HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/16/2021 Item 12, Schmidt
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Richard Schmidt <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Item 12, Night use
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Item 12, Night Use of Open Space
Dear Council Members,
I urge you not to continue this anti-environmental program. Let “the trial program” end.
There are so many reasons why this program should end. Among them:
1. 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.
Passive recreation is allowed in open space provided it doesn’t diminish natural values or cause neighborhood
problems. The night-use program flunks on both those counts.
Further, this program allows night mountain biking, which is active recreation, not passive recreation. From my
home below the northeast side of SL Mtn, I see mountain bikes zipping along the tiny wildlife trails at night –
evidenced by fast-moving lights -- , trails where no environmentally-aware biker would even be riding, and where
any city program following ordinance and general plan would not permit riding (day or night). It is along these
trails that wildlife are terrorized and streamlets made muddy, resulting in runoff that is killing trout streams in the
valley below.
2. The city’s wildlife survey is mere interesting anecdote, not science, not data. If the city had cared about science,
it would have surveyed for some years prior to introducing wildlife-disrupting night activity, establishing a baseline for
interpreting the “after” data. That wasn’t done, so any conclusions drawn from the survey in your agenda packet are
meaningless and without merit.
1
3. The staff report states use “was limited to 65 users a night.” That is patently untrue. Use was far higher, and
largely uncontrolled. The city only attempts 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 the
city knows this full-well and looks the other way.
The truth is the city 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 on our northeast side – the side opposite were the city monitors use, the rapidly-
moving halogen bike lights on parts of the mountain not monitored by staff suggest it is huge.
I hear reports from neighbors of strangers going up and down private driveways at night to access the mountain thanks to
the city’s “program.” This is a neighborhood nuisance at best, a safety problem as well.
On this side of the mountain I also see night users shining bright spotlights up and down the mountain side – looking for
wildlife or what? – which is incredibly disruptive to night’s creatures.
4. Excessive human use of the mountain has scared off wildlife. This has increased since night use began.
Creatures seen daily from base-of-mountain back yards for decades – deer, rabbits, foxes, coyotes – are now rarely, if
ever, seen. This is a direct result of too many hikers, bikers, and night-users, and resulting ecosystem disruption. We
nearby residents have seen the wildlife decline year by year as human use has increased.
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.
5. The rationale for permitting the program in the first place was flawed. A story was made up that the park director
can unilaterally determine hours of use. This is a deliberate and malicious misreading of the open space ordinance, and is
contradicted by its legislative history. The council that adopted open space policy established that there should be no
night use, but left open emergency exceptions for emergency needs, like rescues. Staff’s story about parks director ability
to override council intent 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.” A program based on such legislative abuse is itself flawed.
6. Environmental policy administration should be ethical. That means it should actually accomplish stated
environmental purposes. In the case of city open space, that means resource protection is the top purpose and priority.
This environmentally-destructive program is thus unethical. Unethical policy administration is also hypocritical. This
program thus needs to end.
2
Thank you,
Richard Schmidt
3