HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-2017 Item 1, SchmidtCOUNCIL MEETING: I - 3 - / I RFC
ITEM NO.: r j
From: "Richard Schmidt" <
Date: Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:19 PM -0800
Subject: Study Item 1, Bishop's Peak/Highland
To: "E-mail Council Website" <emailcouncilOslocity.org>
Please see attached comment on this item.
Richard
j JAN 0 3 2017
K
RE: Study Item 1 — Bishop's Peak
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
urge you not to eliminate all the parking at the Highland trailhead because doing so is
discriminatory towards the elderly, the frail, and the lightly -handicapped who
currently can enjoy this beautiful city land.
Frankly, it amazes me that this discussion has reached this point without recognition of
or discussion about this obvious fact. This ageism and ability -ism speaks poorly of staff
supervision by higher-ups.
As a geezer marching into more -advanced geezerdom, I am thankful I can still indulge
in one of my great lifelong joys, hiking and walking amidst nature. Even so, my
capabilities are not what they were even a decade ago — those 14 mile trudges up
American Canyon and over the top of Machesna Mountain are probably past, but the
Bishop's Peak Natural Reserve thankfully is not — at least not if I start from Highland
and mainly descend to Patricia.
The top of Highland provides Seniors and others of limited hiking capabilities a short
walk in a magical oak forest — the only easily accessible foray into such habitat I'm
aware of in the city's vicinity. So, this is a unique opportunity the proposed "safety
solution" would kill.
For Seniors and others of lesser strength to access that forest requires a place to park.
Eliminating places to park for all practical purposes eliminates Senior access to this
important publicly -owned property, which is a discriminatory act by our City, possibly
illegal, certainly actionable.
The fire department says there will still be access. Well, maybe for persons in their kind
of condition, but what about the rest? For most older persons their four solutions are
non -solutions:
1. Drop off and park elsewhere. So how exactly does that work for older users? Will the
City provide shuttle service? Somebody still has to get back up the hill.
2. Go to some other trailhead and park. This, of course, ignores the unique oak forest's
ready presence at Highland, as well as that all other trailheads require a long, arduous
uphill trudge to get to natural areas. Also, that from Highland it is possible for a Senior to
do a lengthy mostly -downhill hike to Patricia, thus avoiding the stress of a long uphill
trudge. (A good city would facilitate this rather than make it impossible.)
3. Shift to a "non -vehicular means" of getting to Highland, whatever those words may
mean (flown in on the back of a condor, perhaps?).
4. Go someplace else.
None of these are actual solutions for Seniors. All of them effectively deny access to the
oak forest at Highland.
• "Safety"
While I am pleased and appreciative that fire officials are looking out for our safety, I'd
point out that the word "safety," as used throughout this item's staff report, is undefined
and amounts to little more than an emotive sponge word to which every reader can
attach her or his own sense of meaning. (One function of the Council is to separate
"signal" from "noise." "Safety" is like noise.)
Further that the report's sensationalist verbiage (like that within one hour of a fire's
starting on Bishop's Peak the city will have burned clear to Highway 1)1 points to safety
issues that, if true, would not in any way be affected by whether or not there is
parking on upper Highland.
Finally, that by single-mindedly focusing only on a single aspect of fire safety, the
report's recommended solutions create a number of other public safety issues not
currently present. For example, by requiring large numbers of Highland hikers to park
below and walk up Highland, a winding street with poor visibility and no sidewalks so
they'd have to walk in the traffic lanes, a pedestrian safety nightmare is created. Note
that the most effective traffic calming measure on a narrow street is the one that
would be removed — curbside parking — and you can appreciate that traffic on
Highland would be faster than at present, and a pedestrian bloodbath is quite likely to
be the outcome.
Safety, indeed. The problem here stems from one-dimensional analysis — it's not
holistic, and therefore overlooks too much outside its narrow single -issue focus.
e It's OK to rein this in. Our fire officials, bless them, have a history of seeking too
much in the name of "safety" at the expense of other values. Sometimes the "adults in
the room" simply have to say back up, back off, and recalibrate. For example, when
was on the Planning Commission the Fire Department came to us and wanted us to
Here's the quote: "The fire would reach the community in the first hour and burn
through much of the neighborhood and over to Bishop Peak Elementary and Highway
1." Is this poor writing and the intended meaning not what it says? Or is it deliberately
alarmist to use concerns unrelated to the proposal before the Council in order to
achieve the end being sought? I'd note that the 48 hour spread of this modeled fire is
stated to be about 1,200 acres total, an acreage which is probably smaller than the
wildland complex adjoining Bishop's Peak, meaning such a fire would not even be
devastating to the natural resource. It would take a large wildfire to create the sort of
firestorm activity apparently being described here, and it's unclear how such a relatively
small fire would propel such a firestorm, especially within its first hour. Further of note,
most of the wildland adjoining Highland is moderately flammable oak woodland rather
than explosive chaparral, meaning it is a lesser risk than might be present in other areas
nearby.
change subdivision regulations so that every cul de sac would have football -field -sized
dimensions so they could turn around their largest vehicle in a single movement. We
looked at the environmental and land use implications of this change, and said "No."
Safety didn't come to an end because of that. They found their own workaround. I think
the Highland case is similar in many ways. You can tell them to look for other solutions
that don't create social inequities and new safety problems.
• Other Solutions? There are many that haven't been considered. I'm not required to
come up with all the possibilities, but here are several directions internal to the city's
workings that don't appear to have been considered.
1. Widen Highland. The city's existing street right of way is wider than the pavement, so
there's potentially room to do this. The report before you doesn't evaluate whether a
street several feet wider might solve the perceived problems without removing parking,
or whether there might be room for a sidewalk on one side, or parking pullouts on the
other. Why shouldn't physical modifications be among the considerations studied?
2. Equipment Changes. Perhaps the Department is contemplating solutions that involve
taking equipment up Highland that's too large for the job? If our city is to become
involved in wildland interface fire fighting, its equipment appears to be too large. Are my
eyes fooling me perhaps, but it looks to me as if CalFire and USFS, which focus on
wildland fire fighting, have smaller more maneuverable vehicles. More maneuverable
vehicles might not have the "Highland problem."
3. Jurisdiction. My understanding is CalFire, not the city, has jurisdiction over Bishop's
Peak fire fighting. If that is correct, one might ask why the mix of wildland fire concerns
and city fire concerns in this proposal? If it's not correct, it's not an area where shift of
viewpoint might help.
• The Real Problem on Bishop's Peak. Underlying the Fire Department proposal is a
much more serious issue — the mis-use and over -use of the Bishop's Peak Natural
Reserve. It is being destroyed by over -use. City policies and inactions lie at the core of
this problem.
If you check out the official policy documents and open space ordinances, you'll find
that the primary purpose of open space is to protect natural communities from human
intrusion, and secondarily to allow passive recreation by residents, such as hiking,
where it doesn't violate the primary purpose. In BPNR, the secondary use has got to the
point where it is threatening the primary use. This is compounded by City failure to
enforce protective regulations (dogs only on leash, no fires, no night use) designed to
protect the natural resource. As a result, we find loose dogs being allowed by their
owners to kill wildlife, bonfires on the mountain on summer nights, and abundant night
use that disrupts the nocturnal lives of BPNR's native inhabitants.
This mis-use has been deliberately promoted by the City.
Shortly after she arrived her from Malibu -Beverly Hills, the City Manager announced to
the Chamber her intent to turn San Luis Obispo into a tourism Mecca, whatever that
disrespectful mix of religious imagery with the purposes of Mammon was supposed to
mean. She works for the City Council, but as far as I'm aware the Council never
authorized such action. (This was a problem with the last council — they failed to exert
proper supervision over their two direct employees, the manager and attorney, who as a
result kept boxing the Council into one tight spot after another as they followed their
own lights.)
A part of the manager's tourism promotion package was using our city Natural
Reserves, which, remember, are first natural and secondarily for the light use of
residents, into tourist bait. In publications and on web pages put up by the city, and by
.LL _._.-.__.v.-1-�1__
UU ler LUUI 15111 x.11 UI I IUUUI I yl UUP5, P1IULUS UI PITA 11UKII ly dl SUI IUUVVI I dLUP FIJI IUP J r"CdK,
with instructions to the Highland trailhead, were prominent. The mess atop Highland
stems from this misdeed.
A second part of the problem is promotion of Bishop's Peak as the "coolest" place
during WOW week. Since this is what's promoted, it's what the kids do for the next four
or five years.
Some suggestions for dialing back the mis-use and over -use of BPNR. Note, while the
actions could be immediate, it would take some time to realize the benefits, since so
much tourist bait is already in circulation.
1. Prohibit the City, its tourism agents (like the Chamber which is paid for this service by
the City), and any local tourism promotion agencies from advertising our Natural
Reserves as tourist attractions. Encourage visitors to go to nearby National Forest and
State Park destinations.
2. Work with WOW to terminate all promotion of BPNR. If they must promote a nice
nearby hike, there's always the hike to the Cal Poly P (from the back side in Poly
Canyon it's a very nice experience, comparable to BPNR), loop hikes through the
campus up to the National Forest, High School Hill — a vastly underutilized view hike,
etc. Anything but BPNR. They should be educated about the over -use issue, so they
can become a knowing and active part of the solution, recognizing that in time they may
need to shift focus again should over -use result in areas to which they refer students.
These two approaches will, in time, reduce the over -use and abuse of BPNR.
- Recognition of two different user constituencies with different trailhead needs.
Too much of the discussion I've heard, including from people who should know better,
fails to recognize there are two substantially different foot user groups at BPNR.
These are what I'll call the "peak baggers," those whose interest is solely getting to the
top, and the "hikers," for whom the natural experience is the chief focus, most of whom
never get to the top.
The "peak baggers" would be well served by better access off Foothill, as that trail,
despite its problems correctly cited by others, leads directly up the peak. This could
relieve some of the pressure from Highland, which is also largely used by "peak
baggers."
"Hikers" mainly use Patricia and Highland. While Patricia does eventually lead to the
peak, it's a long trudge and therefore not a main attraction or attractive launch point for
"peak bagging." The proposal before you, to redirect Highland users to Patricia, seems
ignorant of this fact. Therefore, it's not a viable solution.
• Conclusion. I think two things should be clear from above:
1. The "solution" before you is one-dimensional and therefore fails as an adequate civic
action on your part.
2. A plea to keep the Highland option open for those of lesser physical abilities
since it is the only viable option for them. I think this means keeping the parking on
Highland for all, and doing other things to reduce the visitor load there. (I can see the
bureaucrats' responding they can solve this with a few handicapped parking spaces.
No, you can't. Most of the beneficiaries would not qualify for a handicapped parking
placard — we are "in between" physically unlimited youthfulness and blue -placard status.
We get along quite well as long as the City doesn't shut us out.)
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt