Op-Ed: Setting the Record Straight About the Modoc Multi-Use Path
By Kira Pusch
***Update: On Tuesday, November 1, the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and authorize public works to move forward with the Modoc Multi-Use Path negotiations and planning. 53 people spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, with a majority voicing support for Alignment B. The board supervisors likewise spoke favorably of Alignment B; Noozhawk spoke with Supervisor Gregg Hart after the meeting and quote him as saying “I’m confident that we can find a solution that protects the existing palm trees and allows a safe multi-use path for all to enjoy.”
For more information, a succinct summary of the Board of Supervisors meeting can be found on the MOVE SB County blog here.
The long-planned construction of a 0.75 mile-long multi-use path in Santa Barbara, California has recently spurred an ongoing, months-long debate amongst locals. Several media outlets have published articles about the controversy, often featuring quotes from protestors of the path. In response to these and to the oft-cited “Save the Modoc Road Trees” petition currently making its rounds on social media, the below information is provided with the aim of stemming misinformation and grounding discourse about the Modoc MUP in facts.
Overview:
*Note that all the information provided in this section can be found on Santa Barbara County’s dedicated website for the Modoc Multi-Use Path (MUP) project here, specifically in the most recent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) here.
The proposed Modoc MUP is a 10ft-wide paved path, with maximally 2 ft-wide unpaved shoulders. It would connect two other existing multi-use paths (the Obern Trail and Modoc/Positas Path), resulting in a total of 14.5 miles of linked multi-use paths across Santa Barbara county. The specified goal of the project is to provide safe, enjoyable, and equitable access for all, especially along Modoc Road where there are currently discontinuous sidewalks, inadequate crosswalks and narrow unprotected bike lanes next to 45 mph traffic.
It is anticipated that construction work would be initiated in 2023 and require about four months to complete. The project is estimated to cost $8 million, $5.54 million of which is provided by an Active Transportation grant given to the county by the state of California in 2018. This includes funding for the installation of a signalized crosswalk toward the eastern end of the proposed MUP.
Alignment B:
Of the two proposed Modoc MUP locations, that titled “Alignment B” is not only staff-preferred, but also widely preferred by proponents of the path as it would physically separate the path from the adjacent 35-45+mph traffic on Modoc road, remove fewer trees than the alternative, be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and reduce the need for retaining walls. Alignment B would run along the interior edge of the Modoc Land Preserve on Modoc road, necessitate removal of 21 trees, 86% of which are non-native and all of which would be replaced with native oaks, ultimately leaving the preserve with more trees than it started with. Alignment B also involves construction of two retaining walls; two segments totaling 650 linear feet would be visible from Modoc Road, with an average height of less than four feet.
A diagram of the path to be taken by Alignment B is shown below, along with a table detailing the number and type of trees to be removed.
Table of tree removal for Alignment B
Breakdown of claims made by detractors of the Proposed Modoc MUP:
The “Save the Modoc Trees” petition mentioned above makes the following statements/claims (shown in blue):
“These 29 iconic Canary Island Date palms are threatened!”
This statement is inaccurate. As indicated in the above table, Alignment B does not require removal of any Canary Island Date Palms. While the alternative alignment (Alignment A) would require removal of 29 Canary Date Palms, the county’s MND repeatedly states that Alignment B is the “preferred alignment.”
“The so-called Plan B is on the protected Modoc Preserve property...it does not conform to the provisions in [the Deed of Conservation Easement Agreement signed in 1999]”
This statement is also inaccurate. Alignment B conforms to the provisions of the Conservation Easement as it permits alterations under certain specific conditions, including the construction of designated paths, fences, gates, grading, moving of water courses, installation of bridges, removal of non-native plants including trees, and restoration plantings with appropriate plants, so long as these actions are approved by the Land Trust for SB County, in collaboration with the La Cumbre Water Company for purposes such as recreation, resource management and enhancement, education, and scientific research.
Further, and as stated in the MND, “the proposed land use (multi-use trail) would not conflict with the allowed uses under the conservation easement, and would not generate significant noise, traffic, dust, artificial lighting or crowds that could impair the attributes of the Preserve.”
“It would also put equestrians, and their horses, right next to 25mph e-bikes whizzing by!”
This statement is misleading. As stated in the MND’s description of Alignment B, “A 300-foot long segment of the existing equestrian trail would be realigned by providing a three-foot-wide earthen equestrian trail with a buffer from south of the proposed multi-use path.” The concern about 25 mph e-bikes also raises the question of how said horses fare when walking adjacent to Modoc Road where cars often “whiz by” at 45 mph.
“We understand that Canary Island palms and Eucalyptus trees are non-native to California … however, they do provide very important habitat and shade canopy to many species of birds, mammals, and other organisms that dwell in the Modoc Preserve. Embracing biodiversity is a more sensible approach. Leaving well established, drought tolerant, non-natives to co-exist with natives...especially, in semi-rural to urban areas makes much more sense…”
Again, the Canary Island Palms will be unaffected by Alignment B.
There is a lot to break down here, as the issue is admittedly complicated. It is certainly true that minimizing pointless gratuitous destruction of the environment is of extreme importance; the studies comprising the MND were conducted for this precise reason, and Alignment B is a revised and greatly improved version of an earlier plan which dictated removal of a much greater number of trees.
The MND also states that while Alignment B “would result in the loss of about 1.3 acres of wildlife habitat,” said habitat is “located along Modoc Road, subject to vehicle noise, dust and exhaust emissions and not considered high value or essential habitat for any wildlife species'' according to the impact assessment guidelines outlined in the MND.
Critically, the funding provided for the Modoc MUP includes the opportunity to perform native plant restoration along the path. Per the MND, “The loss of three protected coast live oak trees (at least six inches in diameter) would be mitigated by planting coast live oaks at a mitigation ratio of 10:1 for one-gallon container plants or 5:1 with fifteen-gallon container plants. Therefore, a total of 30 one-gallon plants or 15 fifteen-gallon plants would be planted.” Opponents of the path have frequently stated that they are concerned about the loss of a greenbelt as a result of the Modoc MUP’s construction, but the mitigation performed during construction will in fact leave the preserve with more trees than it started with.
Additionally, several of the eucalyptus trees identified for removal for Alignment B are actively afflicted with shelf fungus (see photo below). Shelf fungi are a major wood rotting group. Once a tree is infected, the fungus cannot be killed and the tree is at risk of falling and spreading spores to nearby trees. Removing infected trees during construction of the path therefore makes room for the MUP while also achieving preventative maintenance.
Conservation and forestry experts approve of Alignment B, and removal of non-native trees is an explicit goal of the Modoc Preserve Conservation Easement. In addition to fire risk, non-native trees like eucalyptus can use so much groundwater that they dry out wetlands, kill and crowd out other trees and plants, and require constant maintenance. Accordingly, the eucalyptus trees removed would be replaced with oak trees, which are quick-growing, and both native and fire resistant. Coast live oaks are the more sustainable long-term choice given climate change and hotter, windier conditions.
Lastly, regarding animal species in the Modoc Preserve, the MND states: “Impacts to active native bird nests shall be minimized by conducting all project-related vegetation removal prior to construction and outside of the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), if feasible.” The MND document goes into comprehensive detail of its study and approach to other species as well.
Safety:
Conspicuously absent from the above points is any acknowledgement by detractors of the safety improvements to be gained by constructing the Modoc MUP.
Data published by the National Traffic Safety Board shows that a collision between a pedestrian and a car at 40 mph is 80% likely to be fatal. As previously mentioned, there are no sidewalks along the stretch of Modoc Rd the MUP would span. And traffic on Modoc reaches upwards of 45 mph.
Source: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/what-are-complete-streets/
Left to make their way along the shoulder, cyclists are likewise at risk on Modoc Rd. There have been 9 crashes involving cars and bicyclists on Modoc Rd in the last 11 years. These are avoidable with a protected, separated bike path like the proposed MUP.
Myriad case studies demonstrate the public safety advantages of separated bike lanes. For instance, following the installation of new protected bike lanes on Pennsylvania avenue in Washington DC, 90% of users say they feel safer. This makes sense, especially considering the research conducted by the American Federal Highway Administration in 2021, which found that separated bike lanes can reduce crashes up to 30% for total crashes on urban 2-lane undivided collectors and local roads. Similarly, In 2019 a 13-year study of a dozen cities found that protected bike lanes led to a drastic decline in fatalities for all users of the road. The researchers who conducted the study found that cities with protected and separated bike lanes had 44 percent fewer deaths and 50 percent fewer injuries than the average city.
The bigger picture:
Veiling an aversion to change with a seemingly environmentally-driven argument (a.k.a. the “NOT A SINGLE TREE!” stance) is a regrettably uncompromising approach. The Modoc MUP was designed and provided funding solely with good intentions; enabling non-car-based travel from Goleta to downtown SB on a protected path is not only safer for path users, but also for the environment.
In California, 40% of emissions come from transportation, and automobile dependency is a major factor in California’s climate goal shortcomings. Conversely, cyclists have 84% lower carbon emissions from all daily travel compared to non-cyclists, and studies find that swapping the car for walking, cycling and e-biking even just one day a week makes a significant impact on personal carbon emissions. Other cities that have added safe, separated bike paths have demonstrably reduced car trips. For instance, in the city of Davis, which extended separated bike paths from its UC campus to the rest of the city, fully 20% of commutes are made by bike. Another example: 38% of people biking on Sherbourne Street in Toronto switched to biking after Sherbourne got a protected bike lane. Of those, 24% switched from driving. A third statistic for good measure: according to a study that analyzed protected bike lanes in five cities across the US, the average protected bike lane sees bike counts increase 75% in its first year alone.
Approximately 600 individual round trip bicycle rides along the 0.75 mile proposed Modoc MUP would save the carbon emissions equivalent to the 21 trees cut down to create it. So, if just one person were to use the Modoc MUP five times per week for six months (for instance to commute to a job or to school), the carbon emissions saved by that single person biking instead of driving in a compact car along just that 0.75 mile-long stretch of Modoc would be equivalent to the amount of carbon sequestered annually by 21 trees. In essence, the Modoc MUP would likely pay off the cost of trees required to build it faster than the construction itself. This is especially true if, as studies have shown, traffic along the path increases bicycle trips via induced demand.
The Modoc MUP is ultimately one of many steps being taken by the county to reduce carbon emissions and improve quality of life in order to achieve the Vision Zero goals adopted by Santa Barbara in 2018. The San Jose Creek path, the Cliff Drive path, and the Hollister interim striping project are all walkability improvement projects in Santa Barbara that have been passed unanimously within the last month. A remaining and vital missing piece in our cycling/pedestrian infrastructure is the Modoc MUP.
Fighting walkability improvements within Santa Barbara is arguably far more harmful to the environment than removal of 21 trees could ever be. Opponents and proponents of the Modoc MUP are united in their desire for a shared natural space. However, there is more to the forest than just its trees; let’s not lose this opportunity to build a more sustainable future.
Please consider signing the petition in support of the Modoc MUP here, and leaving a public comment in favor of Alignment B here.
Op-Ed's are written by community members and local organizations. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat.
Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at info@edhat.com.
83 Comments
-
3
-
1
-
Nov 04, 2022 12:00 PMExhaustive compilation of stuff but not sure it 'sets the record straight' (whatever that references).
-
-
-
Nov 08, 2022 10:07 AMThe record isn’t straight, it’s as twisted and wind-y as can be. The question in it mind is, how did this project go from the straightforward path proposed back in 2018 as documented in the ATP grant application, to the confusing mess of unviable unpopular “alignments” that we have today? Just build it the way it was originally proposed (up on Modoc Rd) and we have no issues. Done.
-
4
-
2
-
Nov 04, 2022 12:19 PMsolid facts, proof, evidence...whatever you call it, this spells it out VERY clearly. If you read this and don't understand it or still complain...well, sorry.
its' happening and good that it is happening! 3 native oak trees & a bunch of non native and invasive/diseased trees. that's all that would be removed. I just think some of you that cried about this path, need a hobby or something better to do. you basically argued against fact and common sense.
-
4
-
4
-
Nov 04, 2022 01:37 PMZEROHAWK: Here's a "solid fact" for you: NO Environmental Impact Report has been done. Until that EIR is conducted, and the much-flawed Mitigated Negative Declaration is recognized as falling far short of listing the copious negative impacts removing healthy, old-growth trees and allowing bulldozers onto The Modoc Preserve ----- what everyone needs to know is that this proposed project is a rush-job and a bungling, destructive mess. Shortchanging wildlife by removing their habitat, paving over wetlands and destroying healthy trees is not the answer. You making derogatory remarks about those who want to protect habitat and preserve open space only serves to show that you fail to grasp the issue.
-
4
-
1
-
Nov 05, 2022 12:31 AMMINIBEAST: Stop making up stuff. No wetlands are being paved over. It is not at all a "rush job or bungling". The fact that some neighbors made issues about tree removal and construction impacts and the county staff then worked diligently to re-design the plans to reduce both of those impacts speaks volumes. That is what "public input" is all about.
Be careful what you wish for. A full EIR might very well conclude that ALL of the palms and eucalyptus and other non-natives should be removed to help promote habitat restoration and maintenance. The real impacts of allowing non-native palms, eucs and trees with fungal disease to remain might well rise above the "significant" level. Understand that a mitigated negative declaration acknowledges that there are project impacts but they have been addressed in the design and implementation of the development. That's good thing, right?
-
1
-
3
-
Nov 05, 2022 07:04 AMIn fact, CDFW states on Page 4 of their MND comments letter that the alteration of the bioswale drainage feature between the rows of trees in Alignment B, may substantially adversely affect existing surface, and/or subsurface stream or drainage patterns...and, recommended mitigation measures...
https://modocpreserve.com/cdfw-mnd-comments
The MND states that “No changes in creek or storm drain locations, dimensions or hydraulic characteristics would occur. Therefore, no changes in drainage patterns would occur." This statement defies logic and physics!
This is more than a small issue of concern regarding degradation of topsoil quality, alteration of topography, and alteration or manipulation of a watercourse, the existing bioswale biofiltration drainage...and, the County's plan to "slightly re-align" it... incorporating it into the multi-use path design. "The drainage swale would have a top width of about six feet and depth of about two feet."
This Modoc Road bioswale filters the runoff feeding into the Modoc Preserve wetland off of the road and drain pipes...overflow of Laguna Blanca Lake during wet years, and recharges the groundwater...which nourishes the tree's roots...etc...
Bioswales provide a way to conserve water, improve water quality, minimize the pollution in waterways and improve biodiversity in our burgeoning SB concrete jungles.
Just having heavy equipment anywhere near the soil along this important drainage would degrade the soil. The MND further states "soil disturbance associated with recent restoration activities may have adversely affected this species" and "Northern California legless lizard is unlikely to occur along the multi-use path alignment due to soil compaction associated with roadway construction and maintenance, and existing trail use by pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians." (Revised MND p. 37.) Yet, no mitigation is provided for this species’ impact. (Revised MND p. 37 [“Northern California Legless Lizard. Suitable habitat for this species occurs at the Modoc Preserve. However, soil disturbance associated with recent restoration activities may have adversely affected this species if present. Northern California legless lizard is unlikely to occur along the multi-use path alignment due to soil compaction associated with roadway construction and maintenance, and existing trail use by pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians.”].)
More evidence of this bungling and rush job is the fact that the County finally got around to consulting with CDFW on October 3, 2022...which issued it's revised MND comments letter on October 12, 2022...2 days before the closing of the MND comment period...I will further remind you that the initial comment period for the Draft MND closed on June 17, 2022...and, there was never any evidence of consultation with CDFW...
The County Has Failed To Consult With CDFW.
An agency preparing an initial study must consult with all responsible agencies and trustee agencies responsible for resources affected by the project, under PRC §21080.3(a), and CEQA Guidelines § 15063(g). Consultation means the “meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others[.]” (See e.g., Gov’t. Code, § 65352.4.) Thus, consultation is more than just sending a piece of paper to the State Clearinghouse. Here, there is no evidence that the County has consulted with the CDFW on this proposed Project, especially with respect to biological impacts relating to wildlife that are of concern to the CDFW as noted above.
This analysis, including the fact that the MND did not fully identify these impacts...is more evidence of the incompleteness of the environmental review...
Furthermore, on Page 5 of the Deed of Conservation Easement, PROHIBITED USES: provision 4(h), it is stated: Watercourses. The alteration or manipulation of watercourses located in the Easement Area or the creation of new water impoundments or watercourses for any purpose other than permitted uses of the Easement Area or enhancement of natural habitat or wetland values.
If the County worked so diligently to plan and design this project...then why the hell did they design it down into a protected wetland in the first place? That doesn't show diligence...it shows ignorance and lack of respect for nature! Let alone that we had to force them to figure out that it could be done on the existing asphalt infrastructure...saving time and money.
Halloween is over...it's time to stop the fear-mongering over a tree's immigration status...I'd wager that you poured some almond milk in your coffee this morning...and, then will have a handful of almonds before lunch...even if you personally don't...millions of woke pseudo-environmentalists do...
Pro-tip...almonds are non-native...and, are the most water thirsty subsidized export of California...
The eucalyptus trees are not going to snatch your babies from their cribs at night and then self-detonate...
The 2 eucalyptus trees with mushrooms growing in the pics are not slated for removal in Alignment B...only the palm trees are shown in blue for removal under Alignment A scenario...
https://modocpreserve.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/modoc_alignment_b_eucs.jpg
If you think this is some big dealio then why didn't the Padre MND biologist document it in the MND? City of SB hired a very good arborist to write their tree section...calculate canopy habitat loss...mitigate tree loss with more mature trees to reduce time to replace the loss...etc...so, this further helps to show that this County MND for the Modoc Road MUP is incomplete and inaccurate...
Bottom line is that the danger of these eucs frequently falling over is hyperbole...if the danger is as stated, then why are their 100's of miles of them all in a row immediately adjacent to California highways and railroad tracks...immediately adjacent to sidewalks all over the city of San Francisco?
If you lay awake at night afraid of the rats in the palm trees...you can rest knowing that they have all moved downtown and are now living under the parklets and gutters near all of the e-bike rental stations...
We know all we need to know about the failure of CEQA and the MND...
https://eastbayexpress.com/how-the-california-environmental-quality-act-fails-the-environment-1/
"Another serious flaw in CEQA’s design undermines its efficacy: The reports that establish potential environmental impacts are written by private consultants hired by the developer. In this process, potential impacts of a project may be slyly downplayed, to make mitigation easier or cheaper.
“It’s a huge conflict of interest to have the developer paying the consultant who’s writing the report...
The community usually needs to be on their ass to make them do it,”
The CEQA environmental review process is a sham and often fails to protect wildlife. A paperwork formality bought and paid for by Public Works to make it L@@K like due diligence was done. Signed off on internally with no objective oversight.
In fact, if a project is in the County ROW (right of way) they simply sign off on a “categorical exemption” from environmental review internally, like they did for Phase 1 of this project.
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-road-bike-path-construction
So, at the end of the day... if everyone is happy that the Modoc Preserve neighborhoods and 5400 petition supporters who have written 100's of comments...
https://modocpreserve.com/petition-comments
have been able to force the County to re-design over half of the 3/4 mile long project out of the protected nature preserve and up on Modoc Road, with vehicle separation, then why aren't the bike groups supporting us in our efforts to get the last couple of hundred yards of this MUP finished on Modoc Road as well?!?!
https://modocpreserve.com/i-just-dont-get-it
That's what speaks volumes...
-
3
-
5
-
Nov 04, 2022 12:21 PMPreserve The Modoc Preserve. Don't allow The County to set a precedent of paving over wetlands and designated open space ------ open space which currently is protected by a conservation easement. Pouring 23,000 tons of asphalt into The Preserve and building 4' high concrete walls is NOT a viable solution. Let County Public Works know that Santa Barbarans will always champion our green space and wildlife. Please sign to protect The Modoc Preserve: https://chng.it/B8qvgfNwY6
-
2
-
1
-
Nov 04, 2022 01:09 PMHaving been clipped by a car before while commuting by bike, this is a fantastic project which dramatically makes traveling through this busy corridor safer for everyone.
I am grateful that many years ago, planners made hard decisions and created an incredible bike path towards Goleta Beach even though it was in a sensitive area. The beauty of that land is still there and enjoyed everyday by many. More recently, they did the same in other places such as the Rincon parkway. These come at a cost, but they are treasures that we all continue to enjoy (and our children will enjoy).
-
2
-
2
-
Nov 04, 2022 12:49 PMONE-gallon oaks are mitigation?! We have a five-year-old "one-gallon oak" on our property. It hasn't budged much in that five years. Get real.
-
1
-
-
Nov 05, 2022 06:24 AM12:49, I am sorry to hear that. I have a 5-6 year old oak, planted by a bird, that's almost as tall as the peak of my one-story roof. Sorry, I've forgotten the specific type.
-
2
-
-
Nov 05, 2022 03:49 PMI've got a volunteer oak on my property too. First noticed it ~7 years ago. It's much taller than a stop sign, has a substantial canopy, and is thriving. Google says oaks grow 1-3 feet per year on average.
-
2
-
2
-
Nov 04, 2022 01:15 PMWow! What a great daxtual article that spells everything out about this project without pulling any punches. The sooner this project is completed the sooner we can all be safe. We are all talk about saving the environment and this project does just that. Only a tiny fraction of locals oppose this wonderful new/safe/beautiful bike path. Arguments against the project are based on emotions and feelings, certainly NOT science or facts.
-
2
-
3
-
Nov 04, 2022 01:26 PMThis is a day late and a dollar short. Old news. Sorry it’s time for the lawyers.
-
1
-
-
Nov 04, 2022 03:13 PMYes, I think this must have been written before the Supervisors approved the plan unanimously. Going after the county with lawyers would be dumb though as opponents would waste a lot of money and lose. Better if we advocate for more habitat restoration and raise funds for that.
-
3
-
3
-
Nov 05, 2022 10:03 AMExcept that this is private land that doesn’t belong to you or the County, and on top of that inconvenient fact, the owners protected it in perpetuity with a Deed of Conservation Easement signed over to the Land Trust, back in 1999. The Land Trust has no choice but to uphold the easement as it is legally binding. Guess the County wants to go to court, to appease you single-minded bike nazis that think you can just run over private protected land with what YOU want. Why don’t you put the bike path through your own front yard?
-
6
-
1
-
Nov 04, 2022 01:29 PMThanks for a factual report. Nothing like misinformation to get people riled up. We have an oak tree, and many seedlings start every year. It is surprising how fast they grow. After the bike path is installed, I suspect the uproar will subside and people will appreciate it. I know I will.
-
4
-
2
-
Nov 04, 2022 01:34 PMExcellent post and 100% agree with everything said. In a climate that could not be more perfect for bikeability, the MUP along Alignment B is going to be a valuable community asset for generations to come.
-
3
-
1
-
Nov 04, 2022 01:48 PMThorough explanation thank you for putting this together.
-
3
-
2
-
Nov 04, 2022 01:56 PMWell said! We should all be glad that common sense prevailed at the county hearing earlier in the week.
-
2
-
1
-
Nov 04, 2022 02:07 PMYes, very thorough review of negative aspects from alternative B. No mention of options A or C. No sure how this sets things straight. It is a difficult task to convince locals that a scenic, small forest of century old trees should be mowed down even if they are non-native. Not very much of the SB area's acclaimed urban forest and other landscaping is native.
-
1
-
1
-
Nov 05, 2022 09:10 PMThe big fire over by Ward Dr. a couple days ago shows just how dangerous these non-native Eucalyptus trees are. They more of them that are gone the better.
-
-
2
-
Nov 08, 2022 10:04 AMYou could also say the fire over by Ward Dr a couple of days ago also shows just how dangerous the encampments along the Obern Trail bike path are. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
-
1
-
-
Nov 08, 2022 10:19 AMThat was an arson fire, not an encampment fire.
-
5
-
-
Nov 04, 2022 03:22 PMOn Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the Modoc Path, with a strong preference for a path that keeps the palm trees, minimizes tree removals and provides funds for plantings and habitat restoration. They also pointed out that the current Obern Trail is already in the area covered by the conservation easement. Lot's of testimony about the dangerous route for bikes currently. Given that the county has an obligation to provide safe transportation routes, good to know that it will happen.
-
4
-
5
-
Nov 04, 2022 05:24 PMWe are all entitled to our own opinions...but, not facts...
This is the current landscape...
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-road-trees-saved-for-now
Just saying that you are "setting the record straight"...and, then spewing lies, obfuscations, half-truths, and misstatements isn't going to get it done...exacerbating it is the lack of acknowledgement and understanding as to what this Deed of Conservation Easement signed in 1999 for the Modoc Preserve actually is...
The Obern Trail was already there well before 1999 when the Conservation Agreement was signed into law protecting the privately owned land of this nature preserve "forever" and "in perpetuity"from development...so, you can strike that argument...
Public Works PIO gave us ALL of the biker/vehicle accidents on this 3/4 mile stretch of Modoc Road from Via Senda to Obern Trail...1/1/2012 - 12/31/2021...and, it equals 4...2 of which were cyclist at fault...those are the facts...
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-road-bike-accidents
Don't include Modoc Road east of Via Senda...or, further east through the Westside...or, you know as one speaker called Calle Real..."the other side of Modoc"...so, disingenuous...
We have pushed this $8MM environmental disaster out of the protected nature preserve up on the existing asphalt infrastructure of Modoc Road where it belonged in the first place...now, the County can end all of this kerfluffle by finishing the last couple of hundred yards on Modoc Road and we can all move on...the 4.5 mile Obern Trail doesn't have adjacent 5' Class II lanes on either side of it...
The MND is faulty...we proved it with our attorney comment letter challenging the veracity and completeness...this is part of the reason that Alignment A was kicked down the road...once, the County finally acknowledges that Alignment B is not viable...they will have to deal with these legal facts entered into the administrative record as they double back to Alignment A...these inconvenient truths are not going away...and, there is much more where this came from...
https://modocpreserve.com/the-oaktober-surprise
https://modocpreserve.com/shady-dealings
-
-
1
-
Nov 05, 2022 06:49 AMHow do you not count east of via senda at all? That’s where it’s the most dangerous! You’re ridiculous and you probably never use the path. I’ll be biking this am, bet you’re not there
-
4
-
3
-
Nov 05, 2022 07:24 AMThe $8MM MUP project in question is specifically the 3/4 mile long (1317 yards) stretch from Via Senda west to the Obern Trail...
Talking about ridiculous...you must be L@@King in the mirror...
We own a home a stone's throw from the Modoc Preserve...and, L@@K out our windows at all of the iconic heritage trees that we have saved so far...
We actually walk our dogs daily in the Preserve...of course, we bike this stretch...have since the 60's as a kid growing up here and riding to Vieja Valley school where my mom taught...
Question: Have you ever WALKED the Preserve?
You want to know what ridiculous is? The fact that we fought for and won to keep this privately owned piece of land from development "forever" and "in perpetuity" back in 1999...1000's of hours of work and raised heaps of money...to have to be fighting to preserve the Preserve AGAIN...23 years later...that is what is beyond RIDICULOUS!
No respect for nature...or, history...short attention spans...instant gratification...Tik-Tok time bits...24 hour news cycles...broken give-a-damns...etc...no wonder half the trees on the planet have been cut down...dwindling water supplies...extinction of wildlife...etc...
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-preserve-deed-of-conservation-easement
-
-
-
Nov 05, 2022 09:46 AMJeff4510: The affected portion of Via Senda that you refer to has been addressed by the project. So, the eastbound portion is not an issue in my opinion and does not affect it one way or the other. Possibly there might be some slight changes for improvement, but those slight improvements won't make much of a difference. In the opposite direction there isn't much that can be changed, unless there are moderate changes to the project (as described). With that said, there's always room for improvement.
-
3
-
-
Nov 04, 2022 09:52 PMI am so glad that the Las Positas bike path didn't meet this kind of resistance. That path is so nice and is a huge benefit to all. It would have been a shame had it been forced out into the street where it was.
-
3
-
2
-
Nov 05, 2022 06:12 AMAll very good bits of information. However why has no one discussed option D? The option to bypass the entire preserve and run a bike path parallel to the train tracks? This would circumvent this entire Modoc area. Problem solved: no cars, no environmental impacts, no upset neighbors, no tree removal, less money spent, no impacts to preserve, an alternative out of sight path which could serve as a direct backbone across town. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best, think about it!
-
2
-
3
-
Nov 05, 2022 08:02 AMWe have suggested the R/R alternative...County planners are too lazy and feel rushed to get something done before the free $5.35MM grant money from May, 2018 times out...
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-road-mup-railroad-alternative
This is not a new concept...it was mentioned by Public Works in 2008...
It makes the most sense to move folks from SB to Goleta and vice versa...especially, with higher speed electrically motorized e-bike vehicles...consider it an e-bike autobahn...
I think the idea of bike paths along RR beds is a fantastic idea! And I’m not the only one! Similar Railroad Bike Path projects have already been done in SLO, San Diego, Orange County, Santa Cruz County, and LA.
It would clean up and beautify that zone as well...additionally, it would not require crossing Modoc to access it for kids and wheelchairs...parking could be worked out with the mostly empty lot at the Boy Scout hall...
Smart people keep an open mind and visualize this outside the box idea...
These projects linked below show that it is doable and that the County is not even trying to consider this RR alternative...or, listening to other alternatives that we have offered...
The public should join us in demanding a better product than what Public Works is currently offering...especially, one with an $8MM price tag...
If this was all $8MM of SB County taxpayer money...this project as proposed would have been DOA...
An urban 18-mile asphalt and concrete pathway, the Orange Line Bike Path is a rail-trail running alongside northwest Los Angeles’ Metro Orange Line rapid busway. The path, decorated with native plants and public art, is popular with commuters and recreationalists alike. A top destination is the 80-acre Beilenson Park, home to a range of recreational opportunities from tennis to archery. A Japanese garden and small wildlife reserve add a touch of nature, while swan paddleboats available for rent on Lake Balboa add a little whimsy.
https://www.traillink.com/trail/orange-line-bike-path/?utm_source=top10blogs&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=trailblog
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=3801
https://sccrtc.org/projects/multi-modal/monterey-bay-sanctuary-scenic-trail/north-coast-rail-trail/
https://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/RegionalBikeProjects/inland_rail_trail_intro.aspx
Also see:
https://www.alltrails.com/trail/us/california/railroad-bike-path
https://www.traillink.com/trail/inland-rail-trail/
https://la.streetsblog.org/2022/07/12/rail-to-rail-bike-walk-path-breaks-ground-on-slauson-officials-speak-to-its-significance-for-corridor/
https://www.railstotrails.org/trailblog/2013/september/01/californias-smart-pathway/
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/08/18/why-it-makes-sense-to-add-biking-and-walking-routes-along-active-rail-lines/
-
2
-
-
Nov 05, 2022 06:28 AMThank you for your work on this report, Ms. Pusch.
-
-
1
-
Nov 05, 2022 08:09 AMI think that Alignment A is best. Canary Island palms have a finite lifetime. The MND did not address this fact. ALL the CI palms on the island of Jersey died after the winter of 1986/1987 following a severe frost. With climate change, severe weather events (both hot and cold) become more likely. It is inevitable that the CI palms will require removal at some point. Why inflict that cost on a future generation? The CI palms also pose a hazard to motorists. No modern road design would allow them so close to asphalt. And falling fronds pose an additional risk.
-
2
-
3
-
Nov 05, 2022 08:34 AMWhy these particular 29 CI Date palms on Modoc Road?
Did a frond scratch your car or something?
You do realize that they are in County ROW and it is the County's responsibility to maintain them don't you? It is also the County's responsibility to fix the big potholes in and near the bike lanes on Modoc Road, too...
Why not extrapolate your weak argument of eradicating them to ALL CI palms anywhere in SB, or in all of California for that matter? They have a 200-300 year lifespan...only ~ 1/3 of the way there...they were here long before you came and will be here long after you become plant food...or, dust in the wind...
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-preserve-harold-chase
You do also realize that you would be eradicating special status oak trees in Alignment A don't you? Sorry for all of the questions...
Of course you don't...maybe you don't care about them either...but, the County lied to you when they hid that inconvenient fact in the MND...intentional obfuscation...
https://modocpreserve.com/the-oaktober-surprise
At least we agree that the FMND (Faulty) MND was incomplete...;-)
-
2
-
-
Nov 05, 2022 09:32 AMI don't see the RR tracks idea being a viable alternative. You would need 2 crossings on Modoc, complete with stoplights. I suspect land acquisition costs would be very high. Furthermore, few families would want to go out by the tracks due to perceived safety issues with vagrants and such.
-
2
-
3
-
Nov 05, 2022 09:54 AMummm...you do realize that all of the houses are on the north side of Modoc Rd. and the kids that go to Vieja Valley School all cross Modoc at West Encore Dr. across from the entrance to Obern Trail in the school crosswalk with a guard? IOW, there is no stoplight...this is the Safe Route to School...any MUP that is built on the south side of Modoc would still require kids to cross Modoc Rd., also folks in wheelchairs...etc...
We are all for a stoplight...or, hell...even a STOP sign that would solve this problem...but, the County traffic engineer won't do it...instead they narrow the vehicle lanes and increase the speed limit! There is no traffic enforcement on this stretch...and, nobody...bikes or vehicles stop at the STOP signs at the Via Senda 3 way intersection...
As far as costs...don't know if you have L@@Ked at the SBCAG bike planes for 2030...2040...2050...the numbers that they are using today for a bike only overpass for HWY 101 will be an order of magnitude more when they implement them...$100's of millions...
The R/R alternative would use existing infrastructure...flat, fast, and direct...
-
2
-
1
-
Nov 05, 2022 10:35 AMif you are concerned about trees, just think how much of the rainforest you have destroyed by eating hamburgers.....
-
2
-
3
-
Nov 05, 2022 10:42 AMNo record regarding the Modoc Road MUP is going to "set straight" without addressing and acknowledging the proverbial elephant in the room...the 1999 Deed of Conservation Easement signed to protect the Modoc Preserve from development "forever" and "in perpetuity"...
Setting the "record straight" requires a basic understanding of land ownership and property rights...and, respect for those laws...that would be a good foundation on where to start...
The County has been trying to obtain an Easement through back channels for over 2 years...no amount of wanting and wishing for it...drumming up public opinion and false marketing...etc...is going to change things...
This isn't just an open and abandoned field owned by the County to do with whatever they want...as so many people are led to believe...it is owned by La Cumbre Mutual Water Company (LCMWC) since 1925...the LCMWC customers are shareholders in the land...
Harold S. Chase, brother of Pearl Chase, SB's revered civic leader and First Lady...was it's first president...he spearheaded the purchase of 2000 acres in and around Hope Ranch...and, had a hand in the forestation of the Canary Island palm trees along Modoc Road...
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-preserve-harold-chase
In 1999 a Deed of Conservation Easement was signed between LCMWC and Land Trust for Santa Barbara County...who is now driving the boat on this issue...they hold the cards for the Modoc Preserve...
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-preserve-deed-of-conservation-easement
Why don't we just let the attorneys for LTSB set the "record straight" in their own legally backed words...in this letter to the County and LCMWC...
"The Modoc Preserve, which is a portion of the above-referenced Property, is subject to the terms, conditions, and restrictions of the Conservation Easement, which is held by the Land Trust.
La Cumbre Mutual Water Company as Landowner under the Conservation has the duty to comply with its terms and it may not allow others, including the County, to engage in any use or activity that violates the terms, restrictions, or conditions of the Conservation Easement. We are specifically including the County as an addressee of this letter to ensure the County is apprised of the Landowner’s obligation to comply with the Conservation Easement and the Land Trust’s legal obligation to enforce the Conservation Easement.
Plans and other documents related to this Project appear to have been developed without due consideration for the provisions of the Conservation Easement or the terms in it that empower and obligate the Land Trust to ensure perpetual conservation."
Furthermore, LTSB is legally required and has an obligation to enforce the provisions of the Conservation Easement as explained below in their attorney letter:
"The Land Trust Is Required to Enforce the Conservation Easement in Accordance with its Terms
As the grantee of this Conservation Easement, the Land Trust is charged with enforcing its terms, conditions, and restrictions. This enforcement obligation is codified at Civil Code sections 815–816, which created conservation easements. In addition, the Corporations Code applicable to California nonprofit public benefit corporations requires the Land Trust to prevent loss of or injury to its charitable assets. The Land Trust’s interests in real property, including conservation easements, are assets of the Land Trust. The Land Trust’s obligation to appropriately steward its charitable assets is enforced by the California Attorney General through its Charitable Trusts Section. Failure of the Land Trust to competently manage its charitable assets could result in penalties or even loss of its state status as a nonprofit charitable corporation. This obligation is also a requirement of being a land trust accredited by the Land Trust Accreditation Commission, and the Land Trust is required to enforce each of its conservation easements in accordance with each of their terms. The Land Trust has adopted a written policy and developed written procedures for documenting and responding to potential conservation easement violations, is obligated to investigate potential violations in a timely manner and promptly document all actions taken, and must involve legal counsel as appropriate to the severity of the violation and the nature of the proposed resolution (Land Trust Alliance Standards and Practices, Standard 11.C)
Section 8 of the Conservation Easement states that if there is a threatened violation, the Land Trust may resort to a lawsuit, including an injunction to stop the violation. The Land Trust will be entitled to damages and recovery of its attorneys’ fees and costs both under the Conservation Easement Section 8 and under California Civil Code section 815.7. Section 815.7 also permits the Land Trust to not only recover the costs to restore any harm to the Easement Area and other damages, but also the loss of scenic, aesthetic, and environmental values."
Still following along?
Is the record getting straighter for you yet?...;-)
"Overview of Conservation Easement Provisions
The Recitals section of the Conservation Easement states that the Easement Area shall be preserved and maintained by permitting only those land uses in the Easement Area that do not significantly impair or interfere with identified Conservation Values. Conservation Values are defined as the natural, open space, scenic, wetlands, ecological and wildlife habitat values, which include, but are not limited to, “vernal marsh, southern willow scrub, annual grassland and oak woodland habitat” (“Conservation Values”)."
It's kind of hard to figure a path forward...no pun intended...;-) for an ADA compliant road/path/trail in the Preserve...using the County's preferred building materials and methods of construction (destruction)...
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-road-bike-path-construction
"Please provide trail design, construction, and management plans of adequate detail to allow the Land Trust to evaluate consistency with the relevant terms of the Conservation Easement. Please also include specific information on how, and by whom, the Project will manage the kinds of bicycles allowed to use the path, speeds, traffic intensity, and lighting, all of which may be incompatible with the protection of the Conservation Values.
In addition, please provide information to show that the construction of and use of the bike path:
• Will not result in soil degradation of erosion (Section 3, preamble);
• Will not result in pollution or degradation of surface waters that significantly impact the existing wetlands, uplands, or wildlife habitat in the Easement Area (Section 3, preamble);
• Will not result in the impairment of open space vistas (Section 3, preamble);
• Will be consistent with the purpose of the Conservation Easement to “assure that the Easement Area within the Property will be retained in perpetuity in its natural, open space, scenic, wetlands,
ecological and wildlife habitat condition, use and utility, and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that would significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values” (Section 3, preamble; Section 1); • Will prevent use of the path by motorized vehicles, such as electric bikes, which are a concern of the Land Trust (Section 4(d));
• Will prevent dumping and garbage (Section 4(e));
• Does not cause significant degradation of topsoil quality, significant pollution, or a significant increase in the risk of erosion (Section 4(f));
• Will not alter the general topography or natural drainage of the Easement Area, including the excavation or removal of soil, sand, gravel, or rock (Section 4(g));
• Will not result in the alteration or manipulation of watercourses located in the Easement Area or the creation of new water impoundments or watercourses (Section 4(h));
• Does not generate signification noise, traffic, dust, artificial lighting, or crowds or which may impair the natural open space, scenic, wetlands, ecological, and wildlife habitat values (Section 4(i)); and
• How public access to the Easement Area will be managed and restricted to protect public safety and the Conservation Values (Section 3(h))."
Again, for only a couple of hundred yards...the County could just simply put this issue to bed and get on with the bidding process and construction by extending the Obern Trail with a vehicle barrier...the remaining distance up to Via Senda...Greenbelt Alignment...win...win...win...
Cyclists get their MUP away from cars...equestrians and horses keep their natural trail away from bikes and cars...and, pedestrian walkers...dog walkers...birders...nature lovers get to keep the trees and hiking trails away from bikes and cars...
We all get to save a bunch of time and money spent on litigation...
Does this make the record straight enough?...;-)
https://modocpreserve.com/obern-trail-extension
https://modocpreserve.com/greenbelt-alignment
-
3
-
-
Nov 05, 2022 04:50 PMIf the Land Trust legally controls the land, and they don’t want the path, then that should be the end of it. Can the county take it by eminent domain or some such thing? Is there no other option for providing a safe multi-use path? I like safe paths, but I also like knowing that if I give money to a land trust, I can trust them to keep the land they way they said they would.
-
2
-
1
-
Nov 05, 2022 06:01 PMDING DING DING!!!
We have a winner!
Reality and understanding is finally breaking through...;-)
Thank you...
"I like safe paths, but I also like knowing that if I give money to a land trust, I can trust them to keep the land they way they said they would."
This...
If you can't trust the Trust...there is no Trust...it's that simple...
Ranching families and large land owners are not going to enter into a Conservation Easement if these agreements are allowed to be violated in the future...in this case it has been settled law for 23 years...
Land Trust has 54 Easements...and, has helped to preserve over 31,850 acres of natural resource and agricultural land, including the Arroyo Hondo Preserve, Sedgwick Reserve, Carpinteria Bluffs, Coronado Butterfly Preserve, Point Sal, Carpinteria Salt Marsh, and the Modoc Preserve...etc...
These open spaces are protected with Easement Agreements...which are considered "assets"...real property...in the future, there will be digital tokens and the like for sharing in ownership for the protection of the Preserves...
Our attorneys think that eminent domain won't be used here..."they have to meet certain criteria, and I don't think they would do that because it would be very, very bad optics and potentially political suicide"...
Greenbelt Alignment = Obern Trail extension is the best option...
https://modocpreserve.com/obern-trail-extension
https://modocpreserve.com/greenbelt-alignment
Again, for only a couple of hundred yards to close the gap of Obern Trail to over halfway to Via Senda which is where the MUP is now...out of the Modoc Preserve and on Modoc Road in the existing asphalt infrastructure...the County could just simply put this issue to bed...heal the divisiveness in the community that they have exacerbated by the stubborness and ineptitude to understand that the Modoc Preserve is protected from development for this generation and the generations to come...and, get on with the bidding process and construction by extending the Obern Trail with a vehicle barrier...the remaining distance up to Via Senda...Greenbelt Alignment...win...win...win...
Cyclists get their MUP away from cars...equestrians and horses keep their natural trail away from bikes and cars...and, pedestrian walkers...dog walkers...birders...nature lovers get to keep the trees and hiking trails away from bikes and cars...
We all get to save a bunch of time and money spent on litigation...and, get on with living our lives...outdoors doing whatever it is that we love to do...
-
3
-
1
-
Nov 05, 2022 11:42 AMNon native trees do not provide habitat for native species. Thanks to the dozens of community members who waited hours at the Board of Supervisors to support this multi-use path project that will be enjoyed by all for generations to come.
And thanks to Kira Pusch for laying out the facts. Hundreds of us worked hard to restore native vegetation at Coal Oil Point Reserve. This project is a chance to restore native habitat for native species at the Modoc Preserve.
The Land Trust needs to hear from us that we want this to move forward as it is in the best interest of the Modoc Preserve and in the best interest of our community.
-
2
-
-
Nov 05, 2022 12:55 PM“Non native trees do not provide habitat for native species.”
May I remind you of the relationship between the overwintering monarch butterfly (native) and the critical habitat of the eucalyptus tree/grove (nonnative) and how critical this habitat of non natives has become along the Central Coast? You might recall it forms the very heart of species and habitat preservation only a few miles away.
Otherwise I’m not committed to a position on this project. But this obvious point had to be made.
-
2
-
5
-
Nov 05, 2022 01:02 PMSierra Club is an invasive non-native.
https://modocpreserve.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/sierra_club_protest1500.jpg
Why does the Sierra Club hate trees so much?
Nativism and invasion biology is a pseudoscience...we believe in biological diversity...this is an urban greenbelt that should be left alone...all of the plants and wildlife here have adapted to each other...eradicating plants and mature trees requiring no additional landscape water...habitat and shade canopy...in the middle of a 5 year extreme drought, and replanting them with 1 gallon knee high native oaks is just plain idiocy...this drought cycle is part of a bigger mega-drought cycle in the changing climate...
Invasionist ideology embraces the herbicide industry and wholesale poisoning of our natural areas by ecosystem destroying chemicals...like the Roundup that was used in the Modoc Preserve to eradicate non-native plants without the neighborhoods here knowing about it...
The hawks, owls, and bees love the eucs...the orioles and woodpeckers love the palms...71 bird species...over 133 plant species...stop trying to play God and eff it up!
Nativism pseudoscience and Easement deniers...that's what is truly annoying!
Sierra Club’s Hypocrisy
https://www.wiesenthal.com/about/news/sierra-clubs-hypocrisy-yes-1.html
Breaking Up with the Sierra Club
https://orionmagazine.org/2012/03/breaking-up-with-the-sierra-club/
Sierra Club Official's Cut Is A Snapshot Of Hypocrisy
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19940118&slug=1890204
Sierra Club Denies the Facts
https://sfforest.org/2015/10/13/sierra-club-denies-the-facts/
Petition the Sierra Club to Stop Advocating Against Trees and For Pesticides
https://sutroforest.com/2015/08/09/petition-the-sierra-club-to-stop-advocating-against-trees-and-for-pesticides/
Sierra Club cannot hide behind its smokescreen:
https://milliontrees.me/2015/10/09/sierra-club-cannot-hide-behind-its-smokescreen/
Protest Against Sierra Club's FEMA Lawsuit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8huWXwpJNOg
https://sutroforest.com/2015/08/09/petition-the-sierra-club-to-stop-advocating-against-trees-and-for-pesticides/
-
4
-
2
-
Nov 05, 2022 12:29 PMThe Save the "Modoc Preserve" people sure are annoying.
-
3
-
-
Nov 05, 2022 01:59 PMModoc Preserve Folks,
I admire your tenacity and effort and I appreciate the way you went after an issue so important to you.
I personally could not be more pleased with the Board’s decision to move forward with this incredibly important project.
-
1
-
-
Nov 05, 2022 03:35 PMI'm curious ... have the La Cumbre Water District or Land Trust weighed in demonstrably on this project yet? Or is the process for them to make their position known only after the county has firmed up their plan (which seems to be the case given the supervisors recent vote)?
All the legalese I've read in these posts (from a letter they wrote to the county?) is a statement of the Trust's obligations. But I don't interpret those statements as indicating any particular position one way or another. I'd guess they were just letting the county formally know what their legal baseline/obligations are for any decisions going forward - which seems prudent in any negotiation.
-
1
-
1
-
Nov 05, 2022 04:43 PMNothing has changed...
The nuts and bolts of a more detailed design still uses the same approximate estimated quantity, +/- of needing 2300 tons of asphalt and road base building materials along with 2000' 2'-4' high concrete retaining walls is not going to change the equation...the road/path/trail is required to be ADA compliant...no way around it...the requisite design to fulfill the requirement, to a reasonable person is a road...which is not allowed...
Meredith Hendricks at Land Trust told us that what is allowed L@@Ks pretty much like what's there now..."an unpaved path without retaining walls"...
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-road-bike-path-construction
More LTSB attorney legalese...
"Alignment B encroaches upon the Preserve,the MND should have included such analysis in determining whether Alignment B is consistent with the Conservation Easement. Such analysis could suggest potential acceptable alternatives to Alignment B. For example, the Preserve currently has public access trails for pedestrian and equestrian use, as is allowed under the Conservation Easement.25 Alternatives to Alignment B, such as unpaved paths without retaining walls, may be consistent with the Conservation Easement.
But unfortunately, the MND does not contain such analysis. Because of that, and
because the current description of Alignment B in the MND appears to violate the
Conservation Easement, the County should not approve the MND. Instead, the Land
Trust requests the County postpone approval of the MND and first provide sufficient
information to the Land Trust for it to determine if Alignment B or alternatives are
consistent with the Conservation Easement.
Unless the County first provides that information, or in the absence of appropriate action by the County to take the area of the Preserve affected by Alignment B, the Land Trust cannot agree with Alignment B as described in the MND."
We have been having discussions about LCMWC's sole liability for accidents and deaths on the Preserve property...substantial level of concern...especially, since we are shareholders and accidents would raise our water rates...etc...
It's been like pulling teeth to get an organized cleanup day on the calendar because of the liability issues...
Keep the path up on Modoc Road out of the Preserve, like the western half is...and, all of these road blocks more or less go away...although, there are even impact considerations being discussed with that option...
-
2
-
-
Nov 05, 2022 05:15 PMI assume the La Cumbre Water District is the beneficiary of the conservation easement. As such, is the trust setup to allow them management rights? In other words, do they have a say as to what is allowed by the easement? Can they change what's allowed one way or another?
I'm just trying to figure out what the playing field is like.
-
1
-
1
-
Nov 05, 2022 06:42 PMThe Land Trust has total control of management rights...that's the whole idea...
The day that they signed the marriage certificate, if you will, locked in what is allowed in the marriage...there basically is no divorce in this arrangement...it is binded to the land...it is "forever" and "in perpetuity"...;-)
https://modocpreserve.com/modoc-preserve-deed-of-conservation-easement
Meredith Hendricks Executive Director of Land Trust SB County told us personally that an Easement Agreement can be changed...it's expensive...etc...but, it is ALWAYS to make it stronger...not weaker...
To answer you other question...LCMWC does have discretion to make decisions about day to day operations...safety...enforcement...unhoused campers...rogue bikes...fire abatement...etc...big picture is that they are in the water distribution business to satisfy shareholder needs...but, they are bound to the same Conservation Values in the Easement Area as LTSB...LCMWC has conveyed to the Land Trust the right to preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Easement Area in perpetuity...
A Water Company board member explained it yesterday as not being exactly joined at the hip...more like following LTSB lead...
-
1
-
1
-
Nov 06, 2022 06:55 AMLet's break down the claims of this misinformed author...
Our petition CLEARLY says right up at the top:
"These 29 iconic Canary Island Date palms are threatened!"
"implementation of Alignment A would now result in the removal of 48 trees, including these 29 mature Canary Island Date palms"
https://www.change.org/SaveModocRoadTrees
The author is making a misstatement when she says: "This statement is inaccurate. As indicated in the above table, Alignment B does not require removal of any Canary Island Date Palms."
Read it again...we never said anywhere that Alignment B requires removal of Canary Island Date Palms, as she states...we said "implementation of Alignment A would now result in the removal of 48 trees, including these 29 mature Canary Island Date palms"
What the what?!?! This is an opening statement that impeaches her whole premise!
These 29 palms still are threatened...the County has not taken Alignment A completely off of the table...they still can come back to it when they are denied the Easement for Alignment B...because, it is not feasible to build a paved asphalt road using concrete retaining walls in the Preserve...this would not be in conformance within the guidelines of the Deed of Conservation Easement...roads and structures are not allowed...an unpaved path without retaining walls may be allowed...but, the County wants asphalt...and, it also has to be ADA compliant.
We say and have proved here in posts below:
“The so-called Plan B is on the protected Modoc Preserve property...it does not conform to the provisions in [the Deed of Conservation Easement Agreement signed in 1999]”
She says that this is inaccurate?
"This statement is also inaccurate. Alignment B conforms to the provisions of the Conservation Easement"
I have directly quoted several attorney's letters to the County in rebuttal posts here that beg to differ...until Kira has an LLP behind her name...which would require a change of major...or, wants to pony up the money to challenge the Deed of Conservation Easement in a court of law...
Pro tip: I'd suggest not publicly trying to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to twist the Modoc Preserve Easement Agreement to conform to your hopes, wishes, and desires...California Corporate Law may ultimately be the arbiter here...;-)
We say:
“It would also put equestrians, and their horses, right next to 25mph e-bikes whizzing by!”
Then Kira makes several false statements in this op-ed...
"This statement is misleading. As stated in the MND’s description of Alignment B, “A 300-foot long segment of the existing equestrian trail would be realigned by providing a three-foot-wide earthen equestrian trail with a buffer from south of the proposed multi-use path.” The concern about 25 mph e-bikes also raises the question of how said horses fare when walking adjacent to Modoc Road where cars often “whiz by” at 45 mph."
Obviously, said author has never been on a said horse that's been spooked...
This area has historically been used by equestrians since "non-native" Europeans arrived in the area...
Currently, said horses are separated from cars whizzing by at 45mph by a wide Class II bike lane...and, a row of CI palms...that is elevated above the historic equestrian path...which still doesn't fully guarantee that a said horse will not get spooked...
Furthermore, the equestrian path was written into the Conservation Easement as an allowed use of the Preserve...as was pedestrian use...education use...open space use...water company use...but, clearly absent is bike use...bikes were not invented after 1999 when the Easement Agreement was signed into law...and, there is signage around the Preserve showing that bikes are not allowed...
https://modocpreserve.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/modoc_bike21.jpg
Then she goes on...
We write:
“We understand that Canary Island palms and Eucalyptus trees are non-native to California … however, they do provide very important habitat and shade canopy to many species of birds, mammals, and other organisms that dwell in the Modoc Preserve. Embracing biodiversity is a more sensible approach. Leaving well established, drought tolerant, non-natives to co-exist with natives...especially, in semi-rural to urban areas makes much more sense…”
She again doubles down on her false assumption and misstatement...
"Again, the Canary Island Palms will be unaffected by Alignment B."
Again, we clearly state "implementation of Alignment A would now result in the removal of 48 trees, including these 29 mature Canary Island Date palms"
Again, we said Alignment A...not B, would impact the 29 mature Canary Island Date palms...
She goes on...
"There is a lot to break down here, as the issue is admittedly complicated. It is certainly true that minimizing pointless gratuitous destruction of the environment is of extreme importance; the studies comprising the MND were conducted for this precise reason, and Alignment B is a revised and greatly improved version of an earlier plan which dictated removal of a much greater number of trees."
Kira falsely assumes that the MND is complete and accurate...
In the administrative record for this project, there are 3 legally backed MND comment letters...CAMP attorneys...Land Trust attorneys...attorney reviewed Water Company MND comments...plus, the one from CDFW (CA Dept. Fish & Wildlife) regulatory agency all punching holes in the veracity and completeness of the FMND...there are dozens of challenges to both Alignments A & B...so, don't assume the study was a good one under CEQA law...just because it was approved without a single question...it was treated as a paperwork mechanism to trigger the next tranche of taxpayer money to fund the project before the ATP grant expired...the MND can easily be impeached...like this op-ed purporting to "set the record straight" was...
Pages