HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/2004, BUS3 - ADOPTION OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE council M.62zD 3 -b
j alien& PcpoRt Numho /I
CITY OF SAN LUIS OB ISPO l//1
FROM: Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer 1N�(
Prepared By: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager UU
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR BISHOP PEAK
NATURAL RESERVE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by both the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission,
approve a resolution adopting the Conservation Plan for Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, as
amended, and finding a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact.
DISCUSSION
Background
On September 17, 2002 City Natural Resources Program staff presented the "Conservation
Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo' (the "Guidelines") to the
Council for review and adoption. Council review was favorable and the Guidelines were adopted
by the Council at that meeting. The first Conservation Plan prepared under the umbrella of the
Guidelines, for the Irish Hills Natural Reserve; was adopted by the Council in mid-2003. The
Bishop Peak Conservation Plan is the second such plan to come before the Council.
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve (BPNR) is a 352 acre area lying partly in the City of San Luis
Obispo and partly in the unincorporated area, west of Highway 1 and north of Foothill
Boulevard. It consists of the dramatic, rocky summit of Bishop Peak itself, and surrounding hill
lands dominated by chaparral, oak woodland; and grassland. The site is known for its views, its.
relatively pristine landscape, and its extensive and heavily used trail system. 248 acres of the
Reserve are owned by the City of San Luis Obispo; the remaining 104 acres are owned by the
State of California and managed by the County of San Luis Obispo under an agreement between.
the County and State. The City and County also jointly manage the Reserve, with regular
meetings to discuss current projects and major activities affecting the site.
Plan Development Process
The Conservation Guidelines specify that City staff will undertake the necessary inventory to
develop a good understanding of the natural and cultural features of each open space, and prepare
information about the property for a public workshop at which public input is solicited. Staff
will then prepare a draft conservation plan and present that plan to the Parks and Recreation
Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. At each of these meetings, further
testimony can be taken and the recommendations from each body incorporated into the plan as it
Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for Bishop Peak .
Page 2
goes forward toward Council adoption. In the case of BPNR, a public workshop, attended by
about 40 persons, was held in July 2003 in the City-County Library Community Room and
numerous ideas and suggestions for the plan were presented by citizens. Staff incorporated many
of these into the plan. Some additional changes were recommended by the two commissions at
their respective meetings, and these will be highlighted in the staff presentation on the plan.
Several citizens have participated very closely in the development of the plan.
Important Natural Features
BPNR contains a significant number of sensitive or otherwise important natural features,
including:
1. The summit of Bishop Peak itself;
2. Several rare plant and animal species;
3. Chaparral, oak woodland, and grassland vegetation;
4. Several small wetland sites; and
5. Significant areas of intact, high quality wildlife habitat.
Management issues or concerns associated with BPNR include:
1. Erosion problems and other damage in the "bowl" area below Bishop Peak due to
heavy recreational use;
2. A serious concern about fire safety, and the need for fire and fuel load management in
certain areas;
3. Protection of sensitive resources and habitats; and
4. Proper development and functioning of the trail system.
The Conservation Plan addresses these issues by calling for:
1. Completing connection of two of the "dead-end" fire roads in BPNR to create a
through system for safety purposes (see below for further discussion of this topic);
2. Closure and revegetation of the "bowl" area and several other damaged areas within
the Reserve;
3. Continuation of a modified livestock grazing program after expiration of the current
"grandfathered" program at the end of 2005, to continue proper management of fuel
loading, especially at the urban/wildland interface;.
4. Potential use of prescribed fire in certain suitable location within the Reserve for fire
safety and ecological reasons; and
5. Development of interpretive and informational signage to assist visitors.
The Conservation Plan's thrust is to protect the existing resources at BPNR and to balance
recreational use, fire safety, and resource protection. The plan is considered to not have a
significant effect upon the environment due to mitigations incorporated into the fire road
construction: therefore a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared and is recommended
for adoption by the Council.
G/Havlik/rouncila/conservation plan adoption2
3 ��
Council Agenda Report—Adoption of Conservation Plan for Bishop Peak
Page 3
CONCURRENCES
Park and Recreation Department staff assisted in preparation of the Conservation Plan, and other
departments, particularly the Fire Department, have reviewed it. The plan has also been
reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and by the Planning Commission. Both
recommend approval to the City Council, with certain amendments that will be highlighted in the
staff presentation. Also the Plan will be presented to the County Park and Recreation
Commission on February 26, and any recommendations from that body will be brought forward
to the Council. It should be noted that County Parks Department staff agreed with the approval
process for the Conservation Plan that is being followed since there were no actions being
proposed on the County-managed portion of the Reserve.
The plan has undergone extensive review by interested citizens and neighbors of the Reserve.
This led to the withdrawal of a second, longer connector fire road that would have connected the
access at Patricia Street with the access at Brittany Court. Citizen input into this concept was
that it was not necessary and it was feared the fire road might change use patterns of the Reserve
in that area in a manner unacceptable to the neighborhood. The shorter, "upper" connector on
the other hand offers a suitable route around the impacted "bowl" area to permit reasonable
closure and restoration, and for that reason was not considered controversial.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Conservation Plan will have limited fiscal impact. There will be commitments of staff time
for a certain level of monitoring of recreational use and attendant impacts, and there will be a
need for monitoring of vegetation, particularly on the urban interface of the property. No major
unfunded undertakings are proposed. The fire road connector is not considered a major cost item
as it is only about 800 feet long, and will be handled through operational funds of the Natural
Resources and Parks and Recreation Department budgets. The several restoration projects are
expected to be able to use volunteers or to be attractive projects for mitigation purposes
stemming from other, off-site projects in the community. No new trail construction is proposed.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council could reject the Plan or require additional changes. These are not recommended,
however, as at this time the Plan represents a comprehensive view of the future of the property
that has gone through several public forums with only certain modifications that have won the
support of the public and commissions.
Attachments
1. Resolution
2. Conservation Plan Summary
3. Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission's meeting of February 4, 2004
4. Minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting of February 11, 2004
5. Initial Study
Complete Conservation Plan —Council Reading File and City Clerk's Office
G/Havlikkcouncilalconservation plan adoption2
3-�
- ATTACHMEW i
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING THE
"CONSERVATION PLAN FOR BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE"
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and public use of open space lands acquired by the City; and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo has acquired and manages eleven open space
areas totaling approximately 2,500 acres, including the 352 acre Bishop Peak Natural Reserve;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have the policies for management of City-
owned open space lands applied in an appropriate and consistent manner, and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission,Parks and Recreation Commission, and the
general public have commented upon the plan as it has moved through a Council-directed
approval process, and the plan reflects those comments.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo hereby:
1. Finds that the implementation of the Conservation Plan as presented to the City
Council this date, and as mitigated,will not have a negative impact on the
environment;
2. Adopts as City policy the"Conservation Plan for the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve"
as amended, and presented to the Council this date; and
3. Directs the City Administrative Officer to undertake all actions necessary and
appropriate to carry out this resolution.
On motion of Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2004.
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lee Price, City Clerk an P. Lowell, City Attorney 3_4
ATTACHMENT 2
L 4 :
m
hY c :!'d•T�
u
3 Q n °o
go E 0 � N o
Z A ` L
'
CL co
vs
LOVC6
Vo 'odslgp sin-1 usS
389JIS wled 066
odslgp sin-1 ueS}o Al!o
Q to C C LAN C N C C C N ` O V) N 'O
cc; c C ° N U N O U co c .0 N v_ O co w Y N
cc E m ic m CL° �d-' c nca � a y > m o � c m o ` o cu
f
Oro c O -0 CE � U a`) CU o cu N QL a) 0 m Np � E
m o N = r_ a) U _ m N 'O Im 4; c o cU r c U E m o
Nc4) U coow E mN c"o > E oN mV NCa nca y c ca =
c 'y� N � � aT E > w = 3E '� �' nc'a a�iow = � 0n ma' Ra` V E _
U -NO •_.- 7 N y h � N = Q C .N -O = V1 C O _,., � p, C CJ O U a) >,
oLA= � NpV ED CD
� m pohV `o c ° p � U 3 a
r NaoCL Sp > c c N E 0 c V '3 m tim 01� o U
w � c ca ° cccor002, moo E � o � � m y � « U U ccam
o -o czCO c o J � aN aca o 0 m y o � c NJ : o o cn �(j y0 ° E
N o N N
C � wcmoC� ca NmQCa cn ' ma E � � y N � E � co
V oro
(D ca occam a) ca moocL NN � � aco oO mo
E o mQ N E Cl)� '� c . ° E N � - m� p � � . U O E O1J N L 27
N � ocn � ° `° oCCa � o o � m� = N ° > � ° � c ' � � za = p HQ wEo_ o
cEco � o = y �. � aaflmroc �=pc' Lm `mmo � = � Lm � � E � amain co
0E 'o
co c m CD cU m � m 0 ai �' co c o m a AZO o � C = = v E � a o °
O C a O O N >, N Y O : cc 3 " 05 Q O'-` O y
° 'y ac (aC)
` N Nr c co In m 0 E 3 = tam o N d c yo V ._ vc� i. wC�
o m N n Q. o � o ca m N N
E c m aci o ° o o cs a) o a) o oa -0a E c � ^ _ Zt, cc
° D -° i y � E Ha 3 n co c o d a� = a) n ro o m0 3 aE cnj� e U c c9
11 3 3wN � � bccn Nafcco .- co � cc a� a >. CNE
1 m N > > U O N = m N N : N t d co N O y :3 "
S = = O to M N N cC
1 mt = o m -o � F- m E : = oa 3 m Q E � UmC7 � U V H o CL ---3 (L LL t� �CJQZ 0
O ° 2E � W gs
> Io
O •r � R
e
A
ir
CL
Im
J `
C
O a) N L a)
O C i L a) (0 y L1 L y 7 O y N t� y C ° °
t o E .`-" '° o Nva E ` ° E
o \ ult �Y a ay °o V oL a� E o 3 o 3 L
cy u c y N E N 3 a •• F- 0 m a -0 a a r N a
U f0 N C .D W L y I a) O aJ ,., N
a) v 'D 0 0 CLto j i N C1 y O L y L `1 aL+
uNV-4 3 � ym & °a? aa '°^ Ltt: c o 7Y cc
to 'O 0O N J L C Z p u (n @ U N C c N to
O C Y C y aJ a C to N (o N — L .
U N i °ro m (n Oa) 0 i l fo Z C N w y C d O �' N y y N
CD
E � � � a, 30tH 3 0 �' L° ° j' f o• N ° ra o o c a
M N >.C Vf i yo C Y 'O i= y a1 N C V C H " O N O c .
sce N 2p' '. O 2 Ln 3 Ln N L7 d U p u C d
(n v (o � Ea� aci rn ° u NN za � ya ty � Y u (o Qa
M o y o�� � _ C u L � Ln -0 _ mu a � N � c (a E ai
Qf C m � !^ (o (o y ° e a o " °� aroi ' E� co > d C N
G y N Vf N — C O GJ U y 4!
.�y N C O .0 > i. (CO v 3 N �p cn L w O y y T y C E C N N p
z 6 y v L C t_ d= C N "O _N y a`+ y y p L 1>> y C T T D C y
a a 3 O C tn N 1 C L U C Y N V N p N (p y Z
CO C (O f0 >' .Uj O N N d O M a L y d a d U N 3 a) a7 N
•� u a u C (n i N '(o L u d
L C p •> yEco 30C C 0 .0 0) T> (A p � � Nrn c `u �
a� vw y rn N - - o u = yy a LL
a) `u ° Q) a� a � 03 '(0 `p (>o ay `� > E � Y a M c e � v ° rn
na
Y O M y a) fC0 '0 C c c :5a7 N 7 y OL - '0 a°—+ V wIM LA t C C V a) C C
.� L to N E O C — Y C N N N C (o '> (o O i O p a m y Q.:2• O
SIJ a0.+ L O rn .C a3 y_ i m N O .fl C toy O E L O + +' r6 w N > y
O e0 o } (o Zn (o - N v � L - ,., E E 3 cs °' ° may a`�i CA O E V ns
IL Z 3 C .y i
ATTACHMENT 3
Parks and Recreation Commission minutes from Wednesday, February 4, 2004 will be
distributed at a later date.
3- �1
ATTACHMENT 4
Draft
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 11, 2004
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, February 11, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Alice Loh. James Caruso, Michael Boswell,
Cadyn Christianson, and Chairperson Orval Osborne
Absent: Commr. Allan Cooper
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Community
Development Director John Mandeville, City Biologist Michael Clarke,
Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Deputy Public Works Director
Tim Bochum, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary
Irene Pierce
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The Minutes of January 14, 2004, were accepted as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, opposed mix use development in the R-1
zone.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. Citywide. ER 183-03; Conservation plan for the Bishop
Peak Natural Reserve, including environmental review; City of SLO, applicant. (Neil
Havlik)
Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager presented the staff report, noting the Council
approved the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands in October 2002. The first
conservation plan (Irish Hills Natural Reserve) was approved by the Council in April 2003.
He explained that this is a 352-acre property that has previously been reviewed by the
Parks and Recreation Commission.
3 -�
ATTACHMENT 4
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
February 11, 2004
Page 2
Michael Clarke, City Biologist, gave a presentation explaining the main points of the
conservation plan. He explained that an inventory was made, and land use categories
designated: 7% as restoration, 30% as management and 63% as habitat areas. He
defined the categories: habitat areas are pristine wildlife habitat with no intrusion of trails
or other activities; management areas contain trail corridors and are areas of high impact
where the City must actively manage the land or vegetation; and restoration areas will
require restorative work to bring the quality of the resources up to standard. He reiterated
that these areas are regulated by the Conservation Guidelines. Dr. Clarke outlined and
commented on the responses to comments and the fire preparedness plan, noting the
result is 13 minor changes and 2 major changes to the plan. He explained the two major
changes are the elimination of the lower road that would originate at. Patricia Drive, and
alternatives to hardscaping the trail and pond area in the foothills.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Diane Holstead, 258 Patricia Court, felt that parking issues have not been effectively dealt
with.
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt that Bishop Peak should remain open
space.
Don Dollar, San Luis Obispo, felt the area of the plan that needs to be strengthened is the
amount of physical presence the City provides, suggesting increased ranger services.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
There was much discussion regarding emergency access and reference to this access as
"roads".
Commr. Loh moved to recommend the City Council adopt the Conservation Plan for the
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve as a City policy and City program with the changes
recommended by staff, and.that the access road be referred to as "dirt road" or "fire road"
for clarification purposes. Seconded by Commr..Aiken.
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Caruso, Loh, Boswell, Christianson, and Osborne
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
2. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP and ER 73-00; Margarita Area Specific Plan
and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans and related Facilities Master Plans; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Continued from January 28, 2004. (John Shoals & Mike Draze)
3 - 9
ATTACHMENT 4
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
February 11, 2004
Page 3
Commr. Osborne stepped down from participation because he owns property very close
to the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, which constitutes an appearance of a conflict of
interest. He turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Caruso..
Deputy Director Mike Draze presented the staff report, explaining the Commission would
discuss the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan, take public testimony, provide direction to
staff, and continue the hearing to March 17, 2004. Regarding the Prado Road Alignment,
Mr. Draze explained that the lack of interest of some the property owners has made the
formation of a financing district impractical. He explained the alternative primary access
to the housing and business parks during the early stages of the project will be by a road
that is an extension of the existing Prado Road that would only extend as far as the
Unocal collector road. However, the City will continue working with the property owners
to obtain the right-of-way necessary to extend the entire length of Prado Road. Mr. Draze
distributed a letter to the Commission and the public describing the phasing plan..
Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum gave a PowerPoint presentation to clarify how
the recommendations were arrived at for a two-lane versus four-lane facility for Prado
Road, and explained the rationalization by the EIR consultants.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke in opposition to the realignment of Prado
Road.
John French, 265 South Street, felt this alternative resolves the conflict between the
Public Facilities Financing Plan and the Table 13 Phasing Plan, and addresses the
ultimate goal of an adequate connection to Broad Street. He supported this approach.
Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, felt it is unfair that Airport Area property owners are
not paying their fair share towards the cost of Prado Road, and felt this issue should be
addressed. He also felt this approach is piecemeal to the environmental analysis in terms
of traffic impacts on Prado Road.
Joe Cardoza, 684 Rancho Oaks, representing the Martinelli family, felt the phasing plan
boundaries should be revised.
Andrew Carter, San Luis Obispo, supported the phasing plan. He expressed concern
with the financing plan and who will pay for it. He did not feel it is fair that Margarita
landowners should pay the full cost for Prado Road when it will be used by everyone,
both existing and those in the future build out area.
Susan Austraub, John Wallace and Associates, noted the business park has a 40
persons per acre cap because of the airport, and the financing structure is such that it
increases the cost per square foot substantially on the business park properties. She
suggested incentives to push forward the circulation plan.
3 - � 0
i
Draft Planning Commission Minutes ATTACHMENT 4
February 11, 2004
Page 4
Dave Watson, representing property owner John King, supported staffs new approach,
as described in the memo. He felt the road extension must be completed before the first
home is occupied, and that the EIR adequately and responsibly addressed traffic issues.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
It was clarified that phase I and phase II are not identified as order, but are labeled so
they can be easily referred to in discussion.
Commrs. Christianson, Aiken and Caruso supported.Alternative 1 with four lanes
Commrs. Boswell and Loh supported Alternative 2 with two lanes.
It was clarified that Phase 1 represents residential development and their ability to have a
secondary emergency access. Phase 2 represents that in order to have secondary
emergency access, two lanes must be built that link up. Backbone utilities will not run
down Prado Road, but rather on Tank Farm Road.
The Commission reviewed the document section by section, starting with Open Space
and Parks.
PUBLIC COMMENT— SECTION 1
Andrew Carter, did not feel the need for out-of-area access for this area.
Elizabeth Righetti, 3057 So. Higuera Street, felt a buffer zone would be appropriate
between Chumash Village Mobile Home Park and the King property.
Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, felt bicycle access should be addressed and bike
racks provided; that sensitive sites should be designated on the map and ARC approval
required for development on those sites; creeks and wetlands have not been adequately
addressed; and creek access is not provided.
Bill Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, noted that although trail access is available, the public
is unaware of those access points.
Dave Watson, noted a forth access area is proposed on the subdivision map and
suggested adding parallel parking.
Commission consensus on Section 1: Parking/bicycle parking at trailheads is adequate
as proposed: parking for the neighborhood park needs to be. provided. per City parking
standards: and maintain 150-feet of long-term visual access from perimeter roads.
It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this item to the regular Planning
Commission meeting of March 10, 2004.
23 -II
Draft Planning Commission Minutes -' ATTACHMENT 4
February 11, 2004
Page 5
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Deputy Director Draze gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items.
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
to the next regular meeting scheduled for February 25, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chamber.
Respectfully submitted by
Diane Stuart
Management Assistant
- ATTAc HM ENT. 5
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application # ER 183-03
1. Project Title:
Conservation Plan for the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo,990 Palm Street,SLO,CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Michael Clarke, (805)7817511
4. Project Location:
Upper slopes and summit of Bishop Peak, north of Foothill Blvd. and west of Highway 1, in
the City of San Luis Obispo (vicinity map attached).
5. Project Sponsor's Naive and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo,990 Palm Street,SLO, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Open Space
7. Zoning:
C/OS-40
8. Description of the Project:
Land use and.conservation plan for 352.acres of City- and State-owned open space known as
the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. The State-owned lands are managed.by the County of San
Luis Obispo under an agreement with the State Parks Department. The plan provides
direction on the management of recreational activities, wildlife protection, wildfire
management,and sensitive habitat conservation. The ultimate aim of the plan is to reconcile
public use of the land for recreation with the conservation of natural resources, protection
of sensitive species,and wildfire and emergency preparedness.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Privately owned agricultural land-and some adjacent urban development.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
City Council Approval
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None
X3-13.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that-is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems _
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing " t4 -rr ;,},
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such,the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
^g— and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days(CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, --X--
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
reared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment,but at least one effect(1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT,REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required.
January 6 2004
ZSiinatTde Date
For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
�� Crnr OF SAN.t.UIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST 2QOZ(/
f} f1�Chmct
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" an that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported
if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.
the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-
specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue
should identify the significance criteria or threshold,'if any;used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' isappropriateif then:is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly.explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
.3
�i
4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent.
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
3 -{ "1
A&C A41ant s
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poteuually Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER# Mitigation
incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? _X_
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not _X_
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of __X__
the site and:its surroundings?
d) Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would -X__
adverselyeffect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a). Proposed minor modifications to the existing trail system could potentially have a minor effect on the scenic vista of the
area.
b) Proposed pruning of vegetation will have a minimal effect on selected trees and shrubs that may pose a threat to public
safety.
c) No actions shall be taken that will substantially degrade existing visual character of the site
d) No new light sources shall be created.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have a less than significant effect on the aesthetics of the site.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a). Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of _X_
Statewide Importance(Farland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a —X—
Williamson'Act contract?
C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to _X_
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-a 'cultural use?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on agricultural resources..
3. AIR QUALrrY. Would theproject:
a) Violate-any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an _X_
existing or projected air quality violation?.
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air --X-
quality.plan?
C) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant -X--
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of --X—
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable.net increase of any "X_
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable_federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone ecursors)?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on air quality.
3 -�g
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X--
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or --X~
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S:Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local.policies or ordinances protecting --X-
biological resources,such.as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) -Interfere.substantially with the movement of any native resident --X—
or migratory fish or wildlife-species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites? .
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation —X—
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
fj. Have a substantial.adverse effect on Federally protected —X~
wetlands as defined in Section.404 of the Clean Water Act
(including;but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,-filling,hydrological iniermption,or
other means?
Evaluation
a) New fire road construction could cause minor disturbance to local wildlife and would result in the removal of some
vegetation. However,this would be offset by the closure,and restoration or stabilization of,existing trails and old roadways
which are causing resource damage. The result should be a net improvement of environmental conditions 4ithin the Natural
Reserve.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on bioloizical resources.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:_
a) .Causes,substantial adverse change in the significance of a --X~
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an —X--
archaeologi*resource?.(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Direcdy or mdir dy destroy a unique paleontological resource ~X--
.or site or unique geologic feature?
d)'-.Mturb any human remains,including those interred outside of --X-
formal cemeteries?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will.have no adverse effect on cultural resources.
6. .ENERGY ANDAM ERAL RESOURCES. Would the ilimlect:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation,plans? -X--
b) Use.non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient —X--
manner?
c) Result isthe loss of availability of a known mineral resource --X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Conclusion
�� Cm of SAN Luls Ostsao 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002'
`Har-A'YL&-lf 5
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pote,...ally Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Proposed actions will have no effect on energy and mineral resources.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse —X—
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
H. Strong seismic ground shaking? —X—
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? --X—
IV. Landslides or mudflows?
b) Result Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? -c) BeBe located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that --X--
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence,
.liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or ?
Evaluation
b) Modifications to the trail system,and the construction of new sections of fie road could potentially result in erosion of
top soil. However,this will be avoided by the incorporation of erosion control techniques into trail and road design and
by amelioration of existing erosion problems associated with the existing road system. This will include appropriate
outsloping the u-"road and the incorporation of waterbars into the design.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have a less than significant effect on geology and soils after mitigation as erosion control techniques
will be incorporated into trail design.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment —X--
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment —X—
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely —X—
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous —X—
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous —X—
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
659625 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within —X—
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the —X-
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS Oalspo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
4hL,&ch movi-f 5
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potet...-,ly Potentially I essThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # Mitigation
Inco orated
per?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, —X--
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not create any situation which is a potential hazard to the local population or environment.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge -X--
requirements? .
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere —X—
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.The production,rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing:land uses for which permits have been granted)?
C) . Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the —X—
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or —X—
area in a to mner.which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or --X—
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) . Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped --X--
on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area strictures which —X—
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h Otherwise substanfa y degrade water quality? -X—
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on hydrology or water quality.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with,applicable land use plan;policy, or regulation of —X—
an agency with:jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? _
b) Physically_divide an established community? -X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural --X—
community
-X—
co . conservationplans?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have not conflict with any other land use plan,nor physically divide an existing community.
11.NOISE. Would the project result m:
a) Exposure of people to or-generation of`unacceptable"rioise —X-
.levels as defined,by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise .
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance? -
b) A substantialtemporary,periodic,or permanent increase in --X--
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome --X-
3-2-(.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within -twomilesmiles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on existing noise levels.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population.growth in an area, either directly --X--
(for example by. :proposiug.new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? .
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people --X—
necessitating tlte, construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no effect on population yrowth or housing in the area.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a). Fire.protection? —X—
b) Police,protection? --X--
c) Schools?.d) Parks?
Parks? —X--
e) Roads and other transportation infiastmcture? —X--
f) Other vublic facilities? —X--
planation
The proposed management plan may add some additional workload to the City's Ranger Service. However, most of the
activities proposed fall within the normal daily operations of the Ranger Service. Labor-intensive projects will be completed
by volunteers or external contractors.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no substantial adverse effect on public services.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or —X—
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) .Include recreational facilities or require the construction or --X--
expansion:of recreational facilities,which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
The proposed management plan is designed to accommodate passive recreational activities while avoiding detrimental
effects.to the environment. No net expansion of recreational activities is proposed.
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not increase recreational use of the site to levels that are detrimental to the physical environment.
IS. TRANSPORTATION/I'RAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to --X--
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service --X--
3-aa
CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 10 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poteu..ally Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # Mitigation
Incorporated
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp --X--
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? —X—
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? —X—
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative --X—
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land —X—
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,
noise,or a chanize in air trafficpatterns?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on traffic or transportation.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable —X--
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) .Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water —X--
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider —X—
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to --X -
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations —X--
related to solid waste?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will have no adverse effect on utilities or services sterns.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the --X—
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species;cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but —X—
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
3-a3
IIIIIIIII0111 CITY OF SAN Luis OBISFo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIsT'2002
Issues, Discussion and Supportind-Information Sources Sources Potenuaily Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
issuesUnless Impact
ER# Mitigation
In orated
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause --X--
substantial adverse effects on hnman beings,either directly or
indirectly?
Conclusion
Proposed actions will not degrade the quality of the environment. They do not have cumulative impacts that are significant.
They will not have substantial adverse effects on human beings.
1&EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to.the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have
been adequately, analyzed in an.earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should klentify,the follow' items:
a . Earlller analysis used. Idintify.earher analyses and state where they are available for.review.
None
b) Impacts adequately addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope.of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable,legal standards, and state.whether such effects were.
addressed by mitigation m easures based on the earlier analysis.
None
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with'.Mitigation Incorporated,"describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site
specific conditions of the project. _
Mitieation Measures
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Modifications to the trail system, and the construction of new sections of fire road could potentially result in erosion of top
soil. However, this will be avoided by the incorporation of erosion control techniques into trail and road design and by
amelioration of existing erosion problems associated with the existing road system. This will include appropriate outsloping
the trail/road and the incorporation of waterbars into the design.
(marl CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
12 1NmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
TOPOI map pnnted on 09/06/02 fi-om"CaJjfbrma,tD0'and"Unatted.tpq"
121'1S.000'W 121-04.000'W 120oS3.000'W 120-42.000,w 120-31.000'w 120-20.000'W WGS84 120-01.000'W
N
knX,
z
(Al
24
ARA
DOE— ..? WURRROm
"is lel 8) its m z
tea, nw°
h, r Jz
z
IOU
1� 27
4
rq
A N
SIR a
z
"".I`RRRR C15
z
163 MON&L.:LL �ACM 1
IJ
FOREST
z
-6.4
It
z
I
I r z
m
m
.-31.000,
Ow Howbo(�Ww
J
Figure 1 . Vicinity Map of Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
city of
san US owwwips-w
Allen Settle Council Meeting 3 1-04 Bir" -i Peak 4_i__M Page 1'
From: "D. &E. Dollar" <ddollar@pacbell.net>
To: John Ewan <jewan @ slocity.org>, Allen Settle<asettle@slocity.org>;Ken Schwartz
<kschwartz@slocity.org>, Christine Mulholland<cmulholland@slocity.org>, Dave Romero
<dromero @ slocity.org>
Dater Sat, Feb 28,2004 11:20 AM RECEIVED
Subject: Council Meeting 3-1-04 Bishop Peak MAN
U qi 1 20
NI\ 20114
City Council,
SLO CITY CLERK
Re: Bishop Peak Conservation Plan
I urge you to support and approve the Bishop Peak Conservation Plan. It
is a very good start for the first plan for our beloved Bishop Peak.
The area is heavily used, and could use more Ranger presence on the
mountain. The Rangers make a noticeable difference. Bishop Peak is an
important local landmark and we need to be good stewards. One of our
objectives should be to leave Bishop Peak in very good condition for
future generations.This plan is a step in that direction.
Sincerely,
Don Dollar
SLO 781.0118
CC: Neil Havlik<nhavlik@slocity.org>, Michael Clarke<mclarke@slocity.org>, LeSage Paul
<plesage @ slocity.org>
TCDD DIR
couNCIL FIN DIR RED FILE
_.2 CAO SIRE CHIEF
.2-ACRO 2,p pIR ME TING AGENDA
,�
p'ATTORNEY FOUCE CHF ,) ITEM #
� _L=3
. CLERK'ORIG 2'REC DIR --r(-'t�-
DET FADS PATE
❑ . -rUTIL DIR
RECEIVED
` m Em ®RAnV//``um MAR O 1 2004
<
Icity of san Luis om o, a6mmistuation Oepautment SLQ-C'I�GLERK
DATE: March 1, 2004
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian
FROM: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Addendum to Bishop Peak Conservation Plan
Attached are comments and responses to issues raised at the City Planning
Commission Meeting (2/11/04) and the County Parks Commission (11/2/04),
which were not available at the time of preparation of the Council agenda
packets. Most of the comments relate to.minor changes in the language used or
modification of graphics. Items 32-38 all relate to adding language highlighting
cooperative management efforts of the City and County with regards to Bishop
Peak; language reflecting this cooperative effort will be added as suggested.
Only item 31 relating to parking issues will result in any substantive change in
Plan implementation; city staff will monitor parking in the Highland Ave. and
Patricia Dr. access areas over the 5-7 year cycle covered by the Conservation
Plan. These items will be discussed in the staff presentation tonight.
Ie-COUNCI .-TCDD DIR
,P,-CAO &FIN DIR
)'ACAO -2-FIRE CHIEF
RED FILEATTORNEY 2'PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG ,POLICE CHF
►NE ING AGENDA 3 17
D:Fe_� 2'REc DIR
ITEM #�. - - 2-uTIL DIR
DATE /-= -tom !R Derr;
1
i
City Response to Comments Received at the Planning Commission
Meeting 2/11/04
NA Comments
Commissioner Jim Aiken RE: Figures 7, 8 & 9. The GIS layers representing the trail
;systems are not consistent between these three figures.
29.1 Staff Response
Concur. The maps came for different sources and were therefore not exact in their'
depiction of trail or road locations.
29.2 Proposed Changes
The GIS layers for the Bishop Peak trail system will be checked and modified as
approp_riate._The corrected_trail alignments will be included in the final version-of-the_report.
.
30.0 Comments
Commissioner Michael Boswell – RE: Figure 7. There is no description of the restoration
activities that will occur on the three small restoration areas identified to the west of this
figure, also there is no mention of the time frame over which these activities will be.
completed.
RE: Figure 5–legend is incorrect
30.1 Staff Response
Concur
302 Proposed Changes
A description of all proposed restoration activities will be added as item 4.21 on page 18;
also, a timeframe for the completion of these activities will be added to the `Specific Tasks'
section on pages 18-19.
31.O Comments V__ _ _-- -- ---- ----_—___ _.
Public Comment--No mention of parking problems on Highland Dr. and Patricia Dr.
31.1 Staff Response.
Staffrecognize that the potential for parking problems does exist at both official access
points to the BPNR. However-, this issue has not been identified as a problem by any of the:
residents who live in the area and were present at the fact finding public workshop held irr
June; nor has this issue been raised at any of the previous public meeting_s to discuss the
draft plan.
31.2. Proposed Changes
The following language will be added as item 4.22 on page 18, committing the City to
monitor the parking situation at BPNR.
"City staff will monitor public parking for access to Bishop Peak Natural Reserve at the.
,Highland Avenue and Patricia Drive accesses., If problems or complaints are raised by the
;adjacent neighborhoods, staff will advise the neighborhoods about the City's parking permit
,district program and of other potential actions which may be pursued to address those.
,concerns.."
2
1
City Response to Comments Received. from County of San Luis Obispo
staff 11/2104
32.0 Comments
Introduction. Under'History' references are made on pages 4-5 to the County's role in the
Gnesa property and co-management of the Bishop Peak Natural Area. However, public
understanding of that partnership could better served by including the County's name and
logo (or that of County Parks) on the various maps of the BPNR contained within the Plan.
32.1 Staff Response
Concur
32.2 Proposed Changes
The County of San Luis Obispo logo will be added to the document and all figures
contained within. Reference to the County's role in implementation of the Plans
recommendations will be made throughout the document.
33.0 Comments
Goals& Recommendations. Many of the goals listed on pages 12-14 cite steps the City
should take, i.e., Goal 3.20: The City should be more diligent.in management of brush on
BPNR,this could cause a fire hazard. Clearly,this goal is shared by both agencies and
the language should reflect that cooperative effort. Certain goals within the Plan may only
pertain to issues found on the City's property or within the City limit approaching the
BPNR. In these cases, specific language regarding City intentions or actions are probably
More appropriate. However, in general, a clearer approach may be to reiterate our
agencies cooperative management role in the introduction of the Goals and let the
language within each specific goal stay broad, as in Goal 3.7:The current ban on
mountain biking on BPNR should be retained.
33.1 Staff Response
Concur
33.2 Proposed Changes
See item 32.2
34.0 Comments
Conservation Plan. While County staff recognizes that this Plan was prepared by City staff
and seeks consistency with the City's Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of
the City of San Luis Obispo, notation of the County's Natural Areas Plan would also be
appropriate. In particular, its guidelines of protecting natural resource values while
providing passive recreation and environmental education opportunities are quite
consistent with this Plan and our goal of joint operation. A copy of the County's Natural
Areas Plan can be provided for reference if it is not available in your office.
Generally speaking,the.Conservation task list does a better job of acknowledging the
cooperative efforts City and County staff must take to protect and enhance the BPNR.
34.1 Staff Response
Concur
34.2 Proposed Changes
The County's Natural Areas Plan will be referenced as appropriate.
3
35.O Comments
Page 17,Task 4.14: No reference is made to County staff efforts to patrol and maintain
BRNR or their role in addressing future needs.
357 Staff Response
Concur
35.2 Proposed Changes
The County's commitment to pgtrqLgf BPNR will_be;included in on Page 1,7,Task 4.14.__-
36.0 Comments
Page 19: Note County staff as one option for increasing Ranger patrol hours As Funds/
Opportunities Become Available.
36.1 Staff Response
Concur
36.2 Proposed Changes
This note will be added to page 19.
37.0 Comments
'Page 21: The Fiscal Statement notes that'County ranger presence' is a possibility to meet
future needs (appropriate), however, it does not recognize-the County's willingness and
ability to cooperate in funding projects and general operations. This cooperation has been
documented to in our cooperative management agreement and should be noted.
371 Staff Response
Concur
37.2 Proposed Changes
'This note will be added to page 21. -.
38.0 Comments
Appendix 2,Wildlife Survey:-Once again,we recognize this study was commissioned by
City staff, but the reference on page 1 in the Introduction to 'various county and state
agencies' efforts in the creation of the.BPNR minimizes the nature of our cooperative
agreement.The role of County Parks should be clarified.
38.1 Staff Response
Concur
38.2 Proposed Changes
This note will be added to page 1.
4
i
RECEIVED
FEB 2 E 2004
city clerk-memorandum o CI-Y CLERK
Date: February 26,2004
To: Council
Via: Ken Hampian, CAO
From: Lee Price, City Clerk
Subject: Adoption of the conse on Plan for Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, Business
Item 3, March 1, 2004
Attached are the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes of Wednesday,February 4, 2004.
These minutes should be inserted in your March ls`packet as Attachment#3 for Business Item 3,
Adoption of the Conservation Plan for Bishop Peak Natural Reserve.
Thank you.
RED FILE
_ SAE ING AGENDA J COUNCIL .TCDD DIR
CAO "IN DIR
DATMi i ITEM # I- AACAO TTORNEY __W DCRHIEF
�CLERK/ORIG r POLICE CHF
❑ 9FIRTHEADS , RTC DIR
ZJ' UTIL DIR i
e
ATTACHMENT 3
Parks and Recreation Commission
MINUTES
City-County Library Conference Room
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Peter Dunan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Chair Pete Dunan, Commissioners Debbie Black, Jill Lemieux, Jim Neville,
Bill Pyper and Ty Griffin
ABSENT: Gary Clay
STAFF: Director Paul LeSage,Todd Beights, Christine Wallace, and Cindy McDonald.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the January 7, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted with a correction of Mr.
Felsman's name.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
No public comment.
1. Volunteer of the Month
Chair Dunan presented Juliette Finley as the Volunteer of the Month.
2. Bishop Peak Natural Resource Conservation Plan
Michael Clarke, Ph.D., City Biologist, and Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager briefed the
Commission on the Bishop Peak Natural Resource Conservation Plan.
Dr. Clarke asked the Commission for any further comments or suggestions to the plan.
Commission discussed their concerns and all were addressed.
Chair Dunan opened Public Comment:
Don Dollar, San Luis Obispo citizen—very pleased with the Natural Resources response and plan.
John Knight — local space user— does not have any comments with the addendum but added that he
liked the plan. He suggested a kiosk at the entrance of the park.
Chair Dunan closed Public Comment.
Recommendation:
To endorse the Bishop Peak Natural Resource Conservation Plan with amendments. (Pyper/Griffin,
unanimous).
3. Film Ordinance and Regulations
Lesage introduced Christine Wallace, Reservation Supervisor. Wallace briefed the Commission on
the amended Film Ordinance and Regulations and asked for comments and suggestions.
Commission discussed the item.
Chair Dunan opened Public Comment.
CJDacu &and Setdhgsjs/auJDe Ak 101.04.04 minutmdac
S
Parks and Recreation Conn'. .ion ATTACHMENT 3
Minutes for February 4, 2004
Page 2
Baxter Boyington-thanked staff for the work they did and said it is a film friendly document..
Don Dollar—SLO citizen—wants to make sure that trees will not be removed for a price.
Chair Dunan closed Public Comment.
Recommendation:
To endorse the Film Ordinance and Regulations as presented. (Neville/Black,unanimous)..
4. Directors Report
LeSage briefed the Commission on the following projects:
■ Capital Projects ■ Memorial Tree Planting Meadow Park
■ Potential Cell sites ■ Reservoir Canyon Trail
■ Fire Camp ■ Santa Rosa Multi Purpose Court Lights
■ Stockton Field Baseball Conversion ■ Laguna Lake Park
5. Staff Reports
Kathy Mills, Recreation Manager, distributed a report from the Department and a report regarding the
financial.management of the Department to the Commission.
Todd Beights,Parks Maintenance,updated the Commission with various park projects.
6. Committee Reports
Commissioners gave reports on Committees.they attended.
• Tree Committee— ® Joint Use Committee—Black
■ Mayors Youth Task Force—Dunan ® Jack House Committee—Pyper
• Open Space-Clay s Golf-Lemieux
• Therapy Pool—Neville
7. Communications
None.
8. Adjourned
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. to the March 3,2004 meeting.