HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-2015 Item 12 - Adopt the Open Space Maintenance Plan
Meeting Date: 12/15/2015
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Director of Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Freddy Otte, City Biologist
Doug Carscaden, Supervising Ranger
Lindsey Stephenson, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: ADOPT THE OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS
As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, adopt a resolution (Attachment A)
in order to:
1. Approve The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan; and
2. Approve a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the Project (Attachment B)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b)(2)).
REPORT IN BRIEF
As a result of a major City Goal to protect and maintain open space the City’s first Open Space
Maintenance Plan (“the Plan”) has been drafted. The Plan articulates standards for maintenance
activities in the City’s open space in accordance with existing practices and adopted policies.
Upon adoption by Council, the Plan will serve as a guide for significant deferred maintenance
and priority projects in the City’s open spaces as well as the establishment of consistent trailhead
amenities and signage.
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. Presently, 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 C). Many 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 undertakes 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
12
Packet Pg. 81
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.
Open Space Maintenance Plan Integrates Existing Policy Documents
The proposed 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
crafted 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, ordinances, and plans regarding open space which is to prioritize resource
protection and then provide for passive recreation opportunities. 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 for City Open Space Lands
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:
1. 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)
2. 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
12
Packet Pg. 82
of managing these species based on threat and other factors, and outlines a specific control plan
for each 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.
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 C, 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.
12
Packet Pg. 83
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: 1)
vegetation, 2 ) structure, 3) sign, 4) trail/road, 5) drainage, and 6) 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 var y . For the purpose of
standardization, the City will have three different classification of trailhead improvements
(small, medium, and large) with differing degrees of enhancement for each type. 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 displays
and input, to a public meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The following is a
summary of outreach steps taken to circulate the Plan.
12
Packet Pg. 84
Adoption of the Maintenance Plan will result in a Series of Improvements
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 fully staffed with skilled rangers ready to manage, and improve and enhance existing
open spaces. Future progress reports will include statistical information regarding Ranger
Service operations including maintenance and patrol, at this time it is too early to have
comprehensive data on this topic.
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.
12
Packet Pg. 85
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 the City Council make the findings
contained in the proposed plan has less than significant impacts and approve the Negative
Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b)(2)). A Negative Declaration is
prepared for a project when there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects
could result in significant adverse impacts.
CONCURRENCES
The Fire Department has reviewed the Plan and concurs with its content. On December 2, 2015,
the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Plan, received public input, and unanimously
recommended to the City Council that it adopt the Plan (Attachments D and E).
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 instal l 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.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could:
1. Approve The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan and adopt the
Negative Declaration, with amendments.
2. Deny The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan and not adopt the
Negative Declaration., This is not recommended given numerous opportunities for public
input and the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation and the Plan provides
12
Packet Pg. 86
for critical guidance to manage, maintain and enhance the City’s precious open space
resources.
3. Continue the item with specific direction if more information or discussion time is
required before taking action.
Attachments:
a a - OSMP Council Resolution
b b - Initial Study
c c - Open Space Property Map
d d - PRC 12.02.15 Minutes_Draft
e e - Public Comment
f Council Reading File - OSMP Final Draft
12
Packet Pg. 87
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
2015 OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN AND ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and public use of open space lands and natural and cultural resources acquired by
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo manages 15 open space areas totaling
approximately 3,700 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the general public have
commented upon The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan as it has
moved through a Council-directed approval process, and staff has considered and incorporated
those comments where appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
1. The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan. The City Council hereby
adopts The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan, an official copy of
which shall be kept on record with the City Clerk, based on the following findings:
a. The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan will guide the day-to-
day maintenance and stewardship activities undertaken at City of San Luis Obispo open
space properties. These activities include the following: enhancement and maintenance of
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
wildland-urban interface areas.
b. The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan is consistent with
General Plan goals and policies relating to the oversight and management of City open
space areas, specifically Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.5.6 that calls for
the development of conservation or master plans for open space properties to protect and
enhance them in a way that best benefits the community as a whole.
c. Implementation of The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan will
provide protection of identified natural resources by specifying maintenance standards
and protocols to guide appropriate public access to City open space, as well as attending
to threats to open space conservation values posed in invasive species and wildland fire
incidents, all of which is consistent with adopted Conservation Plans for those properties.
12.a
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
O
S
M
P
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 2
R ______
2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby adopts a Negative Declaration pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b)(2)) for the project, an official copy of which shall be
kept on record with the City Clerk, finding that it adequately identifies all of the potential
impacts of the project and that those potential impacts identified in the areas of Aesthetics;
Biology, Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and, Hydrology and Water
Quality are de minimis and less than significant because adequate protective measures are
included in the guiding documents that pertain to the activities outlined in the project
description.
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2015.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this day of , .
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
12.a
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
O
S
M
P
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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 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
12.b
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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)).
12.b
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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
12.b
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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
12.b
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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.
12.b
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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
12.b
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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:
12.b
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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
12.b
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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.
12.b
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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.
12.b
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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
12.b
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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 its use would not 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
12.b
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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
12.b
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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
12.b
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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.
12.b
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
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.
12.b
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 17
ATTACHMENT 1: Vicinity map with aerial photograph
12.b
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
12.c
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
p
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
1
Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Wednesday, December 2, 2015, 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Whitener called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Chair Jeff Whitener, Vice Chair Ron Regier and Commissioners Ryan Baker,
Susan Olson, Michael Parolini, Douglas Single and Susan Updegrove
ABSENT: None
COUNCIL: None
STAFF: Shelly Stanwyck, Melissa Mudgett, Doug Carscaden, Freddy Otte
Public Comment
Don Green, SLO City Laguna Shores area resident. Spoke about Priolo Martin Park as a well-used and
loved park by the neighborhood. He asked the Commission to urge for landscape maintenance to
address lighting issue. He supported the collaborative meeting of Parks and Recreation, Administration
Natural Resources, Public Works parks maintenance and arborist staff onsite to discuss neighbor
concerns. Director Stanwyck confirmed that City staff and neighbors will be having a collaborative
meeting in the field.
Ken Kienaw, SLO resident across from Priolo Park. He would like to see the willow trees in the open
space trimmed as it presents a neighborhood safety issue.
Commissioner Parolini asked how the park will be visually delineated between park and open space
area. Staff Freddy Otte responded that the natural vegetation breaks will be used to visually discern the
boundaries between park and open space areas.
1. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES (Commission)
Motion: (Updegrove/Olson) Approve Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2015 as amended.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
2. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE OPEN
SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN (Carscaden, Otte, Stanwyck)
Staff provided an overview of the draft Open Space Maintenance Plan developed as part of the
adopted 2015-17 Major City Goal for Open Space Maintenance and Preservation. The plan
incorporates existing City policies as well as best practices for open space management.
Staff Carscaden highlighted the community engagement process followed using the adopted in
the City’s Public Engagement Manual (PEN). Staff Carscaden provided the Commission with
an operational update regarding Ranger staffing. Since October 8th Ranger Services has been
fully staffed consistent with 2015-17 budget allocations. As a result the division’s staffing levels
include: 1 full time Ranger Supervisor, 2 full time Rangers, 4 full time limited benefit Ran gers,
Meeting Minutes
Parks and Recreation Commission 12.d
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
P
R
C
1
2
.
0
2
.
1
5
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
_
D
r
a
f
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
2
and 1 part time city worker five Ranger. As a result of this staffing Rangers are in the City’s
open space approximately 250 hours a week (excluding breaks and administrative paperwork
time). In the 45 days since the division has been fully staffed and trained 43 citations have been
issued in the open space and approximately 20% of that has been at Bishop Peak. This
additional Ranger staffing has resulted in increased open space protection through patrol and
maintenance
Commission Comments:
Commissioner Olson asked about benches and if there is an opportunity to create memorials.
Director Stanwyck answered that the City has a bench memorial program that would be
implemented. Commission Olson asked about cost sharing opportunities with fencing. Staff
Carscaden responded that city staff will coordinate with adjacent land owners as opportunities
arise.
Vice Chair Regier asked about additional trailhead access at Bishop Peak with new development.
Director Stanwyck replied that Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager, has engaged in
preliminary discussions with private land owners to identify future public trail access needs.
Commissioner Parolini asked for clarification on total acres included in the maintenance plan.
He recommended grammatical corrections, adding links to policy documents referenced and
correction of page numbers. Director Stanwyck said that the final maintenance plan will be
offered electronically on the City’s website to provide users with direct links to all policy
documents. Commissioner Parolini suggested that required “Ranger hours” necessary to address
the entire plan be added.
Commissioner Single asked about park patrol. Director Stanwyck confirmed that patrol of parks
is now provided by the Police Department and designated Neighborhood Enforcement Officers.
Commissioner Single expressed concern that the reallocation of Ranger staffing resources to
open space could have a direct impact on the patrol and safety of our City’s neighborhood parks.
Commission Updegrove asked about the schedule of implementation. Director Stanwyck
responded that implementation would begin immediately upon Council’s approval.
Commission Baker thanked staff for their efforts in drafting the Open Space Maintenance Plan.
Chair Whitener asked about implementation priorities. Director Stanwyck said that staff and the
public have identified trailhead amenities are the top priority in this budget cycle.
Public Comments:
Carol Hall, Highland Drive resident said there is heavy vehicle traffic at Oakridge causing a
safety concern. She expressed that she has not received a prompt response from the non-
emergency dispatch phone number and asked about the Ranger work schedule. Director
Stanwyck responded that the City will be launching a multi-Department effort with the Highland
Drive Neighborhood at the beginning of the year to discuss the traffic and fire safety concerns.
Staff Carscaden responded that rangers now patrol the open space seven days per week during a
wide variety of times. Staff will look into communications between dispatch, other and
neighbors. Vice Chair Regier supported multi-department efforts towards resolving this traffic
safety issue.
12.d
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
P
R
C
1
2
.
0
2
.
1
5
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
_
D
r
a
f
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
3
Carla Saunders, Oakridge resident, said she has served on many City committees and task forces
including the City’s open space task force in the 1990s which created the Open Space program.
She has been involved in open space issues for the past twenty years. She would like to see
consistent enforcement and commitment to Ranger patrol and enforcement of open space.
Director Stanwyck acknowledged Ms. Saunders’ concerns and noted that six weeks in, to full
Ranger Staffing, there has been a marked increased enforcement. . Director Stanwyck shared
that staff will return to the Commission after enough time has passed with new staffing in the
Ranger program to present data. Commissioners Parolini, Updegrove, and Olson noted
increased compliance with open space regulations and comments about it.
Motion: (Updegrove/Parolini) Recommendation that the City Council Approve the City of San
Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
Motion: (Regier/Baker) Recommend that the City Council Approve a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for the Project.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
3. DIRECTOR’S REPORT (Stanwyck)
Director Stanwyck presented to the Commission a brief overview of Parks and Recreation
Programming for December. She shared that staff has communicated with Richard Schmidt, a
community member, who expressed his concern about the shortage of parks in the north Broad Street
area and she wanted Commissioners to be aware of this neighborhood concern. The Sinshiemer pool
replastering work continues on-time. The Thanksgiving “Gobble Wobble” fun-run at the Laguna
Lake Golf Course was a huge success in part due to Cal Poly recreational student volunteers. She
reminded the Commission about upcoming park closures for annual maintenance. She added that the
Reindeer Run will be held this Saturday, December 5th, at Mitchel Park. The Ranger staff received
chainsaw training in preparation of El Nino. Director Stanwyck said she is excited that seven
members of the Parks and Recreation Department will be graduating soon from the City’s
Leadership training programs. She forecasted that the Public Art Master Plan may be ready to
present to the Commission in January 2016.
4. SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS (all)
Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Baker reported that adult softball has season
has concluded. The softball nets at Santa Rosa Park have been installed. Staff Melissa
Mudgett updated the Commission about the Pickleball Pilot program and that staff will
return to the Commission in March 2016 with updates and recommendations.
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC): Vice Chair Regier said that the BAC met to discuss
proposed development for Avila Ranch. He said the City of SLO received an award for
being a bicycle friendly city. He added that the BAC has been reviewing the DeAnza trail.
City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner Parolini
said the Damon Garcia fields are in very poor condition with numerous bald spots. Parks
Maintenance staff will be closing fields for renovation. Parks Maintenance staff has been
identified non-permitted users practicing at the fields.
12.d
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
P
R
C
1
2
.
0
2
.
1
5
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
_
D
r
a
f
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
4
Jack House Committee: Commissioner Updegrove said the Jack House is being decorated
for Victorian Christmas. December 20th the house will be closed for annual maintenance.
The Jack House Elevator Removal Project is anticipated to begin construction in
Tree Committee: Commissioner Olson reported that Committee did not meet in November.
The Tree Committee will be hosting a “Lunch n’ Learn” about tree removal processes at the
Corporation Yard, 25 Prado, on December 10th.
Youth Sports: Commissioner Single said that the Youth Sports Association only meets
quarterly and there was no report.
5. COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Parolini said that the State of California for Storm water support is providing
reimbursement options for local conservation efforts. Go to stormrewards.org to sign up.
Adjourned at 7:34pm to the Regular Meeting on January 6, 2016 at the Council Chambers,
990 Palm Street, at 5:30pm.
Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on __________________.
________________________________________________
Melissa C. Mudgett, Recreation Manager
12.d
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
P
R
C
1
2
.
0
2
.
1
5
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
_
D
r
a
f
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
Hill, Robert
To: Carscaden, Doug
Subject: RE: Comments on Draft Maintenance Plan
From: Greg Bettencourt [mailto:gmbett@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 9:01 PM
To: Carscaden, Doug
Subject: Comments on Draft Maintenance Plan
Some thoughts. I tried to read everything but i got bogged down in the detail of non-bike open
space areas. You are the best judge of what is appropriate so these are just ideas for you to
think about.
Bridge repair - how about including checking foundation/supports?
Cattle Guards - how about “maintaining trail-to-cattle guard transition area”?
Barricade/closure signs - this sentence is unclear.
Road and Parking Maintenance - “maintenance of limited surface replacement” is confusing to
me.
Trail repair - might change “and barbed wire fencing.” to “and repair fencing.”
Remove Loose Rocks - This is an interesting one. I think I recognize you dancing around
liability issues. I can’t think of any other types of hazards which would need to be “maintained
out of a trail” that don’t get you into liability issues i.e. safety issues. Nevertheless, “Remove
Loose Rocks” seems particularly specific.
New Trails - Might be clearer and more accurate to say “Construction of new trails, reroutes or
decommissioning when an existing trail is not sustain or when there is an expansion of open
space land.” Reroute - Abandon and decommission a section of existing trail which is unsafe
or not sustainable and relocate that section within the trail corridor.”
Decommission - Abandon and then rehabilitate a trail or section of trail using boulders, fencing,
new vegetation, reseeding and excess brush materials
Parking - Johnson Ranch is not on this list of "typical locations” Does that mean no new parking
there?
Signage - Level of Difficulty No examples. Have you figured out how you are doing that yet?
Cerro San Luis - This doesn’t allow for reroutes. Is that because of the conservation plan?
Some are certainly needed.
Stenner Springs Open Space - does it matter that the “Return Trail” isn’t shown? Also, I hate
to see that no new trails are allowed. I don’t have any in mind but I could imagine some
connectors coming off of other properties.
Thanks,
Greg
12.e
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
12.e
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
From: Gary Felsman General [mailto:backpackingary1@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:57 PM
To: Advisory Bodies
Cc: Stanwyck, Shelly; Carscaden, Doug; Hill, Robert; E-mail Council Website
Subject: Comments to Parks and Recreation Commission for "2015 City of San Luis Obispo Open Space
Management Plan"
11-17-2015
San Luis Obispo City
Parks and Recreation Commission
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Commissioners and Staff;
I have had a chance to review the draft 2015 City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Management
Plan.
Overall I think this document is a big step forward to the regular maintenance of the City’s Open
Space Areas and Recreational Trails. This combined with the increased number of Rangers,
regular Volunteers like my wife and myself. I believe the many goals set forth in the plan can be
accomplished as we all work together to get things done. The dedication of Doug and his crew
clearly shows every time we work with them. I personally would like to see a couple more rangers
to augment what is going and to spread the work load outlined in this plan.
From what I can tell the plan lists the many tasks for each area and the details are left to the staff
to complete as we move forward. Each area is different and will require various approaches to
achieve the goals outlined in the plan.
After reviewing the documents I found a few things that at least should be looked at prior to final
approval. I added to categories “If Approved and “If Necessary”, “If Necessary” area was added
just in case it is needed to help protect a given the resource area.
1. Page 23, I would add Johnson Ranch to the list of Parking Areas.
2. Page 30, Under New Trails we have N/A. I would like to see a different designation here (Like “If
Approved”) if the “Bishop Peak Conservation Plan” is updated to help disperse people around the
Back Side of Bishop Peak to the Felsman Loop. It could be updated later to reflect that, but I would
not preclude the option.
3. Page 36, I would change New Trails to If Approved, if we ever come done from the “M:” Trail,
under reroute, I would change it to “If Necessary”
4. Page 38, Future Bob Jones Trail, I think is now on the other side of S. Higuera St. As approved by
the EIR.
5. Page 40, Irish Hills, I would change reroute to “If Necessary”
6. Page 42, Islay Hill, I would change reroute to “If Necessary”
7. Page 43, The map shows the Islay Bike Path Corridor. As part of the maintenance project
a. I would like to have the City install three permanent Mutt Mitts stations with Trash
Cans, one at each of the road entrances on Wavertree Street. This will help reduce
the amount of dog poop that is left along the path. The Poop Fairy Group has
placed temporary trash cans and bags for people to use. It has really help the
situation immensely.
b. Mary Lou Johnson has applied for a grant from the City of SLO to help spruce up
the area. She has met with many members of the City to discuss this trail and Islay
Hill Park.
12.e
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
c. We should look at resurfacing or sealing portions of the trail where necessary.
8. Page 44, Johnson Ranch, I did not see anything about addressing the parking issues at the
trailhead. I thought it was on the list, but should be a long range goal to accomplish as we move
forward.
9. Page 46, Laguna Lake, I would change reroute to “If Necessary”
10. Page 48, Reservoir Canyon, I would change reroute to “If Necessary”
11. Page 52, South Hills, I would change reroute to “If Necessary”
12. Just a general comment about trash cans. They should probably be inside the trailhead gate to
prevent people from just driving up and dumping their trash randomly. I have seen this from past
experience.
With these minor changes and the assumption the exact details of how each task is completed will
be left up to Staff. The plan should go forward. The plan should be reviewed periodically to update
any actions taken, what has been completed and what might be needed in the future..
Thank You for your time. If there are any questions or comments please contact me.
Sincerely,
Gary Felsman
1266 Sumac Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)473-3694.
12.e
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
Oscar Loeza
1121 OrcuttRd,Spc 17 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
November 3, 2015
City of San Luis Obispo
Attn: Mayor and City Council 990 Palm
Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I am writing a letter because Ihave a concern about invasive plant species in the San Luis
Obispo County. First, I would like to mention that invasive plant species can cause serious ecological
disturbances and destroy natural habitats. Based on my research invasive plants species tend to
threaten wetlands, sand dunes, as well as fire prone areas (The U. S. National Arboretum). I feel that
this relates to San Luis Obispo County because I've seen many homes with many non native plants.
Plants such as the Scotch broom, genista monspessulana, pampas grass, ice plant, Cape ivy can often
overrun the presence of native plants in which some species of birds and animals rely on for
protection and nesting. Also, plants such as the Scottish broom can become fairly easy to catch on
fire. Furthermore, an article from the San Luis Obispo Tribune states that ". . . invasive plants cost
$82 million a year in control, and monitoring.. ." (Invasive species can crowd out native plants).
I believe that it is important to educate people about this issue because these invasive
plants can spread and take over areas where native plants are present. If stores would stop
offering these species of plants and encouraged and educated shoppers on why nativeplants are
better, it would ultimately sustain the natural biodiversity of the county.
Sincerely, Oscar Loeza
12.e
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
To: The Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Residents of the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Bishop
Peak Natural Reserve Subject: Draft "Open Space Maintenance Plan"
Dear Chairman and Honorable Members of the Parks & Recreation Commission,
We are very appreciative that the City Council made "Protection & Maintenance of
Open Space" a highest City goal for 2015-2017, and that your Commission joined
with the Planning Commission in recommending, additional Ranger positions to
add meaningful support to achieve this goal. (attachment #1).
While we were disappointed that the Park & Recreation Department Director and
Assistant City Manager did not join the Commissions in supporting these additional
Ranger positions, we believe that Council's eventual addition of two part-time
Rangers can help significantly in achieving the primary purpose of open space---
protection of natural resources---- IF A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF
THE TOTA L TIME OF RANGER STA FF IS DEDICAT ED TO RANGER PATROLS IN OPEN
SPACES TO ENFOR CE T HE WI LDLIFE-P ROTE CTIVE R EQUIRE M E NTS OF TH E C ITY'S
1998 OPEN S PAC E OR DINANCE. These include; No nighttime use of Open Space, as wildlife
moves freel y through the open space at night, and wildfire danger increases with night
use; Stay on trails, as this protects both wildlife and their habitats; Dogs must be on leashes,
as this prevents unleashed dogs from "running" wildlife in protected open spaces and
protects habitats .
The recently featured, Tribune article on the City's Open Space highlighted this lack
of enforcement as a fundamental problem; "Night-hiking has been prohibited in
San Luis Obispo since 1998, but the city has never had enough ranger staffing
available to consistently enforce that and other rules, such as keeping dogs on a
leash---and trail users knew it"
As residents of neighborhoods adjacent to the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, we
have observed positive beginnings of increased public awareness of the City's
Open Space Ordinance requirements. But unfortunately, there continue to be
many incidents of disregard for them. These include;
• Almost nightly, after hours, night use of the Reserve
• Off-leash dogs that frequently "run" wildlife
• Illegal mountain biking in the Reserve, both on hiking trails and off-trail in wildlife
habitats
• Hiking off trail
• Overnight camping
• Occasional, open fires at night in this very high fire area
During WOW Week, we were also very disappointed when hundreds of WOW Leaders
12.e
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
and WOW participants descended in one large gathering in the Bishop Peak Natural
Reserve for a massive, competitive group hike to the summit, spurred on by the top-
decibel, blasting of multiple boom boxes. The City's Open Space Ordinance's
prohibition of "large gatherings" in open spaces was obviously violated, and adjacent
narrow residential streets were blocked and overwhelmed by the huge number of
cars. Fire trucks would have been unable to reach any number of houses during this
large gathering. But perhaps the worst part was the inadvertent message that was sent
to hundreds of incoming students being introduced to our City. When twenty or so
WOW Leaders and participants were asked about this WOW experience as they were
coming out of the Bishop Peak trailhead, NOT ONE STUDENT KNEW THAT THEY HAD
BEEN IN A NATURAL RESERVE; NOR ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURAL
RESOURCES BEING PROTECTED IN OUR CITY; NOR WHY THERE WERE REGULATIONS THAT
THEY WERE BEING ASKED TO FOLLOW. (if people don't know why they are being asked
to follow a regulation, they are less likely to do so .) Disappointingly, this occurred after
Staff's "education of over 1,000 WOW leaders about appropriate Open Space uses".
We believe that in the future it is important that Natural Resource Staff "educate"
WOW Leaders and incoming students about the City's Natural Reserves; the rich
wildlife and habitats that City residents value and protect; and why it is important to
follow the wildlife-protective requirements of the City's Open Space Ordinance.
We also believe that new trailhead signage should emphasize, the words "NATURAL
RESERVE". (In a number of existing trailhead signs the words "Natural Reserve" are in
significantly smaller letters.)
We also respectfully request the following, critical clarification;
1. At the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting on December 2, we ask that
the public and the Commission be given "the big picture" of how Ranger
Service time will be allotted, if the draft "Open Space Maintenance Plan" is
adopted. Specifically;
* The total number of full and part-time rangers.
* An estimate of what percentage of the estimated total, combined Ranger hours per
week/month, on the average, will be dedicated to patrolling Open Spaces for enforcement of the
wildlife -protective requirements of the City's Open Space Ordinance. In other words, what
percentage of total Ranger time will be dedicated primaril y to the primary purpose of Open
Space....the protection of natural resources?
* A realistic estimate of what percentage of the estimated total, combined
Ranger hours per week/month, on the average, will be dedicated to maintenance
of trails and the building of new trails in the City's Open Spaces? This primarily
supports passive recreation, the secondary purpose of open space. Ranger Staff
has said in meetings that the vast majority of their time in Open Space is spent on
trail building and trail maintenance, which supports passive recreation, the
secondary
purpose of open space.
12.e
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
* The above estimates of Ranger Staff time division, applied specifically to the Bishop
Peak Natural Reserve.
* We request that a summary of the responses to the above be included in the minutes
for this meeting.
2. A reoccurring problem is also that there are apparently no telephone numbers to reach the
Ranger Service outside of regular City Hall hours. This is especially problematic, as night use
of Open Space is a large problem, but there seems to be no way to reach the Ranger Service
at night.
Responding to last night's use of open space on the following day, does little to "educate"
those who were violating the City's Open Space Ordinance. As there is more use of open
space on weekends and holidays, there is also a correspondingly larger need to also reach
the Ranger service on weekends and holidays.
For your review, we have attached previous correspondences on this issue. (attachments #2, #3 )
Thank you for your consideration .
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Eltzroth
Mary Kay Eltzroth
Richard Frankel
Marilyn Kinsey
Noni Smyth
Kathy a pRoberts
Jim apRoberts
Julie Frankel
Phil Ruggles
Joanne Ruggles
Carla Saunders
Felicia Cashin
Carol Hall
Helen Sipsas
12.e
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
Don Ramirez
Leslie Stanley
Nita Laloggia
Janice Elliott
Keith Elliott Peter
Karacsony Gail
Karacsony
Michelle Clark
Suzie Beresky
David Stafford
Beverly Gingg
Bryan Gingg
B.K. Richard
Gail Steele
Roger Steele
12.e
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
PH1 - 10
12.e
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
(
1
1
9
6
:
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
)
Page intentionally left
blank.
2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan
Terra Verde 2014
Open Space Team: Introductions
Administration
Natural
Resources
Fire
Parks and
Recreation
Ranger Service
Major City Goal 2015-2017
Open Space Preservation
Terra Verde 2014 The proposed Open Space Maintenance Plan is the City’s first ~
And is one of the first in open space programs across the nation.
Action Plan Tasks
1.Real Property Acquisition and
Conservation Planning
2.Adopt Open Space Maintenance
Plan
3.Land Restoration, Stewardship,
Monitoring, and Education
4.Wildland-Urban Interface Fuel
Reduction
Plan Integration of Existing City Policies
Terra Verde 2014
The proposed Open Space Maintenance Plan specifically
references and integrates as its foundational policy all of
the above documents.
1. Conservation and Open Space Element
2. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo
3. All Adopted Conservation Plans & Ordinances
4. Integrated Vegetation Management Plan for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2015-2020)
5. City of San Luis Obispo Vegetation Management Plan: The Wildland–Urban Interface
City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Properties
1.Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
2.Bob Jones Trail and Wetland
3.Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve / “City
Farm”
4.Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve
5.Filipponi Ecological Reserve
6.Irish Hills Natural Reserve
7.Islay Hill Open Space
8.Johnson Ranch Open Space
9.Laguna Lake Natural Reserve
10.Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve
11.San Luis Obispo Creek Natural Reserve
12.South Hills Natural Reserve
13.Stenner Springs Natural Reserve
14.Terrace Hill Open Space
3 Elements of the Proposed
Maintenance Plan
•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 activities shown on illustrative maps
•Priority projects highlighted
Open Space
Locations
Open Space Maintenance Activities
Open Space Locations Section Focuses on:
Maps and Top Priority Projects such as
Terra Verde 2015
ALL Trailheads: Install signs and maps, kiosks, bike racks,
trashcans, and mutt-mitt dispensers.
Terrace Hill Open Space: Restore westside trail above
Jennifer Street; Maintain drainage basins and culverts.
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve: Address trail erosion, trail
braiding and trail switchback cutting; Lower pasture riparian
fencing.
Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve: Address trail erosion;
Install fencing and enhance seasonal wetlands.
Technical Appendix: Two Documents
1.Vegetation Maintenance Plan
2.Integrated Vegetation Management Plan
Jubata grass threatens endangered Chorro
Creek bog thistle (Marc Lea, 2009)
Public Engagement (PEN Manual Steps)
Terra Verde 2015
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
Commission Meeting
•Social Media:
Instagram and
Facebook
Collaborate
•Awareness Walks @
Prefumo Canyon
Trailhead on
November 7th and
12th
•Farmer’s Market
Booth on November
12th
•One on One meetings
•Council Meeting of
December 15th
Next Steps Following Plan Adoption
Terra Verde 2015
Plan is Adopted.
Activities in the
Plan are
undertaken.
Priority Projects
in the Plan are
begun.
Response to Public
Comments: Ranger Staffing
Maintenance and
Patrol ALL In One
•Maintain and patrol
open space and
creeks
•Activities are
interconnected and
inseparable – many
hats are worn in any
outing
Ranger Staffing
Since October 8th
•1 Supervising Ranger
•2 Full Time Rangers
•4 Full Time LBT
Rangers
•1 CW5 Ranger
•About 250 hours a
week Rangers are in
the field (excludes
lunch and report
writing)
Results
• Averaging issuance
of 1 citation per day
•Majority of citations
are for night use or
dogs off leash
•20% at Bishop Peak
•3 trail projects
undertaken in this
time.
Response to Public
Comments
Night Use – City Ordinance,
not part of Maintenance Plan
•Many neighbors to open
space support the current
ordinance
•Others have requested
limited night access to open
space
•Some citations are being
appealed
How to Notify Staff of an
Open Space Issue–
•Emergency, i.e. injury call
911
•Non-Emergency, i.e. night
hiking, dog off leash, illegal
camping, call Police
Dispatch staff on duty will
be notified.
Recommendation
1. Recommend that the City Council Approve The City of San
Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan.
2. Recommend that the City Council Approve a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the Project
Terra Verde 2015