We are writing to ask if you have been able to draft your letter to Santa Barbara County Public Works in regards to the possible destruction of 29 iconic and historic Canary Island Date palms on Modoc Road?
The deadline for public comments is tomorrow October 14, 2022 at 5PM...
The County Public Works Department is soliciting comments on the adequacy and completeness of the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (Revised MND).
So, please let them know LOUD & CLEAR that the Revised MND is deficient and inaccurate. It contains multiple omissions,
The public should comment by submitting written or oral comments prior to the close of the public comment period at 5:00 PM on Friday, October 14, 2022. Please limit comments to environmental impacts such as biological (flora & fauna), parking, traffic, noise, e-bikes, etc…
Send comments to: Morgan Jones, at 123 E. Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 before Friday October 14, 2022 5PM
mmjones@countyofsb.org
(805) 568-3059.
We also strongly encourage everyone to attend the Board of Supervisors Meeting in person on November 1st starting at 9:00 AM. We urge their rejection of the deficient and inaccurate Revised MND. More details to follow in these petition updates and on the Modoc Preserve Blog.
Urge SB County decision makers to support CAMP’s Greenbelt Alignment which would result in no trees being removed.
Here are some points you can make in your letter:
1. As presently envisioned, the project entails:
a. Paving over a recognized nature preserve.
The Easement Agreement clearly prohibits degradation of topsoil…prohibits alteration of topography…prohibits alteration or manipulation of watercourses, such as the existing bioswale drainage as outlined in the Easement Agreement
b. Destroying numerous trees some of which are over a 100 years old.
c. Doing extensive damage to the habitat of numerous plants and animals.
2. Because of the facts stated above, the county’s attempt to circumvent an environmental review is legally questionable and exposes the county to expensive legal challenges.
Any decision by SB County Public Works and the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed Project as currently formulated will result in multiple violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
First, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the proposed Project contains numerous inaccuracies and fails as an informational document. The revised MND contains numerous inaccuracies, discrepancies, deficiencies, obfuscations and omissions concerning Biology (both flora and fauna), Wildlife and wildlife corridors, Soil degradation, and other impacts discussed and/or omitted in the MND with respect to CEQA laws.
3. The designation of the project as a multi use path is reckless and will endanger pedestrians, wheelchair users & pets. A growing percentage of bicycle traffic consists of e-bikes. The notion of heavy e-bikes barreling at 30mph down a path used by the disabled resembles a scene out of a horror movie.
The Easement Agreement did not allow the use of pedal bikes in the Modoc Preserve…let alone the use of electrically motorized e-bike vehicles capable of going 30mph…and, in close proximity to horses and equestrians. The noise generated by fat tire e-bikes is more capable of spooking a horse. A spooked horse can throw a rider, leading to injury and even death. There is no discussion or analysis of the increased risk of these dangerous encounters, or increased insurance liability contained in the revised MND.
Pedestrian walkers and hikers would now have to share a path with 30mph e-bikes and other users of a MUP, when before it would be just an occasional hiker and/or equestrian with horse...
E-bikes allow an out of shape rider to pedal with pedal assist faster than the most in shape experienced cyclists on the planet…on bikes that weigh 60#-80#…more momentum in a crash…the bike path infrastructure is not set up for the amount of passing that occurs when e-bikes are in the mix with regular bikes…pedestrians…strollers…wheelchairs…etc…because they go so much faster.
City and County ordinances banning and regulating e-bikes are being implemented all across the country and world. The proposed project could take a cyclist across 3 different municipalities with differing rules…Santa Barbara City, Santa Barbara County, & City of Goleta.
This degrades the "open space" peaceful experience of a walker or hiker...and, by definition a Multi-Use path would cause a conflict between recreational uses when one did not exist before.
4. The project is a total waste of taxpayers money. $8MM. This monstrosity would not have come about were it not for a grant. The notion that a grant is not taxpayer’s money is absurd. Worse, the grant application is riddled with inaccuracies and exaggeration. I fear that the award of the grant itself can (and probably will) be challenged in court.
We strongly urge the county to drop the whole project. Use the funds elsewhere in the County where they could actually improve bike infrastructure and safety.
Here are a few letters that you may find insightful from several folks that have been advisors and decision makers...
Subject: Modoc Path Comment--opposition
I have read the R-EIR on the Modoc path and I do not believe the environmental and aesthetic damages have been effectively mitigated. I can find no need to destroy an historic palm lane for a bike lane. The palm trees MUST be saved as they are a visual touchstone for that neighborhood and the entire Santa Barbara community. They have historic relevance (has this landscape removal been reviewed by HLAC?) and they ADD to the aesthetics and environmental health of Santa Barbara.
Communities all over California are replacing heat-retaining asphalt with cooler greenscapes--reducing pavement temps by 5-10 degrees! Why is SB out of step with current cooling climate-related landscaping? We should be adding shade--not removing it with hot, black, heat-retaining asphalt!
Alternative transportation is important, but not at the cost of local history, aesthetics and environment. As a senior I would NEVER be able to use this path for the stated use of transporting groceries on a bike, but I very much enjoy looking at (and painting) the palm lane--which is older than I am!
I believe the path can be suitably redesigned and relocated--serving all needs-- therefore I oppose this revised plan as presented.
Thank you,
J'Amy Brown, 28-year Santa Barbara County resident, former Commissioner HLAC; Former Commissioner, Montecito Planning Commission; member COAST
******************************************************************************
I am very concerned about the proposed bike path, particularly after seeing the stakes last weekend when I was riding on the trail. It was shocking to see how many trees will be cut to accommodate this trail. Where is the Land Trust? The loss of all of those trees will irretrievably change the flora and fauna so painstakingly re-created in the preserve. It will change the temperature and make it difficult to maintain a wetland. I very much wish a trained biologist would weigh in on the biological impacts.
As far as the incompatibility with the horse back riding, I feel that this will be dangerous and not feasible. Furthermore, I have ridden on the trails in that valley for over 50 years. I have a prescribed easement to the use of those trails - both through the valley and near the road. There are other riders that also have ridden there consistently for decades. I do not want my prescriptive easement extinguished or negatively impacted.
I have never seen a project in my entire life that proposed to cut so many trees- and that includes 11 years as a land use attorney, many years representing the County planning commission and Board of Supervisors, and then a 5 year stint on the County Planning Commission. I feel this is unprecedented in Santa Barbara County. I would insist that the planning commissioners and Board of Supervisors take a site visit and walk the entire trail now that it is staked to understand the scope of this loss. I can't imagine what decision maker wants this clear cut on their record or conscience. And to have such a biological travesty be at the behest of a governmental project is truly a bad look.
I understand there is a strong desire to continue another link of the bike trail. But I feel the County should consider a modest expansion of the existing bike lane with a barrier between the bike lane and the street even though it won't be as wide as the Las Positas bike lane, save the trees, and accommodate the horse trails that have been there long before there was an idea of a bike lane.
Thank you so much.
Colleen Parent Beall