the Achievement House at a reduced rate for concessionaire services at the
Laguna Lake Golf Course.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
Meeting Minutes
Parks and Recreation Commission
1-1
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
2
E. CONSIDERATION OF USE AGREEMENT FOR SLO STADIUM WITH SLO
BLUES BASEBALL (Hyfield)
Commissioner Parolini recused himself from discussions regarding Consent item E.
Commissioner Updegrove asked about contract language referencing “respectful”. Director
Stanwyck responded that this most likely was carryover language from the original agreement
which referenced shared uses and collaboration between the “Rattler” and “Blues” Baseball
teams.
Motion: (Regier /Olson) Recommend to Council approval of the Agreement for use of the SLO
Stadium with the Blues Baseball.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
2.QUARTERLY REPORT LAGUNA LAKE (Hill)
Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager, shared that with the adoption of 2015-17 Financial Plan
was the authorization to begin implementation of Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation
Plan. The first years of the Conservation Plan focus on Laguna Lake Management dredging and
sediment management projects, design engineering and provision for the extension of ADA trail.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for the Dredging and Management Plan and the City
received 4 sealed bids from qualified firms. Staff Hill expressed that one firm stood out in their
“teamed- approach” to the project and knowledge about the project’s financial component.
Currently, City staff is in contract negotiations with MNS Engineers. The City Manager will be
reviewing staff’s recommendations and determine authorization and award of contract is
expected within a few weeks.
3.REVIEW OF PARK PROPOSAL AND PARK CREDIT REQUEST FOR WEST CREEK
PROJECT (Carloni)
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner, presented to the Commission an overview of the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan (OASP) West Creek Project. This project was first presented to the Commission
on March 4, 21015 for conceptual review. Staff Carloni added that tonight’s presentation is a
second conceptual review. In summary, the project includes 105 multi-family dwelling units, 67
single family units and 2.2 acres of parkland. The developer applicant is seeking 3.66 acres of
parks and open space credits. City staff recommends no further credits for acquisition and credit
fees at this time.
Pam Ricci, Planner with RRM Design group and representative of the applicant, provided a
detailed review of the West Creek project and how the project is consistent with the OASP
requirements and the proposed park elements meet specified conditions for parkland. The West
Creek project provides for additional facility amenities for adjacent and connecting development
sites; such as Righetti Ranch and the Wingate Project. In addition, there is an increased in
mixed-dwelling units from the first conceptual review resulting in increased parkland fees than
originally projected. As a result, the applicant seeks the Commissions’ consideration of
alternative no. 1 and recommendation for City’s acceptance of the proposed public parklands and
open space dedications and improvements present by the West Creek project, and that the
proposed dedications and improvements receive a partial or full “credit” for the OASP Public
Facilities Finance Plan fees.
1-2
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
3
RRM Design Group staff presented to the Commissioners a more detailed overview of the West
Creek project. Chris Dufour, RRM Landscape Architect, provided an overview of the proposed
project’s landscaping, park amenities and linear park elements (maintained by HOAs) which
includes bocce ball, horseshoe pits, a concrete ping-pong table, decorative chess tables and
rubberized safety surfaces. Mr. Aaron Abbott, of Robbins Reed, Inc., provided and overview of
project financial costs as outlined below;
Summary of West Creek Project Parkland fees;
$1.2m original projected fees
$1.6m fiscal increase
$1.87m with new multi-unit dwelling fee structure
The new fee structure represents a nearly $400,000 increase in fees from originally projected.
As a result, the applicant is seeking the Commission’s support of partial Parkland credit of 50%
to make West Creek Project financially feasible.
Commissioner Comments:
Chair Whitener, asked of the proposed park amenities would be possible if the applicant does not
receive “credits”. The applicant responded that the project will need to be revised to accommodate
the project costs and that some of the proposed amenities may need to be eliminated. Chair
Whitener asked for clarification on which type of fees can be waived by the Commission. Director
Stanwyck responded that the Park Development Fees (the costs for construction of the park) can be
waived. Staff Carloni cited Section 2.9 of the Specific Plan which indicates a waiver of parkland fee
in lieu of providing park amenities on site. Chair Whitener asked if the OASP is consistent with the
adopted Parks and Recreation Element. Director Stanwyck said that the OASP was adopted after the
Parks and Recreation Element. Chair Whitener said he is concerned that the proposed park and open
space does not meet the needs of Regional Park and therefore he does not support the waiver of
parkland fees as proposed.
Director Stanwyck added that additional and ongoing maintenance costs are not factored into the
projected fees costs. Staff Carloni confirmed that parkland credits would result in less fees being
added to the Parkland Fund; which could be used to support a larger regional park and amenities in
the future.
Commissioner Parolini said he viewed linear parks as smaller parks serving specific neighborhoods
only. He supports the approval of parkland fee credits.
Commissioner Updegrove acknowledged the challenging topography of the project site. She asked
if the dry creek bed was accessible and said she viewed the creek land (even if not developed) as
valuable park space.
Mr. Abbott cited Section 2.3.4 OASP Policy and added that this development meets parkland criteria
set forth in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan by addressing unmet community-wide parkland needs with
the added park/trail connectivity, serving adjacent neighborhoods, the location and types of
amenities proposed, and that these amenities can be provided without a reduction in developments’
dwelling units.
Vice Chair Regier expressed concerned about additional maintenance responsibility should the City
assume ownership of the developed park. He would not support the park deeded over to the City
1-3
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
4
Motion: (Baker /Regier) Recommend City Council’s acceptance of the West Creek project as
proposed design is consistent with the OASP and General Plan criteria and policy guidance for
the design of parks and open space.
Approved: 5 yes: 2 no: 0 absent
Motion: (Regier/Baker) Support partial project “credit” relief of Parkland Development fees in
return for assurance that the park features are developed and continue discussions with the
applicant to explore creative solutions concerning ongoing park and proposed park amenity
maintenance.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
4.REVIEW UPDATED AVILA RANCH PLAN CONCEPTS (Rickebach)
John Rickenbach, Contract Planner, provided a second conceptual project overview for the Avila
Ranch project. This project includes 150 acres, 700 dwelling units and 16 acres of park. The project
also includes 9.8 acres of neighborhood park, 6.2 acres of mini pocket parks and 1.5 acres of
community needs facilities. Staff Rickenbach reminded the Commission of original feedback
provided to the applicant which included consideration of residential accessibility, bike connectivity,
address lacking recreation facilities (such as community garden, pickleball, off-leash, tot lots, sports
fields and shade trees), co-mingle parking uses as a part of the project design. Staff Rickenbach
added that the applicant will return the Commission following the draft EIR and public input
process. The applicant is seeking the Commission’s guidance regarding the proposed modifications
to the conceptual design.
Commission Comments:
Commissioner Updegrove indicated the new park location is further away from higher density areas
and asked how the applicant will address accessibility. Mr. Steve Peck, applicant, responded that a
new pedestrian bridge has been added to support pedestrian/bicycle connectivity and a straightening
of the bike path was made to improve connectivity with a direct route. The applicant is working with
the County of San Luis Obispo for additional bike bridges. In addition, a community garden has
been incorporated into the conceptual design.
Vice Chair Regier asked about the consideration of using this area for organized recreation al sports.
The applicant responded that the proposed design is that of a neighborhood park which will be
supported through Community Services District (CSD) fees.
Commissioner Parolini said he would like to see regulation-sized sports fields considered in future
development designs.
The Parks and Recreation Commission thanked the applicant for incorporating the Commission’s
and the Bicycle Advisory Committee’s feedback into the overall project design. The Parks and
Recreation Commission concurred with the design changes as proposed by the applicant in the
second conceptual review.
5.DIRECTOR’S REPORT (Stanwyck)
Director Stanwyck presented the draft Open Space Maintenance Plan to the Commission. She added
that the draft plan will be presented at the Commissions’ next meeting on December 2, 2015.
Director Stanwyck informed the Commission that there will be three public input sessions designed
to seek public feedback about the plan. The plan will be provided for Council consideration on
1-4
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
5
December 17th. Director Stanwyck indicated that through this process the City has learned that we
are forerunners in the development of an Open Space Maintenance Plan as many municipalities in
the Unites States to not have one. Staff will be seeking Commission feedback about the draft plan on
December 2nd.
6.SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS (all)
Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Baker reported that adult sports are going
well. Softball will be ending November 18. Adult Softball will begin Spring season in
March 2016. There is no report for the Senior Center. Golf Course revenue is up.
Bicycle Advisory: Vice Chair Regier said that the BAC reviewed the Avila Ranch Plan.
There is a new program for “adopt a bike trail”. The Committee discussed a bike bridge at
Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), bike parking for events and the recently approved Railroad
Safety Trail (RRST) extension.
City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner Parolini
said the pool is still under construction.
Jack House Committee: Commissioner Updegrove said she missed the last meeting but
reported that the “Haunted Stories of Old San Luis” reported 140 people touring the house.
Tree Committee: Commissioner Olson reported that the Fall Arbor Day Celebration will be
held on November 7th 10:00am at Fire Station #1 (2160 Santa Barbara Street). There will be
a “lunch and learn” meeting to learn more about the City’s tree removal process on Nov 19,
2016 from 12:00pm-1:00pm.
Youth Sports: Commissioner Single said he was unable to attend the YSA meeting. Chair
Whitener attended the meeting and reported that the YSA field goals have been installed at
Laguna Middle School. The YSA contract with the School District remains on a year-to-year
contract basis and he reported that the YSA pays $25,000 to the School District for annual
field use.
7.COMMUNICATIONS
None
Adjourned at 8:03pm to the Regular Meeting on December 2, 2015 at the Council Chambers,
990 Palm Street, at 5:30pm.
Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on __________________.
________________________________________________
Melissa C. Mudgett, Recreation Manager
1-5
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
DATE: November 23, 2015
TO: Parks and Recreation Commissioners
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared By: Lindsey Stephenson, Administrative Analyst
RE: City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.Approve The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan.
(Attachment 1)
2.Approve a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the Project
(Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION
Background
With the adoption of the 2015-17 Financial Plan, one of Council’s Major City Goals is Open
Space Preservation: Protect and Maintain Open Space. At present the City owns 15
properties totaling approximately 3,700 acres of land protected under open space, natural
reserve, ecological reserve, or agricultural reserve status (Attachment 3). Numerous of these
open space properties feature an established trail network of approximately 52 miles, in
total, where compatible passive recreation uses can be enjoyed by the public. The City’s
open space lands are managed by its “Open Space Team” comprised of City Administration
Natural Resources program staff and Parks and Recreation department Ranger Service staff.
Through various city programs and community partnerships, City staff undertake open space
maintenance, patrol, site stewardship, and environmental programs. Continued open space
preservation today necessarily entails appropriate levels of maintenance, including
infrastructure enhancement to ensure user safety and neighborhood compatibility,
restoration of degraded or hazardous areas, and focused educational opportunities.
Open Space Preservation Major City Goal Work Program
The Council’s Major City Goal to preserve open space is articulated on pages C-6 to C-12 of
the 2015-17 Financial Plan. One of the two key strategies for achieving this goal is the
adoption of an Open Space Maintenance Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan details the “nuts &
bolts” maintenance practices and protocols presently undertaken in the City’s Open Space,
as well as planned enhancements for the future.
Staff Report
Parks and Recreation Commission
2-1
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Open Space Maintenance Plan Integrates Existing Policy Documents
The proposed Open Space Maintenance Plan is the City’s first – and it is one of the first in
open space programs across the nation. The Plan is premised on the protection of the City’s
natural resources including plants, animals, geologic, and historic features as well as the
natural areas themselves. The Plan was written in a manner that affirms existing
maintenance practices undertaken by staff, contractors, and volunteers. Those practices are
all undertaken in a manner that is consistent with existing City policies and plans regarding
open space. The proposed Open Space Maintenance Plan specifically references and
integrates as its foundational policy guidance the following existing City policy documents.
1.Conservation and Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
(2006)
2.Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo
(2002)
3.Adopted Conservation Plans, including:
a.Agricultural Master Plan for the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve (2011)
b.Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update (2015)
c.Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005)
d.Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2011 Update (2011)
e.Johnson Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan (2008)
f.Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2014)
g.South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2007)
h.Stenner Springs Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2009)
i.Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2013)
j.Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan (2015)
In addition, the Open Space Maintenance Plan introduces two new technical appendices:
4.Integrated Vegetation Management Plan for Open Space Lands of the City of San
Luis Obispo (2015-2020), The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County (2015)
5.City of San Luis Obispo Vegetation Management Plan: The Wildland–Urban
Interface, Danielle Rose Althaus, Master of City and Regional Planning, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (2014)
The first appendix details a strategy for invasive species management using Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) protocols per the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the
City of San Luis Obispo. It provides a comprehensive inventory of invasive species, ranks
the priority of managing these species based on threat and other factors, and outlines a
specific control plan by open space property. The second technical appendix inventories
vegetation types and wildland fire threats to assets at risk, discusses management strategies,
and provides an ordered ranking of pre-fire activity that should take place by open space
property.
2-2
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Lastly, the Plan will be amended in the future to reflect any and all changes to the above
policy documents (and relevant future documents). As appropriate in accordance with the
Conservation and Open Space Element, Appendix B, any new open space areas will have
Conservation Plans adopted and linked to this Plan following acquisition.
Nature of the Actions Outlined in the Maintenance Plan
In addition to implementing the Conservation Plans for specific open space and reserve
properties the Plan addresses existing maintenance needs in the City’s open space lands. It
articulates the enhancement and maintenance of existing trailheads and trails in a sustainable
manner for passive recreation purposes only. It also articulates removal of illicit materials
and trails, improvements to user and natural resource safety, land restoration and
stewardship projects, invasive species treatment and control, erosion control and
stabilization, education of users via patrol and outreach and management of the wildland-
urban interface areas.
Key Elements of the proposed Open Space Maintenance Plan
The Plan is divided into three sections:
The first section, Maintenance Activities, provides a listing of the maintenance activities
undertaken in the City’s various open space areas. Activities are described narratively. This
is followed by the second section, Amenities, which includes an overview of the amenities
which are located in open space areas with a specific description of each. The purpose,
number of types, specifications, typical location, vendor, standard costs, installation,
maintenance requirements and expected lifespan information is provided for each amenity.
The last section of the Plan incorporates maintenance activities with amenities on illustrative
maps for each open space area as well as provides highlights of priority maintenance and
conservation projects. The three sections of the Plan provide general and specific
information in a visual manner. Each section has a particular focus and integrates City
policies as described above.
•Lists maintenance activities undertaken
•Describes the nature of the activities
Maintenance
Activities
•Overview of what is/will be included at trailheads
•Specific information from costs to vendors
Trailhead
Amenities
•Maintenance activites shown on illustrative maps
•Priority projects highlighted
Open Space
Locations
2-3
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
1.Maintenance Activities
Maintenance Activities have been ongoing in the City’s open space for years. They are
undertaken by staff, as well as contractors and volunteers on a daily, weekly, monthly
and annual basis. Maintenance Activities fall into six main categories of maintenance:
vegetation, structure, sign, trail/road, drainage, and trail construction. Under each
category are specific tasks. Within each of these categories are focused activities that
can occur seasonally or year-round.
2.Trailhead Amenities
A trailhead is the point at which a trail begins; the size of trailheads varies. For the
purpose of standardization, the City will have three different sized trailheads (small,
medium, and large) with differing degrees of enhancement at each. The City has 24
active trailheads throughout its open space system. Each amenity outlines the purpose,
design specification, location, standard costs, materials, installation, maintenance, and
lifespan of the amenity.
3.Open Space Locations
The City of San Luis Obispo owns approximately 3,700 acres of open space lands
comprised of 15 properties held in open space, natural reserve, ecological reserve, or
agricultural reserve status. The Conservation Plan implementation items are numerous
and property specific. They include activities such as: trailhead, parking, and emergency
access improvements; directional and educational trail signs and kiosks; trail installation,
closures, re-routes, and erosion control; invasive species control, fire protection and
native habitat restoration; and bridge, fence, and open space infrastructure replacement.
A majority of these enhancements will occur during this financial plan time frame and
will result in substantive user safety and resource protection improvements.
Public Engagement
In conducting the public outreach and engagement for the Plan, staff followed the City’s
adopted Public Engagement and Notification “PEN” Manual. The outreach strategy for
public input on this Plan is collaborative in nature. As such an interactive process
summarized below was used to encourage public input through a variety of ways ranging
from the City’s website (where comments could be input) to two “Awareness Walks” at a
trailhead, to Farmer’s Market, to a public meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
2-4
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Adoption of the Maintenance Plan will result in a Series of Improvements
When the proposed Plan is approved by Council staff will immediately begin to implement
the planned series of activities, as well as address deferred and new maintenance projects.
These activities will be guided by the Plan and will be consistent with the timing established
for the action tasks outlined in the Major City Goal: Open Space Preservation. Progress
reports on activities will be provided with Major City Goal updates to Council. Staffing
resources are in place to accomplish these tasks as the Ranger Service Program is now fully
staffed with skilled rangers ready to improve and enhance existing open spaces.
Priority Projects
The Maintenance Plan contains specific information for each of the City’s open space areas.
In addition to describing the nature and frequency of the activities undertaken in each area
the Plan contains a listing of the notable priority projects for each open space or reserve
property. Using approved funding from the Open Space Protection: Maintenance CIP,
Ranger Service staff will be enhancing trail head amenities, trail signage, kiosk, trash and
mutt mitts at all locations with this major work effort running to June 2017.
Inform
•E-notification
•City website
•Advisory Body Review:
Parks and Recreation
Commission
•Outreach to key contacts
•QR Codes and notices at
all trailheads
•Tribune news story
Consult
•Parks and Recreation
Commision Meeting
•Social Media: Instagram
and Facebook.
Collaborate
•Awareness Walks @
Prefumo Canyon
Trailhead on November
7th and 12th
•Farmers Market Booth on
November 12th
•One on One meetings
•Council Meeting of
December 15th
Open Space Maintenance
Plan is Adopted Maintenance Activities in
the Plan are undertaken.
Priority Projects consistent
with Conservation and Open
Space Plans are Undertaken.
2-5
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study has been prepared that identifies several areas where potential impacts exist
in the areas of Aesthetics; Biological Resources; 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. Staff recommends that with the findings of the
Initial Study, the issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate.
CONCURRENCES
The Fire Department has reviewed the Plan and concurs with its content.
FISCAL IMPACTS
With the adoption of the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Council approved $285,000 in 2015-16
and the same in 2016-17 to fund deferred and ongoing maintenance needs of the City’s
Open Space using as a guide the Open Space Maintenance Plan (to be adopted with this
report). Generally, the projects and costs are expected to include: trail head enhancement,
Conservation Plan priority projects, ongoing maintenance, and multi-model access
improvements.
Costs of specific items are articulated in the Plan itself and run the gamut in complexity and
cost from a bell box which costs $100 to acquire and $24 to install to a large kiosk at a trail
head that costs $12,000 in materials and approximately $575 to install. All of the
installations will be done by Ranger Service staff. Tracking and reporting on all projects
will be reported to Council on a bi-annual basis at a minimum.
It is expected that the key items identified by the Plan will be supported by the Maintenance
CIP approved with the 2015-17 Financial Plan, while larger long-term capital improvement
items will be considered and reviewed separately.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Open Space Maintenance Plan
2.Initial Study and Negative Declaration
2-6
Attachment 1: Open Space Maintenance Plan
Located here: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=8611
2-7
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) 781 7211
Freddy Otte, (805) 781 7511
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 theday-to-day maintenance and stewardship activities undertaken at City of San Luis Obispo-owned open space properties. These activities include the following: enhancement andmaintenance to existing trailheads and trails, maintenance and construction of approvedand sustainable trails and open space facilities for passive recreation purposes only,removal of illicit materials and trails, improved user and natural resource safety, landrestoration and stewardship projects, invasive species treatment and control, erosioncontrol and stabilization, education of users via patrols and community outreach, andmanagement 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
Attachment 2
2-8
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation
Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
2-9
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 3
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
2-10
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 4
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
2-11
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 5
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 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 background.
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 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.
2-12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 6
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
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 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 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,
7, 8,
9, 12,
13, 14
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, 13
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
2-13
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 7
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), e), 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 published recovery plans.
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)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
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 interpret the history of the sites and the surrounding area.
6.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
2-14
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 8
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
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
10 X
d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
10 X
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
10 X
Evaluation
a)The 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,
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
2-15
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 9
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 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, 14 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, 14
X
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.
2-16
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 10
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
requirements?
X
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
X
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
X
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
9 X
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
9 X
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?X
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project would not negatively impact water quality standards or discharge requirements, introduce new
groundwater extraction, or interfere with groundwater recharge. The Plan envisions activities to restore and improve natural
systems.
d), e) and f), 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.
2-17
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 11
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
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 an Open Space Maintenance 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 Maintenance 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
2-18
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 12
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 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), f) 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
(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 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.
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
2-19
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 13
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
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 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
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 of an Open Space Maintenance Plan to enhance the maintain the natural
2-20
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 14
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
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
effects?
X
d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
X
e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
X
f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
X
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project would create no new demands on utilities and service systems that cannot be met with
existing supplies.
Conclusion
The proposed 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
2-21
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 15
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 beings because it is an Open Space Maintenance Plan for sites that is
currently used for open space conservation and passive recreational purposes and will enhance user awareness and safety.
2-22
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 16
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.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/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.Public Review Draft, City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan. 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)
13.Integrated Vegetation Management Plan for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo. The Land
Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County (2015)
14.City of San Luis Obispo Vegetation Management Plan: The Wildland-Urban Interface. Althaus, D. (2014)
Attachments:
1.Vicinity map with aerial photograph
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.
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.org/government/department-directory/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.
2-23
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 17
ATTACHMENT 1: Vicinity map with aerial photograph
2-24