The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3/16/2021 Item 12, Krejsa Wilbanks, Megan From:Richard J. Krejsa < To:E-mail Council Website Cc:Richard J. Krejsa Subject:RJK Comments on CLO Council Study Session 16 March 2021 Attachments:RJK Comments on City Council Study Session.docx Importance:High This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Madam Mayor and City Council, For many reasons, I oppose any further continuation of extended hours for hiking and, especially, biking at night on Cerro San Luis. I also believe the City is mistaken in the Parks Dept, view that mountain biking is a variety of passive recreation in our open spaces. Attached please find a copy of my shortened comments regarding the hike & bike issue within the CSL Natural Reserve. Respectfully, Dr. Richard J. Krejsa 1 FROM: Dr. Richard J. Krejsa DATE: 16 March 2021 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 TO: SLO City Council San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Study Session: Open Space Winter Evening Hours Of Use Council Meeting Item12, 16 March 2021 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members I have limited mobility to access the SLO City Council Chambers directly and I am physically limited in the availability of hours I can devote to community activities. Therefore, I thank the City Council for making available information presented on the City Council’s website. That being said, however, and realizing that Daylight Saving Time began on the 2nd Sunday of March, i.e., only 2 days ago (March 14), I was thoroughly surprised that your staff had presented you with Consent Agenda information regarding tonight’s: “Study Session for Open Space Winter Evening Hours of Use;” which I believe, was actually scheduled in your November 17, 2020 Consent Agenda (packet pages 136-137) as being “in April 2021” (see Issue # 1 below). Thus, I didn’t become aware of this item being on your agenda until Sunday when I read it in the New Times. Your staff ‘s apparent mal- scheduling has given me insufficient time to properly & thoroughly prepare for tonight’s Study Session. ________________________________________________________________________ “Issue # 1” (17 Nov 2020) “RECOMMENDATION” “In the absence of recent opportunities to seek City Council direction on next steps for the Open Space Evening Hours of Use Pilot Program (“Pilot Program”) due to the City’s COVID-19 pandemic emergency response, the following near-term actions are recommended: 1. Approve a Resolution (Attachment A) adopting an Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment B) and temporarily extending the Pilot Program for one additional season with no other changes and with all programmatic elements and implementation of mitigation measures to continue, and 2. Direct staff to return to City Council in April 2021 following the conclusion of the additional third season of the Pilot Program to receive and file the final summary report and provide direction regarding any future open space evening hours of use that the City Council may wish to consider. (emphasis mine).” _____________________________________________________________________ Also from 17 Nov 2020 packet, page 145: ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO’S OPEN SPACE WINTER HOURS OF USE PILOT PROGRAM .... 17 NOVEMBER 2020 “The City Council adopted the MND and approved the Pilot Program on January 18, 2018, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 10858 (2018 Series). ... The MND concluded that potentially significant impacts to Biological Resources could occur but would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. (emphasis mine) One of these measures follows: [from 17 Nov 2020 packet, page 146] BIO-2 Wildlife Water Sources. “The Reserve features a developed spring proximate to the historic Lemon Grove. This spring will be used to gravity feed water to two wildlife- friendly “guzzlers,” or troughs, while still returning flow to the natural drainage path of the spring. This will provide additional watering sources that will benefit wildlife by decreasing the level of energy required to find water and decreasing competition among different species for water.” RJK Comments: What happened to the spring that was supposed to feed water to two wildlife-friendly guzzlers? Did it work? Has the spring functioned properly and/or has it dried out and left the wildlife water guzzlers thirsty? Has the spring actually benefitted wildlife “by decreasing the level of energy required to find water?” How was this documented? Has it “decreased competition among different species for water?” How was this “competition” measured, and between which species? “This Addendum does not require circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the adopted MND in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.” From the website of the SLO City “Office of Sustainability” “The fundamental purpose of the (Natural Resources Protection) Program is to conserve, enhance, and restore important community natural resources. [slocity.org/ (emphasis mine) • Natural Resources - Maintains the Greenbelt, conducts land conservation planning, management, and acquisitions, and supports development review. • Climate Action - Manages and implements the City's Climate Action Plan with a goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2035; supports climate adaptation and community resilience efforts. • Creeks and Watersheds - Manages and implements storm-water management, flood control, and habitat restoration projects; supports regulatory compliance. RJK Comments: How has the “Open Space Winter Hours” trial program fundamentally conserved, enhanced, and restored SLO City’s important community natural resources? Furthermore, during what little rain periods we’ve had over the past few years, I, and at least 2 other citizens, have noticed that the water flowing in arroyos and rivulets off Bishop Peak is clear and not muddied whereas, in contrast, the arroyos and rivulets flowing off Cerro San Luis usually are very muddy. There is some speculation that this is mostly due to the biker population. Is that true? Or, since the biker population is only 10.6% of the total use, compared to 89.4% of hiker use, how much of the apparent eroded silt load in lower SLO Creek is due to bikers and how much due to hikers? This is important because while it’s never mentioned in any of the Natural Resource Protection Program reports, this potential/actual siltation problem may/might be affecting the fish populations in SLO Creek? How does the erosion of this CSL Nature Reserve help achieve the fundamental purposes of the Natural Resources Protection Program? When, in 1993-1995 the Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF) was setting out the basics for the city’s Open Space Program, we thought that certain parcels of Open Space might require more protection than others. This, I believe, might be how the Natural Reserves were distinguished from the regular Open Spaces. The goal was to preserve and protect certain parcels because of their special value. Has anyone on staff talked with the original donors of the Maino and French families to find out what they were told about the special tracts of land they were donating to SLO City? There is also an entirely different potential problem occurring within the avian population and its nesting periods and reproductive habits being affected by hikers and bikers on CSL Natural Reserve. I don’t have time to go into that matter now but maybe you should talk to some of the bird people at Cal Poly. If I had more time, I’d have a lot more questions. Next time, don’t publish a public meeting date 4 months in advance (i.e., 17 Nov 2020) of the meeting and then change the. date 2 weeks earlier. Respectfully, rjk Richard J. Krejsa EQTF Member 1993-‘95 Fisheries Biologist 1957-present (retired 1994)