Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2017 Item 10, Christie Christian, Kevin From:Santa Lucia Sierra Club <sierraclub8@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 To:E-mail Council Website Subject:19/17 meeting, Item 10: Pilot program for Winter Open Space hours of use Attachments:Final Letter to Parks & Rec.doc RE: Pilot program for Winter Open Space hours of use Dear Councilmembers, We wish to point out the potentially significant environmental effects resulting from the proposed change in the hours of use of the trails in the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve, an impact not readily apparent from reading the staff report on this item, but which become apparent when the staff report is read in conjunction with the wildlife surveys commissioned by the City. The 2004 and 2017 wildlife surveys discussed in the staff report noted observations of no less than ten special status/sensitive species in the Reserve. The summary report of Terra Verde’s 2017 surveys notes: “The results of the September 2017 surveys provide a small sample of wildlife utilizing Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve. A true inventory of species would require a long-term survey and monitoring effort occurring over multiple seasons and conditions to thoroughly understand and document wildlife usage of the Reserve.” A dozen species are described as having breeding, nesting, and rearing seasons that overlap the timing of the proposed seasonal pilot program, and this is “of particular concern for all species,” as disturbance during this time “may have the greatest level of impact.” The proffered Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes to mitigate these potentially significant impacts via three measures: monitoring, water troughs, and educational materials. We do not see how these measures address or mitigate the wildlife survey’s identified “greatest level of impact”-- disruption of breeding or nesting behaviors -- or the majority of other identified impacts: disruption of normal foraging for nocturnal and crepuscular species, increased risk for predation for species flushed by human activity, abandonment of habitat areas near recreational uses. Nor is it clear how the proposed measures can be affirmed as mitigating these impacts in light of the self-confessed inadequacy of the wildlife surveys, which do not provide “a true inventory of species and conditions.” We bring to your attention a letter sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission by natural resource protection advocates and neighborhood residents, dated Sept. 30, 2017, concerning the draft project plan for the Parks & Recreation Element Update. The letter, signed by two former mayors, two former councilmembers and a member of the executive committee of the Sierra Club Santa Lucia Chapter, the co-founder and a former executive director of ECOSLO and Chair of the City’s 1994 Environmental Quality Task Force, and more than two dozen concerned citizens, can be read on the City’s website at: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/doc/68272/Page1.aspx and in the copy attached. Some relevant excerpts on the City’s Open Space policies: 1 The state-mandated and adopted 2006 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT states this general plan program, “The City will take the following action to protect Open Space:… maintain the position of Natural Resources Manager so that Open Space functions are consolidated in one existing City department under one person.” All City Councils since the creation of this Natural Resource Manager position have kept it in Administration not in Parks and Recreation to insure that Open Space is not subsumed by the Parks and Recreation Department. … The 2006 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT states that the primary purpose of NATURAL RESERVES/ OPEN SPACE is protection of natural resources, including wildlife and their habitats. A secondary purpose of NATURAL RESERVES/ OPEN SPACE is specified types of “passive” recreation that may be permitted in specifically designated areas of NATURAL RESERVES/ OPEN SPACE IF this passive recreation does not degrade the natural resources being protected or create conflicts with neighborhoods. (2006 CONSERVATION OF OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, including “Appendix C, The Management of Open Space Lands”). In view of the foregoing, we strongly urge the City not to proceed with the proposed pilot program and instead acknowledge and follow the letter and intent of your General Plan and the Conservation and Open Space Element’s directive regarding the primary purpose of natural reserves/open space. As noted in the staff report, heed the ”additional oversight, patrol, and monitoring efforts” with which the proposed program would burden existing Ranger Services staff resources. Nor should your Council seek to invite the regulatory chaos inherent in allowing a long unpermitted practice in one area during one time period, but not elsewhere during other periods, and expect an already confused public to be able to follow along, or otherwise avoid sending a message that night hiking and biking is now permitted in all open space, all the time. Alternatively, please note the context created by the statements in the staff report and the summary of the current wildlife surveys to the effect that the Mitigated Negative Declaration essentially involves a promise to determine how much damage is being done to sensitive species and habitat by the pilot program but without adequate baseline information necessary to make an accurate determination of that damage. In light of this, should you elect to proceed with the proposed pilot program, you should require the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for your attention to this issue, Andrew Christie, Director Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club 2 Date: September 30, 2017 To: The Parks and Recreation Commission Subject: Draft project plan for the PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT UPDATE (and Master Plan) Hearing Date: October 4, 2017 Dear Honorable Members of the Parks & Recreation Commission, INTRODUCTION: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION ADVOCATES AND NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THE LINE BETWEEN PARK & RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE IS BEING BLURRED BY THE PROCESS THAT YOUR COMMISSION IS BEING ASKED TO TAKE. WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAGES 3 and 4 THAT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. Before getting to them, we want to give you a brief overview of the City Policy context regarding the difference between PARK AND RECREATION and OPEN SPACE. It is important that your Commission has read and understood the City’s general plan 2006 OPEN SPACE ELEMENT. In case you have not had the opportunity to do that, we are offering you a short overview and how it is different from the City’s PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT. IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT OPEN SPACE/ NATURAL RESERVES and PARKS/ PARKS FACILITIES ARE DIFFERENT. HERE ARE DIFFERENCES: 1.OPEN SPACE/ NATURAL RESERVES: The State of California mandates that all cities adopt a general plan OPEN SPACE ELEMENT. In San Luis Obispo this is the general plan “2006 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT” (2006 “COSE”). “OPEN SPACE” is a land use designation. “This designation provides for land or water areas that remain in predominantly natural or undeveloped state….”. (2014 Land Use Element, General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo). “NATURAL RESERVES” are combined, contiguous OPEN SPACE LANDS, such as “The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve”. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE of OPEN SPACE/ NATURAL RESERVES IS PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES. (2006, “COSE”) (footnote #1) The City’s “1998 Open Space Ordinance” additionally has specific wildlife, wildlife habitat, and other natural resource protections. “Lands acquired or otherwise controlled by the city for OPEN SPACE purposes are NOT considered to be PARKS …“ (1998 OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE,) OPEN SPACE/NATURAL RESERVES are also NOT “Parks Facilities” NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGER: The state-mandated and adopted 2006 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT states this general plan program, “The City will take the following action to protect Open Space:… maintain the position of Natural Resources Manager so that Open Space functions are consolidated in one existing City department under one person”. All City Councils since the creation of this Natural Resource Manager position have kept it in Administration not in Parks and Recreation to insure that Open Space is not subsumed by the Parks and Recreation Department. 2. “PARK” & “RECREATION” “PARK” & “RECREATION” are land use designations, but the State does not require a general plan “Parks and Recreation Element“. It is optional and therefore secondary to required elements. The “ Parks” land use designation “provides for public park facilities” and the “Recreation” designation provides for “outdoor recreational facilities”. (2014 LAND USE ELEMENT) “CITY RECREATION FACILITIES consist of mini-parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, joint use sites (such as school playgrounds) non-joint use sites, recreation centers and special facilities, including: Jack House, Swim Center, Senior Center, Recreation Center, golf Course, historic adobes, and community gardens.” (2001 PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT, City of San Luis Obispo) Note that “OPEN SPACE” is not a “CITY RECREATION FACILITIES”. The primary purpose of “Parks” “Recreation” and “CITY RECREATION FACILITIES” is recreation. The above functions are under the direction of the Parks and Recreation Department Director. This is the proposed draft project plan for an update of the 2001 PARKS and RECREATION ELEMENT not the subsequently adopted 2006 CONSERVATION and OPEN SPACE ELEMENT. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION PURVIEW: “The Parks & Recreation Commission purview is to review and make recommendations for changes which could have an impact on the City’s parks and park facilities”. (Project Plan for PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT UPDATE (and Master Plan), Agenda Report, page 1, paragraph 3) 3. CITIZEN PRIORITIES & THE 2014 LAND USE & CIRCULATION ELEMENTS SURVEY The massive City survey of all City residents which began the 2014 LAND USE & CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE affirmed with more than 2,200 detailed written responses that the highest priorities of City residents are to have more PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE and the only thing that they were personally willing to pay more for was PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE. When City residents were subsequently asked to tax themselves through 2014 Measure G, “Open Space Preservation” was the first funding priority listed on the Measure G Ballot. It passed. 4. PUBLIC NOTICE: THIS PROPOSED DRAFT PROJECT PLAN for “THE UPDATE OF THE PARKS & RECREATION GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT (and master plan)” has been given PUBLIC NOTICE as a proposed plan to “UPDATE THE PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT (and master plan)”. This is also the “AGENDA SUBJECT” and the subject of the one page “STAFF AGENDA REPORT”. The words “OPEN SPACE” or “NATURAL RESERVES” are never mentioned in any of these. It is only in the highly unlikely event that the general public reads the “attachment to the Staff Agenda Report” that it becomes apparent that this proposed plan significantly and improperly ranges into “OPEN SPACE” issues. (footnote #2) ________________________________________________________________ We support the request to update the PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT IF it does not attempt to improperly infringe upon and create OPEN SPACE/NATURAL RESERVE GOALS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS. OPEN SPACE/NATURAL RESERVE GOALS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS RESIDE PROPERLY IN THE STATE-MANDATED, AND ADOPTED “2006 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT”. THEREFORE; WE VERY STRONGLY REQUEST THAT THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT STAFF BE GIVEN THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION: 1. The focus of this “PLAN FOR THE UPDATE OF THE 2001 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT” shall properly be “City parks and park facilities” and recreation associated with them. 2. The UPDATE OF THE 2001 PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT shall be consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the City’s subsequently adopted, state-mandated 2006 CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT . “Intending to be consistent” with the 2006 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT is NOT a commitment. It is a weaker statement that, in reality, means very little. (see Staff Agenda Report Attachment, pg. 2-3] 3. A “legislative draft process” shall be used to update the 2001 Parks & Recreation Element so that all citizens are able to see clearly in one document throughout the update process what changes, deletions, and additions are being proposed to the existing 2001 Parks & Recreation Element. At Council direction, this “legislative draft process” was used in the 2014 UPDATES OF THE LAND USE & CIRCULATION ELEMENTS. 4. The proposed Parks & Recreation Element update shall be primarily resident- based. “Stakeholders” are often not City residents, and do not have to live with the impacts of the updated Parks & Recreation Element (and master plan). (FOOTNOTE #3 5. All surveys and questionnaires , including the proposed “on-line”, “intercept”, and “community needs assessment” surveys and questionnaires shall pose questions that are consistent with the state-mandated and adopted 2006 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT and with the existing wildlife, wildlife habitat and other natural resource protections in the City’s Municipal Code, OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE. 6. As the City continues to expand, Staff shall include early and meaningful public consideration for the concept of one or more, creative, “large PARKS”. These large parks would accommodate and support RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES that may have some level of public support, but which would degrade wildlife, their habitats and other protected natural resources and/or create conflicts with neighborhoods if attempted to be “retrofitted “ into the City’s established and protected NATURAL RESERVES/ OPEN SPACES. Such RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES include motorized mountain bikes; large group events, competitions or gatherings ; off-leash dogs; campfires and significant nighttime hours of use; etc.. Such activities are illegal in the City’s NATURAL RESERVES/ OPEN SPACES because they degrade the wildlife, wildlife habitats and other natural resources being protected AND may create conflicts with neighborhoods. These creative new “large parks”” would also have the large advantage of being able to incorporate landform changes, a variety of “built structures”, lighting, paving and the use of vehicles. All of these are NOT allowed in NATURAL RESERVES/ OPEN SPACE. Large, tourist-based events, gatherings and competitions, which are illegal in NATURAL RESERVES/OPEN SPACE, could also be held in these “large parks” and could raise significant funding for these and other city parks. AS OUR CITY BECOMES MORE URBANIZED AND DENSELY DEVELOPED, THE MEANINGFUL “PROTECTION OF OUR NATURAL RESERVES/ OPEN SPACE “ A HIGHEST PRIORITY OF CITY RESIDENTS BECOMES EVER MORE IMPORTANT. (footnote #4) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, FOOTNOTES: PREFACE: GENERAL PLANS, ORDINANCE, MASTER PLANS, STRATEGIC PLANS, etc.: City Ordinances, Master Plans, Strategic Plans, etc. are legally required to be consistent with the City’s General Plan. It is also required that there be consistency between General Plan Elements. Some General Plan Elements are state-mandated, such as an OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, and some elements are a only optional, such as a PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT. Some elements are also more current then others. For instance, the state-mandated 2006 OPEN SPACE ELEMENT is more current than the previousy adopted, 2001 PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT. FOOTNOTE #1. The 2006 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT states that the primary purpose of NATURAL RESERVES/ OPEN SPACE is protection of natural resources, including wildlife and their habitats. A secondary purpose of NATURAL RESERVES/ OPEN SPACE is specified types of “passive” recreation that may be permitted in specifically designated areas of NATURAL RESERVES/ OPEN SPACE IF this passive recreation does not degrade the natural resources being protected or create conflicts with neighborhoods. (2006 CONSERVATION OF OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, including “Appendix C, The Management of Open Space Lands”) PUBLIC NOTICE & PUBLIC PROCESS FOOTNOTES: FOOTNOTE #2. Neighborhoods adjacent to NATURAL RESERVES, such as the Bishop Peak/Ferrini Heights neighborhoods, and the City’s major environmental organizations , The Sierra Club and ECOSLO were very disappointed when they were not given meaningful public notice , and therefore the opportunity to participate in the recent, eleven month “2020 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan” process even though it contained very significant specific goals and objectives for NATURAL RESERVES/OPEN SPACE. To quote the Mayor at the City Council hearing, “I do think there was not enough specific involvement by the environmental groups, the Natural Resources Roundtable, and the neighborhoods around the trailheads. If you look at the title of this plan, it’s the PARK & RECREATION STRATEGIC PLAN, and if I were an OPEN SPACE advocate—really interested in OPEN SPACE----I might not, looking at the notice of the PARKS AND RECREATION STRATEGIC PLAN, even imagine that it did include OPEN SPACE.” It is therefore, very disappointing that this same, inadequate public notice process has apparently been chosen to inform the public of this “Draft project plan for the PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT UPDATE (and master plan)”. The public notice of this proposed plan has even greater impacts, as approval of this plan sets the course and largely influences the outcome of this General Plan update. At the initial Parks and Recreation Commission hearing on this draft, public input consisted of only one “agenda correspondence” and only one “public comment”, and they were both about PARKS ( the omission of a PARK in the north Broad neighborhood and information on the formation of a group seeking additional dog Parks). FOOTNOTE # 3. We are disappointed that the process being proposed for this update of The 2001 PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT is fundamentally less “Citizen- based” than the public process used in the City’s recent updates of the general plan 2014 LAND USE and CIRCULATION ELEMENTS. The proposed update process for the 2001 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT eliminates both the central role of a Council-appointed “resident General Plan Task Force from diverse geographic areas of the City” and their series of many publicly noticed public meetings specifically dedicated to public input gathering and discussion , with recorded votes of the Citizen’s Task Force on the individual issues. FOOTNOTE #4. The proposed directions to staff would also provide increasingly needed assurance to generous donors of NATURAL RESERVE/ OPEN SPACE lands and funding that the City will continue in good faith to ensure the continuance of meaningful protections of these lands, their wildlife, wildlife habitats, and other natural resources.