The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/17/2017 Item 10, Schmidt From:Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, October 13, To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Item 10: Night Biking and Hiking on Cerro San Luis Obispo Attachments:Council 10,13.17 – Night Disruptions by Humans of Natural Reserves.pdf Dear Council Members, I implore you not to approve this environmentally-irresponsible proposal which seeks to set a precedent for turning our Natural Reserves into active Parklands -- which violates the reason for and intent behind creating Natural Reserves in the first place. There is no need for this change. Please don't surrender Good Environmental Stewardship to the whims of a boisterous and self-centered special interest, many of whom aren't even residents of our city. Attached are some more detailed thoughts on why you must not do this. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt 1 Item 10 – Night Disruptions by Humans of Native Fauna in Natural Reserves Which, of course, isnʼt what staff is calling it, but is in fact the actual matter before you. If ever a proposal should be DOA, this one should be. It undercuts the very reason the city – acting as a responsible environmental steward -- chose to establish Natural Reserves as conservation spaces, where landscapes, watersheds, habitats, flora and fauna are protected from the human abuse typical of urban life. They are places apart -- by intent, law, policy, right, and fact. They are places nature is intended to be able to exercise its rights, while humans take a back seat to allow that to happen. As the staff report states: “Existing policy documents pertinent to the Cityʼs Open Space [sic – it would be more correct to refer to the Cityʼs Natural Reserves than the Cityʼs Open Space] express a clear priority for protection of natural resource values . . . while allowing passive recreation only when consistent with these primary goals.” The staff report then goes on and states: “The extent to which changes to the existing hours of use policy will create substantive new impacts to natural resource values, neighborhoods, and safety are unknown.” UNKNOWN! Translation: the City has not even begun to do its CEQA work to provide you with substantive information you are required, by law, to have in front of you before you make any sort of “decision.” Yet the mayor has stated in semi-public that a “consensus” exists for proceeding. Really? This has the CEQA cart before the horse, and you MUST NOT PROCEED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT PROPER CEQA DOCUMENTATION, WHICH GIVEN THE OBVIOUS COMPLEXITY AND SUSPECTED IMMENSITY OF IMPACTS WOULD HAVE TO BE A FULL-FLEDGED EIR. If you donʼt kill this bad idea tonight, you must do an EIR. Anything less would be ignoring your fiduciary duties to protect our Natural Reserves and will likely invite acrimonious challenge. On the other hand, if the Council would educate itself about the purposes for our having Natural Reserves, you could then be the spokespersons for environmental responsibility you were elected to be by cogently explaining to those calling for a new regime why their proposal does not pass reasoned muster, and suggest they find other places for night walking, hiking and riding that do not impinge upon our Natural Reserves. The basic values of Natural Reserves. 1. This proposal comes before you largely because some people at city hall deliberately misunderstand the purpose of Natural Reserves, and dress them up as parkland, which they are not. Natural Reserves are places apart, parks are for human activity. But note that the staff report itself inappropriately conflates our hiking regulations with those from Park Districts elsewhere. It seems that under the current administration, which has publicly stated it seeks to monetize our Natural Reserves as tourist amenities, we are doing away with our Natural Resources Department and creating a Department of Open Space WreckCreation. So, the very proposal is antithetical to what staff should be doing – emphasizing the need to PROTECT our Natural Reserves, and to direct intrusive human activity elsewhere. 2. The fundamental reason for limiting passive use of Natural Reserves to daylight hours is because the native creatures residing in these reserves rely upon nightfall to move about safely and sustain themselves. This is not supposition, it is well-established fact. In fact, the several hours immediately following dusk are the MOST IMPORTANT hours for wildlife. If they lose those, they are likely to be unable to survive. Yet these are exactly the hours in which the selfish “night-users” would cause maximum disruption to the rhythms of wild life. This makes a hash of the purpose of having hours in the first place. 3. Our Natural Reserves provide abundant wildlife habitat that will be disrupted and perhaps destroyed by human night use. This degradation is inappropriate. It is selfish and elitist of humans to extend their monoculture into Natural Reserves in this fashion. (An explanation of my terminology: One fact your planners will never educate you on is that cities like they are urging you to create – i.e., density, density, density -- are human monocultures, and all monocultures are unsustainable. I see this night-use of Natural Reserves as more of the same. We arenʼt moving towards actual sustainability as a city, but in precisely the opposite direction.) 4. Our Natural Reserves also provide other “free services” for us. Rather than attempt to enumerate all, Iʼll mention one as an example – watershed protection – that is relevant to the current discussion. I have lived at the eastern base of San Luis Mountain (SLM) for more than 40 years, and as a creek steward can comment with authority about changes over the years. Ideally, the Natural Reserves should be conveying clear rain water runoff to the streams in the valley. They should also provide infiltration areas for replenishing ground water. On the east side of SLM, thanks to the mess mountain bikes have made of the trails, the creek crossings, the hillsides and the fields, the two seasonal streams that used to run clear now run brown. One can go up the mountain in wet weather and see exactly where the muddy flow begins. These muddy streams flow into Old Garden Creek, which flows into Stenner Creek, which flows into San Luis Creek, all of which are trout streams. What is the impact of this mud on trout? It silts in the gravel beds where trout spawn, making it difficult to impossible for trout to survive. So, the natural service our Natural Reserves should provide our larger creek ecosystem, the purification of runoff, is being destroyed by existing mountain bike use on the mountain. So much for the purported “concern” on the part of bikers. This is just one example of whatʼs happening, of the cityʼs failure to date to deal with such problems, and of cumulative problem magnification under the proposed rule changes. Rationale for the Change is Dubious. 1. For the record, let me state that I am an avid hiker, and I see no need for these changes. There are ample hiking opportunities in our area – state parks, national forest, county parks, Natural Reserves, Salinas River trail, Big Sur coastline, others. 2. I worked in SLO from 1970 to 2015, and never felt my hiking was impinged upon by my having to work. (Although in my earliest years, I had the good fortune on occasion to combine the two as a news reporter writing about special places around the area, doing journalistic reconnaissance on the proposed Santa Lucia Wilderness, the oak forests of San Luis Mountain and Bishopʼs Peak, and the Los Osos Oaks, among others.) Iʼve been in places in the Montana de Oro back country most of you probably donʼt know exist, Iʼve traipsed the Santa Lucia Wilderness both before and after its wilderness designation, Iʼve stood atop Machesna Mountain and looked out at the Sierra Madre Ridge, Cuyama Valley and San Emigdio Mountains in the distance, Iʼve hiked in to Caldwell Mesa in a very out of the way part of Los Padres Forest. My point is, Iʼve done this and worked. The two are not incompatible. To claim otherwise seems really mixed up. 3. Those who defend the natural values of our Natural Reserves have been called, by proponents of night disruption of the Natural Reserves, “elitist” and “selfish.” If ever thereʼs an example of people thinking theyʼre looking out a window at the world when theyʼre looking into a mirror, this is it. Demanding to be able to disrupt the natural life of our Natural Reserves by night-time use is the essence of elitism and selfishness, of putting oneʼs own selfishness above the good of the Earth and its other creatures. 4. Finally, there is a disturbing trend here. Certain groups “volunteer” services on trials, then claim that entitles them to favored treatment – whatever they demand, in essence – in return. This is immature and anti-social. Good works do not merit any payback. Charity is charity – for its own sake. Itʼs good for the soul, and mature people know that and offer it as a gift, not as a bribe. If the city buys into this juvenile and selfish argument that “we did such and such, so now we deserve this and that,” you are very unwise. In the old days of parenting, most parents would have taught their offspring not to behave this way. In our new world, it falls to the Council to be the adults in the room, the “parents” if you will, and just say “No.” Thank you for putting an end to this proposal to disrupt the night life of nature in our Natural Reserves. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt