HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-2017 Item 10 - Public Hearing - Pilot Program for Winter Open Space Hours of Use
Meeting Date: 10/17/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager
Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: PILOT PROGRAM FOR WINTER OPEN SPACE HOURS OF USE
RECOMMENDATION
1. Pursuant to prior Council direction, receive a staff presentation on a proposed two-year pilot
program to extend the hours of use of the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve when daylight
savings time is not in effect; and
2. Approve a Resolution (Attachment A) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for the Project (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,850 acres of open space lands that
feature a trail network totaling over 50 miles for passive recreation purposes. The City’s current
Open Space Regulations allow for passive recreational use of these properties from one hour
before sunrise until one hour after sunset, unless otherwise approved by the Parks and Recreation
Director.
On August 16, 2016, in response to public testimony regarding a request for reconsideration of
the City’s published hours of use for open space, “a majority of the City Council directed staff to
bring back on a future agenda a project plan for revising the ordinance limiting public access of
the open space from dusk to dawn.” (Council Minutes, August 16, 2016, pgs. 1-2).
On February 21, 2017, a majority of the City Council voted (4-1) to receive and file the Project
Plan for evaluation of the Open Space hours of use regulations as a Consent Agenda item.
Numerous individuals and interested groups provided written public comments, as well as
testimony at the hearing. The City Council provided parameters including eliminating from
consideration any extended hours of use at the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve and to consider
winter hours up to a level commensurate with summer hours of use (Council Minutes, February
21, 2017, pgs. 5-6).
On March 21, 2017, the City Council received and filed the staff-prepared report, An Evaluation
of Hours of Use for City of San Luis Obispo Open Space, and conducted a study session to
receive public input and testimony regarding Open Space hours of use and regulations. At that
meeting, a majority of Council members (4-1) directed staff to bring back an approach for
Council consideration that would allow for limited, site specific expanded hours of use,
including the possibility of a pilot program that would allow for additional data to be collected
and the ability to scale back down, if needed (On-Demand Meeting Videos, City Council
Meeting: March 21, 2017 part 3).
Packet Pg 255
10
Pilot Program at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve During Winters of 2017-18 and 2018-19
In response to prior Council discussion and direction, staff proposes to implement a pilot
program at the 118-acre Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve (the “Reserve”) that would 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
is proposed to 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). During these time periods,
public use is proposed to be between one hour before sunrise until 8:30 PM. During daylight
savings time the hours of use for the public would return to one hour before sunrise through one
hour after sunset.
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, developed in response to prior Council direction, 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.
Parks and Recreation Ranger Service personnel will continue to provide oversight and will
implement additional patrol of the Reserve during 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 wildlife composition, activity, and
behavior. At the conclusion of the pilot program, staff will prepare a summary report of the pilot
program for Council’s consideration, and at that time would seek further guidance based on the
levels of use during the pilot program and evaluation of the data collected.
Pilot Program Site Selection
A variety of criteria were identified for selection of where an appropriate pilot program could be
located. Through the course of public input and Council discussion, primary considerations have
been related to concerns about potential impacts to nocturnal wildlife and neighborhood
compatibility along with direction to select a site (or sites) that would be meaningful to members
of the public that are seeking expanded hours of use during the winter. Site selection, in
summary, was based on: 1) avoiding open space properties where wildlife use is thought to be
most prolific; 2) avoiding neighborhoods; and, 3) open space properties that have relatively
straightforward emergency response access.
Packet Pg 256
10
Johnson Ranch Open Space and Irish Hills Natural Reserve are part of a much larger mosaic of
wildlife habitat that is ecologically connected to the larger Irish Hills landscape, while Stenner
Springs Natural Reserve and Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve are similarly connected to the
Los Padres National Forest. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, Te rrace Hill Open Space, South Hills
Natural Reserve, and Islay Hill Open Space are all very proximate to existing neighborhoods.
This left Laguna Lake Natural Reserve and Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve as possible
candidates for site-specific hours of use; both properties are located away from neighborhoods,
feature designated parking areas, and have emergency vehicle access. Laguna Lake Natural
Reserve, however, was deemed to not likely be meaningful as it offers a relatively limited trail
network.
Wildlife Surveys at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve
The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005) includes a wildlife survey as an
appendix that was prepared by Tenera Environmental precedent to the preparation of the
conservation plan [Final Report on the Wildlife Resources of the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve
(May 28, 2004)]. Given that this survey work is now over thirteen years old, a focused update
was recently completed by Terra Verde Environmental [Summary and Results of Wildlife
Surveys at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve, City of San Luis Obispo, California (September 13,
2017)]. The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and 2004 wildlife survey are
available on the City’s website. The Terra Verde Environmental survey is includ ed as
Attachment C to this Council Agenda Report. In addition, the City’s Ranger Service has already
deployed four wildlife game cameras at various sites throughout the Reserve and recorded
numerous wildlife findings.
The combined findings of these surveys indicate that no threatened or endangered wildlife
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
(Aimophila ruficeps), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), raptors (in general), hoary bat
(Lasiurus cinereus), and mountain lion (Puma concolor). Other notable, recently documented
wildlife species included deer (Odocoileous spp.), fox (Vulpes spp.), coyote (Canis latrans),
skunk (Mephitis mephitis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and barn
owl (Tyto alba).
Although no direct habitat modification will occur through the proposed pilot program 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, but 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;
Packet Pg 257
10
• Disruption of breeding or nesting behaviors;
• Increased risk for predation for species flushed by human activity; and
• 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 remain unknown. To address and analyze these potential impacts, an Initial
Study and Environmental Review has been prepared and is discussed below. As noted above,
staff will continue to monitor the wildlife in the pilot program area throughout the period during
which these hours of use are being “tested”.
CONCURRENCES
The Parks and Recreation Director and Ranger Service Supervisor concur with the
recommendation provided herein. The Parks and Recreation Director seeks Council’s
affirmation of the exercise of her authority to authorize this pilot program due to its two-year
duration and the top priority community objective to protect and maintain the City’s Open Space.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study and Environmental Review has been prepared for the proposed pilot program
that concludes that significant impacts on the environment could occur, but these impacts will be
reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Potentially significant
impacts were identified in the area of Biological Resources. These potentially significant
impacts can be reduced to less than significant with the following 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 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.
BIO-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.
BIO-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
Packet Pg 258
10
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.
Other less than significant impacts were also identified in the areas of Aesthetics, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and
Planning, Noise, Public Services, and Recreation.
FISCAL IMPACT
The direct fiscal impacts associated with the proposed pilot program in terms of new
expenditures or capital outlay are minor and consist of purchasing the water “guzzlers” and
printing costs for the new educational materials described in mitigation measures BIO-2 and
BIO-3, respectively. However, it should be noted that existing Ranger Services staff resources
will be burdened by the additional oversight, patrol, and monitoring efforts described in
mitigation measure BIO-1, above. As a result, available Ranger staff hours for other purposes
will be limited.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council could request additional information or make changes to the proposed
pilot program. Depending on the extent of changes that might be requested, it may be
necessary to recirculate the required 30-day Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
2. The City Council could elect not to proceed with the proposed pilot program at this time.
Attachments:
a - Resolution
b - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
c - Final Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Wildlife Memo 09-13-17
Packet Pg 259
10
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2017 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A PILOT PROGRAM FOR WINTER OPEN SPACE
HOURS OF USE
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and public use of open space lands and cultural resources acquired by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo manages fourteen Open Space properties
totaling approximately 3,850 acres, as well Open Space or Conservation Easements totaling
approximately 3,400 acres; and
WHEREAS, members of the public provided testimony to the City Council requesting
expanded hours of use in City open space during the winter, and City staff have identified a pilot
program for winter open space hours of use at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve following a
Council-directed process; and
WHEREAS, a pilot program at the 118-acre Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve would
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; and
WHEREAS, 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). During these time periods, public use is proposed to be between one hour before sunrise
until 8:30 PM. During daylight savings time the hours of use for the public would return to one
hour before sunrise through one hour after sunset.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
The City Council hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a
pilot program for winter open space hours of use at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve based on the
following findings:
1. The pilot program is considered a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as defined in Public Resources Code §21065 because it represents an activity
which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and because it is an activity
directly undertaken by a public agency.
2. An Initial Study and Environmental Review has been prepared for the pilot program that
concludes that significant impacts on the environment could occur, but these impacts will
be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Potentially
significant impacts were identified in the area of Biological Resources. These potentially
Packet Pg 260
10
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
significant impacts are reduced to less than significant with the following mitigation
measures, which are incorporated herein:
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 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.
BIO-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.
BIO-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.
3. Other less than significant impacts were also identified in the areas of Aesthetics,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, and Recreation.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
Packet Pg 261
10
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 262
10
Packet Pg 263
10
Packet Pg 264
10
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
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
Packet Pg 265
10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 2
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 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 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.
Packet Pg 266
10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 3
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.
Packet Pg 267
10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 4
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 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
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 a nd Game 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 Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Packet Pg 268
10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 5
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
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
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.
September 14, 2017
Signature Date
Robert A. Hill Natural Resources Manager
Printed Name Title
Packet Pg 269
10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 6
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 p rocess, 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
Packet Pg 270
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 7
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
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
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
2 --X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings? 2 --X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2 --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 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?
5 --X--
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
to non-agricultural use?
5 --X--
Evaluation
a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of St atewide 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
Packet Pg 271
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 8
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 following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? --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? --X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? --X--
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
and standards, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, or produce objectionable odors in the area.
Conclusion: No impact.
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 6 --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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 6 --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 --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, 6,
8, 9 --X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
1, 2, 3,
6 --X--
Packet Pg 272
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 9
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
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, 200 5). According to the San Luis Obispo Open
Space Survey (Riggs et. al, 2015), the Reserve averages between 400 to 600 visito rs 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 (Aimophila ruficeps), 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;
• Increased risk for predation for species flushed by human activity; and
• 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 (20 05) 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 pr otected
wetlands.
d) The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve was selected for the pilot program, in part, because it does not contain riparian
Packet Pg 273
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 10
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 sever al 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 le ngth. 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 list ed 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
substantially or significantly impair natural resources. The proposed project has the potential for indirect significant
Packet Pg 274
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 11
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 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.
BIO-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 .
BIO-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.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5. --X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1 --X--
Packet Pg 275
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 12
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? --X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? --X--
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 the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
--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.
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X--
IV. 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?
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of
the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
--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?
--X--
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 impact in relation to soil erosion and no impact on geological factors.
Packet Pg 276
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 13
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? --X--
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? --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 gas es 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 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
--X--
Packet Pg 277
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 14
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?
--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?
--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?
--X--
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 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?
--X--
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or --X--
Packet Pg 278
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 15
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
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) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
--X--
j) 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 the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? --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, 2, 3,
6 --X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
1, 2, 3,
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
state?
--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?
--X--
Evaluation
a,b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in t he
loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or othe r
Packet Pg 279
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 16
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
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
--X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? --X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? --X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
10 --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 pe ople
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
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?
--X--
--X--
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 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?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
--X--
--X--
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.
Packet Pg 280
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 17
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? --X--
d) Parks? --X--
e) Other public facilities? --X--
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
be accelerated?
7 --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) 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 proj ect 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 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
--X--
Packet Pg 281
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 18
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
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-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
Resources Section 5020.1(k)?
--X--
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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
--X--
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 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--
Packet Pg 282
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 19
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--
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
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?
1, 4, 6,
8, 9
--X--
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 prob able
future projects)?
--X--
The project will not have cumulative effects, as the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve is the only City of Sa n 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
indirectly?
--X--
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.
Packet Pg 283
10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 20
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 following items:
a) Earlier 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 addr essed 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 project.
n/a
21. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan; City of San Luis Obispo (2005)
2. Conservation and Open Space 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,
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/ (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 thro ugh a Global Systematic Review; Larson, Reed,
Merenlender, 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
Packet Pg 284
10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 21
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM
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
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.
BIO-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 .
BIO-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.
Packet Pg 285
10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 22
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
Packet Pg 286
10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 23
ATTACHMENT 2
Greenbelt Map
Packet Pg 287
10
3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
September 13, 2017
Mr. Bob Hill
Natural Resources Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Summary and Results of Wildlife Surveys at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve,
City of San Luis Obispo, California
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) is considering extending the hours of use for one or
more City open space properties. Of specific interest is Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve
(Reserve) based on location, surrounding land uses, proximity to traffic, and amount of
use currently occurring on the Reserve. Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC
(Terra Verde) was retained to assist the City with gathering data that will help inform
the City’s decision-making process for extended use hours of the Reserve.
Prior to conducting the surveys, a review of aerial photography was conducted and a
site visit with City staff occurred on September 8, 2017. Past reports prepared for or by
the City regarding this property were also reviewed (City of San Luis Obispo Natural
Resources; Tenera Environmental 2004).
General Survey Methodology
Terra Verde biologists Brooke Langle and Rhett Blanton conducted the first survey on
September 9, 2017. The survey was conducted along the Lemon Grove Loop Trail with a
visual scan of surrounding areas. During this survey, four coverboards were installed in
two differing habitat types, acoustic monitoring for bats was set up, and spotlighting for
wildlife was conducted. Environmental conditions consisted of partially clear skies, 5-
mile per hour (mph) winds, and temperatures ranging between 60 and 70° Fahrenheit
(F). Methods for the acoustic bat monitoring are discussed below in further detail.
A second survey was conducted on September 12, 2017 by Ms. Langle accompanied by
staff associate Levi Heit. Coverboards were checked, additional acoustic data collection
occurred, and spotlighting for wildlife was conducted. Environmental conditions
Packet Pg 288
10
3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
consisted of overcast/foggy skies, 8-15 mph winds, and temperatures ranging between
65 and 70° F.
During the surveys, all species observed directly and/or indirectly (e.g., tracks, scat, call,
remains, and acoustic observation) were documented.
Acoustic Bat Monitoring Methodology
A Pettersson D500x bat detector was employed for several hours after sunset during the
two survey periods. The detector was placed along the margins of a eucalyptus row on
the east side of the City’s project, near a recently installed water trough. Bats were
observed emerging from the eucalyptus as well as coming up from the residential
neighborhoods downslope. Following field acoustic monitoring, recorded full spectrum
data was analyzed using SonoBat US West (Szewczak). Each bat recording was identified
to species level when possible. Additional acoustic monitoring is planned for the upper,
rocky peak areas of the Reserve.
Wildlife Results
Environmental conditions and anthropogenic activity levels varied between the
September 9 and September 12, 2017 survey efforts. The first survey had mostly clear
skies, warmer weather, and very little human activity noted at the beginning of the
survey and no activity noted after dark. The second survey occurred with high fog cover,
higher wind conditions, cooler weather, and more human activity. On September 12,
the parking lot at the trailhead was full and people were observed heading up the
mountain at 6:30 p.m. After sunset and for approximately one-half hour after sunset,
several mountain bikers were observed coming down the mountain with headlamps
illuminated. One flashlight was observed coming down from the peak of Cerro San Luis
Obispo at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Coverboards
Two of the coverboards were placed in coastal sage scrub off the lower Lemon Grove
loop trail. Two additional coverboards were placed under the canopy of a coast live oak
tree and downslope from that board, in a mixed scrub habitat. It often takes a period of
time for coverboards to develop an advantageous microclimate and for species to
discover them. As such, the check of the newly installed coverboards did not result in
finding any species under them. Coverboards remained at the site following the surveys
for follow-up data collection.
Bats
The first night of acoustic monitoring resulted in up to three species of bat being
recorded. The highest confidence recording was of a Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida
Packet Pg 289
10
3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
brasiliensis), with two poorer recordings indicating hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) and
silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans). Approximately 10 bats were visually
observed flying over the recording station within the first hour after sunset. Some of
these bats appeared to be flying up the mountain from the surrounding neighborhood.
Mexican free-tailed bats are known to inhabit daytime roosts in the surrounding
neighborhoods, including residential structures (Langle, personal communication).
The second night was less ideal for capturing bat recordings due to windy and cooler
conditions. Only one bat was observed flying above the recording station and no bat
calls were captured by the detector.
Spotlighting
After bat recording was set up and observations occurred during the hour after sunset,
the biologists walked the trail system, stopping frequently to scan up the surrounding
area with high powered flashlights or spotlights. Any eyeshine detected was
investigated and binoculars were used to identify species. The survey occurred up to
three hours after sunset.
The following species were observed during the first spotlighting effort: great horned
owl (Bubo virginianus) roosting in eucalyptus grove above trail, barn owl (Tyto alba)
foraging from top of small cypress tree near trail, American kestrel (Falco sparverius),
deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and two mule
deer (Odocoileus hemionus). The area around the eucalyptus tree line, the coast line oak
woodland higher up the mountain, and the seep appeared to be more active than the
more open grassland habitats.
The second spotlighting effort resulted in observing: great horned owl (on the edge of
the eucalyptus grove, a coyote (Canis latrans) near the spring, two mule deer, a
mountain lion (Puma concolor), and three raccoons (Procyon lotor).
Wildlife Species Discussion
There are numerous wildlife species that inhabit the Reserve and surrounding areas of
Cerro San Luis. There is a potential for special status species to occur, however, there
are limited records of sensitive species occurring within the Reserve. The report
prepared for the City in 2004 noted the following sensitive species:
• San Diego desert woodrat (federal and state species of special concern)
• Bats, unknown species (local concern)
• Ornate shrew (local concern)
• Raptors (local concern)
Packet Pg 290
10
3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
• Yellow-rumped warbler (local concern)
• Rufous-crowned sparrow (local concern)
• Western skink (local concern)
• Monarch butterflies (local concern)
The recent survey effort added to this list with the following species observed:
• Bats (Mexican free-tailed, hoary – local concern)
• Mountain lion (local concern)
The results of the September 2017 surveys provide a small sample of wildlife utilizing
Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve. A true inventory of species would require a long-term
survey and monitoring effort occurring over multiple seasons and conditions to
thoroughly understand and document wildlife usage of the Reserve. The City has set up
remote sensing camera stations and they intend to monitor those over a period of time.
The results of species captured by these cameras will further inform the City about the
diversity of wildlife using the Reserve.
The Reserve is heavily used by the public including occasional unauthorized nighttime
use, as confirmed during the 2017 surveys. As such, baseline disturbance has been
occurring on the Reserve. Impacts to wildlife by authorizing extended hours on the
Reserve are largely unknown but may 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;
• Increased risk for predation for species flushed by human activity; and
• Abandonment of habitat near recreational uses.
The amount of disturbance and impacts to wildlife species as a result of nighttime
activity will be variable depending on the level of use, the type of uses, and the season
of use. For example, hikers that may linger at certain locations will likely cause more
disturbance than a single mountain bike passing by quickly. The addition of dogs,
especially if not kept on leash, would increase the level of disturbance to wildlife using
the Reserve. Of particular concern for all species, uses during breeding, nesting, and
rearing seasons for wildlife on the Reserve may have the greatest level of impact.
Maternal roosts of bats are particularly sensitive to disturbance and parents may
abandon young/roosts during this season.
Packet Pg 291
10
3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Generally speaking, the time of year that most species are breeding, nesting, and
rearing is from February through early September. A range of seasons for some of the
species known to or expected to occur are listed below.
Mountain lion (Puma concolor)
Females may be in estrus at any time of the year, but in California, most births probably
occur in spring. Gestation period 82-97 days; litter size is 2-4 (range 1-6). Young become
independent during second year. Habitat includes caves and other natural cavities, and
thickets are used for denning.
Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
Breeding occurs February to March, with most births occurring in April, following a
gestation of approximately 63 days. Average litter size is 4 pups; range 2-7. Young are
weaned at 4 weeks and become independent at around 10 months. Habitat includes
dens in natural cavities, in rocky areas, snags, logs, brush, slash and debris piles,
abandoned burrows, and under buildings. Nest material is usually dry grass, leaves, or
shredded bark.
Townsend’s big eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)
Breeding occurs November to February; gestation lasts 56-100 days. Births occur in May
and June, peaking in late May. A single litter of one is produced annually. Young are
weaned in 6 weeks and fly in 2.5-3 weeks after birth. Maternity roosts are found in
caves, tunnels, mines, and buildings. Small clusters or groups (usually fewer than 100
individuals) of females and young form the maternity colony. Maternity roosts are in
relatively warm sites.
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)
Breeding occurs October to February with fertilization delayed; gestation is 53-71 days.
Young are born from April-July, mostly from May-June. Litter size is 1-3. The altricial
young are weaned in 7 weeks, and are observed flying in July and August. Habitat
includes day roosts in caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally in hollow trees and
buildings. Roost must protect bats from high temperatures. Night roosts may be in more
open sites, such as porches and open buildings.
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)
Breeding occurs February to October, with peak from May to August. Female only
incubates, for about 28 days. Average clutch 4-5 eggs, range 3-6. Young fledge in 35-40
days. Habitat includes a nest of loosely piled sticks and twigs and lined with grass, straw,
or rootlets. Nests are often placed near top of dense oak, willow, or other tree stand;
usually 6-20 m (20-100 ft) above ground. Nests are located near open foraging area.
Packet Pg 292
10
3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)
Breeding occurs January to April; gestation period is about 200 days. Does can give birth
to one, two, or three fawns, though triplets are rare. Fawns are born in late spring to
mid-summer. Fawns are weaned in the fall after about 60-75 days and continue to stay
with their mothers during the first year. Habitat includes foothills and mountain peaks.
Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
Breeds in spring. Young emerge 4 days after eggs are laid, with 2 weeks as a caterpillar,
and 10 days as a chrysalis. Habitat includes open fields and meadows with milkweed.
Overwintering habitat based on microclimate that provides wind protection.
Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus)
Breeds March to July, with peak activity in April and May. Lays 3-9 eggs, usually 6-8, with
an incubation of 14-16 days. Altricial young tended by both parents in nest about 20
days, and for another 3-4 weeks after leaving the nest hole. Habitat includes nest of
grass, moss, mud, hair, feathers, and fur in woodpecker hole, natural cavity, or nest box.
Sometimes partially excavates own cavity. Nests up to 10 meters (32 feet) above
ground, but usually lower. Often breeds near water.
Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Breeds March to July, peaking in May and June. Clutch of 2-5 eggs, usually 2-3, laid in
March and April. Incubates 28-32 days. Semialtricial young fledge in 40-45 days. Habitat
is usually placement of nests in large trees near openings, in older, mature forests,
especially riparian deciduous habitats. Occasionally nests on cliffs or low ledges. Nests 9-
21 meters (30-70 feet) above ground in trees, higher on cliffs.
Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)
Breeds February to July, with peak activity April and May. Clutch size 1-5 eggs, usually 3.
Young are independent in 17 to 19 weeks. Habitat includes nests in dense riparian
habitats. Builds a nest of sticks about half way up in a tall tree. Nest located next to main
tree trunk, or on old nests of squirrels, hawks, or crows; lined with strips of bark, dry
leaves, and sprigs of evergreens.
Western screech owl (Megascops kennicottii)
Breeds early February to June. Eggs mostly laid in April. Clutch size 1-8, usually 3-4.
Incubation 21-30 day, with nestlings fledging at 28-35 days. Obligate secondary cavity-
nester. Habitat includes uses such as abandoned woodpecker hole, or other cavity in
snag, hollow tree, log, stump; occasionally uses nest box. Nest usually 4.6 to 18 m (15-60
ft) above ground.
Packet Pg 293
10
3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Barn owl (Tyto alba)
Breeds January to November. Clutch size 3-11, usually 5-7. Incubation 21-24 days, with
young fledging at 52-70 days. Habitat is usually nesting on ledges, crevices, or other
sheltered areas of cliffs or human-made structures. Also nests in cavities in trees or
snags, burrows, culverts, or nest boxes.
Summary
The information provided is from a limited survey effort during one season of the year,
and as such, does not provide a robust analysis of wildlife usage of the Reserve. It is
likely that nighttime use will impact wildlife occurring on the Reserve, but the extent
and severity of that impact is unknown. Efforts to reduce use during the breeding,
nesting, and rearing periods of a year will lessen potential impacts to wildlife.
If you should have any questions or require further information, please contact Brooke
Langle at blangle@terraverdeweb.com.
Sincerely,
Brooke Langle
Principal Biologist
Packet Pg 294
10
THE'Newspaper of the Central Coast
TMBUNE
SLO CITY CLERK
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0112 • (805) 781-7800
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AD #3295316
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
County of San Luis Obispo
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at
all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation,
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
published in the above-named newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
SEPTEMBER 23, 2017 that said newspaper was duly
and regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
L
(Sign ure of Principal Clerk)
DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2017
AD COST: $250.56
0 cffyoF
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all interested persons to
alteixt a public hearing on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, at 6:00
p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, relative to the following:
PILOT PROGRAM FOR EXTENDr
4,110 OPENS PACE HOURS OF
USE DURING Wi TE ON RRO AlV LU�S1flATUAAL
ifkSEWyE
Public hearing to consider the following:
1. The City of San Luis Obispo has completed the Draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the pro-
posedIP Iet Program for Extended Offen, Space Hours of
Use During Winter Months, Carni San Luls Natural Re-
serve. The IS/MND found the following environmental factors
to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated: Biologi-
cal Resources. The project is located at the Cerro San Luis Nat-
ural Reserve at 1000 Fernandez Road, San Luis Obispo, CA
93401. The project site is not included on any of the lists enum-
erated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; and
2. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Advance reference copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
are available in the City Clerk's Office at 990 Palm Street. The re-
quired 30 -day public review period for the Mitigated Negative Dec-
taratlon will extend from Friday September 15, 2017 to Tuesday
October 17, 2017. Anyone interested in commenting on the docu-
ment should submit a written statement to the City of San Luis Obi-
spo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Attention: Rob-
ert Hill, Natural ReSourCas Manager, or by email to rh 11@sJs>cIIy,
Orsi by 5:00 p.m., October 17, 2017.
The City Council may also discuss other hearings or business
Items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the
proposed project in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described
In this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Council Agenda Reports for this meeting will be available for review
In the City Clerk's Office and online at www.slocitV.org on Wednes-
day, October 11, 2017. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (805)
781-7100 for more information. The City Council meeting will be
televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live streaming on
www. ocily�or�.
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
SBptember23.2017 3295316
Recommendation1. Receive a staff presentation of the proposed pilot program for expanded winter hours of use at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve.2. Conduct the Public Hearing.3. Continue the item to a date uncertain.1City Council Hearing ~ October 17, 2017Expanded Winter Open Space Hours of Use
Project Review Background & Prior Council Direction:1. On August 16, 2016, members of the public approached City Council requesting reconsideration of Open Space hours of use; City Council directed staff to bring back a Project Plan to evaluate potential changes to the existing ordinance.2. On February 21, 2017, staff brought forward the Project Plan to City Council, as requested, and received direction to eliminate from consideration changes at Bishop Peak, and consider winter hours of use commensurate with summer hours of use.3. On March 21, 2017, City Council conducted a Study Session including policy review, wildlife surveys and literature review, stakeholder review, and formal policy analysis. Staff recommended a “cautious and conservative approach”. Council directed staff to bring back an approach for one or more sites that would allow for limited, site-specific expanded hours of use, and additional data collection including the possibility of a pilot program. There was also direction to select a site that would be meaningful for those seeking additional hours of use.2City Council Hearing ~ October 17, 2017Expanded Winter Open Space Hours of Use
Proposed Pilot Program:1. Allow extended evening hours of use for passive recreational purposes during the winter months whendaylight savings time is not in effect.2. The pilot program is proposed to take place during the winter season of 2017-18 (Sunday, November 5 toSunday, March 11) and 2018-19 (Sunday November 4 to Sunday March 10). During these time periods,public use is proposed to be between one hour before sunrise until 8:30 PM. During daylight savings timethe hours of use for the public would return to one hour before sunrise through one hour after sunset.3. No change to the City’s existing Open Space Regulations [Municipal Code 12.22, adopted by Ordinance1332§1 (1998)] is required to implement this limited-duration pilot program over the course of two winterseasons: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).4. The pilot program, developed in response to prior Council direction, would be implemented under the Parksand Recreation Director’s existingauthority to approve additional hoursof use pursuant to 12.22.050(B). Allother provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Open Space Regulations shall remain in effect.3City Council Hearing ~ October 17, 2017Expanded Winter Open Space Hours of Use
City of San Luis Obispo Open Space & Site Selection Process:1. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve2. Bob Jones Trail and Wetland3. Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve4. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve5. Filipponi Ecological Reserve6. Irish Hills Natural Reserve7. Johnson Ranch Open Space8. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve9. Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve10. San Luis Obispo Creek Natural Reserve11. South Hills Natural Reserve12. Stenner Springs Natural Reserve13. Terrace Hill Open Space4City Council Hearing ~ October 17, 2017Expanded Winter Open Space Hours of Use
Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve118 acres4.9 miles of trailsAccess from the Fernandez Road trailhead5City Council Hearing ~ October 17, 2017Expanded Winter Open Space Hours of Use
Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Wildlife Surveys1. Surveys were conducted in 2004 (Tenera) and updated in 2017 (Terra Verde Environmental).2. No threatened or endangered wildlife species have been identified.3. One species of special concern – San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia).4. Several species of local concern (as listed in the Conservation and Open Space Element, Appendix A): western skink (Eumecesskiltonianus), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps), monarch butterfly (Danausplexippus), raptors (in general), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and mountain lion (Puma concolor).5. Other common, recently documented wildlife species included deer (Odocoileous spp.), fox (Vulpes spp.), coyote (Canis latrans), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), raccoon (Procyon lotor) great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and barn owl (Tyto alba). 6City Council Hearing ~ October 17, 2017Expanded Winter Open Space Hours of Use
Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Wildlife Surveys (cont.)1. No direct habitat modification will occur through the proposed pilot program as visitors would be using existing trails within the Reserve. 2. It is 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. 3. Possible indirect impacts to other species of local concern include:a. Disruption of normal foraging for nocturnal and crepuscular species (i.e., those that forage at or just after sundown); b. Increased energy usage as a result of disturbance; c. Disruption of breeding or nesting behaviors; d. Increased risk for predation for species flushed by human activity; and e. Abandonment of habitat near recreational uses. 4. It is likely that some level of indirect impact will occur, however the extent and severity of those potential impacts remain unknown. 7City Council Hearing ~ October 17, 2017Expanded Winter Open Space Hours of Use
Initial Study & Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration:1. Potentially significant impacts were identified in the area of Biology and mitigation measures have been proposed. 2. Less than significant impacts were identified in the areas of Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, and Recreation. Public Comment and CEQA Guidelines 15074:1. CEQA Guidelines section 15074 requires that a lead agency (the City), prior to approving a project, “shall adopt the proposed mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.”2. As of 5pm, Council has received 52 separate pieces of written correspondence. Several of these comments raise significant concerns about the environmental review process and proposed mitigated negative declaration that warrant additional investigation and evaluation prior to Council taking further action. 8City Council Hearing ~ October 17, 2017Expanded Winter Open Space Hours of Use
Fiscal Impacts:1. Relatively minor capital outlay for equipment.2. Will burden existing Natural Resources and Ranger Service staff will additional project administration, oversight, patrol, and monitoring efforts.3. May represent additional calls for emergency medical service. Recommendation:1. Continue the item to a date uncertain to allow for additional investigation and evaluation of concerns raised as part of the public comment process.Alternatives:1. The City Council could request additional information or make changes to the proposed pilot program.2. The City Council could elect not to proceed with the proposed pilot program at this time.9City Council Hearing ~ October 17, 2017Expanded Winter Open Space Hours of Use