Organization Comments on the Preliminary General Plan and Draft FEIR—Part 5

1

From: K Barrett [mailto:mormodes@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:31 AM To: OHV, OHVINFO@Parks Subject: FW: Undeliverable: Save Tesla Park

See below Kathy Barrett 

From: postmaster@ces.ca.gov To: mormodes@hotmail.com Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:02:26 +0000 Subject: Undeliverable: Save Tesla Park 

Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups: CarnegieGP@parks.ca.gov The e-mail address you entered couldn't be found. Please check the recipient's e-mail address and try to resend the message. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk.

‐‐Forwarded Message Attachment‐‐ From: mormodes@hotmail.com Subject: Save Tesla Park Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:02:16 ‐0800 To: CarnegieGP@parks.ca.gov 

Hello Mr. Conlin, 

In addition to the boiler plate request below I’d like to add that at one point in time I thought about buying land in the area. It was close to the bay area, yet far enough away to have my own little

2

section of heaven. A google search turned up a few offerings of land for sale. So I took a Sunday drive out there. Of course the properties offered for sale were within hearing distance of the Off Road park. Needless to say I dropped the idea. The last thing I wanted to hear all weekend long would be whiney dirt bikes. The other day I chose to drive along Tassajara Road. I have a water color of a one-room school house that used to be along Tassajara. I thought it might be fun to see what’s become of it. Instead I saw nothing but McMansion after McMansion along what used to be a nice country road. Granted landowners should be able to sell their property and (finally) make some money for once in their lives. But in the case of Tesla Park the land has been set aside already. To buy land in the future will be even more expensive, and I’m sure developers will be better able to afford the future price than either the county or state of California. So please. Let’s try to conserve open space. Many people marvel that the countryside is within a few minutes drive or less from the greater bay area. I for one would like to keep it that way. 

“Expanding off-road vehicle use into the 3,100 acre western portion of Carnegie SVRA, an area commonly known as Tesla, makes no sense. Carnegie SVRA is not even mitigating for their current impacts on the environment in the area they’re operating in now, and are not proposing any mitigation for the expansion. The wholesale destruction of natural resources in the current use area, even in zones that are classified as “Limited Recreation” and subject to the highest level of resource protection, proves that the OHMVR Division’s claim that no significant environmental impacts will occur and that therefore no mitigation is required, is absurd. The dEIR is wholly inadequate. Many more people would benefit from Tesla as a scenic, hiking, wildlife viewing and cultural destination than would benefit from its destruction as an off-road use area. State Parks’ own data show that Carnegie SVRA attracted less than a third of Mount Diablo State Parks’ approximately 350,000 visitors in FY ’13-’14, and brought in only a quarter of its more than $1.2 million in revenue. State Parks would touch more people, bring in more revenue and protect more resources if the Tesla area were protected as a typical nature park rather than an off-road area. I oppose the expansion of off-road/off-highway use into the Tesla area (3,100 acre western portion of Carnegie SVRA) and I urge you to not expand off-road/off-highway uses into the area, to oppose the expansion and to pursue Tesla’s potential as a beautiful park.” Kathy Barrett 

1

From: Richard Boubelik [mailto:richard_boubelik@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 7:30 PM To: OHV, OHVINFO@Parks Subject: please, NO to Tesla off-road

Greetings, Mr. Conlin

I would certainly appreciate it if you did everything in your power to say NO! to the proposed Tesla off-road expansion.

In an era where wilderness is ever more cherished, and polluting gas-burning bikes and vehicles are becoming anachronistic, this is NOT the time to allow more environmental damage to occur.

Please, can you do what you can to ensure that the off-road Tesla expansion is halted? As in, STOPPED.

I would very much appreciate it.

yours truly Richard Boubelik (510) 717-1760

1

From: Arthur Hull [mailto:alhull@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 6:27 PM To: OHV, OHVINFO@Parks Subject: Comment On the Carnegie SVRA FEIR

I attended the Carnegie SVRA General Plan meeting on Feb. 5 in Tracy, CA but was unable to speak as the program went longer than I was able to support. 

Please pass the following statement on to the Commission: 

Dear OHV Commissioners, 

The top‐level mission of the California State Parks contains the fundamental doctrine of preserving the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources. 

At a lower level within the California State Parks is the OHV Division, whose stated goal is to acquire, develop, and operate state‐owned vehicular recreation areas while protecting cultural and natural resources.  

When the implementation of these two missions contradicts each other, as they do at Carnegie SVRA, then the top level mission of the California State Parks takes moral and legal precedent. 

The significant environmental excesses in the Carnegie SVRA, including illegal riding in stream beds and silt ponds, cut‐throughs in “trails only” areas, massive hillside erosion and habitat decimation over the last few decades speaks loudly to the fact that expanding Carnegie SVRA into the Tesla wilderness will place at great risk the very essence of the State Parks goals, which is to preserve the biological diversity and natural and cultural resources that exist there.  

Mitigation for the damage at Carnegie SVRA by setting aside the Tesla wilderness as a preserve is the only right thing to do. Please have the courage to say “no” to the Carnegie OHV expansion into the Tesla wilderness. 

Thank you. 

Nancy Hull, 

Livermore, CA