The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/25/1995, 4 - COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY REPORT ON OPEN SPACE VALUES �IIIN�I^�II�II�I�(III�I IIIIIIIty (� MEETING DATE: u V ci�"JJ or san lugs osispoJuly 2S, 199c; NftZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REM NU FROM: J Dunn, City Administrative Officer PREPARED BY: aul LeSage, Parks and Recreation Director John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manager SUBJECT: COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY REPORT ON OPEN SPACE VALUES CAO RECOMMENDATIONS: Review and comment on the report Saving Special Places, A Study of Open Space Values in the San Luis Obispo Green Belt, prepared by the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, and by motion: 1. Establish a date to meet in closed session to discuss speck land transactions; 2. Direct staff to prepare a contract with the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County for the provision of property transaction services; 3. Direct staff to prepare an open.space implementation financing plan, consistent with the Open Space Work Program approved as a part of the 1995-97 Financial Plan; and 4. Allocate $100,000 from the Open Space Fund for restoration, rehabilitation, and land management within the greenbelt. DISCUSSION Background The City has long recognized the value of protecting open space resources both within the city limits and in the unincorporated areas that comprise the greenbelt. These areas help to create the highly-valued rural setting. In the past several years, the City has taken active steps in protecting these open space resources. Key actions to date are summarized below: 1989 The City establishes a fund of $600,000 for open space protection and acquisition. I An update to the City General Plan Open Space Element is initiated. 1990 The open space fund is increased by $900,000. Al— ►►►i�i�►�►IVIIIIIIIIIh ��IIII city Of San LAIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 1994 The Open Space Element update is adopted in January, creating the greenbelt area (see Page 6 of Attachment #1) and containing specific policies, programs, and guidelines for protecting open space resources. I Per the direction provided in the Open Space Element, the City holds an Open . I Space Financing Forum in July, to begin to create a long-term financing mechanism for open space protection. In August the Land Use Element update is adopted, containing additional open space protection policies such as minimum open space dedication for annexation areas, transfer of development credit (TDC) receiver areas and I cluster development recommendations for the unincorporated planning area. 1995 City and County elected officials and staff meet to discuss a joint open space protection program for the San Luis Obispo Planning Area. The goal described is to jointly work to create a menu of voluntary open space protection programs with sufficient incentives to interest landowners. Several options are discussed, including clustering, TDCs, and tax incentives. j In March the City and County, with coordination provided by the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, began a series of public meetings in the unincorporated area to discuss open space protection with property owners and to begin to identify programs that would be of interest to property owners. Information gained from these meetings contributed to the Land i j Conservancy's study. The funds set aside for open space protection were for the most part left unspent, primarily because a strategy for selecting sites did not exist and because a long-term financing program to replace spent funds was not available. As the summary above indicates, the Open Space Element update has provided additional guidance regarding these issues. Chapter IV of the Open Space Element, "Implementation Mechanisms," discusses protection strategies for the resources identified in Chapter II of the Element. Program 2. of Chapter IV says that: "The City shall prioritize land available for acquisition/preservation as open space consistent with the "Criteria for Acquisition" contained in this Chapter as a fust step in implementing this Element." y� ��►�►►IlVlllllflll��►j�I11 city of san 1.4is osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The Land Conservancy's study represents a major step in completing this program. Together with the "Implementation Mechanisms provided in the Open Space Element (Attachment #2), it is intended that the Council now have sufficient information to begin to select specific properties for purchase of easements, title, or participation in other open space protection programs. Discussion The Land Conservancy's study provides information which relates the presence of many of the particular resources identified in the Open Space Element to specific areas in the greenbelt. In addition, it relates many of the Criteria for Acquisition provided in the Open Space Element to specific areas and parcels in the greenbelt. Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the study describe characteristics of land in the greenbelt which correspond to the Criteria for Acquisition in the Open Space Element: Section 2 of the study describes which resources identified in Chapter II of the Open Space Element have been inventoried and included in the study. As the City considers acquisition of easements or fee ownership of a parcel, the information in the study can be used to apply the Criteria for Acquisition found in the Open Space Element. The study .incorporates its information info a working database upon which additional information can be added in the future as the City completes other studies and general plan implementation programs which involve inventorying natural resources. Section 4 of the study identifies those properties that are available for acquisition at this time. This is important information as one of the Criteria for Acquisition states that a site should generally not be acquired if the acquisition cannot be accomplished with a reasonable effort in relation to its value or purpose. Properties that have willing sellers are, therefore, a good place to start the acquisition process. Section 5 of the study compliments the list of protection strategies found in Chapter IV of the Open Space Element. Section 6 of the study contains the Land Conservancy's recommendations for which open space protection strategies might be most productive at this time. It also contains recommendations for taking future steps to augment the database created by the study. It also contains some observations based on experience for practical considerations the City should give to working with landowners. Council may wish to further examine the Land Conservancy's study and give Staff direction to act on their individual recommendations. y3 ��H��b►►iIUIIIIIIIIP II�III MY Of san L..Ais OBISPO Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT During the "Budget Season," there was Council consensus to move forward with the Open Space Program. There are actions that can parallel the discussion of the study while at the same time allow the City to move forward and begin implementing some open space protection projects. Council's review of the land Conservancy's study may result in the establishment of a priority listing of property to acquire. Staff requests a closed session with Council to identify specific properties to be acquired through purchase, or preserved by alternate means, such as those found in the Land Conservancy study. Discussing individual parcels in open session could result in the actual cost being increased. The Land Conservancy has noted this type of increase in past transactions. The 1995-97 Financial Plan allocates $25,000 per year for the provision of services from a local land trust for implementation of the Open Space Program. The most productive use of these funds is a contract with the Land Conservancy for property transaction services. The property "phase" of the Open Space Program is complex. The Land Conservancy is the acknowledged expert in property matters related to open space within the county. Additionally, their reputation and good will with local property owners will give the City program added credibility. Some of the potential areas where the Land Conservancy might provide assistance include: monitoring the green belt to identify property that becomes available, advising on alternate approaches to preservation other than outright purchase, working with individual land owners to preserve their land as open space, and, in the case of outright purchase, serving as the City's property agent. With Council's direction, Staff proposes to develop a plan for the long-term financing of the Open Space Program. The financing plan will be based upon the study completed in 1994 by Economic Research Associates and discussed at an open space forum held last July. The participants at the forum favored revenue sources that were fair and broad based. The City currently holds over 640 acres (1 square mile) of open space within the urban reserve line and green belt. Some consideration must be given to managing this land. This includes: the elimination of wild and exotic plants, habitat restoration, erosion control, and fire prevention. If Council were to allocate $100,000 for these types of projects, individual projects would subsequently be agendized for approval. One specific project strongly supported by Staff is the Bishop's Peak Trail Restoration and Erosion Control Project. Sponsored by the Sierra Club, this proposal would establish a single trail on Bishop's Peak with several staging areas. Closing off other access points would restore habitat and control erosion. A proposal for this project and a request for $15,000 - $20,000 in funding is included as Attachment #3. �y ��i�► III�IIIIIIII��► IIUIII MY Of San luIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FISCAL EMPACT Council has expressed the intention to use the balance of the Open Space Fund to acquire and preserve open space within the green belt. Unless a revenue source is developed to produce a regular income for the Open Space Program, further preservation will only be possible by other means. The recommendation that Staff be directed to prepare an open space implementation fmancing plan is intended to maintain requisition as an on-going option. ATTACHIMEENTS #1 Saving Special Places -- A Study by the Land Conservancy of Open Space Values in the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt. #2 "Implementation Mechanisms" from the Open Space Element. #3 The Sierra Club proposal -- Bishop's Peak Trail Restoration and Erosion Control Project. ys 11� ��►��uIIIIIIIIIP°�°�►��III city of San Luis OBIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REP II�G -AGENDA LP DATE TEM # FISCAL IMPACT . Council has expressed the intention to use the balance of the Open Space Fund to acquire and preserve open space within the green belt. Unless a revenue source is developed to produce a regular income for the Open Space Program, further preservation will only be possible by other i means. The recommendation that Staff be directed to prepare an open space implementation financing plan is intended to maintain acquisition as an on-going option. ATTACIEVIENTS #1 Saving Special Places -- A Study by the Land Conservancy of Open Space Values in the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt. F "Implementation Mechanisms" from the Open Space Element. #3 The Sierra Club proposal -- Bishop's Peak Trail Restoration and Erosion Control i Project. FATTORNEY ❑ CDD DIR ; {[FIN DIR❑ FIRE CHIEF❑ PW DIRG ❑ POLICE CHFM RECDIRE ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR X QOk& rAWDEViLU6 i Open Space Element CHAPTER IV - IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS Introduction There are various methods for preserving and maintaining open space. Some of these methods are listed in this chapter; others have been discussed in previous sections. These options are not alternatives; rather, they are a menu of choices from which the City can choose. Some of the methods presented, such as general obligation bonds, require voter approval. Others (such as impact fees) generate revenue, while others involve developer incentives, such as density bonus. Finally, some methods do not require any kind of tax or assessment measure, but rely on private initiative or government regulation. The City of San Luis Obispo, like many jurisdictions, has limited money available for open space purchases. In the past, the majority of open space the City has received has come from donations or regulations. These sources, even in conjunction with developer incentives and similar programs, are not adequate. To provide a viable open space program, the City must have a broad range of protection mechanisms and funding sources. In addition, this combination must include at least one long-term funding source. Providing such a framework gives stability to an open space program, enabling the City to act when land becomes available, and provides the City a means to retain the community's quality of life. This section establishes guidelines for implementing the City's open space program. Community Goals Utilize long-term financing mechanisms to fund open space programs. Work with landowners to form a broad based open space program; a program based on long-term working relationships. Utilize a broad base of resources to protect and maintain open space. General Protection Policies: 1. The City shall: r A. Pursue long-term source(s) of funding for open space acquisition such as a bond measure, special assessment district(s), or sales tax increase. Only utilize this long-term funding source to preserve and maintain land and water areas that are consistent with the open space definition provided in this document. ATTACHMENT #2 y pdosIV.3 -94- 12/22/93 9 Open Space Element B. Actively encourage private donations of land and funds by: (1) providing information to landowners regarding the value and techniques for resource conservation; (2) soliciting conservation easements from landowners whose property is designated open space or greenbelt; and (3)providing landowners and developers with information regarding general tax advantages of donating land to nonprofit organizations and agencies, and the market value of conservation easements. C. Pursue Federal and State matching funds for open space acquisitions. D. Be fiscally conservative in acquiring and managing open space lands. E. Work with land trusts and other such organizations to augment the City's options for open space preservation. F. Require new development within the City (including annexation requests) to provide open space preservation consistent with this element and the Land Use Element via development conditions. G. Sell, exchange, or transfer open space lands only by approval of the City Council and only after a 60-day appeal period wherein the citizens can overturn the decision by referendum with a majority vote. H. Document the condition of property prior to acquisition through photographs, maps, and written descriptions. I. Maintain a current record of all open space holdings (by fee and easement) for public information and review. Criteria for Acquisition This section discusses when the City should purchase property (either in fee, development rights, or purchase easements). The criteria listed below are to help the City determine when open space funds should be used to obtain open space properties or portions of properties, and under what priority. To qualify for City purchase (in fee, development rights, or easements), the area considered for purchase should be consistent with the criteria as noted in 1, 2, and 3 below. I. To be considered for acquisition a site must have value in one or more of the following categories: A. Valuable natural resources (such as sensitive habitat, unique resources, creek corridors or similar habitat). B. Important scenic qualities, cultural characteristics, or natural features (such as unusual terrain or locally important geologic attributes). �/- 7 pdosN.3 "95" 12/22/93 Open Space Element C. Public health and safety concerns which make reasonable development on the property unlikely. D. Important passive recreation opportunities (such as providing a trail linkage), or valuable environmental education opportunities. E. Proximity to land that is already permanently protected as open space, or the property is close to land that is likely to be protected in the foreseeable future, thus forming or potentially forming a large area of protected lands. F. The site is utilized for viable agriculture, has the potential to be used for viable agriculture, or the property provides (either now or in the future) a meaningful agricultural buffer that will protect agricultural operations. G. The site will cumulatively or individually form an important part of the City's greenbelt. 2. A site that meets one or more of the criteria noted in 1 above, should have high priority for purchase if it meets one or more of the following criteria, and would be eligible for purchase under item 3 below: A. The property or resources on the property are under threat of incompatible development or irreversible damage. B. The site has timely or attractive purchase considerations or conditions. (For example, local cash contributions are available or additional land area is available). C. The site represents one of the last sections providing trail linkage or habitat linkage. D. The site is of sufficient size that resources are likely to remain intact, even if adjacent properties are developed. E. Purchase of the site would maximize the effectiveness of acquisition expenditures. (For example, purchasing one piece of property may guarantee that a second piece of property remains in open space or agriculture even though a public agency does not obtain the second property). 3. A site that meet the criteria noted in 1 and 2 above should generally not be acquired by the City ! as open space if: f A. The site or resource can be obtained in a timely manner as a condition of City, State, or I County development approvals or agreements. B. The site's values are primarily scenic, but the property cannot be readily viewed by the general public. pdosIV.3 y8 � -96_ 12/22/93 r t Open Space Element C. Adjacent properties are being developed in a way that is likely to significantly diminish the conservation values of the property in question. D. Management of the property will be very costly or management of an easement would be _ . unusually difficult to enforce (such as multiple owners, fencing restrictions, or other considerations). E. The site cannot be acquired with reasonable effort in relation to its value or purpose. One site may be more valuable; however, all time and effort should not be expended if other isites may be more easily obtained. F. The site is developed with facilities or structures, and thus would not be consistent with the open space definition. Fee Ownership, Easements or Purchase of Development Rights - This section discusses when the City should obtain fee ownership (either through purchase or dedication) versus easements. These criteria should be utilized when attempting to purchase property or easements as well as when private projects must dedicate property as part of their development conditions. 1. The City should generally obtain fee ownership for: A. Properties that may require or have frequent public access to the site or through the site. For example, the property will have a public trail. B. Agricultural lands when (1) public access is desired, (2) the property could be leased back for continued agricultural use, (3) or there may be harmful impacts from current or future agricultural practices. C. Lands for which buying the development rights is almost as expensive as obtaining the land in fee. D. Lands which contain delicate habitat requiring monitoring and enforcement. E. Land on which enforcing an easement will be difficult or costly. 2. The City should generally obtain an easement or development rights: A. On agricultural lands where the cost of development rights is less than fee ownership. B. For lands on which continuation of the underlying private use is compatible with its open space designation and direct management by the City is not required. C. To protect viewsheds or scenic resources that involve little or no public access. n pdosIV.3 -97- 12/22/93 y Open Space Element Methods & Sources of Protection A variety of techniques may be employed to implement open space preservation. Examples include, but are not limited to: - Fair market value purchase. - Donation by landowner. - Exchange of property. - Transfer of surplus government property. - Use of State or Federal grants. - Dedications and exactions of open space land to mitigate development impact. - Securing conservation or open space easements. - Creating assessment districts. - Transfer of Development Credits. - Bond Sales - Lease/purchase options - Life estate sales. - Monies from Foundations Pro�r ams 1. The City should: A. Pursue implementation of long-term financing mechanisms such as a bond measure, special assessment district, or a sales tax measure. The text of any measure should specify the percentage of monies that will be: (1) committed to open space acquisition, and (2) allocated for management and maintenance costs of protected lands. B. Revise the City's current parcel transfer tax fees. Monies from this source should be available for open space maintenance and preparation of master plans. C. Devise a program to have some maintenance costs of open space lands paid in part by uses on these lands (such as agricultural lease back). D. Develop an impact fee that will pay for some open space with new development, and encourage the County to implement such an impact fee. 2. The City shall prioritize land available for acquisition/preservation as open space consistent with the "Criteria for Acquisition" contained in this Chapter as a first step in implementing this Element. pdosIV.3 _gg_ 12/22/93 e c�ti v o�c Z s SIERRA CLUB •.• SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER April 20, 1995 Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo 743 Pacific San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Attn.: Ray Belknap Subject: Erosion Control and Trail Restoration for Bishop Peak Dear Mr. Ray Bellrnap: For many years the community of San Luis Obispo has desired a permanent trail to the top of Bishop Peak. In recent years this has become possible with the donation of two large parcels of land which stretch from Highway I to the top of Bishop Peak. With the current push to identify areas of great concern, we feel it is appropriate to budget$15,000-$20,000 to improve the existing traill and correct many erosion problems which currently exist on the peak. These funds can de allocated from the City's open space funding account. The project we would like to see will create two neighborhood access trails and possibly a third staging area near Highway 1. To help with the understanding of scope of the project, we have enclosed a description of what the project should include: 'Bishop Peak Trail Restoration and Erosion Control Project". This is a great community based project and should definitely be considered for funding in the upcoming year. If there are any questions please contact me. Sincerely, Gary S. Felsman, Chapter Chair Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo CA 93406 Work: (805)541-0488 Home: (805)549-0532 cc: Tim Gallahger, PaulLeSage, San Luis Obispo City Council, Bud Laurent ATTACHMENT #3 BCF e Z % SIERRA CLUB W SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER s � Bishop Peak Trail Restoration and Erosion Control Project April 20, 1995 Prepared By: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo CA 93406 Contact: Gary Felsman Home: (805)549-0532 Work: (805)541-0488 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Project Scope 2.1 Phase 1: Bishop Peak Trail Planning 2.2 Phase 2: Bishop Peak, State Owned Land Trail Restoration 2.3 Phase 3: Bishop Peak City Owned Land Trail Restoration 2.4 Phase 4: Bishop Peak Trailhead Construction and Signage 2.5 Phase 5: Bishop Peak Erosion Control 2.6 Phase 6: Bishop Peak Future Trailhead Access 3. Project Schedule 4. Conclusion ill-13 1.0 Introduction For many years the County of San Luis Obispo, the City of San Luis Obispo, the City of Monro Bay, environmental and business organizations, landowners and the residents of San Luis Obispo County have been working hard to protect and preserve the Morros for future generations. The County of San Luis Obispo, City of Morro Bay and the City of San Luis Obispo passed a joint resolution recognizing the Morros significance and agreed to work together towards the preservation of the Morros. In recent years efforts towards protecting Bishop Peak have resulted in two large parcels to be donated to the general public. The top of Bishop Peak was donated by the Gnesa Family and a lower portion was donated by Felton Ferrini. These two parcels are contiguous and can provide a formal path to the top of Bishop Peak. The Sierra Club feels strongly that steps should be taken to establish a permanent trail to the top of Bishop Peak. By establishing a permanent trail to the top of Bishop Peak we can correct the many erosion problems that have been created over the years as well. 2.0 Project Scope The scope of this project is to establish a permanent trail to the top of Bishop Peak across the State of California and San Luis Obispo City Properties. With a combined effort headed by the City of San Luis Obispo or County of San Luis Obispo in cooperation with the Siena Club, Land Conservancy, landowners and other public or private organizations will guarantee a project that will benefit the community residents. This is a great community project which will not only it provide a trail to the top of Bishop Peak, but it will also allow access to many of the climbing rocks in the area. The project itself is broken into six phases which include: Overall trail route designation, State owned land trail restoration, City owned land trail restoration, Trailhead establishment and construction, erosion control and future trailheads and public access. 2.1 Phase 1: Bishop Peak Trail Planning Over the years many substandard trails have been established on Bishop Peak causing extensive damage to habitat and causing excessive erosion. This phase is intended to map out the best route to reach the top of Bishop Peak from newly acquired access points along Highland Drive, the city owned undeveloped park on Patricia Ave. in San Luis Obispo, and a potential staging area near Highway 1. Two of the access points will be designed as neighborhood access points, the third will be designed as a potential general. public staging area. The routes proposed will designed for foot traffic only, excluding equestrians and mountain bikes. The main reason is because the previous landowners have written into the deed that foot traffic only be allowed to cross the donated land,also the trail will be very steep in some sections which will be unsuitable for other types of users. Foot traffic is also more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood areas. The plan y�y will show proposed routes and locations of the potential trailheads. With a combined effort headed by the City of San Luis Obispo or County of San Luis Obispo in cooperation with the Sierra Club,Land Conservancy, landowners and other public or private organizations will be completed successfully. 2.2 Phase 2: Bishop Peak, State Owned Land Trail Restoration Phase 2 is intended to reconstruct the existing trail on top of Bishop Peak. Once the trail has been mapped out it will be tagged with ribbons to show the way for the general public. Volunteer work crews will formed to construct the trail to meet the standards required for the general public. Care will be taken to use as much of the natural surrounding materials to restore the existing trail. Alternative routes will be closed off. This will prevent further erosion and allow habitat restoration to occur. 2.3 Phase 3: Bishop Peak, City Owned Land Trail Restoration Phase 3 will restore and enhance the existing trails on the City owned land with access to Highland Drive and the park on Patricia Ave. This phase is tricky as it must be coordinated with the construction of a new water tank at the end of Highland Drive. The trail may use part of the crushed rock road when constructed by Felton Ferrini. 2.4 Phase 4: Bishop Peak,Trailhead Construction and Signage At the completion of the trail restoration projects two of the three potential trailheads will be constructed. Each of the trailheads will consist of treated wood pilings similar to the ones constructed at El Chorro Regional Park. These gates allow pedestrians to travel through easily, but keep any cattle from wandering through the gate. Each of the trailheads will be signed with rules and regulations for the general public and the distance to reach the top of Bishop Peak. Other signs will be placed along the trail route to keep the public on the newly constructed trail. On Patricia Ave. a information display may be constructed which gives some basic information about the Morros and a brief history of Bishop Peak. An informational sign will be placed at the Foothill Blvd. access point informing the general public about the new trail access points. 2.5 Phase 5: Bishop Peak Erosion Control At the completion of the trail restoration, measures must be taken to restore the scarred land created by excessive use on both of Madonna's Property adjacent to Foothill Blvd. and near the climbing rocks at the end of Highland Drive. The landowners will be contacted to see if they are amenable to having the years of scarring on their property restored to their natural state. 2.5 Phase 6: Bishop Peak Future Trailhead Access This phase of the project is not required to complete any of the first five phase of the project. However this phase is necessary to maintain the character of the neighborhood access points to Bishop Peak. The phase will evaluate and then develop a permanent access point near Highway 1. There needs to be a small parking area, informational signs about the Morros, how they were formed, a map show the Morros in general and why they are unique. 3.0 Project Schedule It appears that the above work can be completed within approximately 1 to 2 years. The Sierra Club believes it will be able to map out the proposed trail in approximately 6 months with the help of volunteers such as Cal Poly, C.C.C., local surveyors and guidance by the City and County of San Luis Obispo. Trail restoration will take approximately another year as the utility improvements are made at the end of Highland Drive. 4.0 Conclusion In conclusion, the Sierra Club feels this is a very worthwhile project for the residents of San Luis Obispo County. We will finally establish a permanent access trail to the top of Bishop Peak, reach one the goals set forth in the County's Trail Plan, and stop some of the erosion on Bishop Peak. This trail will improve public safety and create a greater awareness of our natural wonders. ��lO 07/17/1995 16:12 6057817292 SLO PARKS&RECREATION PAGE 01 POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL OPEN-SPACE PRESERVATION PROJECTS These projects are presented in support of Recommendation#4 to allocate $100,000 from the Open Space Fund for restoration and rehabilitation projects. The projects listed below are meant as examples of how open space can be enhanced. Individual projects should not be undertaken without full participation of groups such as the Native Plant Society, Society for Ecological Restoration,and the Sierra Club. 1. SAN LUIS CREEK • Remove exotic,invasive,and non-native plant material such as Vinca Major(Giant Periwinkle), Eucalyptus,and Bamboo • Preserve the Riparian/Wetland habitat • Restore areas that have been completely stripped of plant material • Improve the tree canopy, stream pools, etc., for enhanced fishery habitat • Remove barriers to fish migration 2. RESERVOIR CANYON • Establish and maintain a single trail, allowing all other areas to re-vegetate • Improve the tree canopy in support of the fish living in the creek • Provide interpretive opportunities • Control erosion 3. LAGUNA LAKE OPEN SPACE =THE PARK) • Re-introduce native plant material that existed prior to the land being grazed. • Provide added protection to the Bog Thistle, an endangered plant found in the open space • Maintain an established trail 4. LOS NOMADAS • Restore native grassland • Enhance wildlife corridors 5. MOUNTAIN HILLSIDES • Work with private land owners to undertake erosion control on trails osvnacr P (SaVing (special I)laces A Study of Open Space Values in the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt -__ _-- -- -� ..� mar , �_ �/V_ •2 � nom. Prepared for 1 " City of 1 Luis Obispo by 1 ' Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County Summary The City of San Luis Obispo has adopted the goal of creating a greenbelt around the city. To accomplish this goal, the city will pursue a variety of means to preserve and protect open space. The city is currently in the process of working with the county to create a menu of incentive based voluntary programs to encourage the participation of property owners in the greenbelt area. One such technique that has a long and successful track record is public acquisition of either limited land rights (easements) or land in fee. The city initiated this type of program several years ago. The program has not been active due, partly, because a long-term funding mechanism was lacking, and a plan for selecting sites did not exist. The city held an open space financing forum about a year ago to serve as a springboard to creating a long-term financing plan. This report has been prepared to provide the guidance that was previously lacking for selecting sites. This report details the open space acquisition criteria found in the city's Open Space Element. It identifies properties belonging to people who have expressed an interest in this program, describes the resources present on these properties, and establishes a data base to assist the city in the future as additional property owners become interested in participating. This report is divided into six parts: 1. Land ownership. This section describes how ownership was inventoried, characterizes the ownership pattern of the greenbelt and summarizes the landowner contact program that was completed as part of this project. 2. Resource mapping. This section describes what natural and cultural resources were inventoried, where the information came from and illustrates how "sense of place" landscape units were used to assemble a data base of resource attributes. ' 3. Evaluation. This section describes the method used for assigning values to landscape units within the greenbelt and set priorities for consideration by the city council. The concept of"magnitude," "importance," and "potential" were used to conduct this evaluation and are illustrated in this section of the report. 4. Available parcels. This section lists and describes those parcels of land that ' are available for acquisition at this time. 5.Alternative open-space protection and funding methods. 6. Recommendations. This section provides additional information that will assist in the implementation of the greenbelt plan and discusses what is needed to continue the success of this program. 2 ' Table of Contents Summary..................................................................................................................... 2 Tableof Contents........................................................................................................ 3 Listof Maps................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction................................................................................................................ 5 1. Land ownership ........................................................................................ 7 a. Mapping of land ownership............................................................. 7 b. Soliciting landowner interest and providing educational materials........................:................................................................ 9 1 Community survey9 2) Community meetings and workshops .................................. 9 3) Personal interviews and contacts......................................... 10 4) News articles ...................................................................... 10 ' 2. Resource mapping ..................................................................................... 10 a. Identifying resources ...................................................................... 10 b. Mapping methods........................................................................... 13 c. Assembling the data base................................................................ 15 3. Evaluation ................................................................................................. 18 a. Number of resources. .................................................................... 19 b. Importance..................................................................................... 19 c. Potential......................................................................................... 21 4. Available parcels .........:............................................................................. 21 5. Alternative acquisition and protection methods..................................................................................................... 29 �. 6. Recommendations ..................................................................................... 34 Appendices A. Letter to land owners, survey form and map of those that received letter. B. Mailing list C. News articles D. Database descriptions 3 List of Maps page 1. The greenbelt area 6 2. Public ownership and easements 8 3. Landscape units based on "sense of place" 14 4. Wildlife corridors 16 4b. Scenic Gateways 17 i5. Evaluation of candidate parcels by "magnitude" 20 6. Evaluation of candidate parcels by "importance" 22 7. Interested landowners 24 8. Key landowners 36 List of Tables Table 1 --Listed resources and data availability 11 Table 2 -- Summary information for available parcels 25 �' 4 Introduction The concept of a greenbelt around the City of San Luis Obispo is introduced in the Open Space Element of the City's General Plan that was adopted in January of 1994. The area within the greenbelt boundary (Map #1) represents that area that will ideally remain in open space, rural lands, agriculture, or park land. The purpose of the greenbelt is to retain the agricultural uses and rural character that exist on the city's urban periphery while �,. providing a buffer between communities and protecting wildlife and scenic resources. As the map shows, the greenbelt area is outside the city limits. The City of San Luis Obispo has no planning authority in this area. As a result, the city has undertaken this acquisition program as one way to work cooperatively with the private landowners to achieve their goals for the greenbelt. The city is pursuing this acquisition program for an important second reason. The city wishes to assure the permanent protection of these resources. This can only be done through direct acquisition and ownership of land or easements. This is a voluntary program and only those landowners who have expressed personal interest have been described in this report. Over time, additional landowners may wish to participate. ' The City of San Luis Obispo currently has funding available for open space acquisition, and the city contracted with the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County to assist in developing a set of acquisition priorities. Long-term financing strategies are being sought which will allow this program to function on an on-going basis. This document describes the methods used by The Land Conservancy to assign acquisition priorities, and provides the results necessary to generate public discussion of varying open ' space values. The information collected and used as part of this study was based on the ' City's Open Space Element and the report of the Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF) in "A Vision for Sustainability in San Luis Obispo," and represents a "snap-shot" L of current conditions. The steps used in this study to set priorities for acquisition will provide a long term method for prioritizing open space acquisition, even as conditions change. ' 5 r i ti \ e• F \ �-o ati i t=Q ICD Q m m J U r a U 'U CIO ' 6 r 1. LAND OWNERSHIP The goals for this portion of the study were to prepare a complete inventory of land ownership within the greenbelt, identify public as well as private ownership, provide educational material on conservation easements and solicit the voluntary participation of landowners. The method used to complete this portion of the study was as follows: a. Mapping of land ownership The county maintains maps of all tax assessment parcels within the city and county. The first step was to map these parcels into a computer. This is called digitizing and the computer program is called a Geographic Information System (GIS) program. Using this technology, the parcels that were mapped could be matched with information from the County Assessor's database to determine ownership. This Assessor's database also provided information on Williamson Act contracts, homeowner exemptions, and improved values. These variables provided an understanding of current development patterns and trends in the greenbelt area. They also assisted in targeting the search for interested landowners, identifying key owners, and locating unprotected open space. Map #2 illustrates the tax assessment parcels within the greenbelt area and identifies those that are now in public ownership or under contract with the county as part of the county's agricultural preserve program. The following information was also developed through this process and provides an overview of ownership within the greenbelt. Total Area Within the Greenbelt Boundary= 36,272 acres Number of Parcels= 846 Number of Owners=485 Acres in City Ownership = 186 Acres in County Ownership = 266 Acres in State Ownership = 3,912 Acres in Other Public Land (Easements)= 651 Acres in Williamson Act Contracts= 15, 945 Over half(57%) of the greenbelt is in some form of protection. 7 �� ■!rte �,• �� I.\ login i uu JIM �!� � � . ■ ■■l71 - +;�, .. Y a. • 0 COL b. Soliciting landowner interest and providing educational materials Landowner participation was achieved through community surveys, community meetings, news articles, and a workshop conducted by the Land Conservancy. 1) Community survey A personal letter from Paul LeSage was mailed to 183 of the 485 landowners in the greenbelt area asking their level of interest in working with the city by selling property or a conservation easement. A copy of the letter and survey form can be found in Appendix A. Map # A-1 (also contained in Appendix A) illustrates the parcels for which a letter and survey form was mailed. 1 Appendix B contains the mailing list for the survey. Those that were not included in the survey were those whose lots were estimated to be essentially committed to development or have little conservation potential. Parcels that were already in public ownership or easement were also excluded. Of the 183 surveys mailed, 51 responses were received (28%). For a mail survey, this return rate is considered fairly high. Of those that responded, 27 indicated that they wish to be left out of the selection process. Another 17 indicated that they would like more information on conservation easements before committing their parcels to the selection process. Finally, six others indicated an interest in participating but still wanted more information on easements. For the benefit of those requesting more information on conservation easements, a special workshop was held at the Land Conservancy on June 26th to discuss the issues. Those that did not return the survey were removed from the process. Map #7 (page 24) shows the parcels for which a willing landowner was found. These are the parcels that are described in Section 4 of this report in more detail. 2) Community meetings and workshops The Land Conservancy participated in two meetings of the Edna Group (a community organization created to provide comment on land use issues) and held one special workshop on conservation easements. 9 i 3) Personal interviews and contacts In addition to the survey and community meetings, a number of key individual landowners were personally contacted. One important characteristic of the greenbelt is that a very few landowners own a large portion of the land. Roughly 20,000 (55%) of the 36,272 acres in the greenbelt area are owned by only 14 people. The long- term success of the greenbelt will require a close working relationship with these owners. A map illustrating the location and names of these owners (Map# 8) is contained in Section 6 (page 36). ' 4) News articles The Land Conservancy issued a press release at the beginning of this project. This resulted in news articles that are attached as 1 Appendix C. These articles were effective in bringing several landowners to the office of the Land Conservancy where the program was discussed in detail. 2. RESOURCE MAPPING The goal for this portion of the study was to assemble information on the natural and cultural resources the city would like to protect. These resources were listed in the Open Space Element to the General Plan. As part of this goal, it was important to assemble information in a way that would assist the city in identifying acquisition priorities. This was accomplished by first identifying the resources that ' the city wants to protect, mapping these resources and then developing a database of this information. ' a. Identifying resources The first step in assembling data was to survey the resources the city wishes to protect. This was accomplished by reviewing the Open Space �. Element list of resources(Chapter Four of the Open Space Element (pp.95-97)). Source of information on the locations of these resources was then sought so they could be mapped and analyzed. Information for all of the resources was not available. This analysis concentrates on the data that was available. A list of these resources and the data used appears in Table 1. Data for endangered species was provided by the Department of Landscape Architecture's GIS lab at Cal Poly. Additional information on environmental and historical values was provided by Dr. David Chipping 10 i Table 1. Listed Resources and Data Availability Listed Resources Information Source A. Hills and Mountains Mountains, Hills, Units were coded for the presence of significant topographic features and Ridgelines based on USGS topographic maps Scenic rock outcroppings Information is currently incomplete.The Cal Poly Landscape Arch. Dept. is currently working on this map. Specific features These are represented in the coding of the landcape units. B. Creeks Creek corridors Corridors were generated by Atlas GIS from named USGS bluelines Riparian Vegetation C. Other Wetlands Marshs,Seeps, Vernal Pools This information is currently unavailable. ans Ponds. Springs These were digitized from USGS Topographic maps. D. Grassland Communities Wildlife Corridors The Landscape units were coded for importance as wildlife corridors based on information provided by Dr. David Chipping. Habitat Buffers These need to be further defined in order to be useful. Grassland Areas This information was interpreted from the SCS soil survey of San Luis Obispo County. Grassland Species Several of the species listed on page 38 of the Open Space Element ' were used in the analysis. This information was obtained from the Cal Poly Dept. of Landscape Architecture. These species included Circium fontinale, Cyclobothra obispoensis, Dudleya murina, Dudleya bettinae, Layia jonesii, Calochortus obispoensis, Chorizanthe brewerii, the western Pond Turtle,the Red-legged Frog, and the Two-stripped Garter Snake. ' E. Plants and Animals Wildlife Diversity Accurate information on diversity is unavailable. Community Beauty Community beauty is not defined. Wildlife Habitat Habitat for open-land and range-land wildlife was interpreted from the SCS soil survey of San Luis Obispo County. Definitions for these categories are listed in Appendix D. 1 11 i Table 1. Listed Resources and Data Availability F. Historical,Archeological, and Cultural Resources Adobes and Other Historic Structures In order to protect the locations of sensitive features,they were not individually mapped. Rather, each landscape unit was coded for irs historic importance based in information provided by Dr. Dan Krieger, oca istonan. G.Agricultural n Agricultural land Three agriculture layers were used from the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (SFMMP). These layers were"Prime Farmland", "Farmland with State Importance"and"Farmland with Local Importance". Definitions are offered in Appendix D. The SCS soils information was also interpreted for"Prime Farmland"as another measure of agricultural importance. H. Scenic Resources View Corridors Viewsheds These have yet to be delineated on a map.We did, however, consider them in our assessment of open space importance at a more subjective level. Gateways The landscape units were coded for inclusion of gateways. 12 i 1 and Dr. Dan Krieger. We greatly appreciate their time and commitment to open space preservation. b. Mapping methods. Natural and cultural resources are normally mapped as separate maps; one for each resource. Examples of separate resources maps would be a geology map, a map showing the slope of the land, prime agricultural land, historic structures, oak woodlands, etc. This approach of mapping individual resources on individual maps is a reflection that each separate map was created for a separate purpose and usually by a separate person or agency. It would literally take dozens of maps to describe all of the resources described in the Open Space Element. The approach to mapping resources in this study was designed to integrate these many different resources into a more holistic representation of the greenbelt. There was also a desire to identify those areas that contained aesthetic resources and help form the identity of San Luis Obispo as a special place. The resource map created by the Land Conservancy to organize and aggregate information about multiple resources is called a"landscape unit" map. The units were drawn using the "sense of place" concept long used by geographers. Attributes such as scenic characteristics, topography, vegetation and land cover, land use, culturethistory, and development density were all considered in determining the "feel" of the place. The result is a map of places for which information can be gathered while retaining the integrity of the landscape. Map #3 illustrates the landscape units. In the public eye, these places are what need to be protected rather than a scattered set of resources that, together, lack a spatial pattern. The advantage of keeping places together is that people identify with them, making it easier to gain support for their protection. Also, organizing a large volume of resource information into these units allows a more consistent evaluation of varying potential sites since the same information is applied to each unit. A preliminary landscape unit map was prepared and then reviewed against the findings of the Environmental Quality Task Force(EQTF) report. Individual members of the EQTF were also asked to participate in reviewing the map and in describing the natural characteristics of each sense of place unit. In addition, we asked Dan Kreiger to work with us and ' identify those places that have historic significance. Additional information 13 N M � *k CL 0 e V r N m o e e � a f � N � N m N m Ol - m N � � N N � N � ® N 1O OI -f C 7 • � N r 10 tn N• ry O�O oe • I ♦ N 4 C • N a n • • Nlot n Z n Ip r o � n n O � h 6J L y Q v m N N J OJ n _ !� Aj C a v I L+ N Ln C rd 0 u 8 b i .2:, U .] U U 0 14 was collected by involving the public. Copies of a map showing these units were displayed to the public and were readily available. The idea of landscape units based on "sense of place" was more readily accepted than we originally anticipated. The news articles described earlier brought many citizens to the office of the Land Conservancy to pick up a map so they could make their own comments. This approach was successful in soliciting public comment and support. These news articles are included in Appendix C. C. Assembling the data base Once the map of landscape units was complete, a database was created to accept the aggregated data from multiple sources of information. Since the concept of a database may not be familiar to many readers, the following is an example of what a database is and how it was used in this project. A database is a series of records, much like a file of 3x5 cards, where 1 different kinds of information on the same sense of place unit are recorded. For example, the following diagram illustrates a data record for one sense of place unit. rSense of place type of prime Is this a unit vegetation farmland wildlife corridor # 25 oak 253 acres yes ' woodland Organizing information in a database allows the city to ask questions (query) the database and find places that have one or a combination of resources. Map 4 4 is an example of just such a query. It illustrates all of those places that could provide wildlife corridors(Information provided by Dr. David Chipping) Map # 4b illustrates those landscape units that were coded for gateways into San Luis Obispo. The evaluation of resources discussed later in Section 3 of this report was based on this kind of database. 15 : � •�: Eci3ei ��E:�� :+s7�iicEii2iiE=• o-:.T...: ....... ..:_ vow ..' �'Er.•Z: iE:"•� +s' .:4 Or y ; ±Ay � HIM r:}; r_=•'mac._ _�[o:yx[:.i ,�' � 3' I � H � 3 , o , cc a> ao CIO • Ldd Sc .. Oft F • O 0 W y O (b n H W d � � ,. 000o ❑,. '13 M 1 17 Appendix D describes the database fields (kind of information)that was collected as part of this project. This is a working database that will continue to be refined as information becomes available. It should not be considered a complete inventory of greenbelt resources as information on many of the listed resources is either incomplete or unavailable. In the absence of existing map resources, several variables were coded into the database following consultation with local experts. These fields are rdescribed in this Appendix D. 3. EVALUATION The goal for this part of the study was to assemble the resource information so the city could make informed choices among alternative properties that are available for acquisition. A traditional approach would be to list each parcel in a recommended order 1 - 10. The approach that was taken in this study, however, recognizes that substantial policy issues still need to be discussed on the priority for wildlife habitat, for example, as opposed to scenic open space resources. The approach that is presented below provides three different types of information to the city so that alternative choices could be based on the same basic data. These three different kinds of evaluation include: • The number of resources present in any one area, • The importance of the area(a more subjective evaluation), and • The potential of the area for natural resource restoration. The following analyses of importance and number of resources were undertaken at the parcel level using information in the landscape database. Only the parcels of interested landowners were evaluated. These are illustrated on map#7 (page 24). It should be noted that the map and database of landscape areas was created as a tool to assist in determining preliminary open space resource values, not as a sole determinant of acquisition priority. It was developed for three specific purposes. First, it provided a way of quickly identifying areas that may be of interest to the city while retaining the integrity of the greenbelt landscapes. Second, it was developed to provide a long term tool for determining probable values of parcels within them. This will be valuable in the future as additional landowners become interested in this program. Finally, this map provided a way of determining probable open space values of parcels without displaying detailed environmental maps overlaid onto all assessors parcels. This avoids the possibility of affecting 18 property values by showing detailed environmental attributes on private property that may or may not be present. Due to possible inaccuracies encountered by aggregating data into different areal ' units, it is not entirely accurate to apply the value of a landscape unit directly to an assessor parcel. For example, if a landscape unit contains a riparian corridor, it ' cannot be assumed that every assessor parcel within that unit has a riparian corridor. This statistical problem has, however, been mitigated to a large extent by site visits and map confirmation of resource locations for the available parcels. ' The values assigned to the available parcels should, therefore, be considered in this light. ' a. Number of resources. The purpose of this evaluation is to identify those areas where the acquisition of a parcel would protect the most number of resources listed in the Open Space Element. Each of the landscape units has been assigned a ' number that represents the total number of different resources listed in the Open Space Element that the landscape unit contained. Areas with the highest number of resources were assigned the highest rating. Any assessment of priorities based on a quantitative measure is dependent on which information is inventoried. If, for example, the data base contained 12 columns of data on wildlife and only one on scenic quality, the results would be heavily weighted in favor of wildlife values. This is largely the case with this study. Appendix D contains a list of resources ' for which information was available for this study. Although there are a variety of resources listed, the predominance of data reflects an emphasis on wildlife and habitat related values. ' Map # 5, on the following page, illustrates those available parcels that have a number of resources as listed in the Open Space Element. b. Importance Some of the areas may not contain as many resources as others, but the resources may be very rare and deserve consideration for a variety of ' reasons. One parcel may be at"risk" to immediate development. Another parcel could provide a link between existing public trails because it is adjacent to existing public ownership. Even though one place may not have the highest number of resources, it could be terribly important because of the quality of just one resource. For this reason, each landscape unit was inspected for the relative rarity or importance of its resources despite the resource count. This will give weight to unique or "one of a kind" resource. These values were used to determine a parcel's i19 m � a = Lo M a'= ° ,A O � 9 0 0 O E ■i, "' ^ 4) 0 0 CL � O E 4) I z I M • /w .L m N i i • • r N O h O ea cd vi w .• w oj � o V) w °' a to U a O ypi E 20 importance. Each of the candidate parcels was then checked to assure its designation. The importance of an area is based on a number of variables including development density, quality of resources, restoration potential, public ownership, proximity to protected lands, unique views, scale of features, historic features, and threat of development. Map # 6 depicts the importance evaluation of the candidate parcels. The descriptions of each parcel in section 4 discuss their importance in more detail. C. Potential The final evaluation that was conducted described the potential of the land for restoration. There is farmland, for example, that may have intruded 1 into historic wetlands. The area may not have rated high for the number of resources or in importance. It could, however, become important if the wetland was restored. If a similar resource in slightly worse condition can be acquired at a lower price, it might be economically advantageous to buy this resource and spend some money restoring it, thus saving money. The evaluation of a site's potential will take more on-site evaluation than ' was able to be accomplished as part of this study. A preliminary reconnaissance of the area, however, indicated that the lowland along Los Osos Valley Road as well as land east of the city does have restoration potential as wetland or as native grasslands. 4. AVAILABLE PARCELS ' Ten parcels have been identified that are either on the market and advertised for sale, or the landowner has indicated a preliminary interest in discussing acquisition as the result of the landowner survey. There is a differing level of interest among many of the landowners. The dollar amounts listed below should therefore be considered very preliminary. No individual property should be considered beyond the city's means at this time simply due to the estimated cost at this time. All of the parcels except two (#5 and #9) have indicated a desire to sell the property in full fee. Parcel # 10 may be available in fee or easement. The other two owners have expressed an interest in selling a conservation easement. The low interest in conservation easements is to be anticipated in starting a new open space ' .acquisition program. The Sonoma County Open Space District, for example, found it took almost four years for the agricultural community to become comfortable with the kinds.of restrictions a conservation easement contained and 1 21 I a a � n c 'o CO CLO CL 3 $ Leo ri too i = r a y N r O a ^c O44 44 ya � o a ra V 22 how this would effect their farming. This indicates an ongoing need to provide detailed information about easements to property owners. The city may also wish to explore an alternative way of achieving open space ' objectives in a cost effective manner. It is clearly preferred, from the perspective of cost, to purchase an easement instead of the land in full fee. One alternative that could have the same result, over time, is for the city to purchase the land in fee, place a conservation easement on a portion of the property that contains important resources, and then resell the property with an easement in place. The city may take a loss on the sale but it would extend the life of available funds. This alternative also has the benefit of keeping land in private ownership, productive use, and on the property tax rolls. The following is a listing and brief description of the properties that are illustrated on Map# 7. Table 2 summarizes the analysis of these parcels. The information listed below regarding price should be considered very tentative. The first decision facing the city is to express some interest in the kinds of land it would favor at this time. After a clear direction has been established, the next step is to begin substantive discussions with the landowners and determine the feasibility of acquisition for an individual parcel. 1. Davis -Located off Jesperson Rd. south of the airport. This is a 10-acre, unimproved lot. It is low lying land on the bank of Davenport Creek and has wetland value. It has the potential for a good building site that is largely out of view. The current asking price is $350,000. ' This parcel lies in an area with a moderate to high number of resources including agricultural land, riparian corridor, wildlife and grassland habitats, and habitat for several sensitive species. In addition, it is in a landscape unit that is considered high in importance. Its importance is based on the high number and quality of the resources and it's proximity to a growing industrial area. 2. Ayers -Located on the north side of Highway 101 where Higuera St. crosses under the freeway. The parcel is 242 acres divided into four lots. Two lots (#'s 3 & 4) are of particular interest. Parcel 3 is 40.9 acres ($450,000) and has two scenic knolls immediately adjacent to the highway. This is an important scenic gateway to the city. Parcel 4 is 120 acres in size($900,000) and contains a small canyon that extends inland from Highway 101. It is partially visible from the highway but contains the alignment of the historic narrow gauge railroad path, wetlands and a riparian corridor. It is considered to be very important from a historical ' perspective. 23 C � ~ O C i CL J N L FIP : E . Z r • e a N pq 2 N O < N N d m � H N Q .-1 O C � m O (7 h E a E N = � ' ❑� � �® t. 24 ■ Table 2. i Summary Information for Available Parcels Parcel Acreage Fee / Magnitude Importance Price Easement (0-16) 1. Davis 17 acres Fee 8 Moderate- High $350,000 2. Ayers 242ac. /4 lots Fee 10 High No Figure r 3. Jones 31 acres Fee 8 High $350,000 1 4. Bunnell 80 acres Fee 4 High $ 1 million 5. Hayashi < 5 acres Easement 4 Moderate-High No Figure 6. Morganti 160 acres Fee 6 High $ 1.5 Million 1 7. Burke 17 acres Fee 6 Moderate-Low $520,000 ' 8. Maino 68 acres Fee 5 Moderate No Figure r9. Muscia 40 acres Fee 6 Moderate- High $850,000 40 acres Easement 6 Moderate- High No Figure ' 10. Waddell 150 acres Fee/Easement See Text See Text No Figure 25 Among the other resources are wildlife and grassland habitats, and scenic hillsides. The number of resources is moderate, but the importance is considered high. The importance of this place is based on the number and quality of resources and it's function as a gateway to the city. Any ' development on the scenic knolls would greatly impact the view corridor. These parcels are currently listed for sale. 3. Jones -Located at the corner of Los Osos Valley Rd. and Valley Vista. This 31-acre parcel is unimproved and currently in agricultural use. The asking price is $350,000. It would provide open space at an important entry to the city and protect important farmland. These factors contribute ' to this landscape being rated as very high in importance. Other resources may include riparian corridors, wildlife and grassland habitats, and sensitive species habitat. This piece also lies in an important wildlife corridor. This parcel is currently listed for sale. 4. Bunnell -This 80 acre area is located on the north side of Bishop Peak. The land is currently unimproved, contains trails that are reportedly being used informally by the public and a rich mosaic of oak woodland habitat. ' The owner is interested in talking with the city but no price is available. There is also the possibility here that acquisition of the parcel would reduce ' development pressure on the adjoining land behind the "mail pouch" barn adjacent to Highway 1. ' This parcel is in a very important area, even though the number of resources is relatively low. Bishop Peak is a significant visual symbol of San Luis Obispo. In addition, this parcel forms a critical fink in the existing ' open space pattern as it is adjacent to publicly owned land. 5. Hayashi - This is a small knoll on the south side of Highway 101,just ' west of the city and provides an important entry gateway to the city. The area is less than 5 acres and is unimproved. Part of the old highway route is ' on a portion of this parcel. The Hayashi family has indicated an interest in receiving an offer from the city but there is no firm commitment and no price has been discussed. The goal would be to acquire an easement that would allow planting and restoration of the area and an adjacent section of ' San Luis Obispo Creek. Due to the high number of resources, and the function as a gateway to the city, this area is considered moderately high in importance. The riparian corridor is in need of restoration, and its restoration capabilities are high. ' The resources in this area include agricultural uses, wildlife and grassland 26 habitats, and threatened species habitat. San Luis Obispo Creek is a resource that is very important to the community. 6. Morganti -Located at intersection of Los Osos Valley Rd. and Foothill ' Blvd. The area totals 160 acres and contains an interesting variety of resources. Approximately 80% of the land may be within a flood plain. The seasonal wetland supports important wildlife. The remaining land is in active agriculture and grazing, and provides a dramatic open space entry into the city from Los Osos. It is also contiguous with the recently dedicated "Let It Be Nature Preserve" acquired by the City. The property is also very sensitive to new development. Any structure could have visual impacts that would be difficult to mitigate. Since this area is close to the current "hard urban edge," acquisition here could be valuable in attaining the goal of maintaining these edges. The property is currently in agriculture and contains a small road-side sales stand. Some have commented that the collection of equipment and debris could become a scenic issue in itself. Acquisition by the city would allow agriculture to continue(through a lease or re-sale) but allow control of signs and equipment stored next to Los Osos Valley Road. An additional consideration for this property is its potential for restoration. Withdrawing grazing and agriculture from the lower lands could result in a natural recovery of the area as a wetland. ' The property is listed at $1.5 million and the owner may be willing to consider alternative forms of acquisition. 7. Burke -This parcel is opposite the airport along Hwy. 227. The 17-acre parcel is generally flat, has good exposure to Highway 227 but the future of the area is dependent upon land uses that may be approved on adjacent ' parcels in the future, The listing price is $ 520,000. Among the resources in this general area are farmland, riparian corridors, ' sensitive species habitat and wildlife and grassland habitat. The surrounding grasslands are among the most important in the greenbelt area, and an ' excellent place to curb urban expansion. This parcel, due to its small size, the size of adjacent parcels, and potential for development would require careful review prior to acquisition. ' 8. Maino - Three parcels totally almost 68 acres are on the west side of Highway 101 at the Marsh St. exit. These lots are part of an old subdivision that contains over 75 legal lots. The future of this property, located at the foot of Cerro San Luis Obispo, needs to be resolved due to ' 27 i 1 the high potential for development. The property has been considered as the location for a county facility, hotel, and senior retirement home during the past ten years. The property is ready and suitable for development. It has access to the Marsh Street on-ramp and is located partly within the city 1 and partly within the county. Maino Brothers Corporation has indicated an interest in talking with the city about acquisition. The general area of these parcels is moderately important, mostly due to the possible development of the legal lots. These parcels, however, are actually more important as they lie on the side of Cerro San Luis Obispo, perhaps the most important visual landmark in the county. As the result of previous development proposals, biological and other studies are available ' for review. 9. Muscia —This land is located on Buckley Rd. between Jesperson and Vachel Lane on the south side of the airport. There are two parcels at this location. ' The first parcel is a separate 40-acre parcel with an old milking barn and farm house that is in good condition. This parcel contains prime agricultural land as well as a thick riparian corridor. This property is listed for sale at $825,000. This is an example of a property that could be purchased, an easement placed on the resource area, and then resold as a high quality residential parcel. The second parcel is about 65-acres and would be an easement over prime agricultural land, a thick riparian corridor and scenic hillside. The property is located away from the heavily traveled corridors of Highway 101 and Highway 227 yet it contains resources of high quality. No price has been ' discussed. These parcels lie in an area with a relatively high importance ranking and a ' moderate resource count. The importance comes from the high quality of the resources and it's proximity to a developing industrial area. This area is an often neglected part of the greenbelt because it is not as visible as ' others. The area does, however, have significant scenic value. 10. Waddell -- This 154-acre property includes three separate parcels. Mr. Waddell called about this property just as this report was being written. All of the information has been supplied by the owner. The property is ' located at the southern edge of the greenbelt and is part of the larger Irish Hills. Access is gained from Perfumo Canyon Road. The property is mountainous with three building sites. Two are in view of the city. There ' are 11 springs on the property, a pond and oak woodlands. The dominant vegetation is mixed sage and chaparral. No price has been discussed. 28 There are three 40-acre parcels reported nearby that were on the market ' for $70,000 each. The owner may be interested in an easement over the resource portion of the property or a sale in fee. A preliminary assessment would rate the property as high for magnitude and moderate in importance. 5. ALTERNATIVE ACQUISITION AND PROTECTION METHODS Purchase of land is the most expensive method of land protection. This section describes methods other than outright purchase that can be used to protect open space and agricultural lands. Also described are various funding mechanisms for open space acquisition. Acquisition Methods 1. Differential Assessments. These programs provide tax breaks to landowners by basing tax assessments on the value of the land as it is currently being used (farming) rather than for its full market value (housing). The landowner accepts tax reductions in exchange for restrictions on specific land use activities. ' The California Land Conservation Act (CLCA) of 1965, often called the Williamson Act, authorizes cities and counties to offer use-value property assessments to landowners who sign contracts to restrict the development of their land. These contracts are governed by regulations adopted by the county and can run from 10-20 years. The CLCA is designed to: • Preserve agricultural lands to maintain the agricultural economy and assure an adequate food supply; • Discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land ' to urban use; and • Maintain valuable open space. 2. Tax Incentives. Landowners may qualify for incentives by donating full or partial interest in ' their land through conservation easements or selling them at bargain sales. Conservation easements may qualify for a federal income tax reduction or as a way of reducing inheritance tax if they are: 29 • Perpetual in duration; • Conveyed to a qualified charitable trust or government agency; and •Donated pursuant to a clearly delineated public policy and yield a significant public benefit. The internal revenue service has adopted specific guidelines to determine if the property meets this test. All income tax deductions require careful review by an attorney or tax counselor. The amount of the deduction and how this will effect an individual tax return can vary considerably and vary depending on a number of important considerations. Some of these include whether or not the property is a short-term or long-term capital property, if the owner is a "dealer" in property and whether the owner is a partnership, corporation, etc. 2. Conservation Easements. The landowner retains title to the property, but agrees to give up or sell certain rights to the property. A conservation easement may be very restrictive, allowing almost no activities on the subject property, or it may be very simple and only restrict future subdivision of the land. This allows farming or ranching to continue in the same manner that it had before the easement was granted. An easement is usually created for one of several ' reasons. These can include a requirement to give an easement to a conservation group to mitigate the natural resource damage to a proposed project, to receive a reduction of taxes, and to raise funds by selling the ' easement. Conservation easements do not require public access. An easement does require more than just signing the papers. It also requires monitoring and enforcing. Advantages to easements include lower acquisition costs and allowing the land to continue to generate tax revenues. 3. Bargain Sale of Conservation Easements or Property Under a bargain sale agreement, the land or easement is sold to a qualified organization at a reduced value, allowing the landowner to use the ' remainder of the value as a charitable donation. 4. Lease/Management Programs. These are temporary measures, designed to limit capital expenditures. The conservation group and landowner agree to a joint management agreement ' for the land, often allowing for public involvement and education. 30 1 S. Conditions, Covenants, and Deed Restrictions (CC&R's) ' A landowner may specify that certain land use practices continue to be practiced on the land once he is no longer the landowner. For example, they may wish certain trees be left on the property. These conditions are ' then recorded with the deed. However, heirs are often reluctant to abide by these conditions and may decide to ignore them entirely. Enforcement of CC&R's is a private, not a public matter, and is not guaranteed. 6. Awareness/Registry Programs. This is an education program, in which a conservation group works with landowners to make them aware of special natural resources on their property and the management plans that would help the landowners protect these resources. 7. Gifting of the Land. Gifting may allow a donor to take a full tax deduction if the land is given to ' a conservation group. Gifting is done in several ways. Outright Donation. All rights to the land are given to the recipient, and this provides the greatest tax benefit. It may be able to transfer future restrictions for land use. ' Life Estate. An outright donation of land or assets, which allows the donors to live on the property for the rest of their life. The life interest may include the rest of the original owner's life as well as their children's lives. When the contract is mature, the land reverts to the contract holder. A variation of the life estate is a "charitable remainder interest." This technique allows a landowner to transfer the land to a trustee. The trustee sells the property and provides yearly income to the original owner; the beneficiary. When the beneficiary dies, the remainder of the assets is gifted ' to a public charity. ' Advantages of these planned giving programs include reduction of taxable estate, reduction of capital gains tax on transfer of appreciated property, professional investment management, and investment diversification. iThere are a number of variations in planned giving programs, offering donors a plan that best suits their charitable goals and financial situation. 31 1 ' Testamentary Gifts Rewritten Wills. Living Trusts. Legal methods that allow a landowner to pass ownership or management for a piece of land, upon his or her death. ' Sale and Leaseback. A conservation group acquires land, either through a gift or purchase, and then leases the use of the land to a specific person, for ' a specific purpose, consistent with conservation values. S. Tax-Free Land Exchanges. These programs may be very complicated, but can be effective in isolated instances. For example, a landowner who needs income may wish to trade ! property with high conservation values for an alternative property that can be used to generate income. The transaction remains tax free as long as the subject properties are of equal value. Exchanges of properties of unequal value may necessitate an additional cash transaction that would be subject to taxation. However, the owners of the higher-valued property may elect ' to take a "bargain exchange," and relinquish the equalizing payment. They would then be able to claim a charitable deduction for the difference between they appraised value of their land they wish to exchange and the ' appraised value of the land they wish to accept. 9. Mutual Covenants. These agreements are temporary and are usually drawn up by a group of landowners who wish to protect an area that they collectively own. For ' example, they may wish to prevent development on a scenic ridgeline. Covenants are often used for protecting areas that are important to few landowners, but are not considered important enough to warrant a conservation easement. A conservation easement must benefit the general public, and a mutual covenant will usually only benefit the involved landowners. Mutual covenant is often used as another term for CC&R's. ' Funding Mechanisms ' As statewide budget cuts continue, less public funds are available to protect natural resources. As a result, conservation funding is coming ' more and more from the private sector. These sources now include: 1. Mitigation Measures. ' Mitigation is an outgrowth of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), passed in 1970. Mitigation is a technique used to "correct" the results of development upon natural resources or agriculture. For example, if a development project involves removing native oaks in order to build, a 32 government agency might require new oaks to be planted on a specific parcel. Or, the government might require that the project be modified to allow a certain section of the land to remain in natural, open space with a conservation easement given to an appropriate agency or non-profit group, to prevent future development. Recent changes in CEQA now call for mitigation monitoring, to ensure initial compliance with the specific mitigation requirements of a.project and to further ensure that the mitigation requirements continue to be met. 2. Debt Financing. Government-backed bonds are sold to finance public conservation projects. 3. Capital Financing. This program depends on taxes and special exactions/fees, for example, the California Environmental License Plate Fund. 4. Private Sources. Groups such as the American Farmland Trust and The Nature Conservancy use their membership dues, private donations, matching funds, grants, and land sales to raise money for various conservation projects. The source of ' private funds at the local level are often scarce. ' 5. Tax Programs. Tax programs can also generate funding for open space protection. ' Examples of tax programs include regional sales tax additions, special assessment districts, general obligation bonds, property transfer taxes, utility taxes, and transient occupancy taxes. ' On July 18th, 1994, a community forum was held in San Luis Obispo to discuss funding options for open space. A report was presented at this ' meeting authored by Economic Research Associates, which included a matrix of available funding methods. Participants favored a broad based funding platform. 33 6. RECOMMENDATIONS This section contains recommendations for the future of open-space ' protection in the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt area, and describes some of the lessons learned in researching this issue. 1. Easements vs. ownership. The most effective way to keep agricultural land in production and still protect the rural character of the area over time, is to obtain a conservation easement. The conservation easement is a well- , established tool for protecting land. It is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a way of reducing estate taxes and may qualify the owner for a tax contribution if it is gifted to the city or sold at a bargain price. In addition, conservation easements are voluntary and in perpetuity by statute and do not require public access. 2. City ownership vs. resale. The city may wish to consider acquisition and resale of property where the rural character could be protected and there is no compelling public use potential. If an individual property has the potential for use as a trail or other form of public use, the city may wish to retain full ownership. ' 3. Allowing time to complete a transaction. This study has identified several parcels that can be acquired and has provided information to the ' city that will allow for productive public debate. As the city identifies one or more parcels of interest, the city will begin a much longer process of completing the real estate transaction. Perhaps the most time consuming ' activity will be working with landowners to prepare the ground-rules for an appraisal and completing negotiations on price and terms of a sale. The city should not underestimate the amount of time this process will take. ' The city may want to begin negotiations with several owners at the same time to maintain options in the event one or more acquisition is not ' completed. 4. The continuing need for better information. The most critical need for ' better information is with regard to biological resources. This study has been able to identify areas that should have a high wildlife potential. The most productive information, however, would be to obtain a map of plant t communities. A map of plant communities can yield considerable information on plants as well as the animals that depend on specific types ' of plant communities. The current information that describes vegetation as woodland, grassland, or riparian is not adequate for a complete biological assessment. 1 ' 34 1 5. Waiting for better information. While it would be helpful to have better 1 biological information, there is no need to wait. The acquisition of land is based on the availability of landowners who are prepared to sell. There is adequate information to weigh the relative merits between individual parcels. As the city begins to look seriously at individual parcels, the city may wish to undertake site-specific studies to make sure the resources that are believed to be present are, in fact, on the property. This may be the ' most useful place to spend the additional money necessary to obtain high quality plant community information. The estimate received for a similar plant community study near Baywood Park and Los Osos exceeds $50,000. 6. The importance of key landowners. One lesson that was learned by completing the analysis of land ownership patterns was the importance of working cooperatively with key landowners. Map # 8 illustrates several large land holdings(20,000 acres)that is in the ownership of 14 individuals or families. The relationship the city can develop with these owners on an individual basis could have the greatest impact on implementation of the city's goals for a permanent greenbelt. 7. Continuing public education. It will be important to continue educating ' the public about this program. In order for landowners to become interested and participate, they will need to be continually reminded of this program's existence. Regular open space forums could be held which 1 provide a status report on open space protection and information on conservation easements. ' 8. Continue to develop the tools described in this report to assist in determining acquisition priorities. The landscape unit map and database ' was created as a tool to be refined and used in the planning process. This information in the database could be easily accessed in reference to inquiries about a certain parcel's potential for open space value. The ' funding mechanisms discussed in this report, and at the open space financing forum, should be integrated into the acquisition program. The programs that have been successful in protecting open space combine a ' wide variety of financing and acquisition techniques. 9. Re-evaluate the greenbelt boundary. The shape of the greenbelt should ' be reconsidered to better reflect the scenic gateways into San Luis Obispo. It should be extended south on Hwy. 101 and north on Hwy. 1. This would better reflect the perception that many in the public have of the greenbelt. 1 ' 35 1 a �up 0 r v ' N o c CL OP Go TQ 5 TQ- IT I� f O _ Idrv¢4 .s 41 ip wl� i -y it g �l "moi lj� n d end ��R I I'b�a,� 9�I 'I lY{TJjy,,,��44 �I �d�' '��.�1��. ,.. 'itiiI�I/Jyi�hfuII ;f'f�, ns?, �% II"4y�1' IIIAuG Y Y- I A'- 1 S — ' �` l� '�E%�Yi�i lrl�{��I�I a •• ��h` �..QVC R � 1 I: la ��11SS HIM ' 1~- -• 1 x. 41 INi14 .aTM _11 "'71h; j4 rl 14� IIII r��' a 16 L w7 � u d a II 1gill ••• FM1r ry11 1 ile s : .. �./•� m V11 -:IpW Q E iIII M _�� E eoco 0 m L4n /W/��• IO' .i N 1 - ' 36 s I' Appendix A 1 Landowner survey letter and map, 1 �1 7►►iuu� �i,Illi;�Ilill!;I;p��Ih�°u1°�ui�p�►�if�;; CSIT'Y OF SAN L JIS OBISPO ' Parks & Recreation Department I 860 Pacific St. 93401-3616 : 781-7300 Dear Landowner, As part of the City of San Luis Obispo's commitment to preserving open space around the city, we are undertaking a program to acquire open space in the areas immediately 1 adjacent to the city. The purpose is to begin permanently protecting a greenbelt around the city which will preserve the special character of our community while protecting plant and wildlife habitats. The enclosed map depicts the extent of the proposed greenbelt. The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo has been asked to assist in this program by developing acquisition priorities based on the voluntary interests of landowners in this area. Since this program is voluntary, they are seeking contact with those landowners who may wish to sell an interest in their property (conservation easement) or sell their property in fee. The conservation easements we seek do not prohibit agricultural uses or provide for public access-, rather, they only preclude development. In addition, these easements can offer substantial monetary, tax, and estate planning advantages. The City has available ' funding and is ready to work with willing landowners. In order to proceed with implementation, we need to know if you are interested in participating. If you choose to participate, your ownership parcel will be overlaid on a map showing acquisition priority rankings. The parcels with the highest rankings will be selected for further review and public comment before the City Council. If you choose not to participate, your parcel will not be assigned a ranking at all. This rogram has no affect on the development potential of your land. This is regulated solely by the County. ' Please take the time to fill out the enclosed form and place it in The Land Conservancy's return envelope. Your participation is critical to the success of this program. Please return the questionnaire by May 31, 1995. Sincerely, -PWV.0 ' Paul LeSage Director, Parks and ecreation © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. ' Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410 1 The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, under contract with the City of San Luis Obispo, will soon be presenting suggested open space acquisition priorities to the San Luis Obispo City Council. In keeping with the voluntary nature of the greenbelt program, we are seeking landowners in the proposed greenbelt area(see map) who would be interested in selling an interest in their property (conservation easement), or their property in fee. We are contacting you because your ownership parcel(s) lies in the proposed greenbelt area. We would like to hear from you regarding your interest in this program. 1 Please check one of the lines below to indicate your level of interest. We would also welcome comments concerning this program and the places that are special to you. Your participation is particularly important in the implementation of this program, L and we appreciate your taking the time to share your feelings. The Land Conservancy is available to discuss this program and its advantages with you. If you have any questions please call or drop by their office at 743 Pacific St. in San Luis Obispo. Please check one: I am interested in participating in the open space acquisition program. Please contact me regarding my parcel(s) and the open space selection process. (Phone #) I am not interested in participating in the open space acquisition program. Please remove my parcel(s) from the open space selection process. I would like more information on conservation easements before committing my parcel(s) to the selection process. My parcel(s) is mostly developed and has little conservation potential We are not the owners of the property listed above. Check your records. Comments: 1 1 1 11 Ir�\ 14 �• \ {i$ff 1191 Dan ow, V ' �7 Appendix B Landowner°survey mailing list Appendix B Mailing List for Greenbelt Survey OWNER RESPONSE AHEARN J DENNIS ANDRE BROS CALIF PTP ANDREWS KATCHY VS AKA KATHLEEN N VON STEIN ANDREWS LORRAINE J N ARNDT CHRISTOPHER L ASTAIRE FREDERIC&CAROL AVERY LYNN M I AVILA CHARLINE M(AKA 1) AVILA FAMILY TR AVILA FRANK J N AVILA FRANK W&JOSEPHINE G FAMILY TRUST AYERS JANET E I BACHINO MARCUS BALDWIN EDWARD L 1 BARNUM RICHARD D I BEAR VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CO A PTP BEECHAM PAUL J BELLO THOMAS L&CAROLINE C BETITA FE D TRUST BLACK WILLIS J LIVING TRUST BLAKESLEE FAMILY TRUST N BOWDEN CHARLES G BOYSEN MABEL E BROCK PHYLLIS J BRONNERJACK BRUGHELLIERCOLE I BUENA TIERRA A GEN PTP BUFFANA JANE K BUFFUNA JANE K N BUNNELL RAY B CALLAWAY HAROLD D TRUST(TR 1) CARR FAMILY TRUST CARROLL CATHERINE M AKA RILEY CATHERINE M CARTER ANTHONY D CHARLES MIKE N ,. CHEVES GORDON C N CHIVENS CAROLYN L CHRISTENSEN FAMILY TR DTDO1/28/85 CLARK WALTER B COREY BRIAN H DAMON FAMILY TRUST (TR 2) DAVIS FORREST W&BEATRICE R DAVIS ORIN A DECLARATION OF TRUST DELLAROSA CHERYL A DENBOW JOANN M ' N=Not Interested Y=Interested I=Wanted information about conservation easements Appendix B Mailing List for Greenbelt Survey ' OWNER RESPONSE DENDOW JOANN M DENNING BARBARA T DEVAUL ALVA J&EVELYN M TRUST I DEWDOW JOANN M DIXON DORIS R DRAKE BARRY E N DRAKE LIVING TRUST DUBERG ARTHUR C EDNA VALLEY VINEYARD JOINT VENTURE YI ERNEST RIGHETTI&SONS FALSTROM FAMILY TRUST N FILBIN CAROLYN J FILIPPONI HERBERT W FINEGAN LAWRENCE H FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST N FOSTER FAMILY TRUST AMENDED 6-14-89 FURTADO MANUEL R FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST N FURTICK JOINT REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST I GARCIA EDWARD S N NIDA VEGA ETAL I GLASS GINA YI GLICK KENNETH L GRAY ELIZABETH GUIDETTI JANICE TESTMNTRY TR TR A MARTL TR GUIDETTI JANICE TESTMNTRY TIVI R A MARTL TR GUIDETTI JANICE TESTMNTRY TRUST(TR B-I SCH 1) HANSON MARIAN A HARVEY DAVID B HASTINGS FRANK D ADMIN HAYASHI HOWARD H HAZELTINE CAROLE HEARN RICHARD S HEINEMANN DARRELL J&JERALDINE L REVOC TR OF 1991 HENDERSON MARGARET TR HISCHIER LIVING TRUST HURST DAVID T INGLE JACK TESTAMENTARY TRUST KIELER ERIK KIRSCHNER KARL E KNECHTS PLUMBING&HEATING A CA GEN PTP KRENKEL GERALDINE A KUDEN JOHN V (AKA 1) LABARBERA BARRY T LARGENT BILLY C LATER ROGER D LEWIS LINDA J N LINDSEY DOROTHY M ' N=Not Interested Y=Interested I=Wanted information about conservation easements 1 Appendix B ' Mailing List for Greenbelt Survey ' OWNER RESPONSE LINDSEY JOE&MARY LO CONTE BRIAN A LOPES ROSE S N LOWERY PETER G MACGREGOR CHARLES A MACGREGOR CHARLES A&HANNAH E MADDALENA BEN L MADONNA A DBA MADONNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY MADONNA ALEX MAININI EXEMPTION TRUST N MAINO FAMILY TRUST (TR 1) 1 MAINO FAMILY TRUST (TR 1) MAINO JAMES F MAINO MM FAMILY TRUST MANLY LESLIE MARTINELLI LAWRENCE J TR MARTINELLI SERAFINO J MATHIESEN PER C&MILDRED MCDONALD FAMILY TRUST MCKEE JAMES E MCLAUGHLIN LIVING REVOCALBE TRUST I MCNAMARA DAVID L FAMILY TRUST MCVAY ALAN J MEHLSCHAU DORIS L N MODLECAMP FAMILY TRUST MIDDLECAMP MARK MONASTERY OF THE RISEN CHRIST A NON-PROF CORP I ' MUSCIA FRANK P MUSCIA FRANK P JR NEAL JACK (AKA 1) NEGRANTI NINA N ' NEWBY JANINE M NEWBY LIVING TRUST NIMTZ KELLY J N NORTHWINDS NV OFFERMANN GENE P OREILLY JAMES P OREILLY JEAN ORME MAYNARD E&JOAN PANENO FRANK&KATHLEEN 1993 FAMILY TRUST N PANENO FRANK&KATHLEEN FAMILY 1993 TRUST N PARAGON VINEYARD CO INC PARAGON VINEYARD CO INC A NEV CORP PARAGON VINEYARD CO INC A NEVADA CORP PARSONS BARBARA N PEREIRA LUIZ A ESTATE OF N=Not Interested Y=Interested I=Wanted information about conservation easements Appendix B Mailing List for Greenbelt Survey ' OWNER RESPONSE PEROZZI DENNIS H TESTMNTRY TRUST(TR 1) PEROZZI DENNIS H TSTMNTRY TRUST(TR 1) PEROZZI FAMILY TRUST I POLIN FAMILY TRUST QUAGLINO ALEX FAMILY TRUST QUAGLINO JANINE R HOWARD STRASBAUGH INC A CA CORP RAMEY JESSE A REICHMAN ROBERT L REZENDES ARTHUR T RIGHETTI FREDERIC G I RIGHETTI FREDERIC G TR I ROBISON JOHN F ROCKY CREEK RANCH DEVELOPMENT CO INC A CA CORP ROMERO EUGENE R N ROOT FRANK S&SHERRY G FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST ROSEN HAROLD YI ' RYAN DEANNA J SCHIEBELHUT ANN SHARPS LORRAINE A TR N SHEFFER ELLEN J SHEFFER JOSEPH M SILVEIRA LIVING TRUST N SIMONDS JONATHAN SINSHEIMER ANNE SMITH LIVING TRUST SPINELLI ROBERT YI STERN ROBERT L&ADELE N° STOYKA MICHAEL T SWEENEY FAMILY TRUST N TARTAGLIA JOSEPH D ' TARTAGLIA RICHARD A 01/17/84 N TICHENOR FAMILY TRUST TICKNER CAROL I N VINTAGE ORGANICS INC A CA CORP I WADDELL FAMILY TRUST WALLACE CINDY L WARDEN DON R&MARILYN R I WARDEN MARY G TRUST I WEIPERT EDWARD A FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST WHEELER-BARINKA FAMILY TRUST 1 WIANECKI BETSY A I WILKINSON GERALDINE W LIVING TRUST DTD 3/17/94 YI WINE WORLD INC ZUANICH MARTIN S N=Not Interested Y=Interested I =Wanted information about conservation easements Appendix. C 1 . N_ ew_s articles ■ I 'If , �'=01 ali 20 z f0 o=n H 00 O m m c 03 n ° a CO ° r C/] a On me3neoE,na3 ?moe ,�, �•67 0 3 �'Oo'm m n o'er =°�^o N S .t ,.�,.. cG32-c c m N Gm or,= COT2 2i A no . cm m ay �-o m N m c a .85 oa.$ ° air 9903nm$ Om O'S aC S N m COn m�p m S C m m � ' =Qd m Sw meae SC a..C.. ' .. •` .� 9m N G O n,� Sm 7000 n 09 0 {' „ '?.:. cw•� Z ° 3mon Hyo G p - .. _ m � m m ' t ase O C.6 9^ ? O t9e Ulu n S .W mm� 7 eno soO tae 00 o m SF G cr ami ao �° n S n m ^oma 6� 3S wog �77 �� mm9 � �� to to L:6 6 h Oe or a° ' 000 eao m o oG� `00 E°e m m CL aS' $ . . .. •. CL 9 ��o t3-^gao -; m .Z �. O a m m n 7 o O.C..9 m m a 7 m ore o N w 7 c S Q SO � • m Mo A cm aN -a = �3 = � a > f ; $ .m A$ m O� ° ap09 wN ° m o w .V �f'j � �.. tv n o Sme O•_ o>1m O acr—m i t0 0 '00° 060- `° n o O 1i m =a o e m R m 3 •_ �•eA om 3 �_eaAmS mgA A9 •�om0 n °o = £ ° www e o m Z m o o -+a" m y � �� Via' o $ $ � �� m � mim2 p� �'rA2 ° m� � 0_ 20 03 ; gym$ W •~ cO mG omg ,�3 A� gc^o30mm p -m o me^ mom c ? g oa9 m g^rim m m Cr Im m pc d Oc 2 o N w awn cm1 m acs O m c o u.$ O z = o c.^ �� S G3 m 3 o E o ° m o 01 m9 o a c? +eout S' mcm w'_mO� oN^ '° Lfl,mw =a= 6mcQO �7m � aa, ° �°�m' 0 :Lmel O cee c a O �. c N Sc ° u, mows * '= ^ £ n y$.n °� 9 m o- n se $ n G s O 7 m + t9 O• S,�O N O O 7 O 7 m m N O $ngg25� £� a-0�� o' do' �� ° ono �°Z � ot�, � � ao9m ^ Oa_9n m _ w .m $ 3 sm sm _ mn e m - p< m Ge o m N y IgA w 5 t^e _ �_ co N m m , c o G c c� =r. O� -CNma�g�o2m �w � mS n^� c$w �as H e � °:� A y a vm a ° o 3 n ? =-fe co c=? O9 o ga a -. = n W= a —$ �cpomm m � OoomNg � a m �d_� gm � N �io = em a O mmo G= �emwo a m � o = N m n em oa �� pym mO S$A£e m 2 m �"m� o Sn o o" m n° o 3_�n eno 0m g� man ' a ec^ o a D°-o°��3 m m ° 'am^-m =o n m� =2 a�m o m° $ n N Rd a _s$o ao?o A � ad c Fr� e o ^0 . e9 = ee m m NE' n a= ° =0 o m Sm o a= m ° & mm 3 ?gaoa°� n $ ° c0-8,2 oc< m3�� owT mA �e ' O 05Sr� ° $ c mm ^c H o Q e a� 3 �--n'_ 50 3 y ^�'-m �''� N `nna o ° 2 c ° w -ir o m m m o Gg_ o w o o.. an r c Ga c, 0 3 0f A s� n > >_ o n 9 _mac o m Q E c p o ao n O m �w r,:E m =o m S gam- e E m O w y = e > >9 mw og ao $ moeo eb ! nom ° .m M. on �:�dm�� o a - p70 ;r � o mm3m c —o . o o oaE om mM � u ea N —v+' £� N w-o m aS3 m m t�j a �°� n Too G Got A m o 'c N m co m neo a wG �o = as .ago FyG a wn 'o = m s4a1 m0eaoao� =' t�em'c °.a " ' o � wc < £ o � ^ Og eD ?� yl O '05.7 n H oe n 7 g0 7 �•7 S O 79 wSui Gr7 .o r0� m 3 o Sa >_ > o c m N � m c G- m = -0= m 3 5 m G O O O ^m ,� ^ •! uni n O G=.7o m d 7 w .you 90 uyr ` �. a,mEm u ♦, L S a� •� N ZL Ova d ^^ ,, Adm3 L� C'� 3 � 3i° ppa �V � °'o mo F'' �''� °' c3 E 'd' dN -.,mo -1G wEp dy� aZid �' d d3 d mL d d C� 'ar3� E LOQ O. '� O d m E: mO•d Itl d d V •�C V� O C=am d o09 d'a.L+� .r and m'O�•R Nm EE: eo�i m'O Ci CiY NCoO+ L G dp y C w Cc cF OOa� d t3 meo�3 > pFoSo$E' e�ac.. en o. v»m m d y -40' V C T C d C d d (� u E d cc, L�S a O �•! E ` ` C) .i oS� L u O O o I 4 d $ pM E o fl? mts7 m o vq a m m oZ m.`��d�� e�SS ani `�� m y aS �� cpi � mF0 , omW doda`� m� E� o` Iwo,E CLm E�� c. 3 3 F e= F y'o F u KIS cS m ad 3v E m E E E'S u cS o m� tD wd m � O 1 ; C di G C I yr � Y� -C � pf d C m E75Oy pV '� Vi N7 a V auiCL c. da L a m� l �G�..i <c Q� zrzE d o C C.l 5v rz �q g Env d 'C �F223�3 d d C d "' d C C•O L an d C.N -$ >.-OO -5 mEca3i " � da c WdSm fid „ 0m5 X03 O 3 g = �a� mmtap �' > cmm a•ELe m m m d 00 0 4w' p L O d m N O N L ' doocE 55 ba) W� �'�mP' S aE oft a �u�a � c 0�3i° Z �$ � .� � aa m�� m p6�d ^�m' aomcd � om�r0 � 3 °�' a 5� e OmC La o9QL d •r7 00�� " meoU mdSI aS , o$ emm`L •- o,.e Tm c 9 a� a� d V t. cuS m `.�Ep1' TE3'Z S svLDFy-00oddd d d _ d CEO C d C d. E. d.� aS. c o o t-kl,- e 5 o s Q g' aL e F e H�9.m E Wo.lso'u am � 'abLefem .�.`� m-a`3 dTs 1 e Appendix D Database description i 1 Appendix D Description of data fields The title listed behind each number in the following list is the computer name assigned to a field in the database. The information which follows lists the source of the information entered into that field. 1. PRIME AG - From the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 1992 ' Prime Farmland:. "Land which has the best combination of physical and.chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained yields of crops ' when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming methods. Prince Farmland must have been used for the production of crops within the last three years. It does not include publicly owned land for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use. ' 2. STATE—AG - From the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 1992 Farmland of Statewide Importance: "Land other than Prince farmland which has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It must have been ' used for the production of irrigated crops within the last three years. It does not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use. 3. AG—LOC - From the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. ' Farmland of Local Importance: ' Land which " is either currently producing crops, or has the capability of production. Farmland of Local Impor•iance is land other than Prime Farmland, or I.2rmland of Statewide Importance. This land may be ' important to the local economy due to it's productivity. It does not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use" 4. RIPARIAN - Acreage of unit inside a 100' riparian corridor generated by Atlas GIS. 8. SRA - Acreage of unit within San Luis Obispo County Sensitive Resource Areas ' (SRA's) 9. TOPO - Units coded for the presence of a "significant topographic feature". Generated by overlaying units on USGS quad sheets and visually checking for topography. ' 10. GATEWAY - Units coded which make up the gateways into San Luis Obispo via U.S. 101 north and south, State Hwy. I from the north, and State Hwy. 227 from the south. 11. WILDI - SCS soils units interpreted for open land wildlife habitat. Open land wildlife habitat refers to areas of deciduous plants of coniferous plants and can be associated with grasses and legumes. Associated wildlife ' includes wild turkeys, scrub jay, owls, hawks, woodpeckers, gray squirrels, gray fox, raccoons, deer and coyote. (SCS, 116) ' 12. WILD2 - SCS soils units interpreted for range-land wildlife habitat. Range-land wildlife habitat refers to areas of shrubs and wild herbaceous plants. Wildlife attracted to rangeland include coyote, bobcat, deer, California quail, meadowlark, and mourning dove.(SCS, 116) 13. SOIL—PF - SCS soils units interpreted for prime farmland. . 1 Prime farmland is land best suited to producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. It must be used for producing food or fiber, or be available for these uses. Prime farmland produces the highest yields for minimum investment of energy and economic resources, and farming it results in the least disturbance of the environment. (SCS, 102) ' 14. RARE—RA - Riparian Assemblage.(Endangered Species Habitat) This acreage includes habitat for the Pacific Pond Turtle, Red-legged Frog, and the Two-striped Garter Snake. Data was provided by the Dept. of Landscape Architecture at Cal Poly, and was digitized from the City of San ' Luis Obispo Community Development Department's map of Rare and Endangered Species. (Cal Poly Layer SL_RAREP) ' 15. RARE_CF- Circium. on inale (acres) See 414 for source. 16. RARE_CO - Cvcbhothra ohispoensis (acres) See 4 14 for source. 17. RARE—DM - Dudleya marina (acres) See #14 for source. ' 18. RARE LJ - Layia jonesii (acres) See #14 for source. 19. RARE_CLO - Calochorrus obispoensis (acres) See # 14 for source. ' (Cal Poly Layer SL_WTRIN) 20. RARE_DB -Dudleya bettinae (acres) See # 14 for source. (Cal Poly Layer W SL_ TRIN) 21. RARE CB - Chorizanihe brewerii (acres) See 414 for source. (Cal Poly Layer ' SL_WTRIN) 22. CORRIDOR - Landscape units coded for importance as wildlife corridors. This ' information was provided by Dr. David Chipping. 23. SERP_END - Landscape units coded for presence of serpentine endemics. This ' information was provided by Dr. David Chipping. ' 24. HISTORY - Landscape groupings coded for historical significance. This information was provided by Dr. Dan Krieger.