HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2017 Item 10, Pinard
Christian, Kevin
From:Peg Pinard <pinardmat@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday,
To:Harmon, Heidi; Pease, Andy; Gomez, Aaron; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan; E-mail
Council Website
Cc:dave.congalton@gmail.com; pjohnson@newtimesslo.com; Camas Frank; Cc Mc Lean
Subject:
This agenda item should be labeled: “Pilot Program to Deliberately Degrade our Natural Resources"
Calling it a “pilot program” does not change what your action will realistically do. Allowing night-time activities
WILL degrade the natural resources. It’s the one time of the day when we allow wildlife to feed and move about
on the land we supposedly set aside for them. What is it that you don’t understand? How responsible is it to keep
trying to cram recreational ‘wants’ into land that was specifically set aside for the wildlife who also have a right to
live here?! We understand that you’ve got a group who wants to hike and ride bikes at night. Then go and get
additional land in the annexed areas to meet that desire! You can design/build it to accommodate those activities
and also the large tourist crowds that you want to entice. But leave the existing Open Space/Natural Reserve areas
alone. Stop making it a target for every new proposal that some people want. You have been given the trust and
custodianship of protecting our Nature Reserves and Open Space, but instead of protecting it, you are continually
entertaining ways to degrade it.
The 2006 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT clearly states multiple times that the primary purpose of
NATURAL RESERVES/OPEN SPACE is protection of wildlife and other natural resources, (2006 “COSE”, including
Appendix C, The Management of Open Space Lands).
The 2006 Conservation and Open Space Element also ensures the protection of wildlife and other natural
resources in NATURAL RESERVE/OPEN SPACE by making it very clear that “Open Space Functions” are to be
consolidated under the Natural Resource Manager; It clearly states that:
“The City will take the following action to protect Open Space. . . maintain the
position of Natural Resource 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 Resources Manager position have kept it in Administration NOT
in Parks and Recreation to insure that Open Space is NOT overshadowed or compromised by the Parks and
Recreation Department.
It is therefore shocking that “The Parks and Recreation Director seeks Council’s affirmation for the exercise of her
authority” - so that she can waive the long standing wildlife protections in NATURAL RESERVES/OPEN SPACE! The
Parks and Recreation Director’s claim to this “Open Space function” is based on a twenty year old, never-been-
used policy in the 1998 Open Space Regulations. It is an old policy that is clearly inconsistent with the subsequently
adopted 2006 COSE. As both the former lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce and current Parks and Recreation
Director, she surely knows that when a statement in a 1998 regulation is inconsistent with a subsequently adopted
General Plan program, the General Plan clearly prevails. It is important to note that the vital wildlife protections in
the 1998 Open Space Regulations are consistent with the subsequently adopted 2006 COSE.
It appears obvious to most everyone that the power plays by the Parks and Rec. Director are continually trying to
take over the jurisdiction of the Natural Resource Manager. This has got to stop. Parks needs to plan for parks
especially in the annexed areas that are creating an ever growing need for such active recreational facilities. She
1
has got to stop compromising our existing natural resources. When we did the last General Plan we thought ahead
and planned for the needs that the buildings and annexations proposed called for at the time. We planned for the
need for more recreational ball fields. That planning resulted in the sports fields you now see at what was the
former edge of town. The ball fields were planned for - ahead of time! Where are the recreational facilities that
should have been designed along with the many new buildings and annexations that have been taking place or are
currently scheduled for annexation?
Instead of doing the responsible thing and planning ahead, it appears that the city is hell-bent on degrading what
prior generations have set aside specifically for wildlife and the peaceful enjoyment of the natural environment by
future generations.
Stop taking the lazy way out and go design what you need for todays’ requests in the new areas that can most
appropriately accommodate them.
Remember what your residents said so forcefully and clearly when asked what THEIR highest priority was….In the
2014 General Plan LUCE update...IT WAS THE PROTECTION OF OUR NATURAL RESERVES/OPEN SPACES. The city
reiterated that when they asked residents to tax themselves in order to guarantee protection. Or, were you just
lying to residents? As I’ve said before, this council will have the distinction of: “having removed the protection of
open space as a major city goal” and now being the ONLY Council to ever weaken an existing wildlife protection in
the City’s Open Space Ordinance.”
Your actions tonight will certainly signal your true colors.
Peg Pinard
Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
Former Chairperson, County Board of Supervisors
2