FRIENDS OF TESLA PARK - 3058 Marina Avenue Livermore, CA 94550
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FRIENDS OF TESLA PARK
3058 Marina Avenue www.teslapark.orz
Livermore, CA 94550 Friendsofteslapark@gmail.com
May9, 2013
Major General Anthony L. Jackson, USMC (Retired)
Director, State Parks Department
1416 9th Street, Room 1405
Sacramento, CA 95814
anthony.jackson@parks.ca.gov
RE: Carnegie SVRA General Plan Update/EIR and Planned Expansion into Tesla Park
Dear Director Jackson:
At our two meetings with Chief Deputy Director Robertson, he asked, what Friends ofTesla Park
wanted with regard to the use plan for the Tesla Park land? As you know, Friends ofTesla Park is
working to ensure that the Tesla Park land encompassing approximately 3,400 acres be designated as a
non-OHV low impact recreation natural resource and historic park and preserve. We believe it is not only
the duty of the State Parks Department to protect the Tesla Park land from Oliv use given its unusual n:rix
of rare and unique resources, but it is also a great opportunity to meet the Department's charge to preserve
special natural and cultural resources, while providing for appropriate non-motorized low impact
recreation activities consistent with resource protection.
It is consistent with OHMVR statute and funding to designate Tesla Park for non-OHV use as a
natural resource and historic park and preserve
In response to our co=ents that non-OHV use alternatives for Tesla Park be evaluated in the
DEIR and that Tesla Park be preserved as a non-OHV natural resource and historic park and preserve, the
OHMVR Division staff state that Tesla Park has to be used for OHV use because it was bought with
OHVMR funds. While it is accurate that the Tesla Park land was purchased with OHMVR Division
funds, it is not accurate that Tesla Park must be used for OHV use as thus far presented by the OHMVR
Division. The OHMVR Division did not complete an acquisition EIR or other enviroronental assessment
before purchase to confirm that the Tesla Park land was appropriate for OHV use. As a result, there are no
enviroronental approvals to open Tesla Park to OHV use. Justifications to open Tesla Park to OHV use
based on who purchased it, what it was purchased for or even how Carnegie SVRA has changed its ways
are diversions from the current fundamental question and legal obligation- is Tesla Park appropriate for
OHV use? The answer is "no", as supported by extensive documentation and two prior EIR attempts that
were abandoned.
Our January 3, 2013 letter, which you received, is attached for your reference. It provided detailed
support for why the forthcoming DEIR must include non-OHV use alternatives for the Tesla Park land
(referred to in the letter as"Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" altern8.tives). We
documented why the OHMVR Division's various justifications for expanding OHV use into Tesla Park
were not legal requirements.
1It is important to set aside the misinformation about what can be done at Tesla Park, so that we
can focus on the public policy of what should be done. It is consistent with the OHMVR program statute,
legislation authorizing purchase of the Tesla Park land, and OHl\IIVR funding to designate Tesla Park for
non-OHV use as a natural resource and historic park and preserve. The OHMVR Division does not
appear willing to do this because they see their purpose to develop more OHV areas like Carnegie SVRA
for traditional OHV users. However, it is the broader resource protection duty and obligation of the State
Parks Department that we ask you to consider here.
What we request for Tesla Park
The concept of a 3,400 acre preserve or large sensitive area is the most appropriate planning
framework for the Tesla Park land because of its unique resources. Tesla also has a unique place in the
surrounding ecosystem, including remaining as a critical wild land linkage given the environmental
damage from Carnegie SVRA. Tesla Park meets the statutory requirements of a preserve or sensitive area
in the Pubic Resources Code. The identification ofTeslaPark as a preserve or sensitive area recognizes
its unique and varied resources and makes preservation of those resources the planning priority. It
provides for research and education associated with these special resources, including contributing
knowledge to our larger societal concern regarding how to manage our natural resources as they become
challenged by climate change, greater urbanization, decreasing open space and other impacts. At the
same time, Tesla Park allows for appropriate non-motorized low impact recreation to experience the area
in a manner that maintains resource protection as the priority. The biological and cultural resource
importance of the Tesla Park area is recognized in regional land use plans, including East Bay Regional
Park District's identification ofTesla as a potential "regional preserve".
With a preserve/sensitive area as the guiding planning principle, the plan for Tesla Park as a non-
motorized low impact natural resource and historic park and preserve can be framed by the following
general use parameters:
1. Street-legal vehicle motorized off-highway access to parking/trail heads in the area uf the
current Sector office and at the base of the Mitchell Ravine for non-motorized recreation;
2. Minimal associated park facilities at parking/trail heads to preserve native habitat and wild
land values, such as park entrance facility, restroom, signage and garbage cans;
3. Trails for hiking and viewing historic and natural resources which utilize existing roads and
trails for general non-motorized low impact access, including for viewing, education and
research;
4. Designation of specific areas with limited access by permit or guide to natural and cultural
resource areas for viewing, education and research;
5. Interpretive markers and associated print information for non-motorized trail access and
guidance;
6. Select equestrian trails on existing roads or trails that do not impact resources or hiking trails;
7. Guided interpretive programs for schools and other park visitors.
We continue to identify that a detailed Project Level EIR is required to evaluate any proposed use
plan in Tesla. While the entire Tesla Park should be a preserve, a Project Level EIR is required to
determine environmental impacts associated with preservation and use plans, such as where hiking trails
and equestrian trails are appropriate; if any cattle grazing would be allowed; if any additional street-legal
vehicle off-highway access/parking areas and trail heads could be developed at the western comer of the
park nearest Livermore. Deputy Director Robertson mentioned in our last meeting about allowing driving
to the ridge tops. We do not know that such access would be appropriate given resource protection
2
-- --·----------~--~---------~ -------requirements. It may be that the only public access to the ridge tops should be by hiking, horse-back
riding or park-operated electric van service, as in other parks in the region.
The comon elements for any of these possibilities is that there is no motorized recreation in
Tesla Park, other than limited off-highway street-legal vehicle access points and all use plans must be
developed as part of a Project Level EIR that places resource protection as the top plarroing priority.
Alternative non-OHV use management plan for Tesla Park
The evidence about the rare and unique resources at Tesla Park is unequivocal - theTesla Park
land is not suitable for OHV use. This fact alone should lead to the State Parks Department to change its
plans and designate Tesla Park as a non-OHV use park and preserve. But the environmental damage at
Carnegie SVRA within the same ecosystem and historic area, and the continued operation of Carnegie
SVRA in violation of the Public Resources Code reinforces this need. Tesla Park should be set aside as a
non-OHV park and preserve as mitigation for existing and ongoing enviroronental impacts at Carnegie
SVRA.
The discussion about the future ofTesla Park, however, bas focused on the OHMVR Division,
rather than the fundamental question of what is the appropriate use for this public park land. The narrow
focus of the OHMVR Division has blocked consideration of appropriate and viable options for the Tesla
Park land that will properly protect its native landscape and associated natural and cultural attributes.
It is time to move past the organizational barriers and acknowledge that Tesla Park is not suitable
for OHV use. It is time to establish an appropriate non-OHV use plan for Tesla Park and to refocus the
OHMVR Division on their real issue and priority- which is to irronediately bring Carnegie SVRA into
full compliance with the law and conformity with ecological science's best understanding of how to
protect its natural resources. Public funds being spent on OHV expansion while Carnegie SVRA
continues to operate in substantial violation of the law is particularly troubling as we look to the State
Parks Department to be the standard bearer and model for resource protection in California.
We know that you are evaluating the mission of the State Parks Department and how to ensure
that the entire organization, staffing, funding, programs and priorities will help meet that mission and be
accountable to the high standards you are working to set. Allowing OHV use in Tesla Park when
extensive enviroronental damage at Carnegie SVRA continues unmitigated does not serve the dedicated
work to try to restore the standing of the State Parks Department. That is why we ask you, as the Director
of the State Parks Department, to bring a broader resource management perspective to the decision about
the future of Tesla Park.
There are several viable options for an appropriate use and management plan for Tesla Park if the
OHMVR Division cannot or does not want to manage it as a non-OHV use park and preserve. Some of
these options include: -
• Intra-departmental transfer to another State Parks operational unit whose purpose, expertise
and core competency is to operate large scale sensitive natural resource and historic parks and
preserves, potentially in conjunction with other appropriate Resource Agency units;
• Joint management ofTesla Park by East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) with the State
Parks Department ownership, such as occurring at DelValle Regional Park;
• Transfer ofTesla Park to EBRPD or another entity for permanent protection.
3
---------------Any offuese opportunities requires a broad resource management view offue Tesla Park land and
the region that only State Parks Department leadership can provide. If fuere are administrative or
legislative actions fuat are needed to permanently protect Tesla Park, please identify fuem so fuat we can
proceed to complete fuem.
The Big Picture for the State Parks Department
IfTesla Park can be placed in its proper context, fue opportunity for our region and State is even
greater. Tesla Park and Carnegie SVRA are located wifuin fue Corral Hollow Canyon wifu Tesla/Corral
Hollow Road running its length. Over fue last 40 years, fue focus wifuin fue canyon bas dramatically
shifted toward resource preservation because studies have identified critical wildlife corridors and habitats
for numerous endangered and protected species. Several public and private conservation easements have
been placed on land in and around fue canyon area, solidifying its preservation focus. Carnegie SVRA is
fue main outlier in terms of continued environmental damage and fue lack of mitigation set-asides.
Preserving Tesla Park as part of this critical biological zone creates an opportunity for State Parks
Department to meet its preservation and recreation objectives. Tesla Park can be fue needed western
anchor of a geographic preservation and recreation bridge between fue Tri-Valley region of Alameda
County and San Joaquin County in fue Central Valley. Tesla Park would permanently protect sensitive
resources and provide publically accessible non-motorized low impact recreation in fue Tesla uplands to
fue larger outdoor recreation user population offue Bay Area· and Central Valley. Carnegie SVRA,
operated in full compliance wifu fue law, conld continue to serve fue subset of OHV users. The entire
length of Corral Hollow/Tesla Road through Corral Hollow Canyon could be designated as a historic
roadway. Because property on one or bofu sides of fue road is now owned by a state, federal or regional
agency, hiking, biking and equestrian trails between fue East Bay and the Central Valley could potentially
be developed adjacent to fue roadway.
This is fue win-win. Wifu Tesla Park as fue western keystone, there is a unique opportunity to
preserve valuable natural and cultural resources and provide appropriate resource sensitive recreation
opportunities for the larger public. Wifu leadership from you and the State Parks Department, this broad
vision for Tesla Park and fue area based on natural and cultural resource protection and comprehensive
recreation planning can be achieved.
The first step is to permanently protect and preserve fue Tesla Park land; fuen we can begin the
process to establish fue appropriate use and management plan fuat ensures this unique and special native
landscape and its natural and cultural resources are protected for all Ciilifornians today and in the future.
Sincerely,
Friends of Tesla Park Steering Committee
flU~/- ~ /lJu_~
John Icanberry Nancy Rodrigue Celeste Garamendi
4cc: Aaron Robertson, Chief Deputy Director State Parks, aaron.robertson@parks.ca.gov
Christopher C. Conlin, Deputy Director OHMVR Division; christopher.conlin@.parks.ca.gov
Michael Fehling, OHMVR Twin Cities District Superintendent, michael.febling@parks.ca.gov
Assemblymember Joan Buchanan, assemblymember.buchananlal,assembly.ca.gov
State Senator Mark DeSaulnier, Senator.Desaulnier@senate.cagov
Sent by email only:
Randy Caldera., Acting Superintendent, CSVRA, rcaldera@parks.ca.gov
Petra Unger, AECOM, petra.unger@aecom.com
5
- - - - - - - ------------- -----~-FOTP January 3, 2013 Letter re:
DEIR Analysis ofNon-OHV Alternatives for Tesla Park
--~----------------- -- ~ -- ---·---- --FRIENDS OF TESLA PARK
3053 Marina Road www.teslapark.org
livermore, CA 94550 Friendsofteslapark@gmail.com
January 3, 2013
SUBMITTED VIA US MA1L AND EMAIL
AECOM
Atln: Petra Unger
2020 L Street, Ste. 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
petra.unger@aecom.com
CarnecieGP@J;Jarks.ca.gov
Dan Canfield, Planning Office
OHMVR Division
1725 23'd Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816-7100
dcanfield@parks.ca.gov
RE: Carnegie SVRA General Plan Update/EIR Alternatives
Dear Ms. Unger and :Mr. Canfield:
This letter amplifies our prior co=ents to the OHMVR Division that the EIR for the Carnegie
SVRA (CSVRA) General Plan update must evaluate "Non-OHV Use Alternatives" for the "Tesla Park"
expansion component of the project. Friends ofTesla Park (FOTP) and others have provided co=ents
on this issue in NOP comment letters and in OHMVR Division meetings and correspondence with the
OHMVR Division after the NOP co=ent period closed, including at the 9/17/12 and 11126/12
Stakeholder meetings.
In this letter, as in our prior co=ents, references to "Tesla Park" mean the entire Alameda-Tesla
purchase of approximately 3,400 acres.
In our prior comments we have used the term "Non-OHV Uses" to mean limited off-highway
access to non-motorized recreation, by allowing for limited street legal vehicle off-highway access to
limited parking areas and trail heads for non-motorized recreation. It excludes non-street legal vehicles
(including green sticker vehiCles) and street legal vehicles driving on other than select designated roads to
non-motorized recreation, as opposed to the type of OHV use that exists at CSVRA and that the Division
has indicated it plans to allow at Tesla Park. To more precisely distinguish from the type of OHV use the
Division has indicated it plans to allow at Tesla Park, we will use the term "Section 5090.02(c)(3)!
5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" as these sections of the OHMVR statute provide for the type of low
impact use we have identified is required to preserve and protect the sensitive natural and cultural
resources in Tesla Park.
1
- -~-------------- --- ---------~---It the 11/26/12 Stakeholders Meeting AECOM and CSVRA staff1 stated that they were
determining which alternatives would be evaluated in the Draft EJR and presented in February 2013. They
stated that input was still welcome on the alternatives and other aspects of the General Plan and Draft
EJR. They indicated that three alternatives would be considered in the Draft EJR.
In response to our statements that "Non-OHV Use" Alternatives must be evaluated in the EJR,
AECOM staff stated that the range of uses and alternatives would be limited by considerations and
guidelines based on property ownership and funding source, citing "Fact Sheet #2" issued by the
Division, and, therefore, such uses would not be evaluated. This is the same position that OHMVR
Division staff had taken in prior communications with us. We believe the Division's current position to
exclude "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives for Tesla Park is inaccurate
and in violation of CEQA, as outlined below.
1. "Section 5090.02(c)(3)!5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives for Tesla Park must be
included in the EIR Analysis
a. Tesla Park is owned by State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
The deeds for the Alameda and Tesla Purchase parcels are in the name of the State of California,
Department of Parks and Recreation, not OHMVR Division. The OHMVR Division continues to
misrepresent who owns the Tesla Park property and what its duties are with regard to use, management
and protection of cultural and natural resources in an attempt to improperly limit the General Plan and
EIR analysis. The highest priority of State Parks, and the OHMVR Division as a subunit of the
Department, is to ensure the appropriate utilization of lands and conservation of land resources.
b. "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives are Consistent with
OHMVR Division Statutory Responsibilities and Funding
Both the California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 8352.6 and Public Resource Code (PRC)
Section 5090.02 provide that OHMVR Fund monies must be used for both motorized recreation and
motorized off-highway access to non-motorized recreation. The OHMVR Division uses the most
expansive defmition of OHV use to collect fuel tax transfers and then improperly attempts to narrowly
defme OHV uses to those typically present in SVRAs when determining how those monies can be used.
Evaluation of"Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives that include street legal
vehicle off-highway access to non-motorized recreation is squarely within the statutory obligation and
funding of the OHMVR Division. There is no statutory requirement that such uses be accompanied by
other OHV uses such as those in CSVRA or typical of SVRAs.
Further, PRC Section 5090.43 provides for the OHMVR Division and SVRAs using OHMVR
funds to designate and manage sensitive natural and cultural areas of natural and historic/cultural resource
importance, such as Tesla Park, in accordance with Sections 5019.71 and 5019.74. There is no
requirement that such sensitive natural and cultural areas (also referred to here and in Sections 5019.71
and 5019.74 as "preserves") must include OHV uses like those typical in SVRAs, whether such uses are
off-trail or on-traiL In fact the opposite is true: such sensitive natural and cultural areas are to be
protected from not only direct impacts of destructive OHV use activities such as those typical in
SVRAs, but also the damaging influences of such destructive acth,ities. Based on documented studies
' Elizabeth Boyd, AECOM and Elise McFarland, CSVRA facilitated the meeting. Alicia Perez, OHMVR Archeologist, and
Randy Caldera, Acting CSVRA Superintendent, were also present.
2
~--~--- --------of the extensive natural, historic and cultural resources present in Tesla Park within a native habitat
ecosystem, Tesla Park, in its entirety, should be set aside as a sensitive natural and historic/cultural area as
provided for in the PRC and protected from all OHV impacts and influence.
Finally, the OBMVR Division has demonstrated that OHMVR funds may be used for non-OHV
purposes. The OBMVR Division has used hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from the
OHMVR Fund to purchase and maintain residential properties consisting of approximately 8-10 units of
employee housing on 500-1000 acres within CSVRA. This property is operated solely for employee
residential and livestock purposes with no CSVRA OHV use of any kind.
Therefore, "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives for Tesla Park are
consistent with the OHMVR statutes and funding, and with current and past operating practices by the
Division at Carnegie SVRA.
c. "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives are Consistent with
Project Objectives in the NOP
"Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives meet the project objectives as
described in the NOP which do not require that the Tesla Park area be used for OHV use at all, let alone
the type of OHV use typical in CSVRA and other SVRAs. Multiple NOP comment letters identified that
the NOP was deficient and should be revised and recirculated to accurately describe the full scope and
components of the project and intended uses on the Tesla Park property. The Division appears to have
designed the NOP to be vague to support a Program level ElR and artificial limits on the required ElR
analysis. Without recirculation of a revised NOP according to the CEQA defined process, the Division
cannot now attempt to create justification to limit proper ElR analysis or try to establish new project
objectives in the guise of"guidelines and considerations" not contained in the NOP. "Section
5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives for Tesla Park are consistent with OHMVR
statutes and funding, and meet project objectives as stated in the NOP.
d. "Section 5090.02(c)(3)J5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives Reduce/Eliminate
Environmental Impacts
CEQA requires alternatives that reduce or eliminate environmental impacts be considered in the
EJR. OHV use typical of that in SVRAs whether on-trail or off-trail is well-documented in the literature
as an environmentally damaging activity. These impacts are further evidenced by the environmental
devastation from OHV use at Carnegie SVRA. "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use"
Alternatives for Tesla Park will reduce or eliminate OHV-caused environmental impacts. "Section
5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives for Tesla Park must, therefore, be considered
in the EIR alternatives analysis.
Further, AECOM and OHMVR staff have stated that they are considering a "mixed-use" ·
alternative that would include areas for OHV trail-only uses and some non-OHV trails for hiking or other
non-motorized recreation. FOTP and many others have submitted comments that non-motorized
recreational uses within ear shot (sound shed) or sight (view shed) of OHV uses are incompatible from an
interpretive/user experience. Comments have also been submitted that the damaging environmental
impacts of OHV use extend far beyond the trail itself and have wide ranging negative consequence on the
ecosystem, and as a result, the entirety ofTesla Park, as a sensitive natural and historic/cultural area,
should be protected from damaging influences of OHV use. Maintaining the existing CSVRA for the
existing types of OHV use and establishing Tesla Park for low impact use as a sensitive natural and
3
---·-------historic/cultural area provides a "mixed-use" alternative and meets the "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c)
Sensitive Area Use" Alternative for Testa Park that we have identified. "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/
5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives for Tesla Park are consistent with the OHMVR statutes and
funding, meet project objectives as stated in the NOP and reduce and/or eliminate OHV-caused
environmental impacts.
e. "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives are Feasible
"Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives for Testa Park are feasible. At
the 9/17/12 2 and 11/26/12 Stakeholder meetings, AECOM and CSVRA staff stated that the Division has
the funds to manage Testa Park. At the 11/26/12 meeting, staff specifically stated that OHJ\1\IR has more
money that other State historic and natural resource parks do not have. Review of the budgets of the
States Parks Department and OHMVR Division demonstrate that the OHMVR Division does have
significantly more funds relative to all other State Parks. Operation Tesla Park as a "Section
5090. 02(c)(3 )/5 090.43 (c) Sensitive Area Use" park and preserve is also less costly than operating a
typical SVRA such as CSVRA.
Further, in addition to support from other State Parks units, OHMVR has an experienced regional
partoer to manage the TeslaPark area for "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use". East
Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), within whose service area Tesla Park is located, included Tesla
Park as Potential EBRPD Parkland in its 2007 Master Plan Map and a Potential Regional Preserve in its
draft 2012 Master Plan update. EBRPD currently works with State Parks to manage some State Park land
within its service area. EBRPD could work with State Parks and OHVMR to manage, or through some
other structure, protect and operate Tesla Park as a sensitive natural and historic/cultural park and
preserve. "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives for Tesla Park are
consistent with the OHMVR statutes and funding, meet project objectives as stated in the NOP, reduce
and/or eliminate OHV-caused environmental impacts and are feasible.
2. More than three Alternatives are required in the EIR analysis
Three alternatives do not provide a sufficient range to evaluate the project that includes updating
the General Plan for the existing Carnegie SVRA, adding the 3,400 acre Tesla Park, and determining use
of the residential parcels. The existing 1,500 acre Carnegie SVRA has significant OHV impact operating
issues concerning compliance with the PRC. The entirety ofTesla Park, which is over double the size of
the current Carnegie SVRA, is a sensitive natural and historic/cultural area, which must be managed for
protection and preservation of its rare, unusual and valuable resources. The 500-1000 additional acres of
CSVRA residential property with 8-10 employee residences, thus far improperly excluded, will have to be
thoroughly evaluated in the General Plan and EIR.
The ElR must, therefore, evaluate more than three alternatives to adequately analyze the required
range of possible uses that can reduce and/or eliminate environmental impacts. Based on information
presented by the Division to date, the three alternatives identified by the Division thus far will include
some variation of 1) No-Project, 2) OHV use, and 3) mixed-use. Because there is nothing in the OHMVR
statutes that require that mixed-use be highly homogenized at the small level of resolution, alternatives
that provide for existing types of OHV use in the existing CSVRA site and "Section
5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" in Tesla Park must be considered. Further, the rural
'AECOM staff at the 9/17/12 meeting included Petra Unger and Chris Mundheck; OHMVRJCSVRA staff included Rick
LeFlore, Dan Can£eld, Joe Rmnos, Elise McFarland, Alicia Perez, Clint Escholtz and Randy Caldera
4residential parcels must be evaluated as part of the EIR as they have never been the subject of
environmental review. Therefore, at a minimum, the EIR should consider the following additional
alternatives.
a. Tesla Park Preserve:
• Existing CSVRA - OHV use in existing CSVRA use area with OHV use immediately
brought into compliance with the PRC
• Rural Residential- Remove all residential!other structures, except for park offices and
maintenance buildings and return area to its natural features
• Tesla Park- designate Tesla Park as a sensitive natural and historic/cultural preserve area
with no OHV use
b. Tesla Park Preserve and limited "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Use" area:
• Existing CSVRA - OHV use in existing CSVRA use area with OHV use immediately
brought into compliance with the PRC
• Rural Residential- Remove all residential!other structures, except for park offices and
maintenance buildings and return area to its natural features ·
• Tesla Park- designate Tesla Park as a sensitive natural and historic/cultural preserve area
with "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" defined as limited street legal
vehicle off-highway access on some select existing ranch roads only to limited parking
areas at trail heads for non-motorized recreation
c. Tesla Park Preserve and limited "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" area
with Employee Housing Compound:
• Existing CSVRA - OHV use in existing CSVRA use area with OHV use immediately
brought into compliance with the PRC
• Rural Residential- Remove all residential!other structures, except for park offices and
maintenance buildings and return area to its natural features
• Tesla Park- designate Tesla Park as a sensitive natural and historic/cultural preserve area
with "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive Area Use" defined as limited street legal
vehicle off-highway access on some select existing ranch roads only to limited parking
areas at trail heads for non-motorized recreation
• ·Employee Housing- if needed at all, add a compact/concentrated employee housing
compound, near existing park offices or maintenance buildings
The EIR Alternatives analysis should include these "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43(c) Sensitive
Area Use" Alternatives for Tesla Park They are consistent with OHMVR statutes and funding, meet
project objectives as described in the NOP, reduce/eliminate OHV-caused environmental impacts and are
feasible.
3. EIR improperly structured to limit full environmental analysis
From the NOP letter stage through the Stakeholder meetings, FOTP and other commentators have
identified that the Division is improperly trying to restrict a thorough environmental analysis. The
Division's approach is contrary to CEQA. Failure to include appropriate "Section 5090.02(c)(3)/5090.43
(c) Sensitive Area Use" Alternatives is one defect. Other deficiencies include, but are not limited to, the
following:
5a. Inaccurate and incomplete project map and improper exclusion of rural residential parcels
b. Improper use of a Program EIR, rather than a Project level EIR, for at least the Tesla Park
expansion component of the project
c. Insufficient biologic and natural resource studies
d. Inadequate consideration of cumulative impacts and required mitigation
e. Continued operation of the existing CSVRA in violation of the PRC
At the 9/17/12 Stskeholders meeting, in response to a question about why was the Division
pushing expansion of OHV use into Tesla Park given the irrefutable evidence that it is a sensitive natural
and historic/cultural area and of the environmentally destructive impacts of OHV use, staff responded that
it is their primary purpose to expand OHV use. It continues to appear that the OHMVR Division has
predetermined the outcome of the General Plan and EIR process with regard to Tesla Park and are
attempting to reverse engineer this third EIR to fit the desired outcome.
The OHMVR Division failed to perform proper due diligence prior to its purchase ofTesla Park.
No acquisition EIR was conducted. Further, contrary to Section 5090.43(b), it purchased Tesla Park for
SVRA use, even though all ofTesla Park should be established as a sensitive natural and historic/cultural
area. Had the Division done its duty, Tesla Park would have never been purchased for expansion of
CSVRA. Having failed to perform such pre-acquisition evaluation, the Division cannot now use that
failure as justification for opening OHV use on lands that are without question inappropriate for such
damaging use.
We hope the Division will correct its course and address the substantive comments that have been
submitted to ensure a credible General Plan update and EIR for CSVRA and the Tesla Park expansion are
completed.
Sincerely,
Friends of Tesla Park Steering Committee
flU#..t. ~· i?..vn?LY/J~Ul?")~cc: Sent by US Mail:
Director Anthony Jackson, State Parks
ChiefDeputy Director, Aaron Robertson, State Parks
Acting Deputy Director, Phil Jenkins, OHMVR Division
Assemblymember Joan Buchanan
Senator Mark DeSaulnier
Sent by email:
Randy Caldera, Acting Superintendent, CSVRA, rcaldera@parks.ca.gov
Elizabeth Boyd, AECOM, elizabeth.boyd@aecom.com
7You can also read
