HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2013 b2 reservoir canyon
FROM: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: RESERVOIR CANYON NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Cultural
Heritage Committee:
1. Approve a resolution adopting the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan, as
amended; and
2. Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the Project.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan will guide the management of current
and future uses of the nearly 800-acre Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve (“RCNR”) over the next
seven years. The preparation of the Conservation Plan implements several policies of the City of
San Luis Obispo to ensure that natural resource protection of City-owned open space lands and
compatible passive recreation uses, where appropriate, are undertaken in a manner that conforms to
the highest standards. This approach was memorialized in 2002 with the adoption by the City
Council of Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo that set
forth a procedure for staff to follow to document and protect the natural resources of a City-owned
open space property, and the specific uses that are appropriate on those lands. The Conservation
Guidelines were subsequently incorporated by reference in the Conservation and Open Space
Element of the General Plan. The Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan is the
seventh such plan to be developed and brought forward for public review and City Council
consideration.
The Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan introduces the site by describing its
history and physical characteristics; inventories its natural and cultural resources; sets forth goals,
policies, and land use designations; and, makes recommendations for protective measures, needed
improvements, and ongoing monitoring and implementation strategies. Notable elements of the
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan include the identification of numerous rare
plant and animal species and associated habitats, including the federally endangered Chorro Creek
bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense); plans for a stacked loop trail system; improved
parking and trailhead access; restoration of several erodible, denuded areas; rehabilitation or
replacement of several compromised bridge structures; and the integration of the historic La Loma
Adobe site into the Reserve in a manner that has the future potential to afford several logical
connections and beneficial outcomes for both City-owned amenities.
Meeting Date
Item Number 11/19/13
B2 - 1
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Page 2
DISCUSSION
The primary thrust of the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan is to ensure
protection of RCNR’s natural and cultural resources, while also guiding passive recreation uses, fire
safety, and restoration activities.
Important Natural and Cultural Features:
RCNR contains a number of sensitive or otherwise important natural features, and notable cultural
features, including:
1. Rare serpentine soils with unique plant and animal communities, including the federally
endangered Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense);
2. A perennial creek with a healthy riparian corridor that comes through the northern portion of
the property, as well as numerous springs, seeps, and smaller tributaries;
3. Several other habitat t ypes, including dense chaparral, yucca scrub, and native serpentine
bunch grass stands;
4. The reservoir site that the City acquired in 1901 for its first municipal water supply;
5. The opportunity to integrate the City’s La Loma Adobe site with RCNR.
Land management considerations associated with RCNR include:
1. Development of safe creek crossings to allow the public access to the property under
different weather conditions;
2. Non-permitted use of bicycles;
3. A portion of the trail crosses private property via reserved trail easement;
4. Several trail access points that are not in the City’s control;
5. Cattle have free access to the northern parts of the property and water from the creek;
6. Proper development and functioning of the existing trail system and completion of a stacked
loop trail to avoid sensitive areas and maintain appropriate drainage patterns;
7. A 70kV utility corridor which carries electrical power from San Luis Obispo to Atascadero
and the need to ensure proper site restoration following the recent “reconductoring” project;
8. Proximity to wildland-urban interface areas that may be prone to wildfire.
The Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan addresses these issues by calling for:
1. Re-routing or closure of undesirable or damaging trails;
2. Development of a formally identified, stacked loop trail system for hikers only;
3. Placement of protective fencing at identified locations within RCNR to protect sensitive
resources in those locations;
B2 - 2
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Page 3
4. Development of interpretive and informational signage to assist visitors;
5. Monitoring the livestock operation on the property to the north to ensure no long term
damage, and installation of fencing and an off-stream watering system;
6. Acquisition of additional property interests (by separate City Council action) as
opportunities arise to address uncontrolled access points, potential conflicts arising from use
of the reserved easement across a neighbor’s private parcel, and to further protect and buffer
RCNR and its surrounding landscape;
7. Management of the mixed eucalyptus and coast live oak woodland in the Bowden Ranch
neighborhood to alleviate safety concerns and the high wildfire severity risk by conducting
periodic removal of downed limbs, leaf litter and debris, as well as selective thinning and
removal of older trees using a forestry approach so that younger trees have the light and
space to grow.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Initial Study identifies five areas where potential concerns exist: One is for the potential
aesthetic impacts associated with a new trail on the north side of RCNR that could be visible to
southbound Highway 101 traffic; second is the potential for take of rare native plants species like
the Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense) and San Luis Obispo mariposa lily
(Calochortus obispoensis); third is the potential for erosion from new or existing trails; the fourth is
the potential for exposure (primarily to trail construction volunteers) to Naturally Occurring
Asbestos (NOA) which is often found in varying amounts in serpentine-derived soils; and fourth, is
the need to manage the wildland-urban interface fire hazard potential, primarily around the Bowden
Ranch development along Lizzie St. and Woodland Drive.
These concerns are addressed by:
1. Ensuring that new trail construction design preserves native vegetation on the outer edge in
order to screen the trail itself;
2. Ensuring that individuals involved in trail construction are educated about the occurrence of
sensitive rare plants in the area and what to do if individuals are observed within a work area
if pre-activity surveys did not find them;
3. Including commonly used “Best Management Practices” in the construction of trails and
other feature of the site to abate erosion;
4. Using dusk masks for volunteers and with soil wetting techniques where feasible, and timing
of trail construction to minimize or eliminate exposure to NOA;
5. Removing a significant amount of dropped vegetation or fuel, which is periodically
undertaken by City contractors and private landowners in the large grove adjacent to
Bowden Ranch. This activity will continue on a regular basis, but with advance notice when
possible and outside of nesting bird season.
With incorporation of these provisions, potential impacts are mitigated to a level that is less than
significant and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate.
B2 - 3
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Page 4
CONCURRENCES AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Parks and Recreation Department staff participated in the overall development of the Reservoir
Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and support it. Public Works Department Traffic
Engineering staff evaluated the Reservoir Canyon Road / US 101 intersection relative to the
proposed enhancements in the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and provided
suggested edits leading to their concurrence. Community Development Department staff evaluated
the Initial Study and the proposed inclusion of La Loma Adobe into RCNR.
Although not required, as a courtesy County of San Luis Obispo Planning and Building Department
staff provided their concurrence that open space and passive recreation are permitted uses of lands
in the Agricultural Land Use Designation in County jurisdiction and therefore do not require
County permitting.
Natural Resources Program staff conducted a public workshop on January 31, 2012. Notes from
this meeting are included at page 56 of the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan.
The Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan was duly noticed and heard by the Parks
and Recreation Commission on August 15, 2012 and October 2, 2013; by the Planning Commission
on June 27, 2012 and October 9, 2013; and the Cultural Heritage Committee on October 28, 2013.
The Plan was unanimously recommended to the City Council by each of these advisory bodies,
either as presented, or with minor amendments that are reflected in the Final Review Draft
(Attachment 1).
FISCAL IMPACT
Day-to-day management of RCNR will be supported by the operating budgets of the Natural
Resources Program and Ranger Services. The City has been very successful in attracting volunteer
efforts to assist with trail construction and restoration activities. The City has also been successful
in securing grant funds, such as with a recent Fire Safe Council grant award that will support the
fire safety activities described above and in the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation
Plan.
Grant facilities are also available for trails, land acquisition, invasive species control, and habitat
improvement projects through various sources. For some of the larger implementation items, it is
anticipated that staff will propose a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project for City Council
consideration with the 2015-17 Financial Plan, as has been done in the past with Johnson Ranch and
Froom Ranch, for example. Modest investments from the City have often been the used to acquire
materials that are installed by volunteers, or as matching funds that are required by most grant
funding sources and are critical to a successful application.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could:
1. Approve the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, with additional amendments.
B2 - 4
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Page 5
2. Deny the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and not adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, although this is not recommended given numerous opportunities for
public input and unanimous advisory body recommendations.
3. Continue the item with specific direction if more information or discussion time is required
before taking action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Final Review Draft of the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (based on
public and advisory body comments)
2. Initial Study
3. Minutes from Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of October 2, 2013 (Draft)
4. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 2013 (Final)
5. Minutes from Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of October 28, 2013 (Draft)
6. Resolution to approve the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and adopt
the Mitigated Negative Declaration
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-11-19\Reservoir Canyon (Codron-Hill-Otte)\B3 - Council Agenda Report - RCNR 11-19-13.docx
B2 - 5
RESERVOIR CANYON NATURAL RESERVE
CONSERVATION PLAN
Final Review Draft
Attachment 1
B2 - 6
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT
Prepared by:
Natural Resources Protection Program,
City Administration Department
Neil Havlik, Ph.D.
Natural Resources Manager (retired)
Robert A. Hill
Natural Resources Manager
805.781.7211
Freddy Otte
City Biologist
805.781.7511
Brian Provenzale
Natural Resources Internship
Master of City and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
October 2013
Attachment 1
B2 - 7
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
1
Table of Contents
PAGE
List of Figures & Tables 2
Executive Summary 3
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Site History 6
1.2 Natural Features 7
1.3 Access 7
2. Inventory 8
2.1 Physical Inventory 8
2.2 Cultural and Historic Features 8
2.3 Legal Agreements 11
2.4 Soils 12
2.5 Water Resources 13
2.6 Habitat Types (with Associated Plants & Wildlife) 13
3. Goals and Policies 17
4. Conservation Plan 18
4.1 Naming 18
4.2 Land Use Designations 18
4.3 Photo-Monitoring Points 20
4.4 Needs Analysis 21
5. Wildfire Preparedness Plan 23
6. Implementation 25
7. Fiscal Statement 25
8. Amendment 26
Appendices
A. RCNR Trailhead Design Concepts 27
(1980’s and 2013 Cal Poly Student Projects)
B. Hastings Easement Deed and Transcript 30
C. Truocchio Deed 31
D: Soils of Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve 34
E: Species Lists 35
F: Photo-Monitoring Points 43
G: Wildfire Jurisdictional Responsibility Areas in RCNR 55
H: Notes from January 31, 2012 Public Workshop 56
I: Staff Response to Comments 59
J: An Archaeological Surface Survey for Existing Trails & Proposed
Trail Extension at the Reservoir Canyon Area
K: Assignment of Deed of Conservation Easement
Attachment 1
B2 - 8
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
2
List of Figures & Tables
PAGE
FIGURES
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map of Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve 4
Figure 2: San Luis Obispo Greenbelt Regional Context with 5
RCNR plan area highlighted
Figure 3: Views of the filled-in reservoir in the canyon 6
Figure 4: Physical, cultural, and historical features of RCNR 9
Figure 5: USGS Major Soil Textures 13
Figure 6: Habitat Types 14
Figure 7: Land Use Designations 19
Figure 8: Fire Hazard Severity 23
Figure 9: Fire Hazard Severity (Detail) 24
Figure APP 1: Soil Types in the Reservoir Canyon Area 34
Figure APP 2: Wildfire Jurisdictional Responsibility Areas in RCNR 55
TABLES
Table 1: Notable Plant Species in RCNR 14
Table 2: USGS Soil Survey - Reservoir Canyon Area 34
Attachment 1
B2 - 9
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
3
Executive Summary
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve (RCNR) is located just northeast of the City of San Luis Obispo and is
situated on nearly 800 acres of open space owned by the City. It contains the Reservoir Canyon and
Bowden Ranch Open Spaces, and now includes the addition of the Upper Goldtree Vineyard tract lots
acquired in June 2012, as well as the site of the City’s La Loma Adobe.
Natural Features
The canyon features a perennial creek fed by several streams, which contribute to a rich and diverse
natural setting. Several habitat types comprise RCNR, including chaparral, serpentine coastal scrub,
serpentine grassland, and riparian. Key plant species include mariposa lilies, owl’s clover, dudleyas,
spineflowers, and the endangered Chorro Creek bog thistle.
Management Issues
The plan provides guidance and programs to address several management issues in RCNR:
Conservation. The plan gives priority to conservation and maintenance of the natural ecosystem
while allowing for passive public recreational uses where appropriate.
Legal agreements. These include a Deed of Conservation Easement, a trail easement across
private property, a PG&E power line maintenance easement, and shared water rights with
neighboring properties.
Trail and slope erosion. Erosion is particularly noticeable on steeper slopes and near the creek
crossings.
Signage. The property has outdated and limited signage that is deficient in providing for user
safety and inadequately educates public users about off-trail hiking and the natural and cultural
history of the property.
Parking and access. RCNR has limited and problematic trailhead parking.
Goals & Policies
The RCNR Conservation Plan has as its overarching goal the conservation of sensitive habitats with
compatible public use of the open space, while recognizing prior legal agreements. The plan will
accomplish this goal, and address the management issues described above, through the following
policies:
Conserve, enhance, and restore natural plant and wildlife communities; protect sensitive
endangered plant and wildlife species and their habitats; and maintain biodiversity of native
plants and animals by protecting their habitats in order to maintain viable wildlife populations
within balanced ecosystems.
Provide the public with a safe and pleasing natural environment in which to pursue passive
recreational activities, while maintaining the integrity of the resources and minimizing the
impacts on the wildlife and habitats present in the Reserve.
Preserve and restore creeks, wetlands, and ephemeral seeps or springs to a natural state, and
provide suitable habitat for all native aquatic and riparian species.
Minimize the impacts of harmful activities, such as off-trail hiking, illegal biking, and utility access,
while maintaining natural drainage systems as a means of conveying storm water into and within
urban areas.
Provide signage and interpretive features to prevent unauthorized entrance at neighboring
private property, enhance user safety, and for educational purposes.
Maintain, protect, and improve aesthetic views as seen from the City of San Luis Obispo and
Highway 101.
Attachment 1
B2 - 10
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
4
1. Introduction
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve (RCNR) is a place of exceptional beauty, blending a rich ecosystem
with spectacular views from the ridge overlooking the City of San Luis Obispo and its surroundings. It
offers a unique opportunity for passive recreation within an environment full of native and rare plants.
Once known as Fillmore Canyon, the area took its name from a publicly owned reservoir constructed in
the first half of the twentieth century. A 1985 fire destroyed much of the vegetation in the canyon, filling
in the then-abandoned reservoir in the process. Since that time, the ecosystem has made a remarkable
comeback with very little human assistance. It is therefore the primary goal of this plan to conserve and
protect the natural habitats comprising RCNR, mindful that the ecosystem is intact and resilient.
RCNR is located just northeast of the City of San Luis Obispo. It is situated on nearly 800 acres of open
space owned by the City and features a perennial stream, numerous springs, and a variety of natural
habitats. It contains the Reservoir Canyon and Bowden Ranch Open Spaces, a portion of the Upper
Goldtree Vineyard tract acquired in 2012, and the site of the historic La Loma Adobe.
The creation of a conservation plan for RCNR is motivated by policy in the Conservation and Open
Space Element of the City’s General Plan, which states: “The City will adopt conservation plans (or
master plans with conservation components) for large parcels, and for small parcels where
conservation challenges and solutions need to be clarified” (from Appendix C of the Conservation and
Open Space Element, p.77). In adherence to the City’s Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands,
this plan has a threefold purpose: to provide an account of the prevailing condition of the Reservoir
Canyon Natural Reserve; to set out future conservation and management goals for the property; and to
prescribe a means of achieving those goals.
Attachment 1
B2 - 11
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
5
Attachment 1
B2 - 12
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
6
1.1 Site History
Reservoir Canyon was identified very early in the history of the City of San Luis Obispo as a source of
reliable water of good quality. In the late 1800’s the private San Luis Obispo Water Company purchased
about 200 acres of land in the canyon and constructed several small diversion dams to divert water out
of the creek and a series of pipelines to carry the water to a distribution reservoir just below the canyon.
The company also constructed an earthen dam at the mouth of the canyon to also capture water for
distribution into the City’s water supply. It was this structure that gave the name Reservoir Canyon to the
area; prior to that time it had been known as Fillmore Canyon.
In 1900 the City of San Luis Obispo purchased the water company in its entirety and became the water
purveyor for the community. At that time the water collection system consisted of several diversion
structures on San Luis Obispo Creek and several of its tributaries, including Reservoir Canyon Creek,
Hansen Creek, and Gularte Creek, as well as the dam on Reservoir Canyon Creek. The purchase of the
water company also included property for a potential dam site on Stenner Creek; however, this dam
was never built.
These facilities continued to operate into the 1950’s. By this time the City had secured rights to water
from the Salinas Reservoir, constructed in 1942 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the war
effort to supply water to Camp San Luis Obispo, which was a major training facility during the war. With
such a large water supply available, the smaller local supplies became uneconomical to continue to
operate and were eventually abandoned as part of the City’s water supply. Today all that remains of
the local water supply system are remnants of a diversion dam on San Luis Obispo Creek (partially
demolished to improve fish passage), a few sections of pipeline, some remains of small concrete
diversion dams in the tributary creeks, including Reservoir Canyon Creek, and the dam face at the
mouth of Reservoir Canyon. The reservoir itself has fully silted in and only holds a small volume of open
water; it is instead a willow dominated swamp. Water still flows over the reservoir’s outlet in a 15-foot
waterfall, which is a popular walking destination for visitors.
In the 1980’s Landscape Architecture students at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo created a master plan for
Reservoir Canyon. The plan is notable for the fact that it focuses for the first time on the use of Reservoir
Canyon as a recreational open space area. With this history mind, students in Landscape Architecture
course 403 were again willing to provide contemporary designs for trails, parking, and adaptive re-use
of the City’s La Loma Adobe during the winter quarter of 2012. Some of the meritorious concepts are
included in the Plan and are further discussed and depicted at Figure 7: Land Use Designations;
paragraph 1.3 Access; and, paragraph 2.2 Cultural and Historical Features. Appendix A includes a few
selected concept diagrams from those students’ efforts.
As part of the 1994 General Plan update, the City Council formally declared that the Reservoir Canyon
property would be kept as a portion of an open space system envisioned for the community. Since that
Figure 3: Views of the dam (left) and filled-in reservoir in the canyon (right)
Attachment 1
B2 - 13
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
7
time the 284-acre Hastings property, the 207-acre Bowden Ranch property, and the 89 acre Upper
Goldtree Vineyard property have been added to Reservoir Canyon, bringing it up to its current total
land area of 783 acres. It should be noted that this acreage owned by the City is further buffered and
enhanced by the contiguous Madonna and Wolfe open space easements to the west of RCNR, as well
as numerous other smaller open space easements.
The City acquired La Loma Adobe in 1995. The Friends of Las Casa De Adobe (FOCA), a private
community group, requisitioned Mr. Gil Sanchez to prepare a Condition Assessment and Preliminary
Rehabilitation Study in 1998 of all three city-owned adobes, including La Loma Adobe. The study
provided rehabilitation recommendations that were reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC) in 2000 and the CHC found the planned improvements to be consistent with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards. The City was able to secure federal Community Development Block Grant funding
to begin initial structural stabilization of La Loma Adobe, and recently completed re-plastering of the
structure this past summer.
The Reservoir Canyon area has some history of mineral exploration. At least four small prospects exist on
the hillside on both sides of the ridgeline west of Reservoir Canyon. The age, extent, and details of these
explorations are unknown. It is believed that prospecting was for chromite, which is the main mineral of
economic value in the serpentine hills around San Luis Obispo. Evidently, chromite was never found in
economically viable quantities and the prospects were abandoned.
1.2 Natural Features
Rich plant and wildlife habitats compose Reservoir Canyon. The area consists of mostly steep terrain
ranging from 400 feet to 1,715 feet in elevation and is the southern boundary for a large mammal
migratory corridor associated with the Los Padres National Forest and points beyond. Chaparral covers
the north ridge, with perennial grassland on the south ridge. Serpentine outcroppings provide another
habitat for rare plant species adapted to the unusual soil conditions. Two perennial creeks fed by
numerous springs and seeps along the ridge flow through the property, forming riparian habitats at the
bottom of the canyon.
1.3 Access
Two trailheads provide access to RCNR. The first is the north entrance from Reservoir Canyon Road,
which is one mile north of San Luis Obispo, east off of Highway 101. The road is partially paved near the
RCNR entrance, and unmaintained parking for 6-8 cars is available at the side of the road. This location
is problematic due to erosion and potholes that pool with water during the winter and spring months, as
well as for the fact that it is located at the end of a rural county road largely out of view of the public. A
concept sketch for a formal parking area with low-impact development (LID) drainage improvements,
asd well as a locking gate, is shown at Appendix A.
Returning to San Luis Obispo and points south from Reservoir Canyon Road entails a difficult, two-stage
left-hand turn across Highway 101. However, an extended left-hand turn pocket between northbound
and southbound traffic provides adequate distance for acceleration and merging into southbound
traffic. A recent inquiry with Cal Trans District 5 staff indicates that there has been one collision at this
location in the past five years, which is not significant enough to suggest that a “dangerous” condition
exists that warrants further attention as part of this project.
The second access point is at the Bowden Ranch Open Space trailhead, located at the top of Lizzie
Street in San Luis Obispo. This location currently offers limited amenities, with RCNR visitors making use of
on-street parking and a bicycle rack. However, La Loma Adobe is located contiguous to RCNR at this
location, creating an opportunity to integrate both facilities in a complimentary fashion. Due to the
antiquated parcel configuration of La Loma Adobe that stretches across present-day Lizzie Street into
the creek area on the other side, it is intermingled with the RCNR and comprises a small portion of
riparian habitat and mixed coast live oak and eucalyptus already being managed as open space.
Attachment 1
B2 - 14
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
8
From a functional relationship standpoint, La Loma Adobe could be used as a Natural and Cultural
History Interpretive Center. It could be used to stage outdoor education activities for students. It could
be used as a shady picnic area after a long hike is completed. Further, it has been suggested that the
upstairs be used as an on-site Reserve Manager’s quarters. The City has previous experience with this
model at the Johnson Ranch Open Space, which includes a turn-of-the-century residence and ranch
headquarters on the property. This site is leased at one-half the market rate as a mutual benefit
arrangement to a City employee, who in return is required to perform eight hours of site maintenance
per week (outside of normal work time). This arrangement has been valuable in preventing vandalism
and providing a 24 hour presence on-site.
From an operational standpoint, La Loma Adobe could provide a safer, improved trailhead and
parking area. Hikers currently accessing the Reserve from Lizzie Street must park in the street and then
walk up the street (no sidewalk) to access the trail at the top of the cul-de-sac. With the last few houses
in the Bowden Ranch subdivision being completed, people accessing the trail could pose greater
parking and traffic concerns on Lizzie Street and opportunities for neighborhood conflict. An option
considered in the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan is the recommendation to
relocate the trailhead further down the creek, accessed via a crosswalk from La Loma Adobe. The City
also owns the lot adjacent to La Loma Adobe which could accommodate off-street parking for
approximately 8-10 cars.
2. Inventory
2.1 Physical Inventory
The Reservoir Canyon trail spans over 2.5 miles from the trailhead at Reservoir Canyon Road to the top
of the ridge. From the ridge, the trail connects to the Bowden Ranch trail, which runs 0.9 miles down a
steep hillside to the property’s other trailhead at the east end of Lizzie Street in San Luis Obispo.
Currently, there is no loop system for the trails. Other features include a pair of stone benches on the
ridge top and rock piles left by visitors at a few points along the ridge and trail. Most remarkable are the
views of the City of San Luis Obispo from the top of the ridge and the line of Morros. Similarly, the view
of the property and ridge from within the City make up part of the part of the City’s geographic identity.
2.2 Cultural and Historic Features
In addition to its natural and physical features, RCNR’s most notable cultural and historic feature is “La
Loma de la Nopalera Adobe”. Literally translated, it is the sun-dried mud brick house on the hill of
prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.). The core structure is thought to have been constructed around
1782 or earlier and it is a rare example of a two-story adobe of “Monterey style” architecture, making of
substantial historic significance. The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s
General Plan provides a policy framework for the inclusion of La Loma Adobe into the RCNR. In
addition to its protective measures relative to natural resources, the COSE specifies that all the larger
City open space properties shall be managed in accordance with Conservation Guidelines for Open
Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2004). This document, in turn, specifies the required
components of each conservation plan, to include discussion of appropriate treatment of cultural
resources. At the same time, the COSE also provides specific program guidance relative to adaptive
reuse and City-owned adobes:
3.6.8 Promote adaptive reuse of historic buildings.
The City will, consistent with health, safety and basic land-use policies, apply building and zoning
standards within allowed ranges of flexibility, to foster continued use and adaptive reuse of historic
buildings.
3.6.9 City-owned adobes and historic structures.
The City will preserve and, as resources permit, rehabilitate City-owned historic adobes and other
historic structures by aggressively seeking grants, donations, private-sector participation or other
techniques that help fund rehabilitation and adaptive reuse.
Attachment 1
B2 - 15
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
9
As interesting and important as La Loma Adobe is by itself, our understanding of the site and structure
are much richer in the context of its historic landscape. At a fundamental level, it is typical to observe
the presence of natural resources surrounding early settlements; indeed, with the perennial spring that
flows adjacent, the elevated views off-site to the Mission and the surrounding valley, and the proximity
to game species and pasture for cattle, La Loma Adobe is no exception and it was likely constructed
where it is for these reasons. City staff’s preliminary research is inconclusive as to how large the original
land holding surrounding La Loma Adobe was, however. It is known that by the beginning of the early
California period the La Viña property (which included La Loma Adobe) was large enough to support a
substantial cattle operation when it transferred from Baptiste Garcia to the tenure of Estevan Quintana
in 1852. “The agreement shows that there was a stone fence or corral on the property. This land was
apparently adjacent to land Estevan already owned. [Both transactions are on San Luis Obispo County
Deed Book A, page 28][A sitio de ganado mayor was a square league that measured 5,000 varas on
each side, which equaled 4,338.68 acres. A criadero de ganado mayor was one quarter of the sitio, or
1,109.67 acres. A sitio de ganado menor was two thirds of a sitio de ganado mayor, or 2,959.12 acres. A
criadero de ganado menor was one third of a sitio de ganado mayor, or 1,479.56 acres.]” (Alonzo
Dana, 1970).
However, following a dispute with the U.S. Land Grant Commission in 1853 in which Estevan Quintana’s
claim that La Viña rancho was deeded by the Mexican government was denied, there was a
subsequent exchange for a portion of La Viña rancho for 3,166 acres of the 3,506.33 acre Rancho
Potrero de San Luís Obispo, which lay on Stenner Creek about five miles northeast. The exchange was
made with Doña María Concepción Boronda de Muñoz, one of the prominent Boronda family of
Monterey County, CA (Dana, 1970). It is also known that an additional quarter section of land (160
acres) adjacent to La Loma Adobe was homsteaded by the Boronda de Muñoz family in 1870
(Sanchez, 1998). Today, neighboring rancher Eleanor Truocchio operates an approximately 4,000-acre
cattle ranch contiguous to the north of RCNR. Ms. Truocchio is a descendent of the Boronda family and
as a 7th generation rancher is a living link to the early California era at La Loma Adobe (San Luis Obispo
County Cattlewomen’s Association website, http://www.cattlewomen-slo.org).
With the strong possibility of other cultural and historical features that may be found within RCNR, City
staff requisitioned An Archaeological Surface Survey for Existing Trails & Proposed Trail Extension at the
Reservoir Canyon Area prepared by Mr. Thor Conway with the firm Heritage Discoveries, Inc. (Appendix
J). This study included a Phase I cultural resources survey and literature review and recommends no
further study relative to the installation of new trails. Finally, an old air traffic beacon still stands at the
northernmost point of the trail on the ridge – a physical reminder of the World War II era.
Figure 4: Physical, cultural, and historical features of RCNR
4a. Finished stone bench on the ridge
4b. Larger, unfinished stone bench on the ridge
Attachment 1
B2 - 16
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
10
4d. Rock pile along the ridge trail
4e. Old air traffic beacon on the ridge top
4f. La Loma Adobe with present-day RCNR behind
4c. A view from the ridge, facing northwest.
Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak are in the background.
Attachment 1
B2 - 17
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
11
4g. La Loma Adobe is at the bottom left; the RCNR trail leading to the top
of the ridge ascends the same canyon from which this photo is taken
2.3 Legal Agreements
There are five legal agreements with important bearing on the use and functioning of Reservoir Canyon
Natural Reserve:
The first is the easement held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for their transmission line,
which crosses RCNR from southwest to northeast. This line was originally constructed in the early 1900’s.
Today it is known as the Atascadero-San Luis Obispo 70kV line. It consists of a single line of towers
carrying 70 kilovolts (kV) of electrical power. The towers consist of a steel lattice type of construction,
and are about 100 feet tall. PG&E has just completed replacing these towers for safety and supply
reliability purposes. The easement grants PG&E the right of reasonable access to the towers for
maintenance and replacement purposes.
Another important legal agreement is the “floating” easement for road purposes across what is now
known as the Michael Sheffer property. The Hastings family retained this easement when Edward J.
Hastings sold a 40-acre portion of his property (specifically the northeast quarter or the northeast quarter
of Section 31 in Township 30 South, Range 13 East, MDB&M) to a son or other relative, Frank D. Hastings,
in 1953. The grant deed memorializes the sale, subject to the following exception:
“Also excepting and reserving unto the grantor herein an easement for road purposes over and
across said land, at a site and location to be selected by or acceptable to the Grantor and his
heirs and assigns and said easement to be of a width of not more than 50 feet. Said easement
shall inure to the benefit of the heirs and assigns of the Grantor, and is intended to be used by
and to benefit the owners of any of the lands and portions thereof retained by the Grantor so
Attachment 1
B2 - 18
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
12
that the lands so retained or the portions of the lands can be held and enjoyed and the
easement for road purposes be used and enjoyed without limit for any particular use by the
Grantor and his heirs and assigns and the holders, owners and users of said easement.”
The above language provides the legal right for the existing hiking trail crossing the Sheffer property, Mr.
Sheffer being the successor in interest to Frank D. Hastings. See Appendix B for the complete
agreement.
A third legal agreement permits watering of cattle in Reservoir Canyon Creek from the adjacent
Truocchio property. This agreement, which involved the purchase in 1911 of several small parcels of
land by the City of San Luis Obispo from what was then called the Lowe property, allowed the City to
fence off the creek from livestock, but if that were done the City would have to provide an alternative
water source for livestock. Evidently this was never done, and the arrangement allowing livestock
access to the creek has continued for more than 100 years, to the present day. Appendix C has the
complete text of this agreement.
A fourth legal agreement involves the assignment of a Deed of Conservation Easement and the
retained use of water from a spring on the Bowden Ranch portion of RCNR. In 2004, as part of the
approval of a subdivision for the Bowden Ranch, approximately 190 acres of the 220-acre ranch was
protected by dedication of a Deed of Conservation Easement in favor of the City of San Luis Obispo. In
2008, full title to the Bowden Ranch Open Space property was obtained. In order to maintain the
integrity and intent of the Conservation Easement, it was assigned to The Land Conservancy of San Luis
Obispo County who continues to monitor and manage this property interest. The full text of the Deed of
Conservation Easement encumbering the Bowden Ranch Open Space is included as Appendix K.
As another component of the transaction by which the City obtained ownership of the Bowden Ranch
Open Space area, a fifth legal agreement pertaining to the property arises, which was the seller’s
retained right to use of one-half of the natural flow of the spring that once provided water to the La
Loma Adobe and the grounds surrounding it. The practical effect of this retention is that the spring box,
small storage tank along the Bowden Ranch Trail, and several water lines in the vicinity will remain
functional for the foreseeable future. This does not impair the use of the site by the City or by visitors.
Even with the retention, the spring still provides year around surface base flow to Lizzie Creek.
It should also be noted that at one time Reservoir Canyon Road extended at least one and a half miles
farther up the canyon than it does today, but at some time (probably the late 1950’s or early 1960’s) the
road was abandoned by the County of San Luis Obispo back to the point of its current terminus at the
edge of RCNR.
2.4 Soils
There are five major soil textures in RCNR, as depicted in Figure 5: clay; clay loam; loam; sandy; and,
unweathered bedrock, which is the dominant texture. According to the US Geological Survey, there are
fifteen distinct soil types in the greater Reservoir Canyon Area. Table 1 in Appendix D lists the types and
their components. It accounts for the soil coverage type as a percentage of the overall acreage. The
USGS data is also illustrated in a map in Appendix D. The dominant type is Obispo-rock outcrop or
serpentine-derived soils, which, due to their inhospitableness for most species, often tend to favor native
and rare California plant species. The next most common type is the Los Osos-Diablo complex,
occurring above shale bedrock. Usual vegetation in this soil type is mostly annual grasses and forbs with
some perennial grasses, coastal sagebrush, and coast live oak. Gazos-Lodo clay loams comprise the
third most common soil type in the RCNR area. This slightly acidic soil is commonly covered with
vegetation consisting of annual grasses and forbs, with some brush and coastal live oak.
Attachment 1
B2 - 19
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
13
2.5 Water Resources
Water features include two perennial creeks – Reservoir Canyon Creek and an unnamed creek that
flows along Lizzie St. that is often referred to as Lizzie Creek – and the numerous springs and seeps that
feed them. Reservoir Canyon Creek runs year around in its easterly, upstream reaches before going
intermittently underground just before the reservoir itself. The stream returns to surface flow near the 15-
foot waterfall located below the old reservoir’s outlet. Both of these perennial creek systems provide
valuable summer base flow to the greater San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. As stated in section 2.3,
two legal agreements affect a portion of RCNR’s water resources: A 1911 agreement permits watering
of cattle in Reservoir Canyon Creek from the adjacent Truocchio property. A second agreement, with
the seller of the Bowden Ranch property, retains ownership of one half of the flow from one of the
springs in that area.
2.6 Habitat Types
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve has four general habitat types: chaparral; coastal sage- and
serpentine coastal sage scrub; serpentine grassland; and riparian. Figure 6 depicts these habitat types.
Notable encountered plant species include Mariposa lilies (both the club haired and San Luis Obispo
varieties), owl’s clover/Indian paintbrush, spineflowers (both Brewer’s and Palmer’s varieties), star tulip,
and Chorro Creek bog thistle, which are shown in Table 1. A full plant species list is available in Appendix
E. Notable wildlife species encountered include mountain lion, skunk, deer (fawn), roadrunner, and
Attachment 1
B2 - 20
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
14
white tailed kite. A full wildlife inventory will be completed at a later date and will be appended to this
plan.
Table 1: Notable Plant Species in RCNR
Club-haired Mariposa lily
Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus
San Luis Obispo Mariposa lily
Calochortus obispoensis
Attachment 1
B2 - 21
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
15
San Luis Obispo dudleya
Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina
San Luis Obispo Owl's clover
Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoense
Brewer’s spineflower
Chorizanthe breweri
Palmer’s spineflower
Chorizanthe palmeri
Chorro Creek bog thistle
Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense
Jones’ Layia
Layia jonesii
Attachment 1
B2 - 22
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
16
2.6.1 Chaparral
The north-facing slope of the Reservoir Canyon ridge has diverse vegetation due to relatively warm,
moist conditions and protection from the wind. As is typical for chaparral habitats, the plants in this part
of RCNR are full of woody, evergreen shrubs. The plants’ dormant period coincides with dry, summer
weather. Many plants in chaparral have reproductive cycles adapted to fires, with some requiring the
heat of flames to germinate seeds. The currently thriving chaparral is likely a direct result of natural
ecological succession following the Las Pilitas fire of 1985, which burnt much of Reservoir Canyon.
Intervals for naturally occurring fires in chaparral are 30-40 years on average, but can be as long as 100
years.
The chaparral habitat in RCNR includes the shrubs ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus), the rare San Luis
Obispo spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri) and Brewer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri), and poison
oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). The main tree type is the California scrub oak (Quercus durata). Key
grass, herb, and flower species include purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), giant wildrye (Leymus
condensatus), and the California golden poppy (Eschscholzia californica).
2.6.2 Coastal Sage Scrub and Serpentine Coastal Sage Scrub
These habitats occupy the south-facing slope of RCNR, where the climate is windier and drier as
compared to the north-facing slope. Plants typically have leaves that are softer and more aromatic
than those in chaparral. Also unlike chaparral, sage scrub plants drop their leaves in summer. Serpentine
outcroppings in RCNR’s coastal sage scrub are extreme versions of the habitat due to the soil: only rare
species can survive the inhospitable conditions. Fire intervals in typical scrub habitats often coincide
with nearby chaparral. Plant species of note in the sage scrub habitats are various lilies (Calochortus)
and the Indian paintbrush flower (Castilleja affinis).
2.6.3 Serpentine Grassland
The serpentine grassland, primarily on the ridge and the south-facing slope in RCNR, is a relatively
pristine habitat in that it is dominated by native species. Within the last decade, the area was submitted
by the City’s Natural Resources Program to the state’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program as a
reference example of a natural grassland area. Due to the chemical composition and relative infertility
of serpentine soil, a lower diversity of species is found. Yet, as a result, the soil also favors rare and native
species.
Grass species include several Bromus and most notably Avena barbata, however several native species
including Melica species and Nassela species can be found in less hospitable areas of shallow, rocky
soil. Notable wildflowers include coastal tidy tips (Layia platyglossa) and California golden poppies
(Eschscholzia californica). Rare species include Mariposa lilies (both the San Luis Obispo and club haired
varieties of Calochortus), most beautiful jewel flower (Streptanthus albidus subspecies peamoenus),
brewer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri) and the succulent Abrams’ liveforever (Dudleya abramsii).
2.6.4 Riparian
Riparian areas within City property on the north slope of the Reservoir Canyon ridge are fed by six
drainages, which favors the species diversity in the canyon, including numerous species of shrubs, and a
variety of trees, grasses, herbs, succulents, and most notably, ferns. The observed species of fern are:
maidenhair (Adiantum jordanii), coffee (Pellaea andromedifolia), goldback (Pentagramma
triangularis), and California polypody (Polypodium californicum). Tree species include California bay
(Umbellularia californica), brewer’s willow (Salix breweri), and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Among
the succulents, shrubs, and herbs are Abrams’ and lanceleaf liveforevers (Dudleya abramsii and
Dudleya lanceolata), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and both the common seep and sticky
monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus and Mimulus aurantiacus). The federally endangered Chorro Creek
bog thistle (Cirsium fontinate var. Obispoense) was first observed next to a seep within one of the upper
Attachment 1
B2 - 23
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
17
north slope drainages by Cal Poly biological sciences student Ben Carter in 2002. This population was
again located and documented in the spring of 2013.
3. Goals and Policies
The document “Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo”
describes management guidelines and policies designed to achieve the stated goals of the City’s open
space element (i.e. COSE 8.1-8.7).
Goals
The City will manage Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve with the following goals:
3.1 To conserve, enhance, and restore natural plant and wildlife communities; to protect sensitive
endangered plant and wildlife species and their habitats; and to maintain biodiversity of native plants
and animals by protecting their habitats in order to maintain viable wildlife populations within balanced
ecosystems.
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 resources and minimizing the impacts on
the wildlife and habitats present in the Reserve.
3.3 To preserve and restore creeks, wetlands, and ephemeral seeps or springs to a natural state, and
provide suitable habitat for all native aquatic and riparian species.
3.4 To minimize the impacts of harmful activities, such as off-trail hiking, illegal mountain bike use, cattle
grazing, catastrophic wildfire, and utility access, while maintaining natural drainage systems as a means
of conveying storm water into and within urban areas.
3.5 To provide signage and interpretive features to enhance user safety, prevent unauthorized entrance
at neighboring private property, and for educational purposes.
3.6 To maintain, protect, and improve aesthetic views as seen from the City of San Luis Obispo and
Highway 101.
3.7 To protect, restore, and further research the important historic and cultural resources within the
Reserve, most particularly La Loma Adobe.
3.8 To regularly monitor and patrol the Reserve, establish Levels of Acceptable Change (LAC), and take
action to correct areas or problems that exceed LAC.
Policies
3.9 Public Comment and Input
This conservation plan seeks to accommodate the wishes and desires of the general public while
addressing the City’s goals in the Conservation Open Space Element. A public meeting was held in
January 2012 as well as meetings with other individuals and groups for input on the conservation plan.
Notes from that meeting are included as Appendix H. The first Public Hearing Draft was reviewed
before duly noticed Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission hearings. This Revised
Public Hearing Draft was also heard before the same bodies again, as well as the Cultural Heritage
Committee. Staff has noted comments received as testimony in these hearings, as well as written
comments received. Staff’s response to these comments is provided as Appendix K.
3.10 Vegetation Management
Attachment 1
B2 - 24
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
18
3.10.1 The City will monitor and manage vegetation to meet prescribed goals for the land.
Management strategies such as the following will be implemented where necessary: physical
pruning/removal of unwanted or problematic vegetation – especially non-native species; erosion and
sediment control; and application of Integrated Pest Management practices.
3.10.2 Restoration and/or re-vegetation techniques will be utilized when necessary to restore a
degraded vegetative community to a fully functioning ecosystem. All restoration activities will utilize site
or region-specific native grasses, herbs, shrubs, and trees. Planting of invasive, non-native species will be
prohibited. Adjacent landowners will be encouraged to undertake efforts to control target non-native
vegetation on their land.
3.10.3 All existing native trees will be preserved wherever possible, and new native trees planted to
enhance wildlife habitat. Where possible, vegetation will be left to follow its natural course of succession
and will not receive any form of active management. The ultimate goal will be to re-establish, or
preserve, a self-sustaining ecosystem.
3.11 Active Recreation
Active recreation are activities that are considered more intrusive to the local natural environment,
including mountain biking, horseback riding, rock climbing, paintball, hunting, and fishing, and will be
prohibited.
3.12 Scientific Research
Non-destructive scientific study and research will be permitted with prior, written approval from the
City’s Natural Resources Program. A condition of approval will be that the applicant provides the City
with a written report of the findings of the study. This will assist the City in compiling a detailed inventory
of natural and biological resources located in RCNR.
4. Conservation Plan
4.1 Naming
The name Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve shall be the name of the plan area. Since the property
combines multiple, contiguous open spaces, including Reservoir Canyon and Bowden Ranch, it is a
“natural reserve,” according to the City’s Open Space Regulations (Municipal Code Sec. 12.22.030).
4.2 Land Use Designations
The land uses of Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve are explained below and illustrated in Figure 7.
4.2.1 Habitat Area – Land on which the primary objective will be to protect natural resources essential to
the continued existence of native plants and resident and migratory wildlife. This is by far the largest
share of the land uses in RCNR.
Attachment 1
B2 - 25
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
19
Attachment 1
B2 - 26
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
20
4.2.2 Management Areas
a. Trail Corridor – Lands that have the potential to support low levels of recreational pressure; or
those areas that may be impacted by adjacent land uses. Active management of land in these areas
will be required to facilitate approved activities while protecting valuable natural resources. To provide
a safe and stable surface that minimizes soil disturbance, boardwalks will be considered along the lower
portion of the trail adjacent to the creek, past the Reservoir Canyon entrance. Also consider impact of
unauthorized trails and close/rehabilitate them as soon as possible.
b. Proposed Trail Corridor – Proposed expansion of the trail system to complete a loop trail. The
alignment proposed is based on interpretation of aerial photographs and contour maps. Actual
alignment of the trail may vary depending on “ground-truthing”. Currently, both PG&E and members of
the public traverse the steep hillside, passing through habitat. Since the public traverses the area, and
PG&E has a continual need to access its utility towers, the City will examine the feasibility of creating a
proper trail to link the ridge back down to the parking lot on the north side of the property. The
proposed trail would be intended to both increase safety for visitors and reduce the ongoing impact to
the habitat of the current off-trail travel. Therefore, the trail would not exceed a slope of 15%.
c. Utility Corridor – Access trail for PG&E’s maintenance of utility towers. PG&E has an easement
right for such access. A flat area will be considered for use as a heli-spot to provide PG&E quick
maintenance access that minimizes land disturbance.
d. Administrative-Road – Vehicular access road through the southern part of the property. This
area will be managed as the trail corridor.
e. Grazing – Land that will be monitored for impacts due to grazing. Based on a 1911 deed, the
neighboring property to the north has access rights for watering 40 head of livestock in the creek. [See
Appendix C for the text of the deed.] The City will monitor any impacts to this area and consider
whether to add fencing along the property line to prevent livestock access.
f. Fire hazard management areas – Areas of active fire hazard mitigation. See Section 5 – Wildfire
Preparedness Plan – for additional explanation.
4.2.3 Restoration Area – Land on which restoration and enhancement of plant and animal habitats will
be pursued in an effort to restore damaged or impacted natural resources. One restoration area is a
gully at the final creek crossing on the Reservoir Canyon side. The other restoration area is the PG&E
maintenance easement. The City is working collaboratively with PG&E on new practices to satisfy the
needs of both parties – that is, to provide safe maintenance access in a sustainable manner. Historically,
the utility company clear-cut their way to their towers. Modern practices can achieve the same result
with a lower, more sustainable impact.
4.3 Photo Monitoring Points
City staff will establish photo-monitoring points throughout RCNR to establish baseline conditions and
periodically monitor levels of acceptable change. Photo points will include areas of heavy public traffic,
areas likely to suffer erosion damage, areas impacted by grazing, and habitats with sensitive plant and
wildlife species.
The following photo points will be used to establish baseline conditions. Additional points may be added
as necessary if conditions change or new issues arise. Initial photos are included in Appendix F.
Beginning from the Reservoir Canyon (i.e. north) entrance of RCNR:
1. The Reservoir Canyon trailhead
2. The waterfall area near the trailhead
3. Initial creek crossings (two locations)
4. Erosion location 1 – along the trail, after the first two creek crossings
5. Erosion location 2 – farther along the trail
6. Upper creek crossing – final creek crossing before ascending the trail up the ridge
7. Erosional gully along the trail, after the final creek crossing (two locations)
8. PG&E access trail from the top of the ridge, under the power lines (two locations)
9. Access trail to lower towers proposed for decommissioning
10. Proposed heli-spot for PG&E maintenance access
Attachment 1
B2 - 27
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
21
Beginning from the Bowden Ranch (i.e. west) entrance to RCNR on Lizzie Street:
11. The Bowden Ranch trailhead
12. Initial creek crossing
13. Trail through lower entrance area of Bowden Ranch (two locations)
4.4 Needs Analysis
4.4.1 Resource Management and Protection
Biological surveys are the basis for natural resource management in RCNR. After the initial surveys
conducted for the creation of this plan, the City will monitor and protect the habitat areas, and
sensitive species identified in particular (e.g. trout, bog thistle, and lilies), on an ongoing basis and will
evaluate levels of acceptable change. City staff will work with local universities to compile ongoing
resource inventories.
4.4.2 Resource Enhancement
Enhancement of natural resources will focus on two areas of RCNR. The first is the set of utility easement
trails for power line maintenance in the northern part of the property. The second is to review and, if
necessary, improve the conditions of eroded areas along the creek and trail. In all cases, any
enhancements will attempt to restore the area to more natural conditions, weighing trail maintenance
or rerouting against existing use. Ongoing management will consist of monitoring and protecting those
restored conditions, including removal of non-native vegetation. It will also consist of evaluating the
need and feasibility of constructing boardwalks and/or step-over bridges where feasible along the
lower, creek-adjacent portion of the trail. Visual resources for the Reserve will be protected through the
regular patrol by City staff and who will also respond to reports from the public about unauthorized trails,
signs, or any other impairments.
4.4.3 Mitigation
RCNR is not conducive to mitigation banking due to its rugged, natural terrain that will largely be left in
a natural state except for periodic monitoring to ensure protection. PG&E’s power line upgrade project
will include mitigation for impacts to the property within that project’s footprint.
4.4.4 Signage
Signage for RCNR is currently outdated compared to the standards used for the City’s other open
spaces, and should therefore be upgraded. City staff will pursue grants or use approved city funds to:
Highlight features at the trailheads. These will include trail maps and interpretive materials.
Raise awareness. New signage will be placed at appropriate points along the trail to raise
awareness of private property ownership. Specifically, signs will be placed at either end of the
trail easement through the Sheffer property. Signs will also be placed at the northwest side of the
RCNR property to warn against mountain biking and trespassing on the neighboring private
property. Similarly, a sign will be placed at the first creek crossing near the Bowden Ranch
trailhead to educate the public that biking is not allowed.
Signage may also be used to indicate closures or restoration areas if adverse / impactful uses
arise.
4.4.5 Trail Loop
City staff have identified a potential loop system to prevent off-trail travel by the public, which is already
occurring. The loop trail would also be a collaborative effort with PG&E to improve access to utility
towers. The new trail corridor would be installed with sustainable techniques, working with the natural
contour and integrating gentle grades where possible. The corridor would be integrated with a new
PG&E access path to access the lower tower. The existing access path will be abandoned and
rehabilitated in the future.
Attachment 1
B2 - 28
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
22
4.4.6 Reservoir Canyon Trailhead Area
a. Fencing – Based on the 1911 agreement to provide water access for livestock from the
neighboring private property, the City will monitor and consider the impacts of this continued access
over a period of 4-5 years. After evaluating the potential impact, the City will consider the option of
using fencing on the property line. Consideration will be based on the extent of impacts and resource
availability, particularly given the costs of building fences and for engineering a solution to make water
available to the livestock on the neighboring property as would be required per the above agreement.
This open space is at the southern boundary for large mammal migration and should link up with studies
being completed by students at Cal Poly who are assessing the impact of the crossing under the US 101
Freeway. Reservoir Canyon acts to funnel animals up the canyon for accessing lands north of the
Cuesta Grade. Any fencing needs to be designed to ensure there it is effective in keeping cattle in one
area while allowing for the free mobility of wild animals.
b. Improved Creek Crossings – At the easternmost point where the trail crosses Reservoir Canyon
Creek, the City will improve signage to identify the trail and allow for safer crossing. The City will also
improve crossing opportunities at this point of the creek by constructing a new bridge. For the lower
creek crossings, the City will evaluate whether to install boardwalks and/or bridges that provide greater
trail access for a longer timeframe, such as during winter storm events when Reservoir Canyon creek
often floods parts of the trail. The City will consider as an alternative closing sections of the trail at certain
times, particularly during winter storm events.
c. Improved parking and access - the City should improve the current parking area to
ameliorate the erosion and potholes that fill with water in winter and spring months with a
contemporary, low-impact design solution. There is also an opportunity to provide an accessible, raised
boardwalk facility from the parking area to the waterfall, a relatively level distance of about 50 yards,
for use by wheelchairs, strollers, and others.
4.4.7 Bowden Ranch Trailhead Area
Improvements to the Bowden Ranch trailhead area around Lizzie Street were previously implemented
as required for the Bowden Ranch development. These included planting of native species, improved
access at the trailhead, and fencing to guide the public through the riparian area past the trailhead
entrance and to avoid off-trail travel to protect sensitive plants. This location offers on-street parking
and a bicycle rack. Just a few lots down the street from the existing trailhead is the historic La Loma
Adobe, also owned by the City. The possibility exists to integrate these two facilities by allowing
compatibly designed parking and trail access to RCNR from the La Loma Adobe, while also restoring
the structure for use as a Natural and Cultural History Interpretive Center.
Attachment 1
B2 - 29
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
23
5. Wildfire Preparedness Plan
Wildfires have occurred periodically in and around Reservoir Canyon and are a continual hazard. The
last major fire in the canyon itself was the Las Pilitas fire in July of 1985, which burned a total of 75,000
acres in San Luis Obispo County. More recent major wildfires in the County include the Highway 41
(1994) and Highway 58 (1996) fires; the first of which nearly reached the City of San Luis Obispo.
Although RCNR is property owned by the City of San Luis Obispo, it is mostly located in the County’s
jurisdiction. Furthermore, for firefighting purposes, most of the land is in the State Responsibility Area (See
map in Appendix G). In its Fire Protection Plan, the County has identified the Reservoir Canyon wildland-
urban interface in general as target area for focusing fire prevention areas and fuel treatments. The
City’s area of responsibility includes a portion of the wildland-urban boundary and contains eucalyptus
groves near the Bowden Ranch entrance to RCNR. These groves will continue to be managed with
safety pruning and selection removal over time in order to allow younger oak trees light and space to
grow, while maintaining the tree canopy of the larger eucalyptus trees that provide the character and
backdrop to the neighborhood. These activities will be undertaken outside of nesting bird season and
with notice to neighbors unless an imminent safety hazard is determined.
Figure 8 shows the fire hazard mitigation areas designated specifically for this conservation plan. The
High Hazard areas are at the wildland-urban interface near Bowden Ranch depicted in Figure 9. The
City’s preference will be to use non-mechanical firefighting methods if possible. This is due to the need
to protect the natural habitats and to the relatively lower fire hazard posed by the grassy hillside.
Attachment 1
B2 - 30
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
24
Fi
g
u
r
e
9
s
h
o
w
s
t
h
e
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
z
o
n
e
s
.
L
o
c
a
t
e
d
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
l
i
m
i
t
a
t
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
o
f
R
C
N
R
,
t
h
e
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
o
f
e
u
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
a
c
t
i
ve
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
r
e
m
o
v
e
f
o
r
e
s
t
l
i
t
t
e
r
a
n
d
d
u
f
f
f
r
o
m
th
e
e
u
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s
t
r
e
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
f
u
e
l
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
o
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
.
Attachment 1
B2 - 31
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
25
6. Implementation
General maintenance activities in accordance with the adopted policies described in “Conservation
Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo” and the “Conservation & Open Space
Element” shall be implemented on a regular or ‘as needed’ basis.
Specific Tasks:
Years 1-2
Monitor impacts to the habitat and trail areas for level of acceptable change.
Identify photo-monitoring points.
Continue to monitor and protect the locations of Chorro Creek bog thistle populations.
Install new, updated signage at trailheads.
Identify a loop trail alignment.
Identify a potential section for a boardwalk along the lower portion of the trail near the creek
and waterfall, and construct trial sections to assess effectiveness.
Complete a project plan for fencing the northern boundary to prevent cattle from being able to
access Reservoir Canyon Creek.. (This will include a cost to provide water to the 40 head as
detailed in the deed).
Years 3-5
Construct loop trail based on an alignment identified to minimize impacts.
Evaluate boardwalk trial sections and, if the trial is successful, complete construction of the
boardwalk.
Conduct another comprehensive field analysis to determine changes in species composition,
paying close attention to threatened/endangered species, wildlife corridors, and levels of
invasive plants.
Requisition professional cultural resources analysis relative to La Loma Adobe.
Complete project implementation for fencing the northern boundary to prevent cattle from
being able to access Reservoir Canyon Creek.
Year 6-7
Reassess the locations of photo-monitoring points to guide future management based on use.
Ongoing Specific Tasks
Work with local universities to compile resource inventories.
Monitor ecosystem health.
Monitor for unauthorized trails on the property and close/restore.
Monitor integrity of the “Cal Poly” bridge and reinforce/replace as necessary.
Monitor non-native vegetation and remove.
Monitor Chorro Creek bog thistle location(s) to ensure protection.
Engage stakeholders, identify funding, and seek opportunities to integrate the La Loma Adobe
with RCNR, including parking, site design, trail access, and restoration of the structure itself.
7. Fiscal Statement
Day-to-day management of RCNR will continue to be supported through the operating budgets within
the Natural Resources Program and Ranger Services. City staff will develop a Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) program for major RCNR improvements. The program will include signage, trail work, parking
improvements, and bridge and boardwalk construction to allow safer passage through the property.
City staff will also pursue grants and volunteers to augment funding for this plan’s identified projects.
Overall, the fiscal impact of the conservation plan and its implementation is considered relatively minor
given opportunities to phase projects and leverage modest investments of City funds.
Attachment 1
B2 - 32
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
26
8. Amendment
This Conservation Plan, or any portion of it, may be considered for amendment upon request. Any
citizen or other interested party may initiate such a request, however such requests shall be directed to
the City Administrative Officer or designee. Such a request will include the nature of the requested
amendment and rationale for the request. If appropriate, the amendment will be processed in the
same manner as the original Conservation Plan.
Attachment 1
B2 - 33
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
27
Appendix A: Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Design Concepts
The following are selected images from the 1981 master plan created by Cal Poly Landscape
Architecture students. Clockwise from left: A. Boulder bridge for creek crossing; B. Paved parking area
with pond near Reservoir Canyon entrance; Concept map with loop trail extension (dotted line near
“finger canyon” area.
A. Boulder Bridge B. Parking Area & Pond
C. Concept Map
Attachment 1
B2 - 34
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
28
The following are selected images that were created by Cal Poly Landscape Architecture Course 403
students working under the direction of Professor Walt Bremer, Winter quarter 2013. From top to bottom:
A. “Kissing gate” providing accessible access to the waterfall area; B. Reservoir Canyon parking and
trailhead site plan; C. Reservoir Canyon parking area rendering.
Attachment 1
B2 - 35
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
29
The following are selected images that were created by Cal Poly Landscape Architecture Course 403
students working under the direction of Professor Walt Bremer, Winter quarter 2013. From top to bottom:
A. La Loma Adobe elevation rendering; B. La Loma Adobe parking and trailhead concept rendering; C.
La Loma Adobe Natural and Cultural History Interpretive Center concept rendering.
Attachment 1
B2 - 36
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
30
Appendix B: Hastings Trail Easement Deed and Transcript
Attachment 1
B2 - 37
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
31
[Transcription of Hastings Property Trail Easement]
GRANT DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
EDWARD J. HASTINGS, a widower
hereby GRANTS to
FRANK D. HASTINGS, a single man
the following described real property in the state of California, county of San Luis Obispo,
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 31 in Township 30 South, Range 13 East, Mount
Diablo Base and Meridian, in the county of San Luis Obispo, according to the official plot of the survey
of said land on file in the Bureau of Land Management.
Excepting therefrom all the coal and other minerals in the lands so entered and patented, together with
the right to prospect for, mine and remove the same pursuant to the provisions and limitations of the
Act of December 29, 1916 (39 Stat. 862) as reserved by the United States of America in patent recorded
May 8, 1930, in book K, page 496 of Patents.
Also excepting and preserving unto the grantor herein an easement for road purposes over and across
said land, at a site and location selected by or acceptable to the Grantor and his heirs and assigns and
said easement to be a width of not more than 50 feet. Said easement shall inure to the benefit of the
heirs and assigns of the Grantor and is intended to be used by and to benefit the owners of the any of
the lands or portions thereof retained by the Grantor so that the lands so retained or portions of said
lands can be held and enjoyed and the easement for road purposes be used and enjoyed without limit
for any particular use by the Grantor and his heirs and assigns and the holders, owners and users of said
easement.
Dated: June 9, 1953
(signed)
Edward J. Hastings
[Notarized on July 15th, 1953 by
Harry A. Manuel, notary public
State of California
County of Alameda]
RECORDED AT REQUEST OF
(signed) F. D. Hastings
AT 45 MIN. PAST 8 A.M.
VOL. 722 Official Records p. 488
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIF.
AUG. 18, 1953
(signed) W. L. Ramage
County Recorder
Attachment 1
B2 - 38
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
32
Appendix C: Truocchio Deed
The following is the April 29, 1911 deed for the Truocchio property northeast of RCNR, which includes the
following passage that requires the City of San Luis Obispo to provide sufficient water for 40 head of
livestock to the Truocchio property. A scanned image of the full record on the City’s books is included
on subsequent pages.
“…said parties of the first part [S. Jackson Lowe and Robert L. Lowe] also give and grant unto
said party of the second part [the City of San Luis Obispo] the perpetual right of way and
easement to enter upon their said lands situate as above described for the purposes of cleaning
out and keeping clean the channel of what is known as the upper reservoir or Fillmore Creek
and the branches thereof. As a further consideration for this conveyance, said party of the
second part agrees to pipe by means of 1 inch pipe to a trough to be located on the Northwest
quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section Thirty, so long as said 40 acres of land remains
unfenced, and thereafter on the Northeast quarter of said Section Thirty, and to supply thereat
sufficient water to water not to exceed forty head of stock; provided that the said parties of the
first part shall furnish the necessary trough and float valve faucets to prevent the waste of water,
and provided, that said City shall not be required to furnish in excess of 5000 feet of pipe, and
that said parties of the first part shall at all times maintain said trough and float valve faucets and
pipe line in good order and condition. To have and to hold, the said property, rights and
easements unto said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, forever.”
Attachment 1
B2 - 39
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
33
Attachment 1
B2 - 40
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
34
Appendix D: Soils of Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve
Table 2: USGS Soil Survey - Reservoir Canyon Area
Source: USGS Web Soil Survey - San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part
Map unit symbol Map unit name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
121 Concepcion loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 0.8 0.00%
130 Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes 0.1 0.00%
142 Gaviota fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes 33.6 1.40%
143 Gazos-Lodo clay loams, 15 to 30 percent slopes 55.9 2.40%
145 Gazos-Lodo clay loams, 50 to 75 percent slopes 55.3 2.40%
160 Los Osos loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 75.9 3.20%
161 Los Osos loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes 38.4 1.60%
162 Los Osos-Diablo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes 3.5 0.20%
163 Los Osos-Diablo complex, 9 to 15 percent slopes 18.7 0.80%
164 Los Osos-Diablo complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 30.1 1.30%
165 Los Osos-Diablo complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes 148.3 6.30%
183 Obispo-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 75 percent
slopes 1,839.00 78.40%
194 Riverwash 22.6 1.00%
197 Salinas silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.1 0.00%
203 Santa Lucia shaly clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes 23.9 1.00%
Totals for Area of Interest 2,346.20 100%
Figure APP 1: Soil types in the Reservoir Canyon area from USGS’s Web Soil Survey, retrieved from
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
Attachment 1
B2 - 41
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
35
Appendix E: Plants and Animals
Plants
Except where noted the plants listed below are from the 2002 survey by Ben Carter, for his Cal Poly
senior project.
PLANT LIST
Scientific Name Family Common Name
Achillea millefoIium Asteraceae Common Yarrow
Adenostoma fasciculatum Rosaceae Chamise
Adiantum jordanii Pteridaceae Maidenhair fern
Aquilegia eximia Ranunculaceae Columbine
Artemisia californica Asteraceae California sagebrush
Artemisia douglasiana Asteraceae Mugwort
Astragalus curtipes Fabaceae Locoweed
Astragalus gambeIianus Fabaceae Gambel's Locoweed
Avena barbata Poaceae Slender wild oats
Bloomeria crocea Liliaceae Common goldenstar
Brachypodium distachyon Poaceae False brome
Bromus carinatus Poaceae California brome
Bromus hordeaceus Poaceae Soft chess brome
Bromus madritensus ssp. rubens Poaceae Red brome
Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus * Liliaceae Club-haired Mariposa lily
Calochortus obispoensis * Liliaceae San Luis Obispo
Mariposa lily
Calystegia macrostegia Convolvulaceae Wild morning glory
Cardamine californica ssp. integrifoIia Brassicaceae Milkmaids
Carduus pycnocephalus Asteraceae Italian thistle
Castilleja affinis * Scrophulariaceae Indian paintbrush
Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoense Scrophulariaceae Owl's clover
Ceanothus cuneatus Rhamnaceae Buckbrush
Cercocarpus betuloides Rosaceae Mountain mahogany
Chlorogal/um pomeridianum var.
pomeridianum Liliaceae Soap plant
Chorizanthe breweri * Polygonaceae Brewer's spineflower
Chorizanthe palmeri * Polygonaceae Palmer's spineflower
Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense ^ Asteraceae Chorro Creek bog thistle
Clarkia purpurea Onagraceae Farewell to spring
Claytonia perfoliata Portulaceae Miner's lettuce
Coreopsis douglasii Asteraceae Douglas's coreopsis
Cortaderia selloana Poaceae Pampas grass
Crassula connata Crassulaceae Pygmy weed
Cryptantha clevelandii Boraginaceae Cleveland's popcorn
flower
Cryptantha muricata Boraginaceae Popcorn flower
Daucus pusillus Apiaceae Miniature Queen Anne's
lace
Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae Ranunculaceae Parry's delphinium
Attachment 1
B2 - 42
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
36
Scientific Name Family Common Name
Dendromecon rigida Papaveraceae Bush poppy
Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum Liliaceae Blue dicks
Dodecatheon clevelandii Primulaceae Shooting stars
Dudleya abramsii ssp. Murina * Crassulaceae San Luis Obispo dudleya
Dudleya lanceolata * Crassulaceae Lanceleaf dudleya
Elymus elymoides Poaceae Squirreltail
Elymus glaucus Poaceae Blue wildrye
Epilobium minutum Onagraceae Threadstem fireweed
Eriogonum elongatum var. elongatum Polygonaceae Slender buckwheat
Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosvm Polygonaceae California buckwheat
Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum Asteraceae Golden yarrow
Erodium cicutarium Geraniaceae Redstem filaree
Eschscholzia califomica Papaveraceae California poppy
Eucalyptus globulus # Myrtaceae Blue gum eucalyptus
Eucrypta crysanthemifolia var.
chrysanthemifolia Hydrophyllaceae Common eucrypta
Euphorbia spathulata Euphorbiaceae Petty spurge
Festuca elmeri Poaceae Elmer's fescue
Filago califomica Asteraceae Herba impia
Fritillaria biflora var. biflora Liliaceae Chocolate bells
Galium califomicum Rubiaceae California bedstraw
Galium porrigens var. porrigens Rubiaceae Climbing bedstraw
Garrya veatchii Garryaceae Silk tassel bush
Gilia achilleaefolia Polemoniaceae Blue-headed gilia
Gnaphalium califomicum Asteraceae California everlasting
Grindelia hirsutula var. davyii Asteraceae Gum plant
Guillenia lasiophyla Brassicaceae Wild mustard
Hazardia squarrosa var. sqarrosa Asteraceae Saw-toothed golden
bush
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia Asteraceae Hayfield tarweed
Hesperevax sparsiflora Asteraceae Hesperevax
Heteromeles arbutifolia Rosaceae Toyon
Hordeum marinum Poaceae Mediterranean barley
Hypochaeris glabra Asteraceae Smooth cat's-ear
Keckiella cordifolia Scrophulariaceae Climbing penstemon
Koeleria macrantha Poaceae June-grass
Lactuca saligna Asteraceae Slender lettuce
Lasthenia califomica Asteraceae Goldfields
Lathyrus vestitus Fabaceae Wild sweet-pea
Layia platyg/ossa Asteraceae Tidy-tips
Lepidium nitidum Brassicaceae Pepper cress
Lessingia filaginifolia Asteraceae California-aster
Leymus condensatus Poaceae Giant wildrye
Linanthus parviflorus Polemoniaceae Baby stars
Lithophragma heterophyllum Saxifragaceae Woodland star
Lolium multiflorum Poaceae Italian ryegrass
Lomatium dasycarpum Apiaceae Large-seeded lomatium
Attachment 1
B2 - 43
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
37
Scientific Name Family Common Name
Lomatium parvifolium * Apiaceae Small-leaved lomatium
Lomatium utriculatum Apiaceae Foothill lomatium
Lotus scoparius Fabaceae Deer weed
Lotus strigosus Fabaceae Annual lotus
Madia gracilis Asteraceae Slender tarweed
Melica imperfecta Poaceae Melic grass
Melica torreyana Poaceae Torrey's melic grass
Microseris douglasii Asteraceae Douglas's microceris
Mimulus aurantiacus Scrophulariaceae Sticky monkeyflower
Mimulus guttatus Scrophulariaceae Seep-spring
monkeyflower
Nassella lepida Poaceae Slender needlegrass
Nassella pulchra Poaceae Purple needlegrass
Opuntia ficus-indica Cactaceae Prickly pear cactus
Orobanche californica Orobanchaceae California broom-rape
Pellaea andromedifolia Pteridaceae Coffee fern
Pentagramma triangularis Pteridaceae God-back fern
Phacelia distans Hydrophyllaceae Common phacelia
Phacelia imbricata ssp. imbricata Hydrophyllaceae Imbricate phacelia
Pickeringia montana var. montana Fabaceae Chaparral pea
Pinus attenuata Pinaceae Knobcone pine
Plantago erecta Plantaginaceae Dwarf plantain
Poa secunda Poaceae Bluegrass
Polypodium californicum Polypodiaceae California polypody
Prunus ilicifolia ssp. IIicifolia Rosaceae Holly-leafed cherry
Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Dennstaedtiacea
e Bracken fern
Pterostegia drymarioides Polygonaceae Notchleaf
Quercus agrifolia Fagaceae Coast live oak
Quercus durata Fagaceae Leather oak
Rafinesquia californica Asteraceae California-chicory
Ranunculus californicus Ranunculaceae California buttercup
Rhamnus californica ssp. californica Rhamnaceae Coffee-berry
Rhamnus crocea Rhamnaceae Redberry
Ribes speciosum Grossulariaceae Fuschia-flowered
gooseberry
Rosa californica Rosaceae Wild rose
Salix breweri Salicaceae Brewer's willow
Salvia columbariae Lamiaceae Chia
Salvia mellifera Lamiaceae Black sage
Sanicula crassicaulis Apiaceae Biscuit root
Selaginella bigelovii Selaginaceae Resurrection plant
Scrophularia californica Scraphulariaceae Figwort
Senecio aphanactis * Asteraceae AIkali groundsel
Senecio vulgaris Asteraceae Common groundsel
Silene gallica Caryophyllaceae Windmill pink
Silene laciniata ssp. major Caryophyllaceae Mexican pink
Attachment 1
B2 - 44
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
38
Sisyrinchium bellum Iridaceae Blue-eyed grass
Solanum xanti Solanaceae Purple nightshade
Scientific Name Family Common Name
Sonchus oleraceus Asteraceae Common sow thistle
Stachys bullata Lamiaceae Common hedge nettle
Stachys pycnantha Lamiaceae Short-spiked hedge
nettle
Stephanomeria virgata ssp. pleurocarpa Asteraceae Wire lettuce
Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus Brassicaceae Most beautiful jewel flower
Symphoricarpos mollis Caprifoliaceae Creeping snowberry
Thysanocarpus laciniatus Brassicaceae Fringepod
Toxicodendron diversilobum Anacardiaceae Poison oak
Trifoliumdepauperatum var. amplectens Fabaceae Balloon clover
Trifolium fragiferum Fabaceae Strawberry clover
Trifolium oliganthum Fabaceae Common clover
Umbellularia californica Lauraceae California bay laurel
Uropappus lindleyi Asteraceae Silver puffs
Verbena lasiostachys Verbenaceae Vervain
Vicia villosa Fabaceae Hairy vetch
Viola pedunculata Violaceae Johnny jump-ups
Vulpia microstachys Poaceae Annual fescue
Yucca whipplei Liliaceae Our Lord's candle
Zigadenus fremontii Liliaceae Death camas
* Rare
^ Listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1UG
# From field observations, Oct. 2011-May 2012
Wildlife Species List for Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve.
Data collected by Terra Verde staff in collaboration with Cal Poly Wildlife Ecology students.
Scientific/Common Name
Listing Status
Nesting/
Breeding
Period
Habitat Type
Actinemys marmorata pallida
Western pond turtle
State: CSC April -
August
Permanent or semi-permanent
streams, ponds, lakes.
Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored blackbird
State: CSC Varies, but
likely early
spring
through
early
summer
locally
Needs nest sites near open, fresh
water, protected habitat (flooded,
thorny), and suitable feeding areas
(pastures, rice fields, grassland, etc.).
Antrozous pallidus
Pallid bat
State: CSC Spring -
Summer
Rock crevices, caves, tree hollows,
mines, old buildings, and bridges.
Attachment 1
B2 - 45
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
39
Scientific/Common Name
Listing Status
Nesting/
Breeding
Period
Habitat Type
Aquila chrysaetos
Golden eagle
Fully Protected
State: CSC
March -
August
Nests in large, prominent trees in
woodland areas.
Branchinecta lynchi
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Fed: Threatened
Rainy
season
Vernal pools, depressions, in
grasslands.
Buteo regalis
Ferruginous hawk
Special Animal
February -
July
Variety of nesting locations including
rock outcrops, trees, and ground.
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
State: Endangered
May - July Often found in woodlands near
streams, lakes, rivers. Prefer dense
scrub understory.
Danaus plexippus
Monarch butterfly
Special Animal Spring Rely on milkweed, need protected
stands of trees for roosting.
Elanus leucurus
White-tailed kite
Fully Protected
March 15 -
August 15
Nests in dense trees, near open
foraging areas.
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
State: CSC (nesting)
March 15 -
August 15
Open fields, short grass areas, fields,
rangelands.
Eumops perotis californicus
Western mastiff bat
State: CSC March - July Rocky cliffs, canyon areas, roosts in
crevices, also in buildings.
Falco mexicanus
Prairie falcon
State: CSC February -
April
Primarily inhabits grasslands,
savannahs, and rangelands. Nests
on cliffs, canyons, and rock
outcrops.
Lanius ludovicianus
Loggerhead shrike
Fed: Endangered
April - July Open fields and woodland areas
bordered with trees or fields with
thick shrubs for hiding.
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
Steelhead – South/Central
California Coast DPS
Fed: Threatened
State: CSC
February -
April
Fed listing refers to runs in coastal
basins from Pajaro River south to, but
non including, the Santa Maria River.
Attachment 1
B2 - 46
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
40
Scientific/Common Name
Listing Status
Nesting/
Breeding
Period
Habitat Type
Polyphylla nubila
Atascadero June beetle
Special Animal Unknown Known only from sand dunes in
Atascadero and San Luis Obispo.
Pyrgulopsis taylori
San Luis Obispo pyrg
Special Animal N/A Freshwater habitats in San Luis
Obispo County.
Rana boylii
Foothill yellow-legged frog
State: CSC April - July Rocky streams and rivers with rocky
substrate. Found in woodlands,
chaparral and forests with open
sunny banks.
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
Fed: Threatened
State: CSC
January -
March
Lowlands and foothills in or near
sources of deep water with dense,
shrubby or emergent riparian
vegetation.
Taricha torosa torosa
Coast Range newt
State: CSC December -
May
Slow moving streams, ponds, and
lakes with surrounding
evergreen/oak forests along coast.
Taxidea taxus
American badger
State: CSC February -
May
Needs friable soils in open ground
with abundant food source such as
California ground squirrels.
Listing status shown in order of Federal, State, CNPS list status.
Wildlife Species observed to date (Includes all vocalizations, tracks, scat, burrows/dens, and skeletal
remains of wildlife species observed on-site):
Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status
Fish
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss FT,CSC
Amphibians
Black-bellied Slender salamander Batrachoseps attenuatus
Coast Range newt Taricha torosa subsp. torosa CSC
Pacific chorus frog Pseudacris sierra
Western toad Bufo boreas
Reptiles
California kingsnake Lampropelitis getulus californiae
Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis
Gopher snake Pituophis melanoleucus
Pacific pond turtle Actinemys marmorata CSC
Southern alligator lizard Elgaria multicarinatus
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis
Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis
Western skink Eumeces skiltonianus
Western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris
Birds
Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus M
Attachment 1
B2 - 47
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
41
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin M
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos M
American kestrel Falco sparverius M
American robin Turdus migratorius M
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna M
Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens M
Band-tailed pigeon Columbia fasciata M
Barn owl Tyto alba M
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica M
Belted kingfisher Ceryle Alcyon M
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii M
Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri M
Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus M
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans M
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea M
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia M, CSC
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus M
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris M, CSC
California quail Callipepla californica
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum M
California towhee Pipilo crissalis M
California wren Catherpes mexicanus M
Chestnut-backed chickadee Poecile rufescens
Common poorwhill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii M
Common raven Corvus corax M
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii M, CSC
Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis M
Eurasian collared-dove Strepopelia decaocta M
European starling Sturnus vulgaris
Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca M
Golden crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla M
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BE & GEPA
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum M, ST
Great egret Ardea alba M
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus M
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus M
Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus M
Hermit warbler Setophaga occidentalis M
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus M
House finch Carpodacus mexicanus M
House sparrow Passer domesticus M
House wren Troglodytes aedon M
Hutton’s vireo Vireo huttoni M
Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus M
Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena M
Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria M
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura M
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus M
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus M, CSC
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos M
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii M
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus M
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi M
Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata M
Osprey Pandion haliaetus M
Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis M
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus M
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis M
Rock pigeon Columba livia
Attachment 1
B2 - 48
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
42
Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus M
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula M
Rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps M
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis M
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya M
Selasphorus hummingbird Selasphorus sp. M
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia M
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus M
Stellar’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri M
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura M
Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina M
Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus M
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana M
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta M
Western scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica M
Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana M
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus M, FP
White-throated swift Auronautes saxatalis
Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo
Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla M
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata M
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus M
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronate M
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia M
Mammals
Audubon’s cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus
Big-eared woodrat Neotoma macrotis
Black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus
Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californica
Bobcat Lynx rufus
Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis
Brush mouse Peromyscus boylii
California ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi
California mouse Peromyscus californicus
California myotis Myotis californicus
California pocket mouse Chaetodipus californicus CSC
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus
Cougar Puma concolor
Coyote Canis latrans
Cow Bos taurus
Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus
San Diego Desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia CSC
Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus
Yuma bat Myotis yumanensis
Protected Status
FE – Federal-listed Endangered Species
FT – Federal-listed Threatened Species
FPT – Federal-listed Candidate Species
SA – California Special Animal
SE – State-listed Endangered Species
ST – State-listed Threatened Species
CP – Protected under California Fish and Game Code
CSC – California Species of Special Concern
BE & GEPA – Bald Eagle & Golden Eagle Protection Act
M – Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species
Attachment 1
B2 - 49
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
43
Appendix F: Initial Photo-Monitoring Points
As discussed in Section 4.3 of this plan, these are the proposed initial photo-monitoring points for RCNR.
These locations may be modified – or new locations may be added - as conditions warrant.
Beginning from the Reservoir Canyon (i.e. north) entrance of RCNR:
1. The Reservoir Canyon
trailhead
2. The waterfall area near
the trailhead
Attachment 1
B2 - 50
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
44
3. Initial creek crossings
(two locations)
- 3a.
- 3b.
Attachment 1
B2 - 51
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
45
4. Erosion location 1 –
along the trail, after the
first two creek crossings
5. Erosion location 2 –
farther along the trail
Attachment 1
B2 - 52
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
46
6. Upper creek crossing –
final creek crossing
before ascending the
trail up the ridge
Attachment 1
B2 - 53
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
47
7. Erosional gully along
the trail, after the final
creek crossing.
- 7a. Facing up the ridge
Attachment 1
B2 - 54
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
48
- 7b. Facing down the
ridge from above the
gully
8. PG&E access trail from
the top of the ridge,
under the power lines
(two locations)
- 8a
Attachment 1
B2 - 55
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
49
- 8b
Attachment 1
B2 - 56
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
50
9. Access trail to lower
towers proposed for
decommissioning
- 9a. Facing up the ridge,
near the top
- 9b. Facing up the ridge,
about ½ of the way
down the trail
Attachment 1
B2 - 57
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
51
- 9c. Facing down the
ridge, about ½ of the
way down the trail.
(Proposed heli-spot
would be to the left of
the electrical tower seen
in the center of the
image.
Attachment 1
B2 - 58
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
52
10. Proposed heli-spot for
PG&E maintenance
access
Beginning from the Bowden Ranch (i.e. west) entrance to RCNR on Lizzie Street:
11. The Bowden Ranch
trailhead
Attachment 1
B2 - 59
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
53
12. Initial creek crossing
13. Trail through lower
entrance area of
Bowden Ranch, after the
creek crossings (two
locations)
-13a.
Attachment 1
B2 - 60
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
54
- 13b.
Attachment 1
B2 - 61
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
55
Appendix G: Wildfire Jurisdictional Responsibility Areas in RCNR
The map below shows the state and local responsibility areas for Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve.
Figure APP 2: Wildfire Jurisdictional Responsibility Areas in RCNR
Attachment 1
B2 - 62
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
56
Appendix H: Notes from January 31, 2012 Public Workshop
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Initial Public Meeting
Jan. 31, 2012 6:30 PM
Meeting Notes
City Biologist Freddy Otte introduced the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve and explained the City’s
intent to create a conservation plan. The presentation covered the history of the area, prominent
natural features, management issues, sensitive plant and animal species, and legal issues.
History
City involvement with the area began around 1900 when a private water company was acquired
including 200 acres of land in Reservoir Canyon. By the 1960s, the City discontinued use of the reservoir.
In 1994 the area officially became open space. The 284-acre Hastings property and the 207-acre
Bowden ranch properties were acquired and added to the Natural Reserve in 2001 and 2006,
respectively. Currently (2012), the City is negotiating the purchase of 83 acres at Goldtree tract to be
added to the Natural Reserve. The City will concurrently prepare a Conservation Plan.
Natural and Cultural Features
Reservoir Canyon has two main habitats: chaparral north of the ridge and pristine grassland to the
south. These are home to several rare plant and animal species. Two perennial creeks and numerous
small springs and seeps emanate from the ridge. There is one trail through the property, but no loop.
Consideration of whether to create a loop trail will occur in the conservation planning process. Several
road/trail easements exist for servicing electrical towers owned by PG&E.
Management Issues or Concerns
The conservation plan will address the following issues / concerns:
Proper restoration of damaged areas (such as the north trailhead area)
Evaluation of the trail system, including considering whether to create a loop
Correction of erosion problems associated with unauthorized trails, steep trails, old roads, and
unauthorized mountain biking (mountain bikes are not allowed in the Natural Reserve)
Proper management of the wildland-urban interface in the Bowden Ranch area for fire
protection
Reservoir Canyon Trailhead Issues
Problems at this trailhead include:
Multiple creek crossings without proper bridges, as well as maintenance needed for the Cal Poly
Bridge
Cattle on the property
Illegal collection of mushrooms
Lack of a holistic vision the trailhead and vicinity
Outdated and inadequate signage (Newer signage in the City’s other open spaces includes
trail maps and information panels.)
Sensitive Species
There are several sensitive plants and wildflowers in Reservoir Canyon, such as mariposa lilies, owl’s
clover, and spineflowers. Some of these are serpentine dependent and are therefore rare. Also sensitive
in general is the pristine grassland habitat on the south ridge. The region is the southern boundary for a
large mammal migratory corridor, steelhead trout descendents (i.e. rainbow trout), and California red-
legged frogs. A 2002 report by Cal Poly student Ben Carter indicated the presence of the endangered
Chorro Creek Bog Thistle.
Utility Easement Issues
PG&E holds maintenance easements for access to its five power line towers on the property. Two of
these are scheduled for consolidation as part of the company’s project to replace the 70keV
Attachment 1
B2 - 63
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
57
transmission line from Atascadero to San Luis Obispo. PG&E has acted to minimize environmental
impacts with innovations such as hand digging culverts for replacement towers and using helicopters to
fly in crew and materials.
Legal Issues
Three legal concerns affect the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve. The first is PG&E’s easement for right
of access for maintenance of its transmission line. The second is a water right: A Bowden Ranch
neighbor holds legal rights to one-half of the natural flow from a spring. Finally, the City holds an
easement for “road purposes” across a 40-acre property in Reservoir Canyon as part of its purchase of
the Hastings property.
Views and Signage
Photos were shown of views from Reservoir Canyon, trailhead signs, and of the Cal Poly Bridge.
Environmental Review
Environmental review will be undertaken as part of the conservation plan process. Environmental issues
include potential for impacts to rare or endangered plant and animal species, potential for erosion
problems from new or existing trails, and potential for exposure by trail volunteers and users to naturally
occurring asbestos (NOA) due to the exposed serpentine rock in Reservoir Canyon.
Conservation Planning Process
Overall, the planning process includes several major steps. The first is background documentation
research, which is ongoing. The second step is this public meeting. Third will be preparation of a draft
conservation plan. The draft plan will then be presented to the Planning Commission and Parks and
Recreation Commission to receive feedback from the commissions and the public. Finally, the revised
draft plan, integrating all feedback, will be presented to the City Council for final document approval.
Public Comments and Q&A
The following are comments and questions made by the public during the meeting. The City’s
responses--given at the meeting--were made by Freddy Otte (City Biologist), and Neil Havlik (Natural
Resources Manager).
Comment: Cattle from the adjacent private property are locked in the area near the Reservoir Canyon
trailhead for about 65 days out of the year.
Question: Why are there no “no smoking” signs among the trailhead signs?
City Response: Although this is covered under the “no fires” rule posted on the signs, we will consider
adding no smoking signs, particularly in light of San Luis Obispo’s recent (2010) ban on public smoking.
Question: Have you considered adding public toilets to the open space?
City Response: This is a double-edged sword: While they might prevent urination in the natural habitat,
they are also expensive and difficult to maintain. Additionally, the City has generally discouraged
structures and garbage cans, as they tend to attract animals. The philosophy has been “pack it in, pack
it out.”
Question: Has there been any archaeological work done in the area?
City Response: Nothing has been found so far, except for historical resources such as structures from
when the property was an active reservoir.
Question: Are there any special rights associated with the property?
City Response: There are no mineral rights, or etc. The property has the restriction by City mandate that
it be maintained as an open space.
Question: What about water rights? There may have been something about using enough water for 40
head of sheep.
Attachment 1
B2 - 64
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
58
City Response: The City is unaware of such a right, but will investigate. [City will contact Utilities
Department about the deed.]
Question: Can the City look into removing the trail from the Sheffer property?
City Response: The City will consider it depending on best trail management practices, but the City has
a legal easement for “road purposes” on the property.
Question: What about signs indicating the trail is entering private property?
City Response: The City will consider this option.
Comment: There should be more investigation about the actual need to complete a loop trail. Cutting
a road/trail ruins the visual aspects of the canyon– you can see the trail from far away.
City Response: Evidence and observation have shown that people are completing a loop on their own
already. It is difficult to stop this behavior once it has begun, and adding a trail would make it safer than
the current steep areas down the north side of the where people traverse to go back to the Reservoir
Canyon trailhead. Nevertheless, the City will take this and the potential for environmental harm into
account when investigating whether to complete a loop trail system.
Question: What about adding a sign to prevent people from going off trail?
City Response: Signs might help, but mountain bike tracks on the property show that signs are often
ignored.
Comment: Conservation should emphasize native aquatic species and aim for a fully functional
ecosystem. The area of protection should be maximized.
City Response: Maps in the conservation plan document will clearly show which are the protected
areas and which are the management areas. Essentially, management will be limited to the trails and a
small amount of space on either side of the trail. The rest will be protected as natural habitat.
Comment: Please continue the no-bike policy at Bowden Ranch. The area is too steep and biking
causes too much erosion.
Comment: Clarify the grazing policy for the area.
Comment and Question: Clarify the fire management program. There should be coordination with
CalFire and other agencies. Also: should there be a “let it burn” policy for some parts of the property?
City Response: The Conservation Plan will address fire management through a Fire Protection Plan. It will
include guidance that preserves the structure of the hillside, such as an avoidance of bulldozing when
something like airdropped fire retardant would suffice.
END
Recorded by:
Brian Provenzale,
Natural Resources Planning Intern
Attachment 1
B2 - 65
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
59
Appendix I: Comments Received and Staff Response
Note: Staff responses are noted in bold italics below each major comment.
Comments on Draft Reservoir Canyon Plan from Mr. Don Dollar via email:
Please enter these comments into the record.
The Natural Resources Program has been very successful with the City’s Open Space Program. In fact,
success has resulted in very heavy use and some overuse of these valuable resources. In preparing
comments, I have reviewed the City’s General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) and
Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands (Guidelines).
I am interested in having a high quality Open Space Program.
Grazing
Looking at COSE Appendix C, # 3:
On open space land that the City manages, the City may decide to permit more than one type of activity
or use. Where different uses may not be compatible, the following priorities will guide decisions. The
items listed under a priority heading are co-equal. (Land uses are subject to any deed restrictions placed
by owners conveying land to the City for open space purposes, and to easements or rights retained by
others.)
Priority 1
• Protection of existing wildlife and natural habitat generally
• Protection of existing listed species and their existing habitat, or re-establishment of
such habitat where damaged
• Protection of public resources such as water quality (watershed runoff and
groundwater recharge)
• Avoidance of threats to public health and safety, such as ground instability (In the
case of vegetation management for wildland fire, separation between hazardous
vegetation and structures generally should be provided on the land containing the
structure, by the owner of the land containing the structure. Where vegetation
management on City-owned land is needed or desirable, management practices will
minimize harm to wildlife habitat and scenic resources.)
Priority 2
• Public access and passive recreation.
• Protection of scenic resources
Priority 3
• Scientific study
Agricultural production
You can see that natural resources take priority over public access, passive recreation and agricultural
production. You may recall at Johnson Ranch, a recent previous landowner did unauthorized work to
the access road. The Cal Fish and Game Dept. required that landowner to build a cattle exclosure fence
along the creek in Johnson Ranch to avoid criminal prosecution. That creek has many of the same
species of plants and animals as in Reservoir Canyon - including species of concern and listed species.
Attachment 1
B2 - 66
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
60
For Reservoir Canyon I think we should go ahead and build a cattle exclosure fence to protect riparian
habitat. There is a deed restriction requiring a one inch water line to provide for 40 cattle (not more than
5000 feet) - go ahead and do that - get it done. The city bought out water supply requirements to some
local residents in the 1990’s. This property has been in City ownership a long time. Building a fence to
keep cattle out of the creek also benefits the local landowner, delineating the property line in reference
to trespassing issues. It is also worth noting, that the area is not “Open Range”, so it is the legal
responsibility of the livestock owner to control their livestock and prevent trespass onto others land.
Staff concurs with this comment. A project plan will be completed in years 1-2, and
implementation will be completed in years 3-5 (see pg. 25).
La Loma Adobe
I think this should be dropped from the Plan. The Plan does not address cultural significance, context or
reasoning for inclusion. The Cultural Heritage Committee should review any proposals first. If the idea
is to provide a trailhead parking area, that really distracts from any historical context for the Adobe.
And, last but not least, cost for historical buildings can be very high. Who will staff, maintain and cover
costs for upkeep? What are the costs?
Suggest that this item be given more details, go before the Cultural Heritage Committee and then if
appropriate, submitted as an amendment to this Plan.
Staff did bring the concept of incorporating La Loma Adobe before the Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC), as per this comment, at its 10/28/13 meeting. The CHC was unanimously
recommended that La Loma Adobe be incorporated into RCNR by adoption of this
Conservation Plan.
Maximize amount of land in Habitat Category
Also, place a very high priority on the aquatic/riparian habitat, so that is a fully functioning ecosystem.
Also, work to make the large mammal wildlife corridor effective for wildlife, including fencing.
The vast majority of RCNR has been designated as Habitat (see Figure 7, pg. 19). Priority is
placed on habitat and ecosystem protection. The cattle exclusion fencing project plan will
incorporate “wildlife friendly” design, wherein the top strand is barbless and the bottom strand
is slightly raised and also barbless.
There is no Wildlife Report
In the Guidelines, 5.2 Inventory:
The inventory will describe the physical, biological, natural, cultural and recreational resources
represented on a property. Establishing a detailed resource inventory is likely to be a long-term,
ongoing process. The initial plan will be formulated using the information gathered during base-
line studies performed during preparation of the first draft of the Conservation Plan. Plans will be
updated periodically as new resource information becomes available.
Need a regular Wildlife Report as has been done with other Plans for base line information. Please fund
Natural Resources Program so that this can be done in a timely manner.
An inventory of plant and animal species that occur in RCNR is included as Appendix E (see
pg. 35.)
Attachment 1
B2 - 67
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
61
Goals
Under Goals, #3, add categories for:
Fire Management
Levels of Acceptable Change (LAC) -how they will be applied and when
Grazing
Visual Resources - add: in the vicinity of the City of SLO and Hwy 101
3.5 add: patrol and monitor lands regularly
Staff concurs with these comments. Please see Goals 3.1-3.8, pg. 17.
PG&E ROW
Work with PG&E to have an effective 21st century ROW agreement, especially in terms of access
maintenance so as to minimize visual and resources impacts. If it includes a helispot, prohibit storage of
hazardous materials.
Staff has been working in close collaboration with PG&E. Recent major maintenance /
reconductoring work was completed by helicopter to minimize resource impacts. PG&E will
be following a Restoration Plan required by their resource agency permits for their project.
Signs
Under section 4.4.4, add that other signs may be added if adverse uses develop in other areas.
Staff concurs with this comment and have included this provision at 4.4.4 (pg. 21).
Loop Trail
I have concerns about this. When will the old trail be rehabilitated? Please detail. As I look at Cerro San
Luis, I still clearly see the old trail that goes straight up to the “M”. That was supposed to be
rehabilitated years ago. I don’t see how this will prohibit other illegal trails. Explain. All Open Spaces
have trails that are not part of approved plans, which I assume are illegal. How will this be different?
Will there be more ranger patrol? Quicker rehab efforts?
Natural Resources needs a staff dedicated to Open Space maintenance and rehabilitation. The current
setup, using Rangers that are funded, hired, supervised and evaluated by Recreation, makes for divided
loyalties. As the Open Space Program continues to receive strong public support and heavy use, having
inline authority for staff will make for more timely response and effectiveness in dealing with resource
issues. The COSE makes the Natural Resources Manager responsible for the Open Space Program.
Suggest that some Ranger staff be moved to Natural Resources for Open Space maintenance.
The implementation of the loop trail was identified as a potentially significant impact in the
Initial Study, and staff have proposed mitigation measures to reduce any impacts to less than
significant levels. It is expected that Ranger Services will design and implement the trail in
coordination with the Natural Resources Manager. Staff changes or additions would need to
be recommended by the City Manager and approved by the City Council as part of the
normal financial plan process for fiscal years 2013-15 or thereafter.
Seasonal Closures
Consider seasonal closures of the creek area in Reservoir Canyon during wet periods. The high water
can create dangerous conditions.
Attachment 1
B2 - 68
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan
62
Staff concurs with this comments and will manage RCNR accordingly. Ranger Services staff
regularly close City open space areas during periods of prolonged rain and wet soil
conditions. Also, a raised boardwalk just past the entry to RCNR will avoid an area that persists
in a very wet condition well into the spring.
Annex
Annex into city limits so that the city has greater management options.
As owner of RCNR is fee simple, the City enjoys all the rights that are normally appurtenant to
ownership of real property. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code provides for the City to enforce its
Open Space Regulations (Chapter 12.22) even if a property is located outside of City limits.
Annexation can be a lengthy and expensive process to pursue, with the outcome not within
the City’s control. Annexation also raises concerns about wildfire jurisdictional responsibility
and costs.
Conservation Easement
Put a Conservation Easement on the property. Preferably to be held by a third party such as the Land
Conservancy. I think it will be easy to get the needed money to finance this. An easement would prevent
this land from being developed, traded, sold, etc.
Staff concurs that a Conservation Easement for the entirety of RCNR (the Bowden Ranch
portion is already encumbered by a Conservation Easement) would provide the greatest level
of assurance that RCNR will be held for open space conservation purposes forever. However,
the City would need to identify an easement holder willing to take on this perpetual
responsibility; most conservation organizations that hold Conservation Easements require a
permanent stewardship endowment with the acceptance of a such an easement. Other less
expensive and onerous options could include simple deed restrictions or conservation
covenants recorded on title. It should also be noted that the Conservation and Open Space
Element of the City’s General Plan specifies the following at Appendix B (pg. 6-76): “8. The City
will sell, exchange, or transfer an interest in open space lands, or relinquish a permanent open
space easement, only by approval of the City Council following a public hearing, and only
after a 60-day period in which the decision can be suspended pending reversal by
referendum.”
Comments on Draft Reservoir Canyon Plan from The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo
County, received via email:
“… I think this looks pretty good. My only real concern is that the easement terms are not really
explicitly stated. Will you be putting the easement in the appendix or otherwise summarizing the
easement terms in the document so that the reader doesn’t have to conduct an additional search and
review?”
Staff concurs with this comment. The full text of the Bowden Ranch Conservation Easement is
included as Appendix K.
Comments made in public comment period at the Cultural Heritage Committee by Richard
Paul, neighbor to La Loma Adobe on Lizzie Street:
(Paraphrased): Parking on Lizzie Street in unclear due to fire lane closure signs, but no red striping;
parking on site at La Loma would be ideal; supportive of the Plan overall.
Attachment 1
B2 - 69
An Archaeological Surface Survey for Existing Trails
& Proposed Trail Extension at the Reservoir Canyon Area,
San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California
Prepared for:
The City of San Luis Obispo
Natural Resources Manager
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Prepared by:
Thor Conway
Heritage Discoveries Inc.
836 Mission Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
May 25, 20 12
Attachment 1
B2 - 70
Summary of Findings
The City of San Luis Obispo is preparing a planning document including existing trails and an
extension for a new trail in the Bowden Ranch and Reservoir Canyon areas in the City of San Luis
Obispo. This study includes a Phase I cultural resources survey and literature review with planning
recommendations. Records searches indicate several previous cultural resource studies adjacent to the
study area with mainly negative results. The present cultural resources survey gave negative results for
the trail network.
Recommendations are given that no further cultural resource studies should be required for the
existing trails and proposed trail extension into Reservoir Canyon. Other parts of the ridge top may
require future archaeological surface surveys if further developments take place. The poor surface
visibility off of the trail areas yielded inconclusive results for cultural resources in these other areas.
Attachment 1
B2 - 71
ii
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Description ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Sources Consulted .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Archaeological Studies in the Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................... 1
The Study Area & Present Environment ........................................................................................................................ 3
Ethnography .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
History ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Field Methods & Results ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Planning Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................... 6
References ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Appendix A—Site Records Search .............................................................................................................................. 10
List of Figures
Figure 1—The archaeological survey area marked with a red line from Reservoir Canyon to Bowden
Ranch in the City of San Luis Obispo (San Luis Obispo Quad.)……………………………….2
Figure 2—The archaeological survey area of the existing trail system…………………………………….5
Figure 3—The archaeological survey area for the proposed new trail system……………………………..6
Attachment 1
B2 - 72
1
Introduction
This report describes an archaeological surface survey completed in May 2012 for the City of San
Luis Obispo at the Reservoir Canyon and Bowden Ranch areas in San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo
County (Figure 1). The study, done in response to background planning requirements, was completed to
determine whether prehistoric or historic era cultural resources occurred within the existing and new trail
areas. Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager for the City of San Luis Obispo, provided background
information and project maps.
Thor Conway, Heritage Discoveries Inc. of San Luis Obispo, California, completed the study. Thor
Conway has forty years archaeological experience across North America including twenty years in
California.
Project Description
This report describes an archaeological surface survey completed as part of the expanding trail system
in the in the City of San Luis Obispo (Figure 1). The study area includes corridors situated in the foothills
and mountain between Bowden Ranch and Reservoir Canyon.
Sources Consulted
A search was made for pertinent background information relating to prehistoric and historic land use
in the project area. An archaeological sites record search from the Central Coast Information Center of the
California Historical Resources Information System at the University of California at Santa Barbara
included recorded archaeological sites and surveys within a one-half mile radius of the study area
(Appendix A). The results showed that the specific study area had not been subject to a previous
archaeological survey, but archaeological work has occurred on adjoining properties.
Archaeological Studies in the Project Vicinity
Previous archaeological investigations near the study area include twelve recorded archaeological
sites, two isolated finds and numerous cultural resource studies. No cultural resources were found in
several surveys (Hoover 1971; Parker 1999). A corridor just north of the study area also did not contain
cultural resources (ERCE 1991a & b).
Attachment 1
B2 - 73
2
Figure 1—The archaeological survey area marked with a red line from Reservoir
Canyon to Bowden Ranch in the City of San Luis Obispo (San Luis Obispo Quad.).
Attachment 1
B2 - 74
3
An historic era site, CA-SLO-1082H was located just west of the study area (Gibson 2000).
The Study Area & Present Environment
The present study area is located in the foothills and mountains at the northern edge of San Luis
Obispo and east of Highway 101. The project area includes a prominent hill “Tower Hill,” a portion of
Reservoir Canyon, the southern side of hill and foothills (Figure 1). Over 80% of the study area has very
steep terrain not suited for settlement.
The study area lies in a region with a mixture of open grasslands and chaparral supporting diffuse
oaks, poison oak and other plants. Vegetation in and adjacent to the study area also includes various
grasses and seasonal plants.
Ethnography
The entire San Luis Obispo area, including all of the project area, was home to the Northern
Chumash, or Obispeno, for over 9,000 years. The Obispeno territory covered an area from Arroyo Grande
Creek to San Simeon along the coast with inland settlements across the Coastal Range and into the
Salinas River drainage north of Paso Robles (Gibson 1983; King 1984). The Northern Chumash world
bordered upon the Yokuts of the Central Valley in the area now defined as eastern San Luis Obispo
County, while their neighbors to the north were the Salinans. South of Arroyo Grande, related Chumash
groups, such as the Purisimeno and inland the Cuyama Chumash, were settled. The Chumash made use of
several ecological settings including coastal resources, oak openings in the valleys, foothill areas and
extensive grasslands.
The Chumash language family is composed of six languages that are part of the larger Hokan division
of Native American languages (Grant 1978). Their distinctive language and geographic setting held
define the Obispeno Chumash whose name was taken from the first Spanish mission located in their
territory—Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa. Numerous historic Obispeno villages have been identified
from mission records and informant interviews. The Obispeno area showed a somewhat dispersed
settlement pattern as compared to the intensive settlement and larger village sizes found along the Santa
Barbara Channel (King 1984).
The earliest recorded visit to an Obispeno village took place in 1595 when the Spanish sailed into San
Luis Obispo Bay under the command of Cermeno. He anchored in front of the premiere village named
Sepjato which was located at the mouth of San Luis Obispo Creek on the hill now occupied by the San
Luis Bay Inn. The Spanish account noted that these Indians “... are fishermen and there is fish and some
Attachment 1
B2 - 75
4
shell–fish with which they sustain themselves”––a statement which applied to the descendants of this
village who resided at the San Luis Obispo mission two hundred years later (Wagner, 1929: 161).
By the time of the Spanish expansion into California at the end of the 1700’s, Chief Buchon lived at
Sepjato and held the status of a grand–chief leader of several villages in the greater San Luis Obispo area
from Avila to Pismo Beach to Morro Bay.
The area that became the community San Luis Obispo re–entered the historic era on September 1st,
1772 when the first mission was founded beside San Luis Obispo Creek. This first mission within
Chumash territory gradually expanded in size and importance. In its first decade, some Obispeno
Chumash were dissatisfied with the mission and attempted to burn it down (Kocher 1972). The influence
of the mission increased in the 1780’s when Pedro Fages reported that the Indians at the San Luis Obispo
mission “...have readily adapted themselves to what it was sought to teach them” (Englehardt 1933: 39).
Judging from the mission records listing the number of Indians recruited by this mission, in 1803 most of
the numerous Obispeno Chumash groups had moved away from their traditional villages to the vicinity of
the mission (King 1984: 14).
History
The cultural heritage of San Luis Obispo started several thousand years ago when the first Chumash
settled along the streams and foothills that now lie within the community. The city’s rich cultural heritage
extends from the prehistoric era, when the Chumash were the sole inhabitants, to the historic period in the
late 1700’s when Spanish and Mexican influences greatly changed the aboriginal way of life. After the
decline of the mission era in the 1830’s, San Luis Obispo gradually grew into a thriving town. For a
period of over sixty years, a large population of Chinese immigrants lived in a busy Chinatown. The
arrival of the railroad accelerated the growth of the commercial and residential community that included
many Americans from the mid-West and further east.
In the 1869’s, the economy of San Luis Obispo changed from a cattle market based on hides and beef
to a mixed economy including dairy operations introduced by Swiss-Italian farmers. In the mid-20th
century agricultural development continued to diversify with more grain production (Krieger 1988). The
community of San Luis Obispo also changed in 1903 when the California Polytechnic State University
was opened.
Attachment 1
B2 - 76
5
Historians have studied the growth and development of San Luis Obispo (Angel 1883; Krieger 1988).
In addition, local histories link the economic development of San Luis Obispo and the importance of the
Southern Pacific Railway in the expansion of the community and California (Best 1964; Nicholson 1980;
Wilson & Taylor 1952).
Field Methods & Results
An archaeological surface survey was made by Thor Conway at the proposed trail extension study
area in April 2012 by walking the trails and proposed trails in project area at two meter intervals (Figures
1, 2 & 3). The area surveyed for cultural resources was generally overgrown with field grasses on steeply
sloped hillsides. Cultural remains were not located during the survey. The visibility for the trails and
proposed trails was 80%; but visibility in other areas was poor with 20% or less surface exposures.
Figure 2—The archaeological survey area of the existing trail system .
"ç
"ç
"ç
"î
"î
!(
!(
800
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1
6
0
0
1
5
0
0
140
0
1300
1700
6
0
0
5
0
0
500
400
600
3 0 0
4
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
8
0
0
1300
14001
5
00
1600
600
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
1100
900 1200
1300
1400
1
5
00
7
0
0
0.1
0
.
1
Bowden Ranch
Reservoir Canyon
1712 ft#
1548 ft#
To HWY 101$
T o J o h n s o n A v e
$
Trail
Easement
Only
$
$
m
i
mi
mi
mi
0.2
BINNS
KRISTY
BISHOP
0.9
1.2
2.0
L I Z Z I E
B I S H O P
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
Reservoir Canyon
& Bowden Ranch
I
Attachment 1
B2 - 77
6
Figure 3—The archaeological survey area (hatched) for the proposed new trail system.
Planning Recommendations
It is recommended that no further archaeological studies should be required for the existing and new
trail systems based on the negative results of the present surface survey.
It also is recommended that other parts of the ridge top may require future archaeological surface
surveys if further developments take place. The poor surface visibility off of the trail areas yielded
inconclusive results for cultural resources in these other areas.
References
Angel, Myron
1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California. Reprinted 1966 by Howell-North Books Berkeley from the
original Thompson & West. Oakland.
Bertrando, Betsy
1998 Historical Significance Evaluation for Sunny Acres, San Luis Obispo County, CA. On file, Central Coast
Information Center, UCSB. Santa Barbara.
Attachment 1
B2 - 78
7
Carbone, L.
2003 A Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment for a Proposed Verizon Cellular Site, 2230 Flora Street,
City and County of San Luis Obispo, California. On file, Central Coast Information Center, UCSB. Santa
Barbara.
Conway, Thor
1995 An Archaeological Investigation of Historic San Luis Obispo, California (The Kozak Parking Lot Project).
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Dept. San Luis Obispo.
1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey of 770 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Central Coast Information
Center. Santa Barbara.
1997 Phase II Archaeological Testing of a Mission Era Midden at 770 Palm St., San Luis Obispo, California.
Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara.
2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the South Higuera Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project, San Luis Obispo
County, California. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara.
2001a A Phase I Archaeological Surface Survey of the Historic Foreman / DeVaul Ranch, Los Osos Valley Road,
San Luis Obispo, California. Report for WestPac Investments. San Luis Obispo.
2010 An Archaeological Survey for a Proposed Trail at the Irish Hills Nature Reserve, San Luis Obispo, San Luis
Obispo County, California. Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo by Heritage Discoveries Inc. San Luis
Obispo.
Cooper, De Guy
1875 Resources of San Luis Obispo County, California. Bacon & Company. San Francisco. Reprinted in A Vast
Pastoral Domain, The Library Associates, Cal Poly State University. San Luis Obispo.
Dart, Louisiana Clayton
1978 Vignettes of History in San Luis Obispo County. Privately Published. San Luis Obispo.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1933 Mission San Luis Obispo in the Valley of the Bears. Franciscan Fathers of California. Santa Barbara.
ERCE
1991a Draft Environmental Impact Report State Water Project Coastal Branch (Phase II) Local Distribution Lines
and Facilities. On file, Central Coast Information Center, UCSB. Santa Barbara.
Attachment 1
B2 - 79
9
Parker, John.
1996 Cultural Resource Investigation of the Wolf-Adamski Parcel APN 002-325-015 Lizzie St., San Luis Obispo.
On file, Central Coast Information Center, UCSB. Santa Barbara.
1997 Archaeological Monitoring of the Wolf-Adamski Parcel APN 002-325-015 Lizzie Street. On file, Central
Coast Information Center, UCSB. Santa Barbara.
1999 Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed Andrews/Conejo Storm Drainage System. On file, Central
Coast Information Center, UCSB. Santa Barbara.
Wagner, Henry
1929 Spanish Voyages to the Northwest California Coast in the Sixteenth Century. California Historical Society.
San Francisco.
Attachment 1
B2 - 80
.JULIE RODEWALD LO
. San Luis Obispo County -Clerk/Recorder 12/31/2008, " Recording requested by I ,
Recorded allha rll~uesl ofFIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO.
I First American Title Company3 11q d 1 ~~ vn '1
Instrument prepared by: DOC#: 2008063766
City of San Luis Obispo
Mail after recording to: 11111111111111Dr. Neil Havlik
Natural Resources Manager
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93402
8:00 AM
Titles: 1 Pages: 23
Fees
Taxes
Others
PAID
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
APNs 002-352-024; 073-371-002 Space Above Line for Recorder's Use
ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS Assignment is made on the U/'"day of ~.te(hkx-2008, by the
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ("CITY") to THE LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ("LAND CONSERV ~NCY") whom are, collectively, the
"Parties".
'RECITALS
WHEREAS, in 2001, the Bowden Ranch Partners, JV ("Owners") offered and
CITY accepted that certain Deed of Conservation Easement ("Conservation Easement")
ensuring the preservation of approximately one hundred ninety (190) acres of real
property located both inside and outside the City limits, commonly known as the Bowden
Ranch Open Space Preserve ("Property") and described and depicted in detail as Exhibit
A, attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, in 2006, CITY accepted a gift of an undivided one-half interest in
the Property; and
WHEREAS, the remaining one-half undivided interest is held equally by
Owners; and
WHEREAS, as partial consideration for the exchange of certain other properties
between the City and Owners, Owners have agreed to transfer their one-half interest in
the Property to CITY; and
WHEREAS, CITY desires to ensure the preservation of the Property consistent
with the tenns and conditions of the Conservation Easement and,'in furtherance of the
tenns and conditions of the Conservation Easement, the CITY desires to assign its right,
title, and interest in the Conservation Easement to the LAND CONSERVANCY; and
WHEREAS, LAND CONSERVANCY has agreed to accept the assignment of
the Conservation Easement,pursuant to a resolution passed by its Board of Trustees at
their meeting of September 10, 2008, and to hold such easement pursuant to the tenns
and conditions set forth in Exhibit A in order to ensure the perpetual efficacy of the
Conservation Easement;
Attachment 1
B2 - 81
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises herein and the mutual
benefits accruing to the parties and the public from the Conservation Easement herein
referenced and assigned, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, CITY and LAND CONSERVANCY
hereby agree as follows:
A. The Recitals herein are incorporated into and made a part of this
Assignment.
B. CITY conveys and assigns to LAND CONSERVANCY all the rights,
title, easement, privilege and interest (and subject to all conditions contained therein), in
that Conservation Easement conveyed to the CITY dated December 28,2001, and
recorded as Doc # 2001101257 by the San Luis Obispo County Clerk / Recorder.
c. LAND CONSERVANCY shall hold said right, privilege and easement
herein granted and assigned to LAND CONSERVANCY, its successors and assigns, in
perpetuity.
D. CITY covenants that it is properly vested with the Conservation Easement;
has the right to assign the same to LAND CONSERVANCY; that the Conservation
Easement is free from encumbrances except as may be expressly excepted to by the terms
and conditions of the Conservation Easement; and that CITY will warrant and defend
title to the same against the claims of all persons or entities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed the foregoing as of the date year
first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:
~~
Dave Romero, Mayor
THE LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY:
By: .k_S ~'l..,..o"'".~'---
....
Gary Fe1sman, President
Notary
Attachment 1
B2 - 82
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
On December 18, 2008, before me Audrey Hooper, City Clerk, personally appeared
Dave Romero, Mayor, CITY OF SAN I..:,UIS OBISPO, ~ho proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person@' whose name(¥) is/af8-Subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sfie/tfiey executed the same in his!hef/th@ir
authorized capacitYCi~and that by his/~ir signatureV6 on the instrument the personC~ or
the entity upon behalf of which the personCkiacted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature Ilk, ~~4""+-----~
Attachment 1
B2 - 83
AME1(] o
~
~
STATE OF California }
}ss.
COUNT'( OF San Luis Obispo }
On December 16, 2008 , before me, B.Hogan , Notary
Public, personaHy appeared ---Gary S. Felsrnan------,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is~ subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/.sbe/tAev executed the same in his/.ber/1;Peit authorized
capacity(ies) and that by hisL,bel1tRE!I'F signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
I B, HOGAN t
t
WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~ COMM, # 1582883 ~
:,:: Notary Public-Ca.lifornia 0
County of San Luis Obispo r,,;
,~~ZMY Comm. Exp. June 25, 2009}
... •• b
Signature ----'~~"'-~-'-""""f7~'""'.. o£.------
My Commission Expires: __6_-_2_5_-_09 _ This area for official notarial seal
Notary Name: B.Hogan
Notary Registration Number:_1_5_8_28~8:...:3,--_
Attachment 1
B2 - 84
EXHIBIT A-
COpy of DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Attachment 1
B2 - 85
JULIE RODEWALD DO
.... San Luis Obispo County -ClerklReGorder 1212812001 ,4
, ' ReGorded at the requeet 01Recording requested by First American TUle' CompanyFint American Title Co.
DO C#: 2001101257 *When recorded return to:
Fred K. Glick. Esq. ",
1315 Santa Rosa Street
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
SLO-57853 LI
DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
8:00AM
Titles: 1 Pages: 18
Fees 0.00
Tlxe. 0.00
Others 0.00
PAID $0.00
Bowden Ranch Partners and the City of San Luis Obispo
l'UO FEE PAID El<EMPT OUT ~
afATE
Attachment 1
B2 - 86
DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Bowden Ranch Partners and the City of San Luis Obispo
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT dated December 20; 2001, by
Bowden Ranch Partners, JV, having an address at 5875 Stockdale Road, Paso Robles, CA.
93446 ("Grantor"), in favor of the City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation
of the State of California, having an address at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
("Grantee"), is made with respect to the following:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of certain real property consisting
of one Assessor's parcel in San Luis Obispo County, California, more particularly described
in Attachment A attached hereto and Incorporated by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property possesses natural resource values inclUding wildlife and
plant resources, and scenic open space values (collectively, the conservation values) of
great importance to Grantor, the people of the City of San Luis Obispo, and the people of the
State of California; and
WHEREAS, due to soil conditions and slopes, the property has extremely limited
agricultural value; and
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee intend that the conservation values of the property
be preserved and maintained by the continuation of currently existing land use patterns; and
WHEREAS, Grantor further intends, as owner of the property, to convey to Grantee
the right to preserve and protect the conservation values of the property in perpetuity; and
WHEREAS, Grantee is a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California
that is authorized to accept Conservation Easements; and
WHEREAS, Grantee agrees by accepting this grant to honor the intentions of Grantor
stated herein and to preserve and protect in perpetuity the conservation values of the
Property for the benefit of this generation and the generations to come;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and the mutual covenants, terms,
conditions, and restrictions contained herein, and pursuant to the laws of California and In
particular Sections 815 and 816 of the Civil Code -Conservation Easements, Grantor hereby
voluntarily grants and conveys to the Grantee a Conservation Easement in gross in
perpetuity over the Property described in Attachment A and referred to hereinafter as the
Property.
Attachment 1
B2 - 87
, ....
use of the Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the conservation
values of the Property. The conservation values of particular importance
include the grassland and woodland communities existing on the site and their
importance to wildlife. These values also include the scenic quality of the
undeveloped land that is visible from the surrounding community, the value of
the land as a watershed and the benefits prOVided with the prevention to
erosion, and protection of water quality, and the value of the land as it supports
riparian vegetation along its drainage ways and creeks.
2. Rights of Grantee. To accomplish the purpose of this Easement, the following
rights are conveyed to Grantee by this Easement:
(a) To enter upon the Property at reasonable times in order to monitor
Grantor's compliance with and otherwise enforce the terms of this Easement;
provided that such entry shall be upon prior reasonable notice to Grantor, and
Grantee shall not unreasonably interfere with Grantor's use and· quiet
enjoyment of the property; and
(b) To prevent any activity on or use of the property that is inconsistent with
the purpose of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features of the property that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or
use.
3. Prohibited Activities. Any actiVity on or use of the Property inconsistent with
the purpose of this Easement is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the following activities and uses are prohibited from being
established:
(a) Subdivision of the land pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act.
(b) Building or erection of structures of any kind.
(c) Cutting or removal of trees, except as may be necessary for health of the
remaining trees or for pUblic safety.
(d) Mining or other mineral exploration or exploitation of the property.
(e) Except as specifically reserved at Paragraph 4 hereinafter, the exploration,
collection or and delivery of water to any other property.
(f) Grading, other than for purposes of providing hiking or riding trails on the
site consistent with generally accepted standards.
4. Reserved Rights. Grantor reserves to himself, and to his personal
representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, all rights accruing from their
ownership of the Property, including the right to engage in or permit or invite
others to engage in all uses of the property that are not expressly prohibited
herein and are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement. Paragraph
3(e) notwithstanding Grantor specifically reserves the right to maintain, collect,
Attachment 1
B2 - 88
and deliver water to Grantee adjacent or abutting property from an existing
cistern as well as the springs that feed said cistern.
5. Baseline Documentation. The parties agree that the specific conservation
values of the property shall be documented in a report ("the Baseline Report")
that shall be completed within thirty days of the transfer of this Deed of
.Conservation Easement, and that both Grantee and Grantor shall receive true
copies of this report. The Report shall consist of maps, photographs, and other
documentation that, the parties must agree in writing, provide an accurate
representation of the Property at the time of this grant and which is intended to
serve as an objective information baseline for monitoring compliance with the
terms of this grant
6. Arbitration. Any controversy arising from this Easement or Its breach shall be
determined by three arbi~rators appointed as set out below:
(a) Within thirty (30) days after a notice .by either party to the other
requesting arbitration and stating the basis of the party's claim, one arbitrator
shall be appointed by each party. Notice of the appointment shall be given to
each party and to the other party when made.
(b) The two arbitrators shall immediately choose a third arbitrator to act with
them. If a party fails to select an arbitrator within the time allowed or if the two
arbitrators fail to select a third 'arbitrator within 14 days after their appointment,
on application by either party the third arbitrator shall be promptly appointed by
the then presiding jUdge of the Superior Court of the State of Califomia In and
for the County of San luis Obispo acting as an individual within 14 days. The
party making the application shall give the other party 14 day's notice of the
application.
The arbitration shall be conducted under the Code of Civil Procedures (Section
1280-1294.2). Hearings shall be held in San Luis Obispo County, California.
Both parties agree by signing this Easement that they are agreeing to have any
dispute arising from the matters included in the Arbitration prOVisions of this
Easement decided by neutral arbitration as provided by California law and that
each party Is giving up any rights to have the dispute litigated in a court or by a
jury trial. By signing this Easement, each party is giving up their judicial rights
to discovery and appeal unless such rights are specially requested in the notice
requesting Arbitration or as permitted by CCP 1280 et.seq. If either party
refuses to submit to arbitration, they may becOinpelled to arbitrate under the
authority of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Grantee's Remedies. If Grantee determines that Grantor Is In violation of the
terms of this Easement or that a violation is threatened, Grantee shall give
written notice to Grantor of such violation and demand corrective action
sufficient to cure the violation and, where the violation involves injury to the
property resulting from any use or activity inconsistent with the purpose of this
Easement, to restore the portion of the property so injured. If Grantor fails to
Attachment 1
B2 - 89
cure the violation within a thirty (30) days after receipt of notice thereof from
Grantee, or under circumstances where the violation cannot reasonably be
cured within a thirty (30)-day period, fails to begin curing such violation within
the thirty (30)-day period. or fails to continue diligently to cure such violation
until finally cured, Grantee may bring an action at law or In equity In a court of
competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Easement, to enjoin the
violation. ex parte as necessary, by temporary or permanent injunction, to
recover any damages to which it may be entitled for violation of the terms of
this Easement or injUry to any conservation values protected by this Easement,
Including damages for the loss of scenic, aesthetic, or environmental values,
and to require the restoration of the Property to the condition that existed prior
to any such injury. Without limiting Grantor's liability therefore, Grantee, in Its
sole discretion, may apply any damages recovered to the cost of undertaking
any correction action on the Property. If Grantee, in its sole discretion,
determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate
significant damage to the conservation values of the Property, Grantee may
pursue its remedies under this Paragraph without prior notice to Grantor or
without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. Grantee's rights
under this Paragraph apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened
violation of the terms of this Easement, and Grantor agrees that Grantee's
remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Easement are inadequate
and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this
Paragraph, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to
which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance of the terms of
this Easement. without the necessary .of proving either actual damages or the
inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. Grantee's remedies
described in this Paragraph shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all
remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity.
8. Costs of Enforcement. Any costs incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms
of this Easement against Grantor, including, without limitation, costs of suit and
attorneys' fees, and any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's violation
of the terms of this Easement shall be borne by Grantor. If Grantor prevails in
any action to enforce the terms of this Easement, Grantor's costs of suit,
inclUding, without Jimitation, attorneys' fee, shall be borne by Grantee. If
Grantee prevails in any action to enforce the terms of this Easement. Grantee's
costs of SUit, including without limitation, attorneys' fees, shall be borne by
Grantor. .
9. Grantee's Discretion. Enforcement of the terms of this Easement shall be at
the discretion of Grantee, and any forbearance by Grantee to exercise its rights
under this Easement in the event of any breach of any term of this Easement
by Grantor shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver by Grantee of such
term or of any of Grantee's rights under this Easement. No delay or omission
by Grantee in the exercise of any right or remedy upon any beach by Grantor
shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.
10. Waiver of Certain Defenses. Grantor and Grantee hereby mutually waive any
defense of laches, estoppel, or prescription.
Attachment 1
B2 - 90
11. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Easement shall be
construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury to
or change in the Property resulting from causes beyond Grantor's control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any
prudent action taken by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate,
or mitigate significant Injury to the Property resulting from such causes.
12. No Expense to Grantor. Under the express terms of this Deed of Conservation
Easement, Grantor shall not Incur any expense with maintaining the property as
open space. All expenses associated with conservation efforts Grantee
determines to be necessary to preserve the open space easement shall be
borne by Grantee, unless and to the extent Grantor is in violation of this Deed
of Conservation Easement, in which case prOVisions herein shall control.
13. Taxes. Grantor shall pay all taxes, assessments, fees, and charges of
whatever description levied on or assessed against the property by competent
authority (collectively "taxes"), including any taxes imposed upon, or incurred as
a result of, this Easement, and shall furnish Grantee with satisfactory evidence
of payment upon request subject to the right to contest any such taxes.
14. Hold Harmless. Grantor shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend Grantee
and its directors. officers, employees,agents, and contractors and their heirs,
personal representatives, successors and assigns of each of them (collectively
"Indemnified Parties") from and against all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses,
damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands, or judgments,
including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, arising from or in any
way connected with: (1) Injury to or death of any person; (2) physical damage
to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter
related to or occurring on or about the Property, regardless of cause, unless
due to the sole negligence of any of the Indemnified parties; (3) the obligations
specified in paragraph 12; or (4) the existence of this Easement.
15. Extinguishment. If circumstances arise in the future such as render the
purpose of this Easement impossible to accomplish, this Easement can only be
terminated or extinguished, whether in whole or in part, by judicial proceedings
in a court of competent.jurisdiction, and the amount of the proceeds (if any) to
which Grantee shall be entitled, after the satisfaction or prior claims, from any
sale, exchange, or involuntary conversion of all or any portion of the Property
subsequent to such termination or extinguishment, shall be determined as
provided by California law.
16. Condemnation. If the Easement is taken, in whole or in part, by exercise of the
power of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with applicable law.
17. Assignment. This Easement is transferable, but Grantee may assign its rights
and obligations under this Easement only to an organization that is a qualified
organization at the time of transfer under Section 170(h) of the Internal
Attachment 1
B2 - 91
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (or any successor provision then
applicable), and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder, and
authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements under state statue (or
any successor provision then applicable).
18. Subsequent Transfers. Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Easement in any deed or other legal instrument by which they divest
themselves of any interest In all or a portion of the Property, inclUding, without
limitation, a leasehold interest. Grantor further agrees to give written notice to
Grantee of the transfer of any Interest at least twenty (20) days prior to the date
of such transfer. The failure of Grantor to perform any act required by this
paragraph shall not impair the validity of this Easement or limit its enforceability
in anyway.
19. Certificates. Upon request by'Grantor, Grantee shall within twenty (20) days
execute and deliver to Grantor any document, inclUding an estoppel certificate,
which certifies Grantor's compliance with any obligation of Grantor contained in
this Easement and otherwise evidences the status of this Easement as may be
requested by Grantor.
19. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication
that either party desires or is required to give. to the other shall be In writing and
either served personally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed
as follows:
To Grantor: Bowden Ranch Partners
5875 Stockdale Road
Paso Robles, CA. 93446
To Grantee: Mr. Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
or to such other address as either party from time to time shall designate by
written notice to the other.
20. Recordation. Grantee shall record this instrument in a timely fashion in the
official records of San Luis Obispo County, Califomia, and may re-record it at
any time as may be required to preserve its rights in this Easement.
21. Monitoring. The Grantee or its designee shall conduct annual monitoring of
the conservation values within the Property. Such monitoring shall be done in
accordance with a systematic and routine checklist designed to facilitate the
identification of trends and changes of the conservation values over time. A
copy of each monitoring report shall be given to the Grantor.
Attachment 1
B2 - 92
22. Subordination. At the time of the conveyance of this Easement, the Property is
subject to mortgage. The holder of this mortgage agrees by execution of this
Easement to subordinate its rights in the property to this Easement to the
extent necessary to permit the Grantee to enforce the purpose of this
Easement in perpetuity and to prevent anY.modification or extinguishment of
this Easement by the exercise of any rights of the mortgage holder.
23. General Provisions.
(a) Controlling Law. The interpretation and performance of this Easement
shall be government by the laws of the State of California.
(b) Liberal Construction. Any general rule of construction to the contrary
notwithstanding, this Easement shall be liberally construed in favor of the grant
to effect the purpose of this Easement and the policy and purpose of the
Conservation Act of 1979 as described in Sections 815 through 816 of the
California Civil Code. If any provision in this instrument is found to be
ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purpose of this Easement that
would render the prOVision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that
would render it invalid.
,(c) Severabilitv. If any provision of this Easement, or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of
the prOVisions of this Easement, or the applicatipn of such provision to persons
or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the
case may be, shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Entire Agreement. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of
the parties with respect to the Easement and superseded all prior discussions,
negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to the Easement, all of
which are merged herein.
(e) Successors. The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this
Easement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto
and their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns
and shall continue as a servitude running perpetually with the Property.
(f) Captions. The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for
convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have
no effect upon construction or interpretation.
(g) Counterparts. The'parties may execute this instrument in two or more
counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be signed by both parties; each
counterpart shall be deemed an original instrument as against any party who
ha~ signed it. In the event of any disparity between the counterparts produced,
the recorded counterpart shall be controlling.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD ~nto) Grantee, its successors, and assigns forever.
Attachment 1
B2 - 93
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Grantor and Grantee have set their hands on the day
and year first written above.
For tbe Grantor:
Pete J. CagJiero, Trustee or The Cagliero Family Estate Trust dated September 30,
1971, as amended, also known as and who acquired title.as Pete J. Cagliero, Trustee
of tbe Cagliero Family Estate Trust dated September 30, 1971; Phillip M. Cagliero,
a married man, as his sole and separate property; Jonathan P. CagJiero, a married
man, as his sole and separate property; Fredrick Wittstrom and Cindy" Dee
Wittstrom, C~Trustees ofTbe Wittstrom Living Trust dated February 2,1984, also
known as aod who acquired title as Karl Fredrick Wittstrom and Cindy Dee
Wittstrom, C~Trustees of the Wittstrom Living Trust dated February 2,1984;
Frederick K. Glick and Sharon S. Glick, Trustees of the Frederick K. Glick and.
Sharon S. Glic~ Revocable Trust dated August 3, 1999, also known as and who
acquired title as Frederick K. Glick and Sharon S. Glick, Co-Trustees of tbe
Frederick K. Glick an~ Sharon S. Glick Family Trust
Signatures: o
Estate Trust
~.
Phillip M. agliero
~.m~ ??=
Li?~,cVJ.h6bA~
Karl Fredrick Wittstrom, Co-Trustee of the
Wittstrom Living Trust dated February 2, 1984
ittstrom, Co-Trustee of the
iving Trust dated February i, 1984
baron S. Glick.
the Frederick ~. Glick and
Sharon S. Glick Revocable Trust
~
Glick and Sharon S. Glick Revocable Trust dated
August 3, 1999
\1 dated August 3. 1999
Attachment 1
B2 - 94
For The Grantee:
Marx, Vice Mayor
For Deed of Trust Holder:
Central Coast Federal Land Bank
Association, FLCA
By:,-\'-II'~lAoF::::'--foO!~~---------
APflAOVEO /IS TO FORM:
~r--.
CItv Aflnmev
Attachment 1
B2 - 95
------------------
STATE OF CALIF.,.9RNIA .... . I
COUNTY OF ~~~/1\.-~'·~~~:....J~~Iri~~
•• -JIlt."'" •,
LEE PRICE'@ Commlsslon #t 1220447 1i' Notary Publlc -callfania ~
Son luis Obispo County i...(~~~.~2:~
---------------------~--------------------------------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }}ss.COUNTY OF _ }
On'--, before me, ,
personally appeared
, personally known to -:m-e--:(:-:o:-r:-:p':"r-o-v-e-d-'--;-t-o-m-e-o::-n::--t~h":"e"""";':b"""a"""s-;i:-:s~o:-;f;:--s~a:-:t:::-i"'s~fi!'a~c":"t:::-o-:-::'ry"""to theevidence) be
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/ahe/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the
instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument. <
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
signature
OPTIONAL SEC'l'IOB •••••••••••••
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES D";'~=T=E:-O~F;;--;;D~OC=UME=::NT=--------------
SIGNER(S) QTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE, _
THIS CERTIFICA'rE MUST BE AT'rACHED TO THE DOCUHBNT DESCRIBED HEREIN. (Though the data
requested is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this
form. )
3008.1 wr/NOTRYA~ 6/94
Attachment 1
B2 - 96
EXUmlT'A'
PARCELl:
All that part of the West half of the Southwest quarter of Section 25, in Township 30 South, Range
11 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, according to the official plat thereof, described as follows:
Beginning at a point which bean North 68°22' East, 79 feet from the comer common to Sections 25,
26, 3S and 36 in said Township and Range, said point being on the Southwest line of Lizzie Street,
according to the map of Piedmont. Tract, in the City of San Luis Obispo, recorded May 21, 1889 in
Book A, Page 146 of Maps, records of said County; thence North 68°22' East across said Street and
along the Northwest line of Lot 5 of said Tract, 933.5 feet to the most NortherJy corner of said Lot;
thence along the Westerly line of Lot 1 ofsaid Tract, North 45°38' West, 65.5 feet and Nortb 2°25'
East, 1226 feet to Stake C.4, the most Northerly comer of said Lot, said corner being the most
Easterly comer of the property conveyed to Kate M. Cox, by deed dated September 29, 1892 and
recorded in Book 17, Page 324 of Deeds, Records of said county; thence along the Easterly and
Soutbeasterly )ine of the property so conveyed, South 6 %0 West, 408.5 feet, South 67 %0 West,
282.5 feet, and South 28. %0 West, 91.1 feet to the Northeast line of the property conveyed to C. R
Phillips, by deed dated May 18, 1880 and recorded in Book M. Page 253 of Deeds, Records of said
County ;thence along the line of the property so conveyed, South 61° East, 79.9 feet to Stake R.M.
No.6, South 28 %0 East, 132 feet to Stake B.M. No.7, and South 60 %0 West, 994.6 feet to Stake
B.M. No.8, and F.D. No.9 set on the Northeast line of the propert}! conveyed to C. H. :Phillips by
deed dated December 10, 1880 and recorded in Book M, Page 625 of Deeds, Records of said
County; thence South 28 ~o East along said Northeast line, 352 feet to a point on the Northwest
)ine of aforesaid Lizzie Street, distant North 53°38' East, 451 feet from the most Northerly comer of
Johnson and Lizzie Streets, as said corner existed on January 27, 1887; thence North 53°38' East
along the Northwest line ofsaid Lizzie Street, 11 feet to Stake C.6; thence South 36°22' East~ 73 feet
to the point of beginning.
Except therefrom that portion tbereof described in the deed to San Luis Obispo High School
District, recorded January 3, 1949 in Book 458, Page 496 of Official Records, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Northerly corner of Lot 1 in Block 4 of Falini Terrace, according to map
filed for records September 14, 1888 il1 Book A, Page 100 of Maps, in the office of the County
Recorder of said County; thence North 36°22' West, 33 feet; thence South 53°38'West, 11.64 feet;
thence North 28QS7~ West (Record bearing North 28 %0 West) and along the Northeasterly line of
the property conveyed to C. H. Phillips, by deed dated September 10, 1880 and recorded in Book
M, Page 625 of Deeds, Records of said County, 351.85 feet to a 1 W' iron pipe, stake BN No.8, and
F.D. No.9, in the Southeasterly line of the property conveyed to Sao Luis Obispo High School
District by deed dated D.ecember 6, 1945 and recorded in Book 392, Page 452 of Official Records of
said County; thence along said Southeasterly line, North 60~7' East, 994.62 feet to a 1 W' iron
pipe; thence South 25°02' East, 221.56 feet to a 1 -Ya" iron pipe; thence South 62°34' West, 929.79
feet to aI%" iron pipe; thence South 28°57' East, 192.8 feet; thence South 53°38' West, 34.49 feet
to the point of beginning.
Also except therefrom that portion thereof lying within the lines of that certain street, described in
Paragraph 1 of Judgment and Decree recorded September 4,1957 in Book 906,Page 262 of Official
~ 1
Attachment 1
B2 - 97
Records, and in Paragraph 1 of Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc, recorded September 19, 1957 in Book
908, Page 365 of Official'Records.
Also except therefrom that portion described as follows:
Beginning at the most Northerly corner of Lot 1 in Block 4 of Fixlini Terrace, according to the map
filed for record in Book A, Page 100 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said county;
thence along tbe Nortbeasterly line of said Falin! Terrace, South 36°22' East, 40.00 feet to the
Southwesterly prolongation of tbe Nortbwesterly line of Lot 5 of the Piedmont Tract, according to
the Map filed for record·in Book A,Page 146 of Maps,in the Office of the County Recorder of said
county; thence along said Southwesterly prolongation and said Northwesterly line North 68°22'
East, 443.96 feet to the true point of beginning; thence North 40°28' West, 303.22 feet to the
Southeasterly line of the land described in the deed to San Luis Obispo High School District,
recorded Ja~uary 3, 1949 in Book 458, Page 496 of Official Records of said County; thence along
said Southeasterly line, North 60°27' East, 220.28 feet; thence South 40°28' East, 335.27 feet to the
Northwesterly line of Lot 5 of tbe Piedmont Tract; thence along said Northwesterly line South
68°22' West, 228.53 feet to the true point of beginning. .
Also except therefrom tAat portion thereof described in the deed to Gregory Devereaux Bowden, a
married man as bis sole and separate property, recorded December 30, 1970 in· Book 1599, Page
900 or Official Records.
PARCEL 2:
The Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter, and the Southeast quarter of Section 25, in
ToWnship 30 So~th, Range 12 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, partly in the City of San Luis Obispo, according to the official plat
thereOf.
PARCEL 3:
That portion of Lot 8 of the Piedmont Tract, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California
outside tbe City of San Luis Obispo, according to the map recorded in Book A, Page 146 of Maps,
in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.
i\
2
Attachment 1
B2 - 98
------------------------------------------------------
, '
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
C (J }SS.
COUNTY OF ..,}Qh1 t..",i.)h ,;'pO }
On . :J:kc..embc:r /"1, gODI , before me, LindA L.)...AitZ4(Oa; NJat1,fYhht..,,I
personally appeared MO; yo k' 'tldr<.e..
-, personally known to
me (or ~e¥eQ te me on the hasjs of sati8fae~9ry evidenee) to be the
person(i) whose name(~) 1s/~subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that hel-sAQ/~AQY executed the same in his/Qg~~~ftei~
authorized capacity(~), and that by hisrAQ~/~fteiz signature(~) on the
instrument the person(;) or the entity upon behalf of whi.ch the
person(~) acted, executed the instrument.
seal.
~-----------------
}
ISS.
COUNTY OF_-==~~~-.10...~.!.=1=-=-_l___r+__+_}
personally
__-:--..--"--......:::::..-__.,...,,..""'"'--:-_..--_-::-_--:-:--.,.....~--, personally known to
me (or proved to me on ~ basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) are subscribed to the within i~rument and
acknowledged to me that she/they executed the same .in ~/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by ){fSYher/their signature(s) on the
instrument the peraon(s) or the en'-Ei:ty upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
o ANN M. KELEHER,
e COMM. # 12048G8 :::.G;,~ NOTAR'{ PUBLiC.CALIFORNIAG'J ~ • SANTA HAQSARA COUNTV 0
~_ '-' COMM. EXP. DEC, 14, 20G2 ..
1;1 ~ Qt::: '0"""";' ;; Qh va <;> c;:a Y" c\
•••••••••••OPTIONAL SECTION •••••••••••
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES D:;;~;:;;Ti;;E-,:;;O;;F~Dn:O~C;;;UMEm;;;;N:;;T;;----------------
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE, _
TH'IS CERTIJ'ICA'J:E MUST as ATTACHED 'rO 'rim DOCUMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN. (Though the data
request:ed is not required by law, i.t could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this
form. )
3008.1 WP/No.mYAClt 6/94
Attachment 1
B2 - 99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.'
me (or rove to me ons basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person ( ose name(s) are subscribed to the within i~rument and
acknowledged to me that she/they e~ted the same in~/her/their
authorized capaclty(ies), and that by """ her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person( s) or the en ty upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
STATE
COUNTY OF
----,,..----,,...c:::::;-~"c_:_-~£.--'""":"".___~-_;_-_::_-......."i"'::'~"'=:":"~-, personally known to
ANN M. KELEHER '7
COMM. # 120411~e ..
TAF:'( PUBLlC-CAUl'.);dIIA (,)•
> SANTA B.aI!H3AHA COUNTY ('l
COMM. EXP, DEC. 1~. ,"Oll2 •• ~~".,~.
iimiEe;-«(ioi;ar~ipii.~g~y~eiCdr::tEoO=:iimiEewoiJlii=:ttlihiEQ~ht;;aa:e:Bli59~o~£:=is;r.aErtE1fisffliai:crtl::co;;~";;j.·:...e~'~rji~d~e~Jl~c~e) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/~ subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/hez/l::be:ir
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/~leir signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
}
}SS.
}
On:....-.:===-~~~~~'__....s;z:~~~l..<W
personally appeared
, personally known to
OPTIONAL SECTION •••••••••••
SHERYL R. KNOTT
COMM. # 1223146
Notary PubUc.callfomJa
County of San Luis Obispo b)
My Comm. Exp. June 30, 2003
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES Q::A;;:'';;;T<;:;;E-,:;:OF;;-;n::::::O:vC:;;UME;;-;:;:;;;N;;:;;T;-----------:..--.......,....-
SIGNER(S) OTHER·THAN NAMED ABOVE~ _
~HIS CER'l'IFlCA'l'E MUS'l' BE ATTACHED TO 'rHB DOCUMEN'l' DESCRIBED HEREJ:N. (Though the data
requested is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattaohment of this
form. )
3008.1 WPIROTRYACK 6/94
Attachment 1
B2 - 100
STATE OF
, personally known to
,
~'T AMEli, ~
'~~
on . IQ.. I1&-0/;;"00\
personally appeared
m-e~(~o-r-~o""v::::::::;:~""'t-o-m-e--Jho'-i-:-;--e--;"b-a-s-;i~s-o~f;::--s~a':""t:-i...-:"s7f":"'a":"'c":""t-o-ry-to be theevidence)
person ( oae name(s) are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that she/they eRted the same i~/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by is herltheir signa't:u£e(s) on the
instrument the person(s) or the en J.ty upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
'T AMEli,
me (or proved to me on ~ basis of satisfactory evidence)
person{s) whose name(s) ~~Subscribed to the within instr~t and
acknowledged to me that lie/ h they execu~~he same in his e their
authorized capacity(ies), an that by his~their signature on the
instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument •
~.
On 1-1../.2/~I
personally appeared /+Pr--'w..u.~~-'=.....-....ll'..;:::;...~~...u..w..I:...:------=~---..:-'--
_---::----:~_......l'-'-_~_:__--=-_._-__::_-__:__;___=____:_--, personally known to
to be the
•••••••••••OPTIONAL SECTION •••••••••••
TITLE. OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES ...D:;-~;;;T;;:;E:-AO;;F-D;:;:OC;:;;UME;;u;:;:;:N:;::T::---------------
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE. _
~IS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN. (Though the data
requested is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this
form. )
Attachment 1
B2 - 101
------------------
,'~ ,\M F. I! I
}
}SS.~ :::TYOFop~08f$Pt' }
On ~@G?1tJa ~.r:Mt?/ '.before me, fJKri?tOA L~lfI}/efR-GoU ,
personally appeared FtflflJE:£ICK., K· GL/Cf(-----------
. --.--_.._ _ .._. , personally known to
me (.0'" pilleTJ"Qd 'to me ell tbe basis -of sa:eisie:e=tery e-videaa&) to be the
person()() whose name(~) is/~ subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowled9~d to me that he?ehe/~ executed the same in his/~thei~
authorized capacity~), and that by his/hex/kl:te:t1: signatureOi) on the
instrument the person()() or the entity upon behalf of which the
person{)() acted, executed the instrument. .1.-~A;;C."" L. EMERSON1~.~I SS:/~Wf£.iC.ial seal. 1 ~;n=~6:~~d blJAsOblspoCCMlty (
Signature 0 •••Mi.me:':c:=t~1
----------------~~--------------------------------~---
'{ I\Mf.l(/ ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
~~~ COUNTY OF dIU/Lv4s 0 1!3(~,Pt:J ~SS.
On lJ!:.;C£A1J'leR 41; dltJOI , before m~, ;O/JueiciA. I, GHI!f/(So.<!
personally appeared ~AI S, GLJC/<:" ---------
, personally known to
me ( • to be the
person whose n~e~ .is/~ subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that -fte/she/~ executed .the same in A:i:e/her/~
authorized capacity(J.ea), and that by..ft:i:s/her/1:fte.:i:r signature(¥) on the
instrument the person(jt? or the entity upon behalf of which the
personC() acted, executea the instrument. <
~ ~. ''''''!CIA L """"'" M~my.~~Cial se), ••~=~= Sig~~ , •••:r~~e;tD:1
OPTIONAL SECTION •••••••••••
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES D·-:;:'~;;:;T;;:;E~OF~D;:-.O;::;C;:;;U:;;:ME';;;;';:N;;;T;----------------
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE _
THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED '1'0 THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN. ('1'hough the data
requested is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this
form. )
3008.1 WP/N~~ACX 6/94
Attachment 1
B2 - 102
~ l'Ill! City o~ san luiS OBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-324~
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
"''''''''''''' .
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the DEED OF
CONSERVATION EASEMENT dated December 20,2001, by and between Pete J. Cagliero,
Trustee of the Cagllero Family Estate Trust dated September 30, 1971; Phillip M. Cagllero;
Jonathan P. Cagliero; Kar1 Frederick Wittstrom, Co-Trustee of the Wittstrom Living Trust
dated February 2,1984; Cindy Dee Wittstrom, Co-Trustee of the Wittstrom Living Trust dated
February 2, 1984; and Frederick K. Glick, Trustee of the Frederick K. Glick and Sharon S.
Glick Revocable Trust dated August 3,1999 (collectively, the "Bowden Ranch Partners"),
and the .,CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a political corporation, Is hereby accepted ,by the
l'
undersigned officer on behalf of the City Council pursuant to authority conferred by
Resolution No. 5370 (1984 Series) recorded June 15, 1984, in Volume 2604, Official
Records, Page 878, San Luis Obispo County, California, and Bowden Ranch Partners
hereby consent to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer or his agent.
Date: I(;)..f?qk
•/ I
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Marx, Vice Mayor
Lee Pri e;Cit""CrerJ< . 'i ." t~/~ i '.": • .:
" I II' ,,,., ".~. i ~ . ':~'I . .:~':J
~~ ] The ci~:o( S~O.k~b~R,b.~s committed to Include the disabled In all of Its services. programs and activities.
~ Telecomm\Jlllc\ltJoPIl.o.e\lKle for the Deaf (805) 781-7410,
"I" " \. END OF DOCUMENl
Attachment 1
B2 - 103
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application # ER/GPI 140-13
1. Project Title: Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (GPI 140-13)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, SLO, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Freddy Otte, (805) 781 7511
4. Project Location: End of Reservoir Canyon Road, which is one mile north of San Luis
Obispo, east off of Highway 101. The second access point is at the Bowden Ranch
trailhead, on the east end of Lizzie Street in San Luis Obispo itself.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, SLO, CA
93401
6. General Plan Designation: Conservation/Open Space
7. Zoning: Property is in County jurisdiction, and is zoned Agriculture
8. Description of the Project: The project is the adoption of the Conservation plan for the
approximately 800 acre Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve. The plan’s primary goal is to
protect the natural ecosystem and also allow for compatible public recreational use where
appropriate. Another goal is to minimize the impacts of off-trail hiking and utility access,
while maintaining natural drainage systems to convey storm water into and within urban
areas.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Private ranch land on northeast and south, large
residential properties on west, and also lands in the city limits
10. Project Entitlements Requested: City Council approval.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
Attachment 2
B2 - 104
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.
X
Aesthetics X
Geology/Soils
Public Services
Agricultural Resources
X
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Recreation
Air Quality
X
Hydrology/Water Quality
Transportation & Traffic
X
Biological Resources
Land Use and Planning
Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Population and Housing
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse ef fects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
--X--
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
--X--
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Attachment 2
B2 - 105
DETERMINATION:
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, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
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 be en avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
For: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Printed Name Signed Name
Attachment 2
B2 - 106
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 analysis in each section. 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. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used
to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless 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 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)
of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the
checklist.
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. 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 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 address site-specific conditions for the project.
Attachment 2
B2 - 107
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER/GPI 140-13
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? --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?
--X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
--X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
--X--
Evaluation
The proposed new trail on the north side of the site may potentially be visible to US 101 southbound traffic. Any visibility
would be distant and brief in duration as experienced by moving highway traffic. Proper trail design and construction
techniques, however, such as preserving native vegetation on the outside edge of the trail, can effectively screen the trail
itself and provide mitigation.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have less than significant effect on the aesthetics of the site after mitigation.
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?
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
--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?
--X--
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
--X--
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
--X--
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
--X--
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
--X--
e) 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 qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
--X--
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on air quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly 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?
--X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or --X--
Attachment 2
B2 - 108
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER/GPI 140-13
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance (e.g. Heritage Trees)?
--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
wildlife nursery sites?
--X--
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
--X--
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrologica l interruption, or
other means?
--X--
Evaluation
a) The project site is considered habitat for a federally listed endangered species, California red-legged frog (Rana
draytonii) (CRLF); however, occurrence has not been confirmed. Surveys have confirmed the occurrence of the rare
native plants, San Luis Obispo star tulip (Calochortus obispoensis), and Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale) on
the project site. The bog thistle is remote from existing and proposed trails. Without mitigation, new trail construction
could affect one or all of these species.
Conclusion
During trail construction activities, surveying by trained persons will be done to ascertain presence or absence of CRLF in the
work area. Also, survey of the new trail route will be done during the blooming season of the star tulip (May-July) to ensure
avoidance of this species in trail construction. Trail volunteers will be given training in recognition of these two species , and
will be instructed to contact City personnel if either species is observed within the work area, and stop work in that area
immediately. With these safeguards in place it is expected that the proposed actions will have no adverse effect on biologic al
resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
--X--
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--
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on cultura l resources. .
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? --X--
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
--X--
c) 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--
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on energy and mineral resources.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Attachment 2
B2 - 109
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER/GPI 140-13
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
--X--
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in 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?
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X--
IV. Landslides or mudflows? --X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? --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 landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
--X--
Evaluation
b) The proposed construction of new trails could potentially result in erosion problems. However, this will be minimized
by the incorporation of erosion control techniques coupled with sustainable trail design standards. Erosion control
techniques will include appropriate outsloping of the trails and incorporation of waterbars and other appr opriate erosion
control features into trail design. Trail construction will also incorporate silt containment features where necessary to
avoid silt discharge into existing waterways, where intervening vegetation and ground litter is not adequate to do so.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have a less than significant effect on geology and soils after mitigation.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
--X--
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
--X--
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
--X--
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste?
--X-- --X--
e) 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, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
--X--
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within
two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
--X--
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the
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 residents are
--X--
Attachment 2
B2 - 110
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER/GPI 140-13
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
intermixed with wildlands?
Evaluation
d. ) Trail construction and trail maintenance may have the potential to expose trail workers to naturally occurring asbestos
(NOA) associated with serpentine derived rock and soils. Trail workers will be provided with information about naturally
occurring asbestos, as well with dust masks.
h. ) The project area is in a medium to very high fire hazard area. However, local regulations already result in closure of the
area to entry during high fire hazard periods, and this will continue.
Conclusion
The proposed actions will have a less than significant impact after mitigation.
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 for which permits have been granted)?
--X--
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
--X--
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
--X--
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
--X--
f) 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--
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
--X--
h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? --X--
Evaluation
h) The proposed construction of new trails or footbridges could potentially result in erosion problems, which could in turn
affect water quality. However, this will be minimized or avoided by the incorporation of erosion control techniques
coupled with sustainable trail design standards. Erosion control techniques will include appropriate outsloping of the
trails and incorporation of waterbars and other appropriate erosion control features into trail design. Trail construction
will also incorporate silt containment features where necessary to avoid silt discharge into existing waterways where
intervening vegetation and ground litter is not adequate to do so.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not have an adverse effect on hydrology or water quality after incorporation of mitigations.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
--X--
b) Physically divide an established community? --X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plans?
--X--
Conclusion
Attachment 2
B2 - 111
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER/GPI 140-13
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Proposed actions will not conflict with any other land use plan, nor physically divide an existing community.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of “unacceptable” noise
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
--X--
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
--X--
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
--X--
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
--X--
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on existing noise levels.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
--X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
--X--
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on population growth or housing in the area.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government 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? --X--
b) Police protection? --X--
c) Schools? --X--
d) Parks? --X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? --X--
f) Other public facilities? --X--
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on public services.
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) 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?
--X--
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
--X--
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not increase recreational use of the site to levels that are detrimental to the physical envi ronment.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
--X--
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service --X--
Attachment 2
B2 - 112
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER/GPI 140-13
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
--X--
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? --X--
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? --X--
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
--X--
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,
noise, or a change in air traffic patterns?
--X--
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on traffic or transportation.
16. 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
treatment, wastewater treatment, or storm drainage facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
--X--
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
--X--
d) 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 commitment?
--X--
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
--X--
f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
--X--
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on utilities or service systems.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
--X--
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)
--X--
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
Attachment 2
B2 - 113
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER/GPI 140-13
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not degrade the quality of the environment. They do not have cumulative impacts that are significant.
They will not have substantial adverse effects on human beings.
18. 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.
None
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.
None
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.
Mitigation Measures
AESTHETICS; BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES; GEOLOGY AND SOILS; HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS; WATER QUALITY
AES 1:
Trail design and construction techniques that preserve native vegetation on the outside edge of the trail in order to screen th e
trail itself will be utilized.
BIO 1:
Detailed surveys will be conducted in the proposed new trail area to determine the presence of CRLF and San
Luis Obispo star tulip prior to site disturbance. Survey work for the star tulip will be conducted during the
blooming season (May-July) to ensure avoidance during any trail construction. If the species is detected, the trail
location will be adjusted to avoid it. The Chorro Creek bog thistle is remote and protected from existing and
proposed trails by very dense, impenetrable vegetation.
BIO 2:
Daily surveys prior to onset of construction activities will be done to ensure that red-legged frogs are not within
the day’s work area. Trail volunteers will be trained in the recognition of sensitive species known to be on the
property, and will be instructed to immediately contact City personnel if species are observed within the work
area, and to stop work in that area immediately.
WQ/GEO 1:
Site work will incorporate proper erosion control techniques into trail design. Erosion control techniques will
include appropriate outsloping of trails, incorporation of waterbars or other features designed to prevent water
concentration, and sediment settlement features for loosened material where vegetation or ground little will not be
sufficient to prevent silt from reaching existing waterways.
HAZ 1:
Trail workers will be provided with information about naturally occurring asbestos, as well with dust masks, prior to
undertaking any trail construction or maintenance activities.
Attachment 2
B2 - 114
1-1
Parks and Recreation Commission
DRAFT MINUTES
Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Wednesday, October 2, 2013, 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Steve Davis, Craig Kincaid, David Hensinger, Jeff Whitener
and Michael Parolini
ABSENT: Susan Updegrove and Ron Regier
COUNCIL: Carlyn Christianson
STAFF: Shelly Stanwyck, Bob Hill, and Marti Reynolds
Public Comment
None.
1. Consideration of Minutes
MOTION: (Whitener/Parolini) Approve the September 4, 2013 minutes as submitted.
Approved: 5 yes: 0 no: 2 absent (Updegrove, Regier)
2. Proposed Tree Ordinance Revision to Expand Slacklining - Hensinger
Commissioner Hensinger presented information to the Committee and invited Tim Ross to speak.
Public Comment
Tim Ross, San Luis Obispo. Presented proposed modifications to Ordinance 12.24.150 Protection
of Trees to include statements regarding safety 1) that slacklining will be outlined with visible
ribbons and 2) the activity should only be performed during daylight. Appreciates the Commissions
correct portrayal of Slackliner’s intent.
Commissioners reviewed changes to the ordinance. Director Stanwyck referenced original
modification to allow slacklining and read from A, B and C. Item F was removed. Additional
comments presented by Mr. Ross were explained by Director Stanwyck.
Commissioner Parolini discussed definition of slack lining in Section 6-6A and asked that it be
removed. Additions to include that slack lines shall be no greater than 30 feet in length, occur only
during daylight, be designated with ribbons, and removed at night.
Director Stanwyck explained the next steps upon passage of recommendation which would include
Attachment 3
B2 - 115
DRAFT Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – October 2, 2013
Page 2 of 4
1-2
Tree Committee review and consideration and then Council. Staff will keep Commissioners and
Mr. Ross apprised of dates).
MOTION: (Parolini/Whitener) Recommend City Council expand Slacklining to City Parks and
approve revisions to Ordinance 12.24.150 removing Slack lining definition in 6 and adding section
D) 1 through 3 defining lines as no greater than 30 feet, designated with ribbons, and occurring only
during daylight hours with lines be removed at night.
Approved: 5 yes: 0 no: 2 absent (Updegrove, Regier)
3. Review and Approve Peak Parking Lease Agreement with SESLOC – Stanwyck
Director Stanwyck explained the historical partnership with SESLOC from 2006 and the use of their
land for Damon Garcia overflow parking during peak uses. With SESLOC’s construction on the
property a change in relationship is needed as there is no longer a temporary parking lot. After
extensive conversations with SESLOC representatives, a 10-year agreement is proposed. This would
allow for the use of SESLOC’s Broad Street Parking (under defined conditions) for a lease amount
over the ten years of a total of $32,000. This amount is recommended to be funded from funds
remaining from the previously approved budget for the deconstruction of the temporary parking lot.
The SESLOC Board of Directors has reviewed the document and is in agreement as to its content.
Director Stanwyck answered Commissioners inquiries about difference in prior costs, staffing costs
from Facilities budget and some volunteer time from users (to prevent oversized vehicles, unauthorized
parking in retail area and patrol for tournament weekends). Entrance and signage was also discussed
as well as safe crossing paths and longer period of time for crossing at the intersection. Commissioners
thankfully recognized SESLOC for their cooperation.
MOTION: (Kincaid/Whitener) Recommend City Council approve the Proposed Lease Agreement
with SESLOC as presented.
Approved: 5 yes: 0 no: 2 absent (Updegrove, Regier)
4. Presentation: Reservoir Canyon Conservation Plan - Hill
Natural Resources Manager Robert Hill gave a PowerPoint to Commissioners and reviewed the history
of the plan that serves to guide management and development of the Reservoir Canyon Site over the
next five to seven years. Hill explained small changes to the plan made since the last PRC review
including the addition of 89 acres during the end of Neil Havlik’s tenure, integration of the LaLoma
Adobe Site and access to the waterfall and parking. Reviewed project analysis as outlined in the staff
report. Believes the plan is consistent with the Conservation Guidelines adopted in 2002 and
Conservation and Open Space Element updated in 2006 and will direction for habitat protection,
recreational use and management activities.
Public Comment:
Comments provided by Don Dollar, San Luis Obispo, were distributed to Commissioners and
included a request to build a cattle enclosure fence to protect riparian habitat, dropping the La Loma
Adobe from the Plan due to maintenance concerns or reviewed by the CHC and then submitted as an
Attachment 3
B2 - 116
DRAFT Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – October 2, 2013
Page 3 of 4
1-3
amendment, maximize amount of land in habitat category, include a wildlife report, additional goals
including grazing and fire management, a PG&E ROW agreement, signage, loop trail utilization
concerns, consider seasonal closures and annexation into city limits as well as a conservation
easement.
Gary Havas, San Luis Obispo. Mentioned tower foundation and concerns about lack of volunteers
for trail construction as our most dedicated volunteers come from CCCMB.
Commissioners discussed and noted biological report Mr. Dollar was unaware of, PG&E access for
future maintenance, future grant funding possibilities, neighboring ranch land, cost analysis.
MOTION: (Kincaid/Hensinger) Recommend City Council adopt the Reservoir Canyon Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan as presented.
Approved: 5 yes: 0 no: 2 absent (Updegrove, Regier)
5. Director’s Report – Stanwyck
Director Stanwyck reported to the Commissioners on the following:
October 8 is the Volunteer Appreciation Dinner. Greg Bettencourt will be honored with the
Wes Conner Award and Meg and Keith Evans for the Martha Schwartz Award.
Cross-Country Dual Meeting today
November 16 is Trailworks Day at Irish Hills
Public Art posted on CAFÉ site, Twin Towers RFQ Fire Station 1, RFQ Master Plan for
Public Art in future
Met with Sunset Magazine editor at Froom Ranch, Savor event this weekend
Kidz Night Out Friday
Munchkin March end of the month
Skatepark Marketing Plan underway
Measure Y discussions underway
Council considered Wingate development. Planning will make some modifications and
bring back to PRC for consideration
Director Stanwyck explained Public Art policy following Commissioner Parolini’s inquiry
regarding use of available local artists.
6. Committee Reports
Commissioners provided the following reports:
Tree Committee – Hensinger Golf - Whitener
Natural Resources – Kincaid Bicycle Committee – Regier
Jack House Committee – Updegrove Damon-Garcia Sports Field - Parolini
School District – Parolini Youth Sports - Davis
Commissioner Hensinger reported on the most recent meeting of the Tree Committee which
Attachment 3
B2 - 117
DRAFT Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – October 2, 2013
Page 4 of 4
1-4
included a presentation from California Department of Food and Agriculture on “Save our Citrus”
and green wasting disease; cooperation sought for trap monitoring.
Commissioner Kincaid had nothing further to report on Open Space.
Commissioner Updegrove was not present to report on Jack House
Commissioner Parolini reported on the School District and their concerns with increased wear on
irrigation systems, pumps, drought conditions, soccer and unauthorized field use.
Commissioner Parolini reported on the Damon Garcia sports field concerns with continued dogs off
leash and clean up.
Commissioner Whitener reported on the status of the Golf Course stating rounds for the month of
September were down and revenue for the month was up. Rounds and revenue for the year are up 5
percent. Noted how touching and well-orchestrated the 9-11 ceremony at the course was. First Tee
underway.
Commissioner Regier was not present to report on the Bicycle Advisory Committee however Gary
Havas, attending as a member of the public, was at the meeting and stated discussed moving
bikeway south of Octagon Barn, Prefumo Creek, and a successful bike rodeo.
7. Communications
Director Stanwyck reminded Commissioners of the Volunteer Banquet on October 8.
Commissioner Parolini expressed safety concerns with balls being intentionally batted toward freeway
by players at El Chorro Field and the need for umpires to be stricter about rule enforcement.
Commissioner Hensinger notified the Director on September 26 that he will be resigning from the PRC
as of December 15, 2013.
8. Adjourned
The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. to the November 6, 2013 regular meeting which will again meet at
the Parks and Recreation Offices.
Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on __________________.
________________________________________________
Martha M.S. Reynolds, Supervising Administrative Assistant
Attachment 3
B2 - 118
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 9, 2013
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Ronald Malak, Michael Multari, William Riggs, Charles
Stevenson, Vice-Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael
Draze
Absent: Commissioner John Fowler
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Natural
Resources Manager Bob Hill, Chief Building Official Joseph Lease,
Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary
Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of September 25, 2013, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1265 Mill Street. AP-PC 136-13: Appeal of the Community Development
Director’s decision to deny an appeal of a Notice to Correct a Code Violation for
operating a vacation rental including a Statutory Exemption; R-2-H zone; Sky
Bergman, applicant and appellant. (Doug Davidson)
Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson presented the staff report,
recommending that the appeal be denied based on findings that the contested use is a
vacation rental and that vacation rentals are not allowed under the City’s Municipal
Code, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined.
Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara recused herself due to a conflict of interest.
Commr. Stevenson asked what the basis of the appeal is.
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson said the appeal is for the code
enforcement action.
Commr. Stevenson asked if it would be better to issue a citation.
Attachment 4
B2 - 119
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2013
Page 2
Chief Building Official Lease stated that the appeal must be heard by the Commission
after which the next step would be a citation.
Commr. Larson asked if complaints have been received.
Chief Building Official Lease stated that no complaints have been received for this
property. There have been general complaints regarding vacation rentals.
Commr. Larson asked how the definition of a vacation rental was formulated.
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson stated that vacation rentals have
always been prohibited by omission prior to the 2007 ordinance and explicitly after that.
He noted that the definition of vacation rental is a common one and that what varies is
what they are called: home stays, short-term rentals, vacation rentals.
Appellant Sky Bergman stated she went to the City when she first wanted to become an
Airbnb host and was told all she needed was a business license. She stated that she
took out special insurance for a BnB and was given a business license. She noted she
is no longer on Airbnb and has rented her room full-time.
Commr. Malak asked what she would have done if she had not been given a business
license.
Appellant Bergman stated she would have rented the room full-time and then fought for
change.
Commr. Multari asked what she wants the Commission to do and if she wanted the
Commission to reinterpret the ordinance to allow her to rent her room on Airbnb.
Appellant Bergman said that, ideally, that would be the case but she at least wanted the
City to consider amending the restrictions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jeff Edelman, SLO, supported the appellant, noting she was acting as a local
ambassador and promoting the spending of money here. He stated he would like a
cease and desist order until the City deals with the issue.
Steven Rudner, SLO, supported Appellant Bergman stating that the City is not seeing
the economic benefits of Airbnb and should reconsider because Airbnb charges
reasonable rates, allowing visitors to spend their money at local businesses; visitors get
an inside perspective from hosts; and it provides additional housing for Cal Poly events.
He noted that he made the decision to relocate to the City and contribute to local
economy after a stay with a local host.
Bill Bartlet, SLO rental property owner, supported the comments of previous speakers.
Attachment 4
B2 - 120
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2013
Page 3
Jacqueline Williams, SLO, stated she had a similar experience in checking with the City
about a business license. She noted her need for extra income and that she is
complying with the law now by having a full-time tenant but prefers Airbnb because she
can block out time for personal visitors. She asked that action against the appellant be
put on hold until the City deals with this.
Jim Culver, SLO, supported the appellant. He stated there is a clear distinction
between a vacation rental with absentee owners and an Airbnb type rental. He noted
that the prohibition has an impact on homeownership affordability and may drive people
out of their homes in the City.
Rick Sample, SLO, supported the appellant, stating that he has experienced no noise or
other problems and that this helps people hold onto their homes.
D. “Rosh” Wright, SLO, supported the appellant and stated she is now doing minimum
30-day room rental but that, as an Airbnb host, most of her guests were here for
business and for Cal Poly, and she never had a problem guest. She stated that she
takes issue with the term “vacation rental” and wants to hear specifics of complaints.
Minke WinklerPrins, SLO, supported the appellant, stating that she lives next door and
likes the appellant’s role as a community ambassador. She noted that interacting with
the visitors has enhanced her sense of community.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson stated that there is no question the
appellant tried to do the right thing. It all depends on how the question is asked
concerning length of stay, less or more than 30 days. He stated that the City may end
up using a different term than “vacation rental.”
Chief Building Official Lease stated there has never been a complaint from an Airbnb
visitor. He noted that the complaints have been mostly about unfair competition.
Commr. Multari stated that the appellant recorded 176 Airbnb listings for San Luis
Obispo. He asked how this one was identified for enforcement.
Chief Building Official Lease stated that Staff has identified 52 listings within the City but
that Staff is only devoting about four hours a week to this issue.
Commr. Multari asked why only about one-quarter of the 52 received notices.
Chief Building Official Lease stated that some listings do not show a photograph of the
house or list an address necessary to positively identify them.
Commr. Riggs stated that it is important to not get stuck on names of businesses
(Airbnb, VRBO). He asked why there has not been an exemption.
Attachment 4
B2 - 121
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2013
Page 4
Commr. Multari responded that BnBs are not allowed in R-2 zones.
Commr. Stevenson stated that the meat of the discussion will be at the upcoming City
Council workshop. He stated he served as a hearing officer for the county, where the
term “home stay” was used. He noted that when there was interest in home stays,
there was tremendous controversy and that these kinds of uses in single-family
neighborhoods can be very controversial, pitting neighbor against neighbor, generating
concerns about traffic, noise and strangers, and changing the character of
neighborhoods with some homes becoming businesses. He stated that he foresees the
same issues in the City with it taking years to develop an ordinance. He noted that
visitors can use Internet websites to find local attractions. He stated that an expensive
discretionary permit may be required and enforcement and equity need to be
considered.
Commr. Larson noted there is no difference between a BnB and a vacation rental. He
stated that vacation rentals were once a big issue in Cambria but thought they were not
owner-occupied. He stated that the presence of the owner is important and that what
works in one community does not work in another. He gave the example of Mammoth,
where vacation rentals make up 80% of housing. He noted that responsibility for code
compliance rests with the owner/occupant.
Commr. Multari stated there are two things to deal with: 1) the appeal and that the
Commission must deny the appeal due to the clear language of the ordnance. 2)
whether this type of use should be approved by the City, which will be dealt with by the
City Council. He stated that it is not obvious that this is an appropriate use in residential
neighborhoods and that the Commission’s role is to be very protective of residential
neighborhoods although regulations might be crafted that would do that. He stated that
BnBs could be allowed in R-2 residential zones and could be limited to owner-occupied
residences with other restrictions involving the building size, parking, character of the
building, rental frequency, etc. He noted that the next action for advocates is convincing
the City Council to bring this through the ordinance change process. He asked Chief
Building Official Lease what staff is going to do with these cases in the interim.
Chief Building Official Lease stated that, if complaints are received, they will be pursued
but he noted the limited resources available. He stated that any case under appeal is
stayed.
Commr. Multari suggested that in the interim, outside of significant complaints, that this
not be the highest priority.
Commr. Riggs encouraged staff to be open-minded and not make any assumptions.
Commr. Larson stated he does not support the motion.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, to deny the appeal
based on findings that the contested use is a vacation rental and that vacation rentals
are not allowed under the City’s Municipal Code and with the addition of a section 3 to
Attachment 4
B2 - 122
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2013
Page 5
the resolution stating “the Commission hereby denies the above-referenced appeal
based on findings.”
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Stevenson
NOES: Commr. Larson
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 5:1 vote.
2. 1635 Lizzie Court. GPI/ER 140-13: Review of Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration; C-OS zone; City
of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Continued from September 25, 2013, Planning
Commission Meeting) (Bob Hill)
Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill presented the staff report, recommending the
Planning Commission review draft Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation
Plan and Initial Study, and recommend to the City Council that the Plan and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration be adopted as presented, or as amended, based on findings and
subject to conditions which he outlined.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Stevenson complimented Natural Resources Manager Hill on his work and
asked when the loop trail will be completed.
Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that funding would be requested in 2015-17 and
that trails will be laid out by Staff with help from the California Conservation Corps and
built by volunteers.
Commr. Stevenson asked about the left turn from Reservoir Canyon Road onto 101
south. He noted that CalTrans is converting 101 into a freeway with no grade crossings
which would mean the left turn may be eliminated.
Natural Resources Manager Hill agreed left turns onto 101 are a hazard and that turning
right and then left onto Stagecoach Road may also be eliminated. He stated that a
longer-term solution may be a tunnel under 101 with parking on the west side.
Commr. Malak commended the City for working closely with Cal Poly. He commended
Natural Resources Manager Hill for his good work on this project.
Commr. Draze suggested the following changes in the plan: 1) p. 15, 3.10 Scientific
Research, first sentence, should be changed to add “manager” after “program.” 2) p.
22, “years one and two specific tasks.” He stated that there is no value in doing
Attachment 4
B2 - 123
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2013
Page 6
estimates in years one and two when construction is several years away. He
recommended moving this to years three to five. He stated that everyone involved did a
great job and he appreciates the clear knowledge Natural Resources Manager Hill has
demonstrated. He noted that he is supportive of this plan and other conservation efforts
and that the open space ring around the City is coming to fruition.
Commr. Riggs stated that Natural Resources Manager Hill should check with the City
traffic engineer.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, and seconded by Commr. Riggs, to approve the draft
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and Initial Study, and
recommend to the City Council that the Plan and a Mitigated Negative Declaration be
adopted as presented with the addition of a review of traffic issues.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast:
1) October 23, 2013, meeting: Monterey Place property
2) No meeting on November 27, 2013
4. Commission:
a. Commr. Stevenson will be absent on October 23, 2013.
b. Commr. Draze will be absent on November 13, 2013.
c. Commr. Stevenson announced that HealSLO is sponsoring “Community Design:
What does health have to do with it?” on October 18, 2013, at the Vets Hall.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2013.
Ted Green
Acting Supervising Administrative Assistant
Attachment 4
B2 - 124
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
October 28, 2013
ROLL CALL:
Present: Committee Members Thom Brajkovich, Patti Taylor, Jaime Hill, Victoria
Wood, and Vice-Chair Hemalata Dandekar
Absent: Chairman Pavlik and Committee Member Baer
Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Natural Resources Manager Robert Hill, and
Recording Secretary Shelly Mattocks
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of September 23, 2013, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 772 Palm Street. ARC 131-13; Review of proposed classroom building and
administrative office for Old Mission School in the Downtown Historic District; R-4-H
zone; Tina Ballantyne, Old Mission School, applicant. (Brian Leveille)
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
Architectural Review Commission approve the project based on findings and subject to
conditions of approval.
Jim Duffy, Architect, reported on the construction and color palate. He answered
questions from the committee members about these subjects.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were several comments made from the public. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo,
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, Dean. Miller, San Luis Obispo and James Lopes,
spoke in opposition of the project, Neal Berryman, San Luis Obispo, David Drake, San
Luis Obispo, Ty Safreno, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project;
Those opposed to the project sighted safety issues, the building roof description, the
exterior wall in front, and the design of the building.
Jim Duffy and Tina Ballantyne followed up with answers to the public’s concerns.
Attachment 5
B2 - 125
Draft CHC Minutes
October 28, 2013
Page 2
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
There were many comments made from the Committee. Committee Member Hill asked
questions of the color palate, style mission development, concerns of soils, applications
of permits for the construction, and other concerns.
Jim Duffy answered the Committee’s questions about construction design, reasons for
the footings, and other concerns brought up from the Committee members.
On motion by Committee Member Hill, seconded by Committee Member Taylor, the
committee motioned to approve the project as proposed.
AYES: Committee Members Taylor, Hill, Brajkovich, Wood, and Dandekar
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Pavlik and Baer
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
2. 1590 Lizzie Street. CHC 170-13; Review of La Loma Adobe property for
incorporation into the Reservoir Canyon Conservation Plan; R-1 zone; City of San
Luis Obispo, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, presented the staff report, recommending to
the City Council that La Loma Adobe be included in the Reservoir Canyon Natural
Reserve by adoption of the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Richard Paul, San Luis Obispo, an adjacent resident to the adobe, expressed support
for the inclusion of the adobe in the plan . He commented about the need for parking
spaces for the La Loma Adobe property and that people are often confused about
where to park for the trail given the extensive fire lanes on Lizzie Street.
Robert Hill answered concerns of the parking issues and the trail construction.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
There were comments made from the Committee. Vice-Chair Dandekar suggested the
amendment of the Conservation Plan.
On motion by Committee Member Taylor, seconded by Committee Member Hill: to
include the La Loma Adobe in the Conservation Plan with amendments to include
Historical analysis and a description of the history prior to adopting the plan.
AYES: Committee Members Hill, Taylor, Wood, Brajkovich, and Dandekar
NOES: None
Attachment 5
B2 - 126
Draft CHC Minutes
October 28, 2013
Page 3
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Baer and Pavlik
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast: The next meeting will be November 25, 2013. The subject
of the meeting will be a selected address from the Master’s List.
4. Committee
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Shelly Mattocks
Recording Secretary
Attachment 5
B2 - 127
RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2013 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE RESERVOIR CANYON NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION
PLAN AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and public use of open space lands acquired by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo manages twelve open space areas totaling
approximately 3,800 acres, including the nearly 800-acre Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Cultural
Heritage Committee, and the general public have commented upon the Reservoir Canyon
Natural Reserve Conservation Plan as it has moved through a Council-directed approval process,
and staff has considered and incorporated those comments where appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
1. Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan. The City Council hereby adopts the
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan, an official copy of which shall be kept on
record with the City Clerk, based on the following findings:
1. The Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan is consistent with General
Plan goals and policies relating to the oversight and management of City open space
areas, specifically Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.5.6 that calls for the
development of conservation or master plans for open space properties to protect and
enhance them in a way that best benefits the community as a whole; and
2. Implementation of the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan will
provide protection of identified natural and cultural resources and appropriate public
access to the site while maintaining a majority of the site for habitat protection and
enhancement.
2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the project, an official copy of which shall be kept on record with the City Clerk, finding that
it adequately identifies all of the potential impacts of the project and that the following mitigation
measures are reasonably capable of reducing potentially-significant impacts to less-than-
significant levels:
1. Ensuring that new trail construction design preserves native vegetation on the outer edge
in order to screen the trail itself;
2. Ensuring that individuals involved in trail construction are educated about the occurrence
of sensitive rare plants in the area and what to do if individuals of are observed within a
work area if pre-activity surveys did not find them;
3. Inclusion of commonly used “Best Management Practices” in the construction of trails
and other feature of the site to abate erosion;
Attachment 6
B2 - 128
4. Use of dusk masks for volunteers and with soil wetting techniques where feasible, and
timing of trail construction to minimize or eliminate exposure to Naturally Occurring
Asbestos; and
5. The large grove of eucalyptus trees in the area that poses a potential wildland-urban
interface fire hazard will be periodically managed by City contractors and private
landowners. This activity will continue on a regular basis, but with advance notice when
possible and outside of nesting bird season.
With incorporation of these provisions, potential impacts are mitigated to a level that is less than
significant and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of November, 2013.
_______________________________
Jan Howell Marx, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ _______________________________
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Attachment 6
B2 - 129
Page intentionally left
blank.
B2 - 130
RECH]VÉD
N0\/ I 9'2013
LERKSLO
Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
tel | 805.781..7102
-----Origi na I Message-----
From: Hill, Robert
Sent:Tuesday, November L9,2OL3 9:06 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Cc: Codron, Michael
Subject: FW: Comments on Reservoir Canyon Plan
Hi Anthony,
Please include the emailed comments from Mr. Dollar, below, as Council Correspondence.
Thank you,
Bob
Robert A. Hill
Natural Resources Manager
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
tel | 805.781..72tI
email I rhill@slocitv,ors
web I www.slocitv,org/natura lreso urces/index.asp
-----Original Message-----
From: D. Dollar [mailto:dddollar@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 17,2013 2:03 PM
To: Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy
Cc: Hill, Robert
Subject: Comments on Reservoir Canyon Plan
Mejia, Anthony
Tuesday, November 19,20L3 9:25 AM
Goodwin, Heather
FW: Comments on Reservoir Canyon Plan AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
out"i'lrJ/r. llem#E-
Mayor and City Council,
I have some comments on the Reservoir Canyon Management Plan,
First of all, the Natural Resources Manager, Bob Hill, has done a very good job with this Plan. The inclusion of fencing out
cattle from the creek is an important feature of the Plan and will contribute greatly to the long term viability of the
riparian habitat. Our Open Spaces are greatly treasured by residents. ln fact, they have very heavy use and show some
signs of distress. ln the future as Open Space holdings increase, there will be many challenges. But, with good planning
and follow through, the City will have a great Open Space Program.
There is room for one important adjustment to the Plan, that is on a Conservation Easement. Part of the area has a
Conservation Easement (Bowden Ranch), that is held by the Land Conservancy of SLO, The rest of the Plan area is not
under Conservation Easement, it is subject to City policy that is subject to change or modification (General Plan).
I suggest that the rest of the Plan area be put under a Conservation Easement held by a third party. That willshow the
public the value that Open Space has in this community. There would be some expenses to do this, but in the big
picture, they are small. I suggest the City put up 510,000, with the community to raise the rest of the money to put the
rest of Reservoir Canyon under a Conservation Easement. A Conservation Easement will help maintain integrity and
intent of keeping Open Space forever open. Furthermore, a Conservation Easêment will help the Plan in Goals: 3.1.,3.2,
3.3,3.4 and 3.6.
Please amend the Plan to include a Conservation Easement for the rest of the Plan area
Sincerely,
Don Dollar
SLO
781.0118
2