Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Neg Dec - Extended Open Space Hours1�i 1 ���yrAm _v r r, h CI'T`Y OF SffII LUIS OBISPO Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENDORSED) FILED SEP 15 2011 TOMMY GONG, COUNTY CLERK Julianne ❑EPu Y GL -'V The City of San Luis Obispo has completed the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Pilot Program for Extended Open Space Hours of_Use-During Winter Months, Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve. The IS/MND found the following environmental factors to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated: Biological Resources. The project is located at the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve at 1000 Fernandez Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. The project site is not included on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,850 acres of open space lands comprised of fourteen major properties held in open space reserve, natural reserve, agricultural reserve, or ecological reserve status. These properties, collectively, feature a trail network of both single -use trails and multi -use trails totaling over 50 miles. The Natural Resources Protection Program works in close collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department's Ranger Service to form the "Open Space Team" in order to ensure the highest care, long-term stewardship, and appropriate public use of the City's Open Space network. Following citizen testimony in 2016 and a City Council study session, the City of San Luis Obispo now proposes to implement a pilot program at its 118 -acre Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve (the "Reserve") that will allow extended evening hours of use for passive recreational purposes along approximately 4.9 miles of trails during the winter months when daylight savings time is not in effect. The pilot program will take place during the winter season of 2017-18 (Sunday, November 5 to Sunday, March 11) and 2018-19 (Sunday November 4 to Sunday March 10). Hours open to public use will be between one hour before sunrise until 8:30 PM. No change to the City's existing Open Space Regulations [Municipal Code 12.22, adopted by Ordinance 1332 § 1 (1998)] is required to implement this limited -duration pilot program over the course of two winter seasons: 12.22.050(6.): Presence in Open Space Lands Restricted to Certain Hours—No Overnight Usage. Open space lands where public access is permitted shall be open to the public from dawn to dusk. It shall be unlawful to enter or remain within such lands between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise of the following day without approval from the director (emphasis added). The pilot program, therefore, would be implemented under the Parks and Recreation Director's existing authority to approve additional hours of use pursuant to 12.22.050(B). All other provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo's Open Space Regulations shall remain in effect. Ranger Service personnel will provide oversight and additional patrol of the Reserve during implementation of the pilot program. Ranger Service and Natural Resources Program staff will deploy an EcoCounteFm device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, and will also deploy four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) to monitor and track nocturnal wildlife composition, activity, and behavior. At the conclusion of the pilot program, it is reasonably foreseeable that the City Council may elect to initiate a permanent ordinance revision. Reference copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration are available at the City's Clerk's Office, at 990 Palm Street, or by calling Robert Hill at 805-781-7211. These documents will also be available on the City's website at www.slocity.org. The required 30 -day public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration will extend from Friday September 15, 2017 to Tuesday October 17, 2017. Anyone interested in commenting on the document should submit a written statement to the City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Attention: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, or by email to rhill@slocity.org by 5:00 p.m., October 17, 2017. The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing on October 17, 2017 to consider the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Interested persons can access the City Council agenda at http://www.slocity.org/ og vernment/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-arid-minutes to locate the dates of the public hearings for this project. CITY OF Sfl]R DCIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: i Pilot Program for Extended Open Space Hours of Use During Winter Months, Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve 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, Natural Resources Manager 805-781-7211 4. Project Location: 1000 Fernandez Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designations: Open Space 7. Zoning: C/OS - 20 8. Description of the Project: The City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,850 acres of open space lands comprised of fourteen major properties held in open space reserve, natural reserve, agricultural reserve, or ecological reserve status. These properties, collectively, feature a trail network of both single -use trails and multi -use trails totaling over 50 miles. The Natural Resources Protection Program works in close collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department's Ranger Service to form the "Open Space Team" in order to ensure the highest care, long-term stewardship, and appropriate public use of the City's Open Space network. Following citizen testimony in 2016 and a City Council study session, the City of San Luis Obispo now proposes to implement a pilot program at its 118 -acre Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve (the "Reserve") that will allow extended evening hours of use for passive recreational purposes along approximately 4.9 miles of trails during the winter months when daylight savings time is not in effect. The pilot program will take place during the winter season of 2017-18 (Sunday, November 5 to Sunday, March 11) and 2018-19 (Sunday November 4 to Sunday March 10). Hours open to public use will be between one hour before sunrise until 8:30 PM. No change to the City's existing Open Space Regulations [Municipal Code 12.22, adopted by Ordinance 1332 § 1 (1998)] is required to implement this limited -duration pilot program over the course of two winter seasons: 12.22.050(B.): Presence in Open Space Lands Restricted to Certain Hours—No Overnight Usage. Open space lands where public access is permitted shall be open to the public from dawn to dusk. It shall be unlawful to enter or remain within such lands between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise of the following day without approval from the director (emphasis added). The pilot program, therefore, would be implemented under the Parks and Recreation Director's existing authority to approve additional hours of use pursuant to 12.22.050(B). All other provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo's Open Space Regulations shall remain in effect. Ranger Service personnel will provide oversight and additional patrol of the Reserve during implementation of the pilot program. Ranger Service and Natural Resources Program staff will deploy an EcoCounterTn' device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, and will also deploy four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) to monitor and track nocturnal wildlife composition, activity, and behavior. At the conclusion of the pilot program, it is reasonably foreseeable that the City Council may elect to initiate a permanent ordinance revision. 9. Project Entitlements Required: None. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Existing uses surrounding the Reserve are as follows: West: Rural lands; County of San Luis Obispo jurisdiction North: Rural lands (C/OS-20) East: U.S. Highway 101; single-family residential neighborhood (R-1) South: Rural land, (C/OS-20) 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes associated with the project area have not requested consultation in writing as of the date of issuance of this Initial Study / Environmental Determination. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO $ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources X Hazards and Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation X Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Tribal Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Noise Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish X and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 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. 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 X 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 12J4,- +4 - Signature Robert A. Hill Printed Name September 14, 2017 Date Natural Resources Manager Title CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO _ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. 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. 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 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not Significant Significant Significant Impact limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic Issues with Impact --X-- buildings within a local or state scenic highway? Mitigation 2 Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2 --X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic 2 --X-- buildings within a local or state scenic highway? 2 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X— 2 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adverselyaffect da or nighttime views in the area? -X Evaluation In the local area, Cerro San Luis serves as a substantial public scenic resource as the immediate backdrop for downtown San Luis Obispo and many other areas of the City. Unobstructed public views of Cerro San Luis can be gained along U.S. Highway 101 North and South, from other City of San Luis Obispo open space properties such as Terrace Hill Open Space and Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve, as well as numerous neighborhoods to the north and east of the project site. a) and d) Hikers and mountain bikers typically utilize headlamps or mounted lighting equipment during evening hours. These lights can sometimes be seen from offsite locations under existing evening use of the Reserve. However, this visibility is distant, intermittent, and short in duration (ranging from a few moments to a few minutes) and therefore does not result in substantial adverse effects associated with light and glare. b) There are no designated scenic highways near the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact to scenic resources visible from a scenic highway. c) There would be no physical changes to the landscape associated with the project, and therefore nothing that would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Conclusion: The project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps 5 pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of --X-- the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 5 --X-- c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland 5 --X-- to non -a ricultural use? Evaluation a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use. b) The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for conservation/open space in the General Plan and is zoned C/OS-20 (Conservation/Open Space -20 acre minimum lot size). The project site is surrounded by open and park space to the north and west, and an established single-family neighborhood buffered by an open space easement is located to the east. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO _ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air Significant Significant Significant Impact quality plan? Issues with Impact _X Mitigation --X-- b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Incorporated agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c) The proposed project will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated. Conclusion: No impact. 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 foil wing determinations. Would theproject: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? _X --X-- b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? --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)? --X-- d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Evaluation a), b), c), d), e) The project would not include any potential land uses which would have the potential to violate air quality plans a), and standards, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, or produce objectionable odors in the area. Conclusion: No impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: 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, 1,6 --X-- policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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 1,6 --X-- of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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.) 1 --X-- through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 1, 4, 6, resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of 8,9 X native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 1' 6' 3' --X-- ordinance? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO _ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved 1,6 --X— local, recional, or state habitat conservation Dian? Evaluation The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve is a 118 -acre site consisting of grassland, coastal scrub, coast live oak woodland, opuntia scrub, and several areas or stands of introduced trees. "The topography of the property is generally moderate to steeply sloping and elevations within the Reserve boundaries range from around 190 feet along Highway 101 to nearly 920 feet along the western boundary. Currently, recreational activities constitute the predominant land use within the Reserve. Recreational users access authorized trails within the Reserve from the trailhead off Fernandez Road... Common recreational activities within the Reserve include hiking, jogging, and mountain biking. The Reserve was used historically as rangeland, thus cattle and horses are periodically present." (Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan, 2005). According to the San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey (Riggs et. al, 2015), the Reserve averages between 400 to 600 visitors per day, with one peak of nearly 1,300 visitors on a long weekend during a period of pleasant weather. This survey also observed during November and December of 2014 that approximately 5% of average daily use was occurring between the hours of 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM, despite the City's existing Open Space Regulations provision that Open Space is closed one hour after sunset. a) No state or federal listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur within the Reserve. One special status wildlife species, San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) has been documented in the Reserve. Several species of local concern that have been documented, including the western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), yellow- rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), rufous -crowned sparrow (4imophila ruftceps), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), raptors (in general), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and mountain lion (Puma concolor). No habitat modification will occur through the proposed project as visitors would be using existing trails within the Reserve. It is possible that a direct adverse effect could occur if one of these species were struck directly while crossing a trail, for example, although this is unlikely. It is also unlikely that either direct or indirect impacts would occur to the special status San Diego desert woodrat, as the documented nest locations are located well away from existing trails in protected opuntia scrub habitat characterized by prickly pear cactus. Possible indirect impacts to other species of local concern include: ■ Disruption of normal foraging for nocturnal and crepuscular species (i.e., those that forage at or just after sundown); • Increased energy usage as a result of disturbance; • Disruption of breeding or nesting behaviors; w Increased risk for predation for species flushed by human activity; and f Abandonment of habitat near recreational uses. It is likely that some level of indirect impact will occur, however the extent and severity of those potential impacts are unknown. Mitigation measures, identified below, will reduce the potential for impacts to less than significant. b) The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve does not contain any significant riparian habitat. Other sensitive natural communities described in the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005) include coastal scrub and coast live oak woodland communities on the upper slopes of the Reserve, as well as three areas where seeps and springs exist. The coastal scrub community is very dense and virtually impenetrable by humans. The coast live oak woodland exists on very steep side slopes that are not conducive to human use off of the established trail. The seeps and springs are not located near the trails within the Reserve, with the exception of the spring course proximate to the Lemon Grove where an established crossing exists to avoid any potential impacts. c) The proposed project does not include any "direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption" of federally protected wetlands. The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve was selected for the pilot program, in part, because it does not contain CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated habitat for migratory fish (i.e. south-central California coast steelhead) and it does not have immediate connectivity to other larger, core habitat areas such as the Los Padres National Forest located north of the City of San Luis Obispo. The Reserve does have some habitat connectivity to other open space areas or private ranch properties, however, that are likely used by native resident wildlife species. The effects of evening use of a passive recreational area such as the Reserve, compared to normal daytime use, are primarily associated with general human presence and temporary light exposure. A 2012 study in Boulder, Colorado, which cited several other studies, found that this "spotlighting" effect can have immediate short -effects on wildlife that disrupt natural patterns of movement and foraging; however, this study concludes that the "severity and scope of impact to individual animals or populations is uncertain." Another study titled "Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review" (Larson, Reed, Merenlender, Crooks, 2016) analyzed the findings and trends of 274 other peer-reviewed articles and located a clear trend exists documenting negative effects of recreation on mammals such as coyote, lion, bobcat, or lion, while concluding that overall long-term effects are still relatively unknown. This article also found that spatial restrictions are a common management technique that lessens or minimizes potential recreational use impacts. The City of San Luis Obispo employs spatial restrictions, and the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005) identifies areas designated for habitat, management, restoration, and cultural / historic areas, per the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2002). The trail corridors within the management designated areas of the Reserve total approximately 4.9 miles in length. The trails are typically two to three feet wide. Assuming a thirty-foot buffer, the total trail corridor area within the Reserve is approximately 18 acres within the total Reserve area of 118 acres, or 15%. Given that passive recreational trail use represents a small proportion of the overall project area, that there is nothing associated with the project that would physically block or impede wildlife movement, that the increased seasonal hours of use are proportionally small compared to overall annual use, and that evening use is existing at present, the proposed project does not represent a substantial change to the environment effecting wildlife movement or corridors. Nesting, denning, or nursery sites within the trail alignments were not observed during surveys; the proposed project would not directly impede the use of such sites. Indirect impacts to nesting or denning activity could occur, however most of the wildlife species identified during surveys are nesting or denning in the spring and summer, after the proposed seasonal extension of hours is over. Mitigation measures, identified below, will reduce the potential for impacts to less than significant e) The City of San Luis Obispo's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element ("COSE") expresses a clear priority for protection of natural resource values, while allowing passive recreation when consistent with this primary goal. COSE policies 7.3.1, 7.3.2, and 7.3.3 state that the City shall protect listed species, species of local concern, and wildlife corridors. As discussed under sub -section a), above, adverse effects to listed species or species of local concern are not considered to be significant. COSE Figure 3 depicts wildlife corridors and potential wildlife corridors; however, the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve is not identified as containing either a wildlife corridor or potential wildlife corridor. COSE policy 8.5.1 describe provisions for public access within City open space areas: "Public access to open space resources, with interpretive information, should be provided when doing so is consistent with protection of the resources... The City shall also designate open space areas that are not intended for human presence or activity." The Reserve contains two separate kiosks with multiple panels containing contemporary interpretive information about natural and biological resources, as well as rules and regulations. The City has also designated an open space area that is not intended to for human use or activity, consistent with this policy, at its Filipponi Ecological Reserve property. COSE policy 8.5.5 regarding passive recreation states, "The City will consider allowing passive recreation where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space resources... in accordance with an approved open space conservation plan. Passive recreation activities may include: hiking, nature study, bicycle use, rock climbing, horseback riding or other passive recreational activities as permitted and regulated in the Open Space Ordinance." As discussed in the Project Description, the City's Open Space Ordinance allows for the Parks Director to approve hours of use. The Open Space Ordinance states that open space lands have been acquired for specific purposes, "... such as protection of scenic character, wildlife habitat values, passive recreation and agriculture." The Open Space Ordinance also contains similar language to that found in COSE policy 8.5.5: "...uses on open space land owned or managed by the City... May not include uses which would degrade or significantly impact resources preservation..." In sum, existing City policies and ordinance pertinent to open space indicate passive recreational uses are allowed, provided that they will not wbstantial Hy or significantly impair natural resources. The proposed project has the potential for indirect significant CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated adverse effects that could degrade open space resources, as described above, but the limited seasonal expansion of hours of use is proportionally small, and evening use is occurring under existing circumstances. Therefore, the proposed project should not be considered in conflict with existing policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, with incorporation of the mitigation measures identified, below. f) The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005), which was adopted and approved by City Council resolution, contains several management goal statements in Chapter 3, which are: 3.1 To conserve, enhance and restore natural plant communities; to protect sensitive and endangered plant species and their habitats; and maintain biodiversity of native plants and animals. 3.2 To provide the public with a safe and pleasing natural environment in which to pursue passive recreational activities, while maintaining the integrity of the resource and minimizing the impact on the wildlife and habitats represented. 3.3 To preserve and restore creeks, wetlands and ephemeral seeps or springs in a natural state, and provide suitable habitat to all native aquatic and riparian species... 3.4 To conserve and protect native plant and animal species and enhance their habitats in order to maintain viable wildlife populations within balanced ecosystems. As described above, the proposed project has the potential to for indirect significant adverse effect that will degrade open space resources. However, the limited seasonal expansion of hours of use is proportionally small, and evening use is occurring under existing circumstances. Therefore, the proposed project should not considered to be in conflict with the adopted local conservation plan for the property with incorporation of the mitigation measures identified, below. No other regional or state habitat conservation plans are applicable to this site. Mitigation Measures: BIO -1 Wildlife Monitoring and Adaptive Management. City staff and biological consultants shall conduct regular, weekly monitoring and evaluation of both human use and wildlife use of the Reserve. This will be done by deploying an EcoCountcem device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, as well as four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) and a bat detector (Petterson D500x) to monitor and track nocturnal wildlife composition, activity, and behavior. Regular evening patrols of the trails within the Reserve by Ranger Service staff will also provide anecdotal observations. If human use exceeds expected levels and intensity and / or if significant direct or indirect impacts to wildlife are observed, the pilot program will be ceased. 13I0-2 Wildlife Water Sources. The Reserve features a developed spring proximate to the historic Lemon Grove. This spring will be used to gravity feed water to two wildlife -friendly "guzzlers," or troughs, while still returning flow to the natural drainage path of the spring. This will provide additional watering sources that will benefit wildlife by decreasing the level of energy required to find water and decreasing competition among different species for water. 13I0-3 Public Information and Education Materials. City staff shall develop additional information and educational materials for the public that is specific to this pilot program. These materials will re -iterate the City's rules and regulations in effect, as well as highlight the sensitivity of evening use and potential for wildlife interactions and impacts. These informational materials will be available on the City's website, on the main kiosk at the entrance of the Reserve, and on pamphlets that can be handed out or placed in a rack on the kiosk. Conclusion: With implementation of the above listed Mitigation Measures, the project would have a less than significant impact on Biological Resources. 1 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Droiect: I a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in § 15064.5. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an -X-- --X-- CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? `Evaluation a, c -d) There are no historic structures, paleontological resources, unique geologic features, or known human remains or formal cemeteries associated with the Reserve that would be effected by the proposed project. b) The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan states that there are two archaeological sites located on the Reserve. However, a limited expansion of evening hours would not impact these resources in a manner different that under existing hours of use that would cause a substantial adverse change. Conclusion: The project will have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including including the -risk of loss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent 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. II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X-- III. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? IV. Landslides? Landslides? --X-- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 --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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial risks --X-- to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers --X-- are not available for the disposal of waste water? Evaluation a, c -e) The project does not propose any structural development or result in a situation where it would create a situation placing people permanently on site exposed to earthquake activity. b) The continuous use of dirt surface trails can result in some soil erosion or loss of top soil over time; however, the effect of the limited expansion of hours of use should be considered very minor. The proposed project will occur during the typical rainy season for San Luis Obispo where trail use at any time of day could result in rutting, rilling, or track -out of dirt; however, City Open Space is closed during rain events and thereafter until conditions allow for this reason. Conclusion: The project will have a less than significant im act in relation to soil erosion and no impact on geological factors. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the puose of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases? Mitigation _X Evaluation Incorporated Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would theproject: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the puose of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases? _X Evaluation a,b) The State of California's Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions. The proposed project, however, does not include structural development subject to the efficiency measure typically applied in those cases. SLOAPCD states that GHGs (CO2 and CH4) from all projects subject to CEQA must be quantified and mitigated to the extent feasible. The California Office of Planning and Research has provided the following direction for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions: • Lead agencies should make a good -faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction activities; • The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies should not dismiss a proposed project's direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful evaluation. All available information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts); and, • The lead agency must impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. CEQA does not require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific legal, economic, technological, or other reasons. A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is "less than significant." The expanded passive recreational use of Reserve would not result in any direct emissions as only hiking, jogging, or biking are allowed. The San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey (2015) indicated 400-600 average daily visits to the Reserve, of which approximately 5% is after currently allowable hours of use. Taking the mid -point of average daily use after allowable hours and assuming it increases two -fold, and that each of those visitors arrives at the Reserve in a vehicle as a single occupant, the expected new vehicle trips to the Reserve are anticipated to be 25 per day. The San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey also found that 32% of open space users walk, bike, or use other means of accessing open space other than driving a car. Therefore, indirect emissions from vehicle trips associated with travel to and from the Reserve are far below the thresholds of significance. Conclusion: Less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous --X-- materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions _-X-- involving the release of hazardous materials into the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely Significant Significant Significant Impact hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter Issues with Impact mile of an existing or proposed school? Mitigation d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous Incorporated environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? 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? 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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? wildlands? Evaluation a -h) The proposed project would not have any effect on the various hazards and hazardous materials considered under this section. Conclusion: The project would have no impact in relation to hazardous materials. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface --X-- runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or CITY OF OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Mitigation __X__ Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Incorporated provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoft7 _..X__. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate __X__ Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? —X i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the —X_ failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? --X— Evaluation a j) The proposed project would not have any effect on the various hydrology or water quality aspects considered under this section. Conclusion: The project would have no impact in relation to hydrology or water quality. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project 1' 3' (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, 6' _-X-- local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 2, 3, c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or1, natural communityconservation plan? 6 _-X Evaluation a) The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. b, c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 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 --X_ state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, _-X-- specific plan or other land use plan? Evaluation a,b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact of standards established in the local general plan or noise Issues with Impact --X ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Mitigation 1. Incorporated --X" b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Conclusion: No impact. 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 --X ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? --X" b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 10 --X-- proj ect? —X -- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? —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? Evaluation a -c; e -f) The proposed project would not have any effect on noise as considered under these sub -sections. d) The expanded hours of use under the proposed project could result in additional noise associated with vehicles within the parking area for the Reserve, or audible voices along the trails. Amplified music is prohibited by the City's Open Space Regulations. Additional noise impacts, however would be less than significant because the expanded hours of use would be short term and would still be within the hours (7:00 AM — 10:00 PM) and noise levels (60dB) for residential (due to transportation sources) allowed by City's Noise Element and Ordinance. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the --X construction of replacement housing; elsewhere? Evaluation a -c) The proposed project would not have any effect on the various population and housing aspects considered under this section. Conclusion: No impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No 11 _X_ b) Police protection? Significant Significant Significant Impact e Other public facilities? Issues with Impact that expanded hours of use during the evening as proposed by the project could result in increased calls for service. However, with only 1-2 calls per month for emergency services under existing circumstances, it is very unlikely that the proposed project would result in the need to the construct new fire or police facilities; therefore this impact would be less than significant. c -e) The proposed project would not have any effect on public services as considered under these sub -sections. Mitigation 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or Incorporated regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 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? 11 _X_ b) Police protection? 11 --X - c) Schools? d) Parks? e Other public facilities? Evaluation a,b) The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department and Police Department. It is possible that expanded hours of use during the evening as proposed by the project could result in increased calls for service. However, with only 1-2 calls per month for emergency services under existing circumstances, it is very unlikely that the proposed project would result in the need to the construct new fire or police facilities; therefore this impact would be less than significant. c -e) The proposed project would not have any effect on public services as considered under these sub -sections. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 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 7 --X-- be accelerated? 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? Evaluation a) The proposed project could increase the use of the Reserve compared to existing levels by an estimated 25 additional visits per day (see section 7, above) and would not result in substantial physical deterioration of the facility. Therefore, impacts to recreational facilities that would result from the proposed project are less than significant. b) The proposed project does not include construction of new facilities. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the ro'ect: 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 __X_ and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the X_ county congestion management agency for designated roads or CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an Significant Significant Significant Impact increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in Issues with Impact —X— Xsubstantial substantialsafety risks? Mitigation d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., Incorporated highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in —X— Xsubstantial substantialsafety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses —X-- (e.g. farm equipment)? 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 perforniance oU#ety of such facilities? Evaluation a -f) The proposed project area is served by all modes of transportation and would not have any effect on the various transportation/traffic aspects considered under this section. Conclusion: No impact. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register as defined in Public --X-- Resources Section 5020.1(k)? b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of of Public Resources Code Section 5024. 1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Evaluation a,b) The expanded hours of use proposed by the project would not have impact tribal cultural resources in a manner that is different than under existing hours of use. Conclusion: No impact. 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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 --X environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental X effects? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and Significant Significant Significant Impact expanded entitlements needed? Issues with Impact Mitigation e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate Incorporated d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and —X— expanded entitlements needed? 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 wX� the provider's existing commitments? 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-- Evaluation a -g) The proposed project would not have any effect on the various utilities and service systems considered under this section. Conclusion: No impact. 19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 1, 4, 6, environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 8,9 wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or _X animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project has the potential to impact wildlife species, but these impacts are characterized as less than significant with mitigation (see section 4). The project would have a remote potential to impact two archaeological sites, but otherwise would have no impact on examples of California history or prehistory (see section 5). 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 roiects)? The project will not have cumulative effects, as the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve is the only City of San Luis Obispo open space property (out of 14) proposed for expanded winter hours of use. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or --X-- indirectly? The project will not have substantial adverse effect on human beings. Less than significant impacts that could affect humans were identified in the areas of aesthetics, noise, and public services. CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 20. 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 followin items: a} Fattier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. n/a 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. n/a 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 RLoject. n/a 21. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan; City of San Luis Obispo 2005 2. Conservation and Open S ace Element; City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2006 3. Open Space Regulations; City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 12.22 1998 4. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (1996) 5. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, It ://www,conservation.ca. av/d1 If nm retrieved 08 September 2017) 6. Summary and Results of Wildlife Surveys at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve, City of San Luis Obispo, California; Terra Verde Environmental (2017 7. San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey; Riggs et. al. 2015 8. Nighttime Access Management White Paper Analysis; ERO Resources Corporation, prepared for the City of Boulder, CO 2012 9. Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review; Larson, Reed, N€crenlender, Crooks 2016 10. Noise Element; City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2006) 11, Safety Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2000; rev. 2014) Attachments: All of the above documents are included by reference and are on file at the City. 1. Location Map 2. Greenbelt Map CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM BI0-1 Wildlife Monitoring and Adaptive Management. City staff and biological consultants shall conduct regular, weekly monitoring and evaluation of both human use and wildlife use of the Reserve. This will be done by deploying an EcoCounterTM device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, as well as four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) and a bat detector (Petterson D500x) to monitor and track nocturnal wildlife composition, activity, and behavior. Regular evening patrols of the trails within the Reserve by Ranger Service staff will also provide anecdotal observations. If human use exceeds expected levels and intensity and / or if significant direct or indirect impacts to wildlife are observed, the pilot program will be ceased. BI0-2 Wildlife Water Sources. The Reserve features a developed spring proximate to the historic Lemon Grove. This spring will be used to gravity feed water to two wildlife -friendly "guzzlers," or troughs, while still returning flow to the natural drainage path of the spring. This will provide additional watering sources that will benefit wildlife by decreasing the level of energy required to find water and decreasing competition among different species for water. BI0-3 Public Information and Education Materials. City staff shall develop additional information and educational materials for the public that is specific to this pilot program. These materials will re -iterate the City's rules and regulations in effect, as well as highlight the sensitivity of evening use and potential for wildlife interactions and impacts. These informational materials will be available on the City's website, on the main kiosk at the entrance of the Reserve, and on pamphlets that can be handed out or placed in a rack on the kiosk. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 Cerro San Luis Flood aATRMV tura job"'Ing City Of -%M UIS Qb&,W OPM Sear • ob"mrrtwmlamft • TOSOMdow" • A MPONOWew KNION>ng mo daY bata Samoa 209naNkn.re • Comp --ov llyddor- n+l'aw�i11�A • ttvyrtl" • COW Val dt*na ~pcMd �1Wyb wtiRw7l��a 4'V pbFMlilalMW a aa��nmw • MfpYYd reasov b■Hd d to Sara. aksnr "amrpr Wtq • IAnll dlosK hrlddl M%Jala � �dw�aFoa1Vv11w k �''�' • W WADAtV V 1A • AkWdk pdANNi • Iy+y:+1Y M�b4U07 _ r . p ATTACHMENT 2 Greenbelt Map CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 8 CITY OF FILE[ OCT 13 2017 0SflD_ LUIS OBISPO OCT 13 2017 Notice of Intent to Adopt TOMMY GONG, COUNTY CLERK Mitigated Negative Declaration C ❑ p RK The City of San Luis Obispo has completed the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Pilot Program for Extended ❑ en Space Hours of Use During Winter Months, Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve. The IS/MND found the following environmental factors to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated: Biological Resources. The project is located at the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve at 1000 Fernandez Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. The project site is not included on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,850 acres of open space lands comprised of fourteen major properties held in open space reserve, natural reserve, agricultural reserve, or ecological reserve status. These properties, collectively, feature a trail network of both single -use trails and multi -use trails totaling over 50 miles. The Natural Resources Protection Program works in close collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department's Ranger Service to form the "Open Space Team" in order to ensure the highest care, long-term stewardship, and appropriate public use of the City's Open Space network. Following citizen testimony in 2016 and a City Council study session, the City of San Luis Obispo now proposes to implement a pilot program at its 118 -acre Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve (the "Reserve") that will allow extended evening hours of use for passive recreational purposes along approximately 4.9 miles of trails during the winter months when daylight savings time is not in effect. The pilot program will take place during the winter season of 2017-18 (Sunday, November 5 to Sunday, March 11) and 2018-19 (Sunday November 4 to Sunday March 10). Hours open to public use will be between one hour before sunrise until 8:30 PM. No change to the City's existing Open Space. Regulations [Municipal Code 12.22, adopted by Ordinance 1332 § 1 (1998)] is required to implement this limited -duration pilot program over the course of two winter seasons: 12.22.050(B.): Presence in Open Space Lands Restricted to Certain Hours—No Overnight Usage. Open space lands where public access is permitted shall be open to the public from dawn to dusk. It shall be unlawful to enter or remain within such lands between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise of the following day without approval from the director (emphasis added). The pilot program, therefore, would be implemented under the Parks and Recreation Director's existing authority to approve additional hours of use pursuant to 12.22.050(B). All other provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo's Open Space Regulations shell remain in effect. Ranger Service personnel will provide oversight and additional patrol of the Reserve during implementation of the pilot program. Ranger Service and Natural Resources Program staff will deploy an EcoCounterTM device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, and will also deploy four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) to monitor and track nocturnal