HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2020 Item 11, Schmidt
Purrington, Teresa
From:Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, November 16, 2020 11:59 AM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Agenda item 11, night use
Re: Agenda Item 11, night use of open space
Dear Council Members,
This controversial and ecologically-harmful night use program’s being before this council, at its last business
meeting before a new council is seated, is like Trump trying to pack the Court with yet another “justice” now that
he’s a lame duck. It’s stinky government.
I request that this issue be put off till the new council is seated in two weeks. That is how fair government would
handle this matter.
I also object to staff’s manipulating this decision by making it a “consent item.” The consent agenda is supposed to be for
non-controversial routine items not requiring public hearing. This hot potato does not meet any of those normal consent
item qualifications. When this item does return, it should be on the hearing portion of the agenda.
Assuming the council ignores my request for a several week postponement, I’ll briefly summarize why this extension of
night use beyond the agreed-upon two year “trial” is ridiculously wrong.
1. The original approval vote was 3-2. Of the 3, one is no longer on the council, and one will not be on the council in 2
weeks. There is thus no fair reason why the present council should be asked to ratify and extend that earlier bare-majority
3-2 vote.
2. The one carryover vote will be the mayor, who I recall said she was for it because “so many people want it.” Well,
there are lots of things “so many people want,” like ripping up the Oceano dunes with their deafening 8 mpg 4x4 trucks, so
I guess the mayor’s rationale would support that, too. (Lost in all this is the people who instigated this were from Santa
Maria, and we owed them nothing.)
3. The primary purpose of our open space is resource protection, not recreation and not tourist-bait. This fact is
established by ordinance and by general plan.
4. The city’s resource protection on SL Mountain is disgraceful. That mountain is so degraded due to large-scale public
abuse that it is now a degraded biological zone. Among its problems:
a. Excessive human use has scared off wildlife. Creatures seen daily from back yards for decades –
deer, rabbits, foxes, coyotes – are now rarely seen. This is a direct result of too many hikers, bikers, and
1
night-users, and resulting ecosystem collapse. We nearby residents have seen the wildlife decline year
by year as human abuse has increased.
b. The city’s night program exacerbates impacts on wildlife by hitting their activity at its most crucial
moment – when the sun goes down and they can move about more freely. This is established science in
general, and the city has ZERO SCIENCE to support its night-use program or to contradict the larger
scientific knowledge.
c. Bicycle abuse of the foot trails has degraded the many stream crossings, causing mud to flow
downhill during storms into the treasured trout streams that bless our city, silting in spawning bottoms and
degrading water quality. Thus night use contributes to valley stream degradation. Bicycle abuse is visible
year round to anyone with decent eyesight, and effects of the stream crossing degradation are especially
obvious during the wet season.
d. Bicycle use of foot trails has degraded them so they are dangerous to hikers, not just from the threat
of being run over, but due to the degradation of trails with slippery scree. I had hiked the mountain
multiple times per week since the 1970s, but can no longer do so due to bike-degradation of the hiking
trails; the last time I went up, despite having a hiking pole, I fell twice on the slick scree. Bikes need their
own trails, and hikers need bike-free trails; the two don’t mix on narrow footpaths. The city’s catering to
bikes has narrowed, not broadened, recreational opportunities in our open space.
e. God only knows what additional mayhem night bikes inflict as they zoom along narrow foot trails
through habitat.
f. Staff’s talk of controlling night use with a permit system is self-righteous baloney. They only attempt to
control use at the Marsh Street trailhead. There are close to a dozen other entries to the mountain, and
they are used vigorously 24/7, especially by bikers, and staff knows this full-well. The truth is staff has no
clue the extent of night use on all parts of the mountain – and I do mean ALL parts of the mountain -- , but
from down below, the rapidly-moving halogen bike lights on parts of the mountain not monitored by staff
suggest it is huge.
g. The rationale for permitting the program, that the park director can unilaterally determine hours of use,
is a deliberate and malicious misreading of the open space ordinance, and is contradicted by its
legislative history. The council established that there should be no night use, but left open emergency
exceptions for emergency needs. Staff’s story makes no sense; in effect they’re telling you “The council
adopted a no-night-use policy but left it to staff to decide otherwise if so inclined, so we can do this.”
Right! Sounds like logical legislative intent, doesn’t it?
5. You will no doubt be receiving lots of feverish communication from the vested wreckreational interests who railroaded
the original 2 year “trial,” for staff has stirred them up, as they admit in their report: “Staff has undertaken recent outreach
with the same stakeholder groups and interested parties in advance of this City Council agenda item.” Unconsulted, per
ususal, have been we the people. Clearly “interested parties” does not include program critics of record, only proponents.
Isn’t it time the council told staff to stop this sort of special-interest manipulation?
Please get back to basics on open space protection – i.e., protect its resources, don’t destroy them.
Have the guts to say no to this ridiculous extension of night use that should never have happened in the first
place.
Richard Schmidt
2