CODE RED CARNEGIE ACTION ALERT UPDATE – TWO IMPORTANT ITEMS
Livermore City Council Meeting on May 11 changed to May 18, 2015
Alameda County Parks, Recreation and Historical Commission Meeting May 7, 2015
Dear Carnegie Fans,
YOU made a difference last week by sending in your comment letters. The council has moved the May 11 date to May 18 so they can better study the issue.
Also, the Alameda County Parks, Recreation and Historical Commission has Carnegie SVRA is on the docket for their May 7 meeting. Sorry for the late notice but this stuff is popping up like crazy.
As you know, we are getting very close to being able to use the new property! Your letter writing and attendance at this meeting is critical to show local decision-makers that OHVers (and voters) support the Carnegie General Plan.
The Recreation HQ would like to give an update on the East Bay Regional Park District’s planning effort and how their narrative has apparently softened a bit when it comes to new OHV use on the Tesla property which is part of Carnegie SVRA.
I thought the Bay Nature article below did a pretty good job of weaving through the concept that managed OHV recreation and resource protection are not mutually exclusive and can and do co-exist on many state and federal lands.
What appears to be a new era of cooperation between the District, OHMVR, and user groups would not have happened without thousands of OHVers and their families showing up at various public meetings and sharing their views both verbally and in writing with District staff and board members.
I believe the various letters from OHV groups including BRC’s documents obtained by a public records act request had helped illustrate to the District that it was engaged in a less than robust quasi-CEQA process with unclear goals and objectives.
The following East Bay Regional Park District response (Sept. 13) to one of HQ’s longtime friends, Scott Sinclair, shows a high level of arrogance, ignorance, and callous against OHV recreationists in general,Carnegie SVRA staff, and proposed OHV use at the Tesla property which is part of Carnegie SVRA.
EBRPD Response to Scott Sinclair
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/East_Bay_Sinclair_Sept.pdf *Note their response did not address the March 2007 tour and two April 2012 tours with Save Tesla Park advocates.BRC found out about those tours via our public records act request.BTW – did any OHV groups get invited to the May 11, 2012 tour?I also believe if you look at the District’s own “surveys” you will find them to be biased or slanted to achieve a certain result.
Their response only further highlights the need for OHV users to attend the upcoming meetings
in Concord (TONIGHT), Oakley, Fremont, Dublin, and Richmond.The level of your participation will help decide if the District provides future OHV recreation and if they will back-off their current effort to prohibit OHV recreation on the Tesla property at Carnegie SVRA. The OHV Commission recently voted unanimously to challenge the District Board’s effort to ban OHV use on our Tesla property.It is important to note that even the “environmental appointees” voted strongly in favor of the OHV commission telling the District to butt out!
The Recreation HQ wants to salute the 40-50 off-roaders who showed up to the East Bay Regional Park District’s 1st public meeting for the District’s Master Plan.OHV leaders and enthusiasts respectfully engaged the District staff and other stakeholder groups during the meeting and at various data collection sites/discussion tables.
HQ estimates that approximately 300 people crowded into a hall that had seating for about 110 people.This meeting was in Oakland and it gave OHVers in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties the chance to let the District know about the agency's lack of OHV opportunity.The District is 112K acres and contains 65 parks.However, not one square foot of parkland is designated for OHV use by the over 28K registered non-street legal OHVs in their jurisdiction.
HQ wants to STRONGLY urge all OHV enthusiasts to attend the remaining public meetings in Concord, Oakley, Fremont, Dublin, and Richmond.The level of your participation will help decide if the District provides future OHV recreation and if they will back-off their current effort to prohibit OHV recreation on the Tesla property at Carnegie SVRA.
Here is BRC Alert with list of meeting sites and sample letter
Some HQ readers will remember that on July 2, 2012, the BRC issued a news release regarding the advocacy role of East Bay Regional Parks District regarding their demands for “passive use” of the Tesla Property.
That concern prompted HQ commander and BRC western rep, Don Amador, to file a Public Records Act request on the District to see if there has been any pressure from local Eco groups and the adjacent land owner – Celeste Garamendi – to influence the District to try ban or restrict OHV use on the Tesla Property.
The District recently responded to the PRA with a lot of documents.HQ is still reviewing the information, but what we have seen so far is that there was a concerted effort by Celeste Garamendi in early 2007 to pressure the District to include the Tesla property in their 2007 General Plan map which would then drive the District’s current general planning process which has public meetings in Sept. 2012.
In the Celeste March 19, 2007 letter to District Board Member, Ms. Wieskamp, you will notice her desire to create political momentum …”a change in policy direction for the property [Tesla] will have to evolve from outside of the OHV Division.”
Celeste Garamendi March 19, 2007 Letter and other correspondence with the District
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/East_Bay_RPD_2007_CEQA_Concerns0001.pdf Not only was Celeste et al successful in getting the District Board to approve the 2007 General Plan Map which now includes Tesla, but has been successful in getting Assemblymember, Joan Buchanan, State Senator Mark DeSaulnier, and State Senator Loni Hancock to write a June 8, 2012 letter opposing OHV recreation on the Tesla Property.
June 8, 2012 Buchanan, DeSaulnier, and Hancock Letter